Interpreting Ezekiel 38

[ryanm]

Hi all,

I apologize ahead of time if this topic has been hashed out elsewhere, but I have searched the forums and haven't been able to find specific answers to these questions.

Knowing that I am no longer a believer in Christianity, my parents have been foisting upon me the evangelical interpretation of Ezekiel 38 via the work of Joel C. Rosenberg, author of Epicenter, etc. I humored them and read his book, and then in good skeptic fashion I searched out the opposing viewpoint to get a fuller picture (which interestingly often comes from other Christians). However, I wasn't able to find but a few (though helpful) resources, so if anyone knows of extensive, scholarly writings on the interpretations of Gog of Magog, "Rosh", Meshech, Tubal, etc., I would greatly appreciate a reference.

Two questions I have at the moment are in response to claims made by Rosenberg regarding the meaning of "Rosh", and the history of the Scythians:

1. In Epicenter Rosenberg asserts that "Rosh" should be interpreted as a proper name, not a noun meaning "head" or "prince." As evidence of this he claims that both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts render the word as a proper noun, so obviously the scholars who compiled these texts believed that it should be rendered as such. Is this actually the case? How good of an argument is this against the proposal that "Rosh" should be read as it always is, i.e. as head or prince? He also quotes William Genesius (whom he labels as the father of modern Hebrew lexicography) as apparently supporting his interpretation.

2. Rosenberg also attempts to tie the Scythians to both the Magoggites(via a quote by Josephus), and the modern day Russians (via a trip to a Russian museum in which he and his father see multiple Scythian artifacts on display). Regarding the first claim, I am completely ignorant as I have not devoted any time to the issue. Regarding the second claim, I remember reading on an internet page (sorry I don't have the link at the moment) that the Scythians were actually destroyed/conquered by the Rus people and are NOT ancestors of the modern day Russians. Is there any truth to this?

If someone could please elucidate the history here, I would be very grateful.

Thanks,
Ryan

[Toto]

There are people here who spend more time on debunking prophecies than I have the patience for.

Check out the 1-star Amazon review by F. Martin, who says he is an evangelical pastor.

The biggest error comes from Rosenberg's reliance upon a nineteenth century scholar's teaching that in Ezekiel 38:3 "rosh" refers to Russia (pp. 85-86). Even dispensational premillennialists like Charles Dyer and Ralph Alexander reject that interpretation. What about "Meshech" and "Tubal"? In his novels Rosenberg readily identifies them as Moscow and Tobolosk, but in "Epicenter" he briefly mentions that questions have been raised about those identifications. Scholars today understand those terms to be names of tribes that lived in the area of modern-day Turkey. Why does Rosenberg prefer outdated scholarship?

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

[spin]

Try this (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2167017&postcount=1) as a starter.


spin

[ryanm]

Thanks for the info guys.

Spin, I had actually come across that post of yours earlier and found it very informative. There is obviously a lot of history there that can be studied in depth. However, I'm wondering if you know anything specific regarding the two questions above. I find it odd that the authors of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts would interpret such a well known word as "Rosh" as a proper noun if there wasn't some tradition that that's what it meant. Since I don't know Hebrew, I can't comment on whether this claim of Rosenberg's is actually correct, but perhaps someone does? Also, his whole point that the Magoggites turned into the Scythians turned into the Russians would be exposed as false if it is in fact true that the Scythians were driven out of the region or displaced by some other people that actually came to inhabit modern-day Russia. Any comments on this would be helpful.

Thanks guys,
Ryan

[sugarhitman]

Nobody knows who this person is the KJV has "THE CHIEF PRINCE" who comes from the north country. One thing is certain though he is "the Abomination that causes Desolation" in Daniel "the king of the North" "the prince who is to come" "the Anti-Christ" "The Beast" "Man of Sin" "Son of Perdition" oh he goes by many names. There are clues to his indentity such as in Daniel that he is a prince of a people that destroys the second Temple and restored nation of Israel "and the people of the PRINCE WHO SHALL COME SHALL DESTROY THE SANCTUARY AND CITY." He comes out of the divided fourth kingdom of Daniel which is Rome who fell into the divided powers of Europe it appears that he will be a European (he may be a prince of Europe that is an angelic prince because in Revelation he is clearly not human Paul says our fight is not against human beings but "princes and principalities spiritual wickedness who resides in the heavenly places" In Revelation he comes out of the "Bottomless Pit" a prison for fallen angels. The bible tells us that "it is appointed for men to die once but after this The Judgement" the Beast of Revelation does not face judgement but is immediately cast into the lake of fire which is "prepared for the Devil and his angels" he also is healed of a deadly wound....he is not human. Gabriel in Daniel gives us a glimpse of such princes such as "Prince of Persia" and "Prince of Grecia" "Michael one of the chief princes" "Michael the great prince which stand for the children of your people" (Michael is an angel that represents Israel) this chief prince may indeed be an angelic prince of Europe (and a new Global Government) who will come as a man.


Many have tried to indentify this person. Some say Bush, others say Obama and it gets more absurd for not only is he not human but Paul says he will not be revealed until there come "a falling away first" that is after Christianity has been rejected worldwide its warnings and prophecies forsaken the Beast will then be able to come upon the scene with no fear of being discovered or indentified. As long as "biblical" Christianity riegns or has a significant following he cannot appear because he would be easily exposed, this is why there must be a falling away first ( i.e. the christian religion has got to go)from the christian Truth before he can appear. Paul says the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day which is the power of Satan working to destroy (or rather suppress) the Truth preparing the world for the false messiah....The "Chief Prince."


I hopes this helps and cause you to study and not to simply "humor" your parents. :)

[ryanm]

I hopes this helps and cause you to study and not to simply "humor" your parents.

I have studied many prophecy issues fairly extensively and have come to the conclusion that in no cases are they truly identifiable as prophecy (in the accurately predictive sense). That is why I said that I am "humoring" my parents. I don't have the time to devote to every single apologetic attempt at rescuing failed prophecies that usually fail because they are not reliably dateable, or they simply do not say what fundamentalist Christians would like you to believe they say.

Concerning Daniel, I have been entirely persuaded that the current scholarly dating of ~164 BC is accurate. I've read many debates on this website between you and spin, as well as others, and I think the case for an earlier date is very weak when 164 works so well with what we know about Antiochus IV and the Jewish milieu. If it's not broke don't fix it. Also, I think a very good case can be made that the figure "healed of a deadly wound" in Revelation (associated with the number 666) is Nero returned from the dead. At any rate, I'm not here to let this turn into a debate about Daniel or Revelation, I'm simply looking for some good historical facts concerning my earlier questions. I'm happy to take those answers from whoever has some good solid information. Thanks again,

Ryan

[Ben C Smith]

I find it odd that the authors of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts would interpret such a well known word as "Rosh" as a proper noun if there wasn't some tradition that that's what it meant.

This seems strange. I thought the Masoretic was the text whose rosh was in question. If so (and I welcome correction), then claiming that it interprets rosh as a proper noun would be presuming what is to be proved.

This rosh confusion may be paralleled in Luke 3.27, where we have a Rhesa named, but this Rhesa may instead have originally been rhesa, the Aramaic for prince. (Note that the word son in some of the English translations is added; the Greek list simply gives Joanan of Rhesa of Zerubbabel, which could just as easily have been Joanan of the prince Zerubbabel in Aramaic).

Ben.

[Kharakov]

How do you take any of these historians seriously? Even Spin's well written blurb could be an assembled collection of agreed upon bullshit foisted upon the masses as truth (anyone hear of a collection of books known as "The Bible"?).

Perhaps I need to start a new thread so someone can explain how historical accuracy is agreed upon, considering the amount of bullshit information put forth by many "historical" scholars?

[ryanm]

How do you take any of these historians seriously? Even Spin's well written blurb could be an assembled collection of agreed upon bullshit foisted upon the masses as truth (anyone hear of a collection of books known as "The Bible"?).

That's a good question and obviously a very important one that leads into larger questions about epistemology. However, it's not one that I am really concerned with here, as I have confidence that truth is approximated increasingly well in the academic world. I agree with you that there is a real (but usually negligibly small) possibility that all scholars have been duped into believing bullshit. However, I think the clue to the answer is in our question. There really must be a REASON to "foist lies upon the masses." I admit that I may be wrong, but as I whole, most scholars who devote there lives to learning and investigation are also devoted to finding out the truth. Sure, any one scholar may have opinions about history that have been misguided by ideological motivations, but on average these biases should cancel out and the truth should be visible among the noise of individual opinion. This is the case with evolution for instance. Scientists may quibble about the relative importance of this or that mechanism (e.g. genetic drift versus natural selection), but the vast majority agree that evolution itself, and the observable facts confirming it, are readily apparent and really not debatable. Having said all this, large scale ideological motivations or biases such as religious beliefs CAN have an effect on the outcome of research within groups of precommitted scholars. That's why one must know one's source, and, can reasonably trust one's source if there is reason to believe that biases have been neutralized by a large enough consensus. I hope this helps.

[spin]

Thanks for the info guys.

Spin, I had actually come across that post of yours earlier and found it very informative. There is obviously a lot of history there that can be studied in depth. However, I'm wondering if you know anything specific regarding the two questions above. I find it odd that the authors of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts would interpret such a well known word as "Rosh" as a proper noun if there wasn't some tradition that that's what it meant.
The Hebrew for "head" here is R)$ [resh alef shin]. For the word to refer to Russia, ie Rus, it would have to be RW$ [resh waw shin] -- the "u" of Rus is long, so the vowel would have to be indicated clearly in the Hebrew with a waw.

Just as "head" can be used in English as an adjective, eg "head chef" or "head office", the Hebrew word R)$ can also be used that way as well, eg "principal spices", B$MYM R)$ Ex 30:23, or "head priest", KHN R)$ 1 Chr 27:5. The obvious reading of Ez 38:3,

GWG N$Y) R)$ M$K W:TBL

is

Gog, head prince of Meshech and Tubal.

and this is how the Vulgate understood the phrase:

Gog principem capitis Mosoch et Thubal

However, the issue gets complicated because the Alexandrian Greek text has

gwg arconta rws mosox kai Qobel

ie

Gog, leader [of] Ros, Mosoch and Thobel

and the Hebrew R)$ hasn't been translated, but transliterated as with proper names, so we must assume your Rosenberg is relying not on the Hebrew, but on the Greek. The Greek rws with its long vowel better reflects the fellows reading.

It is the Greek translator who has turned rosh into rws by lengthening the vowel. It's not supported by the original Hebrew, so one can see that the translator didn't understand exactly what he was translating here.

Since I don't know Hebrew, I can't comment on whether this claim of Rosenberg's is actually correct, but perhaps someone does? Also, his whole point that the Magoggites turned into the Scythians turned into the Russians would be exposed as false if it is in fact true that the Scythians were driven out of the region or displaced by some other people that actually came to inhabit modern-day Russia.
This reading based on the Greek has Ros as just one of the countries that Gog would be the leader of. He would then have to justify his arbitrary approach, singling out the one name, Ros, and forgetting the others. We know according to him what Ros is but what about Meshech and Tubal?

Meshech and Tubal are both Anatolian realms, just as Magog [<- mat-gugi], the land of Gog, ie Lydia, is, and Gomer, the Cimmerians, were established there. These references are well known from antiquity. However, rws doesn't fit the context in that it is not known to have meant anything at the time, while the Hebrew text was easily understandable. This means the Greek text is incoherent in this matter and your writer is apparently a cold war warrior pushing this non sequitur about Russia when the original writer was dealing with allusions based in Anatolia.


spin

[spin]

How do you take any of these historians seriously?
You're not. You're supposed to check what they say if you're interested enough. You trust the argument, not the speaker. If it checks out then it doesn't matter who says it.


spin

[spin]

Nobody knows who this person is the KJV has "THE CHIEF PRINCE" who comes from the north country.
It's nice and simple. The Assyrians talk about him as Gugu mat-Gugu, Gyges of the land of Gyges, ie Lydia. There is no evasion you can pull here. All you have to do is go and find a copy of the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and check it out.

The text doesn't talk about Gog as from "the north country". It refers to Beth Togarmah as in the far north. Get a historical atlas which shows the state of Anatolia around 650 BCE. You'll see where the far north is.

One thing is certain though he is "the Abomination that causes Desolation" in Daniel "the king of the North" "the prince who is to come" "the Anti-Christ" "The Beast" "Man of Sin" "Son of Perdition" oh he goes by many names.
You're changing the subject.

[sugarhitman vacuous ramblings omitted]


spin

[ryanm]

The Hebrew for "head" here is R)$ [resh alef shin]. For the word to refer to Russia, ie Rus, it would have to be RW$ [resh waw shin] -- the "u" of Rus is long, so the vowel would have to be indicated clearly in the Hebrew with a waw.

Just as "head" can be used in English as an adjective, eg "head chef" or "head office", the Hebrew word R)$ can also be used that way as well, eg "principal spices", B$MYM R)$ Ex 30:23, or "head priest", KHN R)$ 1 Chr 27:5. The obvious reading of Ez 38:3,

GWG N$Y) R)$ M$K W:TBL

is

Gog, head prince of Meshech and Tubal.

and this is how the Vulgate understood the phrase:

Gog principem capitis Mosoch et Thubal

However, the issue gets complicated because the Alexandrian Greek text has

gwg arconta rws mosox kai Qobel

ie

Gog, leader [of] Ros, Mosoch and Thobel

and the Hebrew R)$ hasn't been translated, but transliterated as with proper names, so we must assume your Rosenberg is relying not on the Hebrew, but on the Greek. The Greek rws with its long vowel better reflects the fellows reading.

It is the Greek translator who has turned rosh into rws by lengthening the vowel. It's not supported by the original Hebrew, so one can see that the translator didn't understand exactly what he was translating here.

Thanks for the detailed reply spin. Since I am unfamiliar with Hebrew grammar I want to make sure I comprehend what you're saying. As I read you, nothing in the Hebrew text actually dictates that "Rosh" must be interpreted as a proper noun, correct? That is only in the Greek text? I want to make sure I have full justification for rejecting Rosenberg's claim that it is written as a proper name and not an adjective in the Masoretic text as meaningless and false, if that is in fact the case. When I get around to learning Hebrew I won't have to bug you guys, but in the meantime, thanks for the help.

Ryan

[John Kesler]

1. In Epicenter Rosenberg asserts that "Rosh" should be interpreted as a proper name, not a noun meaning "head" or "prince." As evidence of this he claims that both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts render the word as a proper noun, so obviously the scholars who compiled these texts believed that it should be rendered as such. Is this actually the case?

If the MT is so clear, then why does neither the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh nor the New JPS Tanakh transliterate "Rosh," instead opting for "chief"?

JPS Tanakh
1 And the word of HaShem came unto me, saying: 2 'Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him...


New JPS Tanakh
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 O mortal, turn your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Prophesy against him...
But let's assume that "the prince of Rosh," which the NIV lists as a possible variant in 38:2, is the correct rendering. So what? The whole Gog/Magog prophecy is an attempt to salvage Jeremiah's predicition that "tribes of the kingdoms of the north" (Jeremiah 1:14-15, see also 4:6, 6:1,22) would invade Judah, something which didn't happen. Ezekiel 38:14-states:

14 Therefore, mortal, prophesy, and say to Gog: Thus says the Lord God: On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will rouse yourself 15 and come from your place out of the remotest parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army; 16 you will come up against my people Israel, like a cloud covering the earth. In the latter days I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me, when through you, O Gog, I display my holiness before their eyes. 17 Thus says the Lord God: Are you he of whom I spoke in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel, who in those days prophesied for years that I would bring you against them?

The onus is on the prophecy buffs to prove not only that "Rosh" should be a proper name, and that this proper name refers to Russia, but also to demonstrate that Ezekiel had any predictive abilities at all.

[spin]

Let's just look at this again:
The Hebrew for "head" here is R)$ [resh alef shin]. For the word to refer to Russia, ie Rus, it would have to be RW$ [resh waw shin] -- the "u" of Rus is long, so the vowel would have to be indicated clearly in the Hebrew with a waw.
Unlike English, Hebrew was written with some notion of sound related to letters. "Rus" should sound something like "roose" (where the "s" is pronounced as in "snake"). Such a pronunciation, if the Hebrew did refer to Rus, would be written RW$, but it isn't, so that should close the issue.

Just as "head" can be used in English as an adjective, eg "head chef" or "head office", the Hebrew word R)$ can also be used that way as well, eg "principal spices", B$MYM R)$ Ex 30:23, or "head priest", KHN R)$ 1 Chr 27:5. The obvious reading of Ez 38:3,

GWG N$Y) R)$ M$K W:TBL

is

Gog, head prince of Meshech and Tubal.
Note that I said "[t]he obvious reading", ie you would normally understand the text as indicated. There would be no reason for a Hebrew reader to assume that it meant any differently, so how would Rosenberg imagine that a reader could arrive at his desired reading? If there is no ordinary way, his desired reading is rubbish. And look at the two analogous examples I gave. Try going back and reading them with Rus instead to see how much sense they make, "spices of Rus" or "priest of Rus". It at the same level of nonsense as his desired reading.

Thanks for the detailed reply spin. Since I am unfamiliar with Hebrew grammar I want to make sure I comprehend what you're saying. As I read you, nothing in the Hebrew text actually dictates that "Rosh" must be interpreted as a proper noun, correct?
I can't see any reason to read it as anything other than how it is normally read. That means not a proper noun.

A text is written to communicate its ideas. As this Hebrew text is written it communicates "head prince". A writer should have known and made it clear if the first readings were confused by his audience.

That is only in the Greek text? I want to make sure I have full justification for rejecting Rosenberg's claim that it is written as a proper name and not an adjective in the Masoretic text as meaningless and false, if that is in fact the case.
The Greek text is his basis, not the Hebrew. If the spelling of R)$, ie "head", didn't preclude the "Rus" reading, there'd still be no reason to read the Hebrew text as he desires.

You don't have to reject his case because the case hasn't been made.


spin

[ryanm]

Thanks spin. All other critical opinions I've read seem to agree with you. Apparently, the case is so weak for Rosenberg's reading that he really only makes it by appealing to the untrained ears of readers to hear the phonetic similarities between the English pronunciations of "rosh" and "Russia," when English shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

[sugarhitman]

Nobody knows who this person is the KJV has "THE CHIEF PRINCE" who comes from the north country.
It's nice and simple. The Assyrians talk about him as Gugu mat-Gugu, Gyges of the land of Gyges, ie Lydia. There is no evasion you can pull here. All you have to do is go and find a copy of the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and check it out.

The text doesn't talk about Gog as from "the north country". It refers to Beth Togarmah as in the far north. Get a historical atlas which shows the state of Anatolia around 650 BCE. You'll see where the far north is.


You're changing the subject.

[sugarhitman vacuous ramblings omitted]


spin

"And you shall come from YOUR PLACE out of the NORTH PARTS." This is referring to Gog. Also in Ezekiel God tells us that this is he whom the prophets were writing about which appeared to be someone else. "I will bring you against My land, that the heathen may know me...." This is Aremegeddon which is lead against Jerusalem by "The Abomination who maketh Desolate".... the "Beast."

The beast of Revelation is not human. The phrase "chief prince" shows that Gog like Michael is an Angelic Prince...who is a rebel. He is an Angelic Prince who wars against God, Israel, and christians which confirms Paul's testimony:

"For we do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (the heavens)."


The Beast arises after Satan looses his war with Micael and is cast out into the earth Gog is the Beast the King of the North...Spiritual Prince of the current dominant power...the Europeans.

[spin]

It's nice and simple. The Assyrians talk about him as Gugu mat-Gugu, Gyges of the land of Gyges, ie Lydia. There is no evasion you can pull here. All you have to do is go and find a copy of the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and check it out.

The text doesn't talk about Gog as from "the north country". It refers to Beth Togarmah as in the far north. Get a historical atlas which shows the state of Anatolia around 650 BCE. You'll see where the far north is.

You're changing the subject.

"And you shall come from YOUR PLACE out of the NORTH PARTS." This is referring to Gog.
Umm, Anatolia is relatively a long way north from Judea.

Also in Ezekiel God tells us that this is he whom the prophets were writing about which appeared to be someone else. "I will bring you against My land, that the heathen may know me...." This is Aremegeddon which is lead against Jerusalem by "The Abomination who maketh Desolate".... the "Beast."

The beast of Revelation is not human.
Revelation is irrelevant to understanding Ezekiel. Ezekiel might be relevant to Revelation, but not vice versa.

The phrase "chief prince" shows that Gog like Michael is an Angelic Prince...who is a rebel.
Based solely on your conjectures from the English translation, right?

He is an Angelic Prince who wars against God, Israel, and christians which confirms Paul's testimony:

"For we do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (the heavens)."

The Beast arises after Satan looses his war with Micael and is cast out into the earth Gog is the Beast the King of the North...Spiritual Prince of the current dominant power...the Europeans.
Gyges of Lydia (Gog of Magog) is simply a king who was killed about 70 years before the reputed time of Ezekiel. Beasts and Satans and whatnot have nothing to do with him.


spin