The Mystery of Rosh Pt 2

By Ray Gano

In part one I show where Gesenius named Von Hammer as his "historical" source in naming Rosh as "undoubtedly Russia." That is a pretty dogmatic statement when we find that Von Hammer was really nothing but a pulp fiction author. I also show that this whole "Rosh" idea is actually inspired by the Islamic Koran and in fact Gesenius gives the Koran the credit in his own lexicon.

 But in our journey to discover the  truth, we uncovered yet another problem.

The idea of Rosh is based on the Septuagint. In fact you can tell if a bible is based on the Septuagint by looking at Ezekiel 38:2

Septuagint – Eze 38:2 - Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐπὶ Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ, ἄρχοντα Ρως, Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ, καὶ προφήτευσον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν

Eze 38:2 (NASB)  "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him.

Eze 38:2 (NAS 1977)  "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of  Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Eze 38:2 (RV)  Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Here is what the King James 1611 AD Authorized Version states…

Eze 38:2 (KJV) Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Note, no “ROSH”

Prior to King James and his Authorized Version we had the Geneva and Bishops bible that were the mainstay of Christian scripture.

The Geneva 1587 AD Bible states Ezekiel 38:2 and the following…

Eze 38:2 (GEN) Sonne of man, set thy face against Gog, and against the lande of Magog, the chiefe prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophecie against him,

Source - Geneva Bible - IMPRINTED AT LONDON by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Qveenes Maiestie. 1587. Cum priuilegio.

Again, no “ROSH”

Finally the Bishops 1568 AD Bible states Ezekiel 38:2 in the following…

Eze 38:2 (BISH) Thou sonne of man, set thy face towarde Gog, the land of Magog, which is the chiefe prince at Mesech and Tubal: prophecie against him,

Source - Bishops Bible - The holie Bible conteynyng the olde Testament and the newe, 1568

And again, no “ROSH”

The word for Rosh in the Hebrew occurs in the Authorized King James 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always translated as a title.

head 349 chief 91
top 73
beginning 14
company 12
captain 10
sum 9
first 6

principal 5
chapiters 4
rulers 2

Nowhere in scripture is Rosh referenced as a land, an area, people or tribe.

Eatons Bible Dictionary states the following:

Rosh

(Eze_38:2, Eze_38:3; Eze_39:1) is rendered “chief” in the Authorized Version. It is left untranslated as a proper name in the Revised Version. Some have supposed that the Russians are here meant, as one of the three Scythian tribes of whom Magog was the prince. They invaded the land of Judah in the days of Josiah. Herodotus, the Greek historian, says: “For twenty-eight years the Scythians ruled over Asia, and things were turned upside down by their violence and contempt.”

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance states the following about Rosh

H7218

ראשׁ

rô'sh

roshe

From an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literally or figuratively (in many applications, of place, time, rank, etc.): - band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief (-est place, man, things), company, end, X every [man], excellent, first, forefront, ([be-]) head, height, (on) high (-est part, [priest]), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top.

Why doesn’t the Authorized King James, The Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible not contain the ROSH proper noun? Instead it maintains the proper hermeneutical use of the Rosh adjective meaning Chief.

Why? Because they are not based off of the Septuagint.

So what is the Septuagint?

It is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek that is believed to have been translated around the third century B.C.

Septuagint Background

Upon the death of Alexander in 332 B.C., one of his four generals, named Ptolemy Lagus, took over Egypt as King. He crowned himself Ptolemy I Soter which literally means "Ptolemy the Savior". It is Ptolemy who built the Great Library of Alexandria, the center of knowledge, but more than that, it was the home of Gnosticism.

Once Ptolemy died, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 285-246 BC) continued his father’s legacy. In his effort to make the Great Library the best center of learning in the known world, Ptolemy Philadelphus sought to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. The problem was that his staff found Hebrew to be a difficult language to understand, and they were not sure of the many phrases or meanings found in the Hebrew text. So Ptolemy appointed a team of Gnostic seventy scholars, each fluent in Hebrew and in Greek, and assigned to them the task of translating the Hebrew text. Legend has it that he had 72 scholars who translated the Septuagint in 72 days, thus the Roman numeral abbreviation of LXX or 70.

Here lies the problem, it was these Gnostic scholars who translated the Hebrew text into the Greek.

What is Gnosticism?

It is based off of the Greek word gnōsis, which translates to knowledge.

Gnosticism is a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god. In the days of old, they pull both from Christianity and Judaism and formed it into a mysterious hodge podge of esoteric beliefs. A close modern day equivalent is the Theosophical Society founded by Madame Helena Petrova Blavatsky. Like the Gnostics of old, they are seekers of knowledge as well as followers of the “Bearer of Light” (knowledge) Lucifer.

It is these Gnostics that while translating the Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek added to the text as well as left out script. It is noted that the Alexandrian School is recognized as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is the  Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the oldest manuscripts, The Septuagint being a primary along with Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph. A side note, the Septuagint also contains the un-canonized books of the Apocrypha which is not found in the original Hebrew either.

For those who will say that the original 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as scripture.

It should be known that the Septuagint is not inspired and is a not a preserved text of scripture. Christ as well as the apostles did not quote from it, even when it was suppose to be in existence during their life time.  The very fact that the Septuagint’s history and Gnostic character should be proof enough to give one pause  for thought. 

The light cannot have anything to do with the dark

Scripture says…

Luke 11:36 (KJV)  If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

Jack Moorman in his book “Forever Settled” observes:

“The original LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from Theodotion. Proverbs contains things not in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was replaced, perhaps in the first century AD, by a later translation (generally attributed to Theodotion, but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is nowadays to be found in only two MSS and the Syriac. One of the translators of Jeremiah sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar meaning” (Moorman, Forever Settled).”

Dr. Donald Waite author of  “The Defense of the King James Bible” summarizes:

“It can be clearly seen ... that the Septuagint is inaccurate and inadequate and deficient as a translation. To try to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the modern versions are attempting to do) from such a loose and unacceptable translation would be like trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from the Living Bible of Ken Taylor!!” (Waite, The Defense of the King James Bible)”

 The Septuagint and modern translations based upon the LXX translates the Hebrew word Rosh in all its uses by the Greek word "Ros" or "Rhos" as a proper noun of a people and a place.

The Septuagint is a questionable document and it is one of the “smoking guns”  where the whole Rosh = Russia paradigm originate. Both the American Version and English Version both utilize the LXX as a primary document. Both of these versions were also brought into existence around the late 1800s, early 1900s.

It is these modern versions having the “Rosh” error, coupled with Gesenius’ work amplified the Rosh = the Russia paradigm and cast the whole idea into what has become hard…concrete… doctrine.

The Septuagint - Proper Interpretation – Rules and Hermeneutics

The Authorized King James Version, the Geneva and the Bishops all allow for the Golden Rule of Interpretation, The law of recurrence, and the rule of a text apart from the context is a pretext.

The use of the noun “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” found in the modern versions does not.

Let's examine this for a moment.

There are established rules of interpretation. These rules apply to all scripture, including the prophetic pages like we find in Ezekiel. 

The late Dr. L Cooper, the Founder of Biblical Research Society coined the most famous of rules known as the “Golden Rule of Interpretation.”

The Golden Rule of Interpretation…

“When the plain sense of Scripture males common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the fact of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. “

In other words, this law states that ALL biblical passages are to be taken exactly as they read unless there is something in the text indicating that it should be taken some other way than literally.

I go back and remind you that “Rosh” in the Hebrew occurs 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always literally translated as a title when dealing with a person. The defenders of Rosh as a people or place do not observe that.

Next is the law of recurrence.

 This law describes the fact that in some passages of scripture there exist the recording of an event, then it is followed by a second recording of the same event but with more or less detail.

In fact Ezekiel 38:1-23 and 39:1-16 is an excellent example of the law of recurrence.

Ezekiel 38:1-23 gives a complete account of the invasion of Israel from the north and the subsequent destruction of the invading army. This is followed by the second block of scripture, Ezekiel 39:1-16, which repeats some of the account given in block one with added details regarding the destruction of this invading army.

Often readers see Ezekiel 39 as a continuation of 38, but in fact it is repeating the story from different prophetic vantage points.

In both cases Rosh is not used as a proper noun for a people or place, but in fact support the Rosh adjective meaning chief, leader, head, ect.

The defenders of the Rosh=Russia paradigm often point to the NASB, AV,EV, RSV, ect as their proof but ignore the fact that all of these are based upon questionable error prone text found in the Septuagint.

Finally, a text apart from the context is a pretext

A verse can only mean what it means in its context and must not be pulled out of its context. When it is pulled out of context, it is often presented as meaning something that it cannot mean within the context.

As I have shown “Rosh” in the Hebrew occurs 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always translated as a title. The defenders of Rosh as a people or place do not observe that and in fact ignore the context of “Rosh” being “Chief, leader, head” and replace it with people.

I ask again, if this is the true use of the word Rosh, why didn’t God make that clear?

Why is Rosh seen as Chief, Top, Leader, ect 598 times in scripture but for this one and only time found in Ezekiel 38:2 - 3 all of a sudden it is a people or a place?

The defenders of the Rosh = Russia Paradigm are blatantly disregarding this rule. The verse clearly shows and stands for Chief, leader, head. That is the context that is clearly presented.

Let's take it from another angle.

The Hebrew word s being used are "nish" "rosh" which equals "prince chief" when literally translated; this is how the original Hebrew (Massoretic text) renders this.

"Nish" "Rosh" clearly does not equal Russia.

But the defenders of the Rosh = Russia paradigm stand on the wording in the Septuagint, which is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew.

Let's review the terms "Nish" and “Rosh”  in the Strong's.

H5387

נשׂא    נשׂיא

nâśîy'  nâśi'

naw-see', naw-see'

From H5375; properly an exalted one, that is, a king or sheik; also a rising mist: - captain, chief, cloud, governor, prince, ruler, vapour.

H7218

ראשׁ

rô'sh

roshe

From an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literally or figuratively (in many applications, of place, time, rank, etc.): - band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief (-est place, man, things), company, end, X every [man], excellent, first, forefront, ([be-]) head, height, (on) high (-est part, [priest]), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top.

The term "Chief Prince" clearly works well when we translate Hebrew into English. The context properly conveys a strong leader of leaders within the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38. He is the “head”(rosh) of a confederacy which goes against Israel. 

In the original Hebrew (Massoretic Hebrew Text) we see the accents of "tiphha and Zaqeph-gadol. Now for those of you with Hebrew knowledge you should note that the Tiphha appears under the resh of the Hebrew word - 'rosh'; while the Zaqeph-gadol appears on the top of the sin of the Hebrew word 'nish' (nasi).

So what does this mean?

Whenever the Zaqeph-gadol accent appears, it is always used in connection with a pause.

Are you lost yet? Stay with me and do not skip this. It is really important as I will show you.

Christ said that every jot and every tittle matters. Based upon this statement, Christ could not have ever quoted from the Septuagint with all its errors as well as being a translation from Hebrew to Greek even though it was believed to be in existence in His day.

The Zaqeph-gadol accent is the Hebrew mark for a pause in speech.

In Hebrew it reads…

“the prince (Nish), -- PAUSE – chief (Rosh) of Meschech and Tubal”

So reading the verse would go something like this when literally translated.

Vs2….set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the prince, - - PAUSE -- chief of  Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him…

Vs3…"Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the prince, - - PAUSE -- chief of Meschech and Tubal."

But Ray… Scripture reads Chief Prince, not Prince Chief.

Excellent point!

Being from the western world we read left to right, where as Hebrew is read right to left.

When looking at Hebrew Prince Chief = Chief Prince.  Simply put, it is backwards due to the Hebrew.

When reading these verses and being presented in the proper context this makes absolute sense.

But let's take what the defenders of the Rosh = Russia paradigm and put it to the same test.

Here is what their version sounds like … " O Gog, the nish (prince)  rosh (Russia) of Meshech and Tubal.

In their version there is no pause as Zaqeph-gadol accent shows.

But even with a pause, “Prince “PAUSE” Russia of Mechech and Tubal” it just does not sound right and it makes no grammatical sense what so ever.

 I mean what is "Prince Russia of Mechech and Tubal?

Do you see what I am showing here?  When read in proper context the Rosh = Russia version kind of sounds like gibberish. Don't you agree?

In fact, their very verbiage and context does not make sense what so ever.

But what surprises me the most is that authors, teachers and scholars would rather lean on the Gnostic inspired Septuagint than stand on the original Massoretic Hebrew text.

Why are they leaning on a translation, Greek to Hebrew, and refuse to go to the source, the Hebrew .

The Jewish people were chosen to be the oracles of God's Word, is that not correct?

If that is the case then why go to some translation the comes from Egypt when you have the very best source already available, the Massoretic Hebrew text?

Folks, when scripture fits, we must submit.

As we have shown here scripture, the Massoretic Hebrew text vs. the Greek Septuagint,  does in fact fit and it is supported by the proper rules of interpretation and hermeneutics where the Septuagint does not.

So I ask, why the unwillingness to submit to what is clearly shown in scripture?

Why all the mental gymnastics?

Why the need to make something out which is not there?

But here is THE BIG QUESTION…

Why are we looking at Russia and not Turkey?

These are questions that we need to ask the authors, teachers and scholars.