Email This Message
Topic 
E-Mail AddressesSeparate multiple addresses with commas 
CommentsAdd your own comments (if any)
  • From: Two See
  •   To: philbenney
  • 20 of 44
  • 4/10/12

FYI, I don't think your evidence is as persuasive as you think.  I don't believe any one can conclusively prove or disprove Russia is Rosh.  Below is a quote for a scholarly publication which disagrees with your source.

 

"The most impressive evidence in favor of taking Rosh as a proper name is simply that this translation is the most accurate. G. A. Cooke, a Hebrew scholar, translates Ezekiel 38:2, “the chief of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.” He calls this “the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew.”
1 Why is it the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew? Rosh appears in construct form in the Hebrew with Meshech and Tubal meaning that the grammar forms a list of three nouns. Some want to say that rosh is a noun functioning as an adjective since there should be an “and” if it were intended to be a list of three nouns. The same exact Hebrew construction appears in Ezekiel 38:5, as well as 27:13 and these are clearly recognized as a list of three nouns by grammarians even though “and” does not appear in either list. Normal Hebrew and Arabic grammarsupports rosh as a noun (see also 38:3 and 39:1).

Actually, Hebrew grammar demands that rosh be taken as a noun. No example of Hebrew grammar has ever been cited that would support taking rosh as an adjective. Instead, in Hebrew grammar one cannotbreak up the construct chain of the three nouns that have this kind of grammaticalarrangement.2 Hebrew scholar Randall Price says, “on linguistic and historicalgrounds, the case for taking Rosh as a proper noun rather than a noun-adjective issubstantial and persuasive.”3

In light of such overwhelming evidence, it is not surprising that Hebrew scholarJames Price concludes the following: It has been demonstrated that Rosh was a well-known place in antiquity as evidenced by numerous and varied references in the ancient literature. It has also been demonstrated that an adjective intervening between a construct noun and its nomen rectum is highly improbable, there being no unambiguous example of such in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that regarding Rosh as a name is in harmony with normal Hebrew grammar and syntax. It is concluded that Rosh cannot be an adjective in Ezekiel 38–39, but must be a name. "