Unlike the other Greek letters, this letter did not take its name from the Phoenician letter from which it was derived; it was given a new name on the pattern of beta, eta and theta.
The word zeta is the ancestor of zed, the name of the Latin letter Z in Commonwealth English. Swedish and many Romanic languages (such as Italian and Spanish) do not distinguish between the Greek and Roman forms of the letter; "zeta" is used to refer to the Roman letter Z as well as the Greek letter.
The Greek alphabet on a black figure vessel, with the Phoenician I shape of the zeta
Most handbooks[who?] agree on attributing to it the pronunciation /zd/ (like Mazda), but some scholars believe that it was an affricate /dz/ (like adze). The modern pronunciation was, in all likelihood, established in the Hellenistic age and may have already been a common practice in Classical Attic; for example, it could count as one or two consonants metrically in Attic drama.[where?]
Arguments for [zd]
PIE *zd becomes ? in Greek (e.g. *sísd? > ). Contra: these words are rare and it is therefore more probable that *zd was absorbed by *dz (< *dj, *gj, *j); further, a change from the cluster /zd/ to the affricate /dz/ is typologically more likely than the other way around (which would violate the sonority hierarchy).
Without [sd] there would be an empty space between [sb] and [s?] in the Greek sound system (?, , ), and a voiced affricate [dz] would not have a voiceless correspondent. Contra: a) words with [sb] and [s?] are rare, and exceptions in phonological and (even more so) phonotactic patterns are in no way uncommon; b) there was [sd] in ?, etc.; and c) there was in fact a voiceless correspondent in Archaic Greek ([ts] > Attic, Boeotian , Ionic, Doric ).
Persian names with zd and z are transcribed with ? and ? respectively in Classical Greek (e.g. Artavazda = / ~ Zara(n)ka- = . Similarly, the Philistine city Ashdod was transcribed as .
Some inscriptions have -?- written for a combination -? + ?- resulting from separate words, e.g. for ? "god-given".
Some Attic inscriptions have -- for -- or -?-, which is thought to parallel -- for -- and therefore to imply a [zd] pronunciation.
? disappears before ? like before ?(?), : e.g. * > , * > ?, * > . Contra: ? may have disappeared before /dz/ if one accepts that it had the allophone [z] in that position like /ts/ had the allophone [s]: cf. Cretan ~ ? (Hinge).
Verbs beginning with ? have ?- in the perfect reduplication like the verbs beginning with (e.g. = ). Contra: a) The most prominent example of a verb beginning with has in fact ?- < *se- in the perfect reduplication (); b) the words with /ts/ > ?(?) also have ?-: Homer?, -, Ion. .
Alcman, Sappho, Alcaeus and Theocritus have for Attic-Ionic ?. Contra: The tradition would not have invented this special digraph for these poets if [zd] was the normal pronunciation in all Greek. Furthermore, this convention is not found in contemporary inscriptions, and the orthography of the manuscripts and papyri is Alexandrine rather than historical. Thus, indicates only a different pronunciation from Hellenistic Greek [z(:)], i.e. either [zd] or [dz].
The grammarians Dionysius Thrax and Dionysius of Halicarnassus class ? with the "double" () letters ?, ? and analyse it as ? + ?. Contra: The Roman grammarian Verrius Flaccus believed in the opposite sequence, ? + ? (in Velius Longus, De orthogr. 51), and Aristotle says that it was a matter of dispute (Metaph. 993a) (though Aristotle might as well be referring to a [z:] pronunciation). It is even possible that the letter sometimes and for some speakers varied in pronunciation depending upon word position, i.e., like the letter X in English, which is (usually) pronounced [z] initially but [gz] or [ks] elsewhere (cf. Xerxes).
Some Attic transcriptions of Asia Minor toponyms (, ?, etc.) show a -- for ?; assuming that Attic value was [zd], it may be an attempt to transcribe a dialectal [dz] pronunciation; the reverse cannot be ruled completely, but a -- transcription would have been more likely in this case. This suggests that different dialects had different pronunciations. (For a similar example in the Slavic languages, cf. Serbo-Croatian (iz)me?u, Russian , Polish mi?dzy, and Czech mezi, "between".)
Arguments for [dz]
The Greek inscriptions almost never write ? in words like ?, or , so there must have been a difference between this sound and the sound of , ?. Contra: a few inscriptions do seem to suggest that ? was pronounced like ; furthermore, all words with written are morphologically transparent, and written may simply be echoing the morphology. (Note, for example, that we write "ads" where the morphology is transparent, and "adze" where it is not, even though the pronunciation is the same.)
It seems improbable that Greek would invent a special symbol for the bisegmental combination [zd], which could be represented by without any problems. /ds/, on the other hand, would have the same sequence of plosive and sibilant as the double letters of the Ionic alphabet ? /ps/ and ? /ks/, thereby avoiding a written plosive at the end of a syllable. Contra: the use of a special symbol for [zd] is no more or no less improbable than the use of ? for [ps] and ? for [ks], or, for that matter, the later invention ? (stigma) for [st], which happens to be the voiceless counterpart of [zd]. Furthermore, it is not clear that ? was pronounced [zd] when it was originally invented. Mycenean Greek had a special symbol to denote some sort of affricate or palatal consonant; ? may have been invented for this sound, which later developed into [zd]. (For a parallel development, note that original palatal Proto-Slavic/t?/ developed into /?t/ in Old Church Slavonic, with similar developments having led to combinations such as and being quite common in Russian.)
Boeotian, Elean, Laconian and Cretan are more easily explained as a direct development from *dz than through an intermediary *zd. Contra: a) the sound development dz > dd is improbable (Mendez Dosuna); b) ? has disappeared before ? > in Laconian (Aristoph., Lys. 171, 990) and Boeotian (Sch. Lond. in Dion. Thrax 493), which suggests that these dialects have had a phase of metathesis (Teodorsson).
Greek in South Italy has preserved [dz] until modern times. Contra: a) this may be a later development from [zd] or [z] under the influence of Italian; b) even if it is derived from an ancient [dz], it may be a dialectal pronunciation.
Vulgar Latin inscriptions use the Greek letter Z for indigenous affricates (e.g. zeta = diaeta), and the Greek ? is continued by a Romance affricate in the ending - > Italian. -eggiare, French -oyer. Italian, similarly, has consistently used Z for [dz] and [ts] (Lat. prandium > It. pranzo, "lunch"). Contra: whether the pronunciation of ? was [dz], [zd] or [z:], di would probably still have been the closest native Latin sound; furthermore, the inscriptions are centuries later than the time for which [zd] is assumed.
Allen, William Sidney. Vox Graeca: A guide to the pronunciation of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 56-59.
Hinge, George. "Die Aussprache des griechischen Zeta", in Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte und Sprachgeschichte. PhD dissertation. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2001, pp. 212-234 = 
Méndez Dosuna, Julián. "On <?> for <?> in Greek dialectal inscriptions", Die Sprache 35 (1993): 82-114.
Rohlfs, Gerhard. "Die Aussprache des z (?) im Altgriechischen", Das Altertum 8 (1962): 3-8.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. "On the pronunciation of ancient greek zeta", Lingua 47, no. 4 (April 1979): 323-32.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. "The pronunciation of zeta in different Greek dialects", in Dialectologia Graeca: Actas del II Coloquio internacional de dialectología griega, eds. E. Crespo et al. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 1993, pp. 305-321.