Need Consultant On Koine Greek - Eschatology

[MrPisky]

I am new to this forum and I posted my greeting several days ago. I do have a desire to learn Koine Greek at some point in my biblical studies. However, I am currently looking for someone who would be qualified and willing to examine a few passages from the Bible and give a professional statement as to the grammatical implications and usage for interpretive, position defense, and collaborative purposes.

I am involved in personal, non-professional, non-commercial study of the Greek scriptures and my intent is to come to a better comprehension of certain words and passages in the New Testament Greek which have eschatological implications. I am intentionally withholding my personal eschatological position so as not to subconsciously influence the outcome of my investigation.

In particular, I'm interested in the following verses and phrases:

1. Revelation 20:3 [KJV]
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Revelation 20:3 [Tischendorf]
καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ ἔκλεισεν καὶ ἐσφράγισεν ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ἵνα μὴ πλανήσῃ ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη· μετὰ ταῦτα δεῖ αὐτὸν λυθῆναι μικρὸν χρόνον.

My interest in the above verse centers mainly upon the phrase " χίλια ἔτη·" I would like to understand how this phrase would be understood with relation to temporal time duration.

A. Is it speaking of a literal 1000 years?
B. Could it represent an indefinitely longer period of time?
C. Is it contextually and grammatically possible for χίλια ἔτη to represent a much shorter time period of 100 years or less?
D. Could John have chosen other more appropriate words such as aion (αἰώνων) or genea (γενεᾶς) if some temporal period less than an actual 1000/1000+ years was intended? Or is this the best possible choice for a period of 1000/1000+ years in temporal duration?
E. How does χίλια ἔτη relate grammatically in terms of time duration to the μικρὸν χρόνον of Rev 20:3?
F. How does χίλια ἔτη compare with a similar word (χιλίας) used in Revelation 11:3 where it appears to represent a more distinct and fixed numeral?
G. Is it possible that χίλια would be better translated as a plural of "thousands" or is "thousand" the better rendering?

Revelation 11:3 [Tischendorf]
καὶ δώσω τοῖς δυσὶν μάρτυσίν μου, καὶ προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα περιβεβλημένοι σάκκους.


All in all, I'm trying to determine what the grammatical limitations that biblical Koine Greek places on the meaning of this phrase in it's current context without regard to bias from any particular eschatological system or view. It would probably be best if someone who had no particlar ties to biblical eschatology could answer these questions. I had such a person a few years back, but have since lost contact with him. I realize it may be difficult to find someone who is well trained in biblical Koine Greek who does not already have some eschatological bias or presuppositions. So, that is only a secondary concern for now.

The next scripture I am interested in would be Romans 16:20:

Romans 16:20 [KJV]
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Romans 16:20 [Tischendorf]
ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐν τάχει. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μεθ' ὑμῶν.

My interest in Rom 16:20 centers on the Greek word "συντρίψει" translated as "bruise" in the KJV. My main questions concerning this passage would be:

Is there a grammatical similarity/affinity between συντρίψει and the Greek word from the LXX in Genesis 3:15 "τηρήσεις" ?? The KJV renders συντρίψει as "bruise" and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, using the LXX, renders this as "will give heed to". I'm curious to know to what is going on with this word in Rom 16:20 and how it should be understood with regard to Satan being either bruised, trampled, crushed, destroyed, etc. What is the proper understanding of what the apostle Paul is trying to convey here?

Perhaps my biggest question in studying this passage is to determine whether the apostle Paul is giving his 1st century audience an indication of Satan merely being "bound" ("ἔδησεν" as per Rev 20:3) at the beginning of the χίλια ἔτη ?? Or is Paul alluding to the ultimate destruction of Satan in the "Lake of Fire" after his release for a "little season" per Rev 20:3??

I look forward to hearing any comments. Ultimately, I would like to obtain an authoritative written position or opinion concerning the above so it may be used for interacting with other bible students interested in the field of biblical eschatology.

Thank you for considering my questions. If this is not the appropriate forum or there are other venues that would be better able to address my issues, I would appreciate any thoughtful responses. Thank you sincerely!

Paul

[Barry Hofstetter]

Paul, welcome. I do want to point out before making specific comments that the questions you are asking deal with much broader contextual and hermeneutical issues, and that "the Greek" many not be particularly helpful in resolving the issues. People in the early church whose mother language was Greek found plenty of ways to argue about theology...

https://scontent.fphl2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=5ACB6C49

I have no desire to get involved with a discussion on eschatology. Having said that, in Rev 20:3, τὰ χίλια ἔτη means "the thousand years." It is articular here because it refers back to the χίλια ἔτη of vs. 2. In Rev 11:3, the word χιλίας is used as part of a numeral phrase, much as we might write out "one thousand two hundred and sixty." The usage there has no bearing grammatically or syntactically on its usage in Rev 20. In Rev 20:2 the words are in the accusative case to indicate duration of time. Satan was bound for a thousand years. In 20:3, the words are in the nominative case as the subject of τελεσθῇ (completed). I see nothing in the grammar or syntax of these usages which will answer your specific questions about eschatology.

With regard to Rom 16:20, of course the verse calls to mind Gen 3:15 and the English versions which properly translate the Hebrew שׁוף, shuph, "crush." The verb in the LXX is completely different and reflects an interesting text critical and/or translation sort of issue (most likely the LXX had a somewhat different Vorlage at this point, although other explanations are possible). However, I question whether Rom 16:20 is an eschatological reference, as the context refers to false teachers current at the time, and the reference to Satan is possibly as the deceiver working through those teachers.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

All in all, I'm trying to determine what the grammatical limitations that biblical Koine Greek places on the meaning of this phrase in it's current context without regard to bias from any particular eschatological system or view. It would probably be best if someone who had no particlar ties to biblical eschatology could answer these questions. I had such a person a few years back, but have since lost contact with him. I realize it may be difficult to find someone who is well trained in biblical Koine Greek who does not already have some eschatological bias or presuppositions. So, that is only a secondary concern for now.

Paul,

Barry already answered the language question. A few comments in regard to the preceding paragraph ... "someone who had no particlar ... eschatological bias or presuppositions." I'm tempted to read into this the modernist fallacy of perspectival "objectivity" which has been completely debunked during the second half of the 20th Century. I recommend you listen to Paul Fry's lectures on literary criticism at the Yale Open lectures site. http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300 (click the sessions button under the title).

Postscript:
I wish I could recommend a textbook on hermeneutics, but having reviewed the recent literature on that subject I've tentatively concluded that the books published in English fall into two categories: unreadable e.g., the works of Anthony Thiselton and too basic. This is not a new phenomenon. When I took the course winter quarter of '75, we were using the third edition of a textbook published in the late 50s. We were also assigned 3,000 pages of collateral reading.

Post postscript:
I searched for a discussion of τὰ χίλια ἔτη at the hermeneutics stack exchange but didn't find anything very useful. In general, they take a dim view on eschatology questions. B-greek is even less tolerant.

[Markos]

My interest in the above verse centers mainly upon the phrase " χίλια ἔτη·"

This means "a thousand years." There is nothing you can say about χίλια ἔτη that you cannot say about "a thousand years" and vice versa. Continue to ask questions, but I suspect our answers will be similar. There is generally no deeper (or even other) meaning behind the Greek than there is behind the English.

E. How does χίλια ἔτη relate grammatically in terms of time duration to the μικρὸν χρόνον of Rev 20:3?

Barry has answered the question, but so what? You can ask, in the sentence "Donald Trump won the 2016 election," how does "Donald Trump" relate grammatically to "the 2016 election?" What more would this tell you?

Perhaps my biggest question in studying this passage is to determine whether the apostle Paul is giving his 1st century audience an indication of Satan merely being "bound" ("ἔδησεν" as per Rev 20:3) at the beginning of the χίλια ἔτη ?? Or is Paul alluding to the ultimate destruction of Satan in the "Lake of Fire" after his release for a "little season" per Rev 20:3??

Again, there is nothing in the Greek that would help you answer these questions that is not there in the English. Isn't is likely though, that Paul was already dead when John wrote Revelation?

With regard to Rom 16:20, of course the verse calls to mind Gen 3:15 and the English versions which properly translate the Hebrew שׁוף, shuph, "crush." The verb in the LXX is completely different and reflects an interesting text critical and/or translation sort of issue (most likely the LXX had a somewhat different Vorlage at this point, although other explanations are possible).

I could not but look this up in the Graecus Venetus.

Gen 3:15b LXX: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.
Gen 3:15b GV: ἐκεῖνο πλήξει σου κεφαλήν, σὺ δὲ πλήξεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.

If the author were a Christian, and wanted to draw a connection with Romans 16:20, he could have used συντρίψει. Is it too much to say he uses πλήξει to avoid this? (Aquila has προστρίψει and Symmachus has θλίψει.)

GV's neuter ἐκεῖνο (referring back to the τὸ σπέρμα ταύτης) might also be used to avoid the potential (Christian) messianism of the LXX's masculine αὐτός.

[MrPisky]

Paul, welcome. I do want to point out before making specific comments that the questions you are asking deal with much broader contextual and hermeneutical issues, and that "the Greek" many not be particularly helpful in resolving the issues. People in the early church whose mother language was Greek found plenty of ways to argue about theology...

Thanks for your reply. That is precisely why I attempted to put forth my questions emphasizing a focus only on the grammar involved. I just want to know how the Greek grammar treats these terms, let the eschatological or theological chips fall where they may. There are many variant eschatological views, all of them derived at least to some degree on how certain Greek words and phrases are interpreted...either by teachers, students, or by the translators. The KJV in particuar is rife with translational biases and not just where eschatological implications are concerned. So I am quite familiar with the concept that it is nearly impossible to avoid bias in all cases, but we can certainly get closer if we try.

[MrPisky]

I'm tempted to read into this the modernist fallacy of perspectival "objectivity" which has been completely debunked during the second half of the 20th Century. I recommend you listen to Paul Fry's lectures on literary criticism at the Yale Open lectures site. http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300 (click the sessions button under the title).

Postscript:
I wish I could recommend a textbook on hermeneutics....

Thank you for your efforts. I tried to make every effort to steer my questions away from eschatology/theology and focus only on the grammar involved without regard to favorable/unfavorable theological implications. As I said, I did have contact with someone a few years back who was a native-born fluent Greek speaker who was also a professional linquist. Everyone surely has their biases, but this man also disclaimed any personal ties to or interests in the subject of the Christian religion or eschatology. Perhaps I could post some of his analysis commentary for evaluation by others here? Would that be helpful?

[Barry Hofstetter]

I could not but look this up in the Graecus Venetus.

Gen 3:15b LXX: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.
Gen 3:15b GV: ἐκεῖνο πλήξει σου κεφαλήν, σὺ δὲ πλήξεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.

If the author were a Christian, and wanted to draw a connection with Romans 16:20, he could have used συντρίψει. Is it too much to say he uses πλήξει to avoid this? (Aquila has προστρίψει and Symmachus has θλίψει.)

GV's neuter ἐκεῖνο (referring back to the τὸ σπέρμα ταύτης) might also be used to avoid the potential (Christian) messianism of the LXX's masculine αὐτός.

Reflecting more up to date scholarship, and also providing an explanation for the LXX rendering:

שׁוף: 1) it should be noted that in general for the translation of this verb we follow Gesenius-Buhl Handw., Zorell Lexicon, and König Wb. 490a, in supposing that there is only one verbal root שׁוף; so also von Soden UF 13 (1981) 160f (= Bibel und Alter Orient, BZAW 162 (1985) 200f); the same verb is used twice also in Sept. for Gn 315 τηρήσει, τηρήσεις :: KBL which takes the two forms as coming from separate verbs: I שׁוף to bruise someone’s head Gn 315; and II שׁוף to snap at, snatch (? a by-form of → שׁאף), to snatch someone’s heel Gn 315; to snatch someone (with acc. of the person) Jb 917; d) identical or comparable verbs in other Semitic languages are attested in MHeb., DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 219), to rub, rub away; so also JArm. I שׁוף; II to blow; Syr. šāp to stroke, spread; Mnd. ŠUP I to rub away, spread (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 455f); OSArb. (a cognate or homonymous root ?) šwp to look at, examine (Conti Rossini Chrest. 248b); Arb.: a) to polish, make shining; b) (with the opposite (?) meaning) to smear a camel with pitch; c) cf. OSArb. to see, VIII to stretch up high and look out; for these three meanings see Lane Lex. 1619b, c; see also Freytag Lexicon 2: 465b.
qal: impf. sf. יְשׁוּפֵנִי, יְשׁוּפְךָ, תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ: to grip someone hard :: Labuschagne OTSt. (Pretoria 1971) 63f: to threaten: a) Gn 315 (עָקֵב and רֹאשׁ acc. of special relationship, see Gesenius-Kautzsch Gramm. §118q; R. Meyer Gramm. §106.2d); b) Ps 13911 (with acc. of the person, sbj. חֹשֶׁךְ); the rendering in Symmachus ἐπισκεπάσει, Ἄλλως καλὺψει με, and in Vulg. iuxta Hebr. tenebrae operient me, has led to the preferred cj. יְשׂוּכֵּנִי equivalent to יְסוּכֵּנִי (→ I סכךְ), see e.g. Kraus Ps. 1091, 1092; see also BHS, but it is not required; c) Jb 917 (with acc. of the person, sbj. אֱלוֹהַּ vs. 13. †


Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., pp. 1446–1447). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

[jeidsath]

So what is the explanation for the LXX rendering?