Phil I was wondering if you know anymore about this, which I am quite sure you do. There seems to be a push to claim that Rosh is actually a reference to Russian, though it would seem that this is a misuse of the word and a very modern day interpretation that is not widely accepted. Furthermore, it is now just being used as propaganda to help fuel some apocalyptic fervor given the political climate in the Middle East.

I find it interesting given that Ezekiel only says:

"and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel" Ezk 39:2

Given how very vague this is I find it sort of dishonest that people are trying make this to be Russia. It seems that this is only due to current times. In 1940 this could have been used to describe Germany. Earlier, Rome or England.

Hey, the north parts was always a big problem for Israel. Russia was not even around in those biblical times. People read stuff into anything that fits their preconceptions, even cheese sandwiches!

Sorry it wook awhile, but I have been away for a couple of days -- road trip.

 

Phil I was wondering if you know anymore about this, which I am quite sure you do. There seems to be a push to claim that Rosh is actually a reference to Russian, though it would seem that this is a misuse of the word and a very modern day interpretation that is not widely accepted. Furthermore, it is now just being used as propaganda to help fuel some apocalyptic fervor given the political climate in the Middle East.

 

Can you please supply a link .... I know nothing of "Rosh" except it's Hebrew terminology "Rosh-Hashana" for the high holidays.

 

I find it interesting given that Ezekiel only says:    "and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel" Ezk 39:2    Given how very vague this is I find it sort of dishonest that people are trying make this to be Russia. It seems that this is only due to current times. In 1940 this could have been used to describe Germany. Earlier, Rome or England

 

Ez 38:1-6 and Ez 39: 1-6 ........ The identity of Gog is unknown; several identifications have been attempted, notably Gyges, king of Lydia (c. 660 BC). It may be that the name was purposely left vague, standing for a mysterious, undisclosed enemy of God's people. Magog was one of th sons of Japheth, and thus the name of a people. The word as used in Ezekial may simply mean "land of Gog". Israel had long experienced the hostility of the Hamites and other Semitic peoples; the future coaliton here invisioned includes - and in fact is led by - peoples descended from Japheth.

Yeah it is in reference to a couple of versions of Ezekial 38:2 that refer to a "prince of Rosh". Some have claimed that Rosh is Russia and that this has bearing to some upcoming war between Iran and Israel which is then used as validating belief that the apocalypse is at hand. What is also interesting is that not every bible translation even refers to the prince of Rosh.

Phil, i found this somewhat interesting discussion of this topic on an evangelical site. Actually comes off as pretty straight forward in some of the analysis of this matter. Seems Rosh is used by some as they point to an Apocalypse, but it is a mis-use of the term.

http://truedsicernment.com/2008/09/06/%E2%80%9Crosh%E2%80%9D-is-not-russia/

People read stuff into anything that fits their preconceptions, even cheese sandwiches!
--------------------------------
They most certainly do.

People read stuff into anything that fits their preconceptions, even cheese sandwiches!
--------------------------------
They most certainly do.

===========

Does that go for religious superstitions of different flavors too?

Does that go for religious superstitions of different flavors too?
-----------------
 all religions probably have some superstition but not all religion's are based on superstitions.  I prefer to takle mine without the superstition but keep the questions. They taste far better.

all religions probably have some superstition but not all religion's are based on superstitions

--------------

Care to give me an example of one that is not?

Again I apologize for the long delay in responding, but I have been quite busy as of late.

--------------------------------------------------

Yeah it is in reference to a couple of versions of Ezekial 38:2 that refer to a "prince of Rosh".

 

Yes ... maddog provided a link that refreshed my memory on this ... this is all about Textual Criticism - the reference is (and always was) so wrong that, in my profession, I had dismissed it long ago (along with a majority of other theologians versed in basic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). The "couple of versions" are The Schofield and NASB translations - and they are used as teaching tools almost exclusively by proponents of the Doctrine of Dispensation, including Hal Lindsey & Tim Layahe ("Left Behind" series) ... both translations using etymology that is meant to support dogma of an eschatological nature. Translation of the Hebrew word 'rosh' into meaning "Russia" is therefore both agenda-driven and theologically faulty. To the best of my knowledge, the link maddog supplied adequately lists the correct translations of the word.

------------------------------------------------------

 

Some have claimed that Rosh is Russia and that this has bearing to some upcoming war between Iran and Israel which is then used as validating belief that the apocalypse is at hand.

 

If an apocalyptic war is on the horizon, one does not need any particular Bible translation - nor the misuse of a Hebrew verb - to realize that Russia & China will probably be major players ... rather, I think this falls under the heading of geo-politics.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

What is also interesting is that not every bible translation even refers to the prince of Rosh.

 

 

"There is no evidence from the ancient Near East that a country named Rosh ever existed. The word Russia is a late eleventh-century A.D. term. Therefore, the data does not seem to support an interpretation of rosh as a proper name of a geographical region or country."

 

 

I.E. --- There is no such thing as a prince of Rosh due to the misuse of the Hebrew word "rosh". If you look at it through the eyes of the author of the book of Ezekiel (written/edited between 593 &165 BC), what reference material did he/they have to go on ? The book of Revelation draws heavily on both Ezekiel and Daniel ... other books of the Bible draw heavily on those that historically preceded them. The Mosaic books of the Torah, which Ezekiel certainly had access to, list the ancestry and dispersion by location of the various tribes, with the sons of Noah being predecessors of all humans in the known world (note: operative word is known, as in known at the time). According to our most reliable manuscripts ... one Noah's sons was named Japeth, who had 7 sons including Gomer, who begat Ashkenaz (who settled in Scythia), Ripthah (who settled in Turkey), and Togarmah (who settled in Armenia).

 

The part of Russia that is in question is named Scythia - not Rosh. The name "Scythian" was used by classical writers as a general term for the barbarians of the steppes. In common parlance, it was a term for the savage and uncivilized. Scythia was the name given by the Greeks to an ill-defined area between the Carpathians and the Don, the western portion of which included the black earth wheatlands of the modern Ukraine. The steppe land was wide open to nomadic invasion, and the Indo-European tribes who occupied it in the 7th century BC are those to whom the term Scythian is the most properly applied. There must have been a considerable "folk-wandering" about this time, because Scythians appeared in upper Meopotamia and Syria between 650 and 620 BC.; and another force reached the middle Danube. South Russia, to speak in modern geographical terms, was firmly occupied. The nomads were formidable soldiers, swift archer cavalry versed in the tactics of desert warfare and mobile strategy. By a "scorched-earth" policy and by their elusive defense they frustrated an attack by Darius in 512 BC and similarly beat off Alexander's general Zopyrion in 325. They exploited the labor the earlier inhabitants and were exporters of large quantities of wheat to the Greek Black Sea colonies. Archeologically speaking, it appears that Greek pottery and metal work were given in exchange, as the tombs of the chiefs have produced a rich profusion of such articles. Historically and culturally speaking, the Celts and Samaritans seem to have displaced the Scythians during the last three centuries before Christ.

 

Hope this answers your questions.

an amazing area and amazing flow and ebb of cultures. Jared Diamond wrote about that area in his book on cultural differences and technology, Guns, Germs and Steel. Worth the read.

thanks Phil,

Luv,
Your wingman....

Back at you MD .....

 

Thank you so much! You have more than answered my question.

Care to give me an example of one that is not?
-----------------
 Unitarianism. No dogma, no superstitions.

Unitarianism. No dogma, no superstitions.

 

***************

 

No dogma, not much of anything.  I attended a Unitarian Church several months ago, and found it most unsatisfying.  I took a look through their hymnbook, and discovered just about all my favorites conspicuously absent.

sad isn't it, that a church can exist without any of your favorite things. Hmmm, pretty cruel world.

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. "