Grace Theological
Journal (1985) 67-89.
[Copyright © 1985
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
ROSH: AN
KNOWN TO EZEKIEL
JAMES D. PRICE
Extensive
evidence from ancient Near Eastern .texts and from
normal Hebrew syntax supports the view that wxr is a toponym in
Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1. The
syntactical support involves a detailed examina-
tion of instances where some scholars posit a break in a
construct
chain. These hypothetical breaks are not convincing for several rea-
sons. Therefore, wxr in Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1 should be translated as a
proper noun ("the prince of Rosh, Meshech,
and Tubal" [NKJV]),
not an adjective ("the chief prince of Meshech
and Tubal" [KJV]).
* * *
INTRODUCTION
AMONG
Bible expositors, controversy continues over the translation
of the phrase lbAtuv;
j`w,m, wxro xyWin; in Ezek 38:2, 3 and 39:1--
should the translation be "the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal"
(AV),
or "the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal" (NASB)? The
controversy centers around the Hebrew word wxro is the word a place
name (Rosh) or an adjective (chief)?
There are two principle arguments denying that wxro is a place
name: a philological argument and a grammatical
argument. The
philological argument states that
the primary meaning of wxro, is
"head" as a noun, and "chief" as an adjective,1
and that the word is
unknown as a place name in the Bible, Josephus,
and other ancient
literature. J. Simons, a noted authority on ancient
geography, wrote:
That in one or more of these texts a people of that name
whose
home was in
but it is at any rate
rendered improbable by the fact that the same
name can be discerned only
very doubtfully in other (Assyrian) docu-
ments.2
1 BDB. 910-11.
2 J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament
(Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1959) 81.
68
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The grammatical argument states that the absence
of a conjunc-
tion between wxro, and j`w,m, precludes wxro, from being a noun. William
Gesenius stated the applicable grammatical
principle: "Contrary to
English,
which in lengthy enumerations uses and
to connect only the
last member of the series, in Hebrew polysyndeton is
customary.”3
This
means that Hebrew uses a conjunction between every word in a
series. On the basis of this grammatical rule Simons
concluded, "The
reading j`w,m, (not j`wem,U) in both texts argues against a tripartite enu-
meration of peoples or
countries.”4
These arguments have been convincing to many
scholars and
have resulted in the retention of the AV reading in a number of
modern versions (RSV,
NIV, NAB). Ralph H. Alexander represented
the typical response when he wrote, "The
author does not consider
the word ros [sic!] to be
a proper name in light of the syntax of the
Masoretic text and the usage of the term
throughout the Old Testa-
ment and extra-biblical
literature.”5
But on the other hand, many authorities accept wxro, as a top-
onym, and regard the
grammatical problem to be of no consequence.
Among
these are C. F. Keil,6 C. L. Feinberg,7
D. J. Wiseman,8 T. G.
Pinches,9 and standard lexicons.10 Also,
several modern versions
translate the phrase "prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal" (ASV,
NASB, NEB, NKJV, Harkavy);
and some even recognize the land of
Rosh
in a reconstruction of the difficult Masoretic text
of Isa 66:19,
"Meshech, Rosh, Tubal, and Javan" (NASB,
arguments against this translation may not be as
convincing as some
think.
Those who support the view that wxro, is a toponym observe that
this use of ros is not
entirely unknown in the ancient literature.
Pinches
pointed out that the LXX translators must have known the
place, because they transliterated the word as a
place name. He also
3 GKC, 154a.
4 Simons, Geographical and Topographical Texts, 81.
5 Ralph H. Alexander, "A Fresh Look
at Ezekiel 38 and 39," JETS 17
(1974) 161,
n.
2.
6 C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of
Ezekiel, trans. James
Martin
(
7 Charles L. Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody, 1969) 219-20.
8 Donald J. Wiseman,
"Rosh," The New Bible Dictionary
(ed. J.
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1962) 1107.
9 T. G. Pinches, "Rosh," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
(ed. James
Orr;
I0 BDB, 912; William Gesenius,
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament,
trans. Edward Robinson (Boston: Crocker and Brewster,
1849) 955; William L. Holla-
day, A
Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (
Eerdmans,
1971) 329.
PRICE:
ROSH: AN ANCIENT LAND KNOWN TO EZEKIEL 69
noted references to the
Sargon.11
Opponents of the view discount these references as insig-
nificant.
Also,
those who support the place-name view point to a much
more serious grammatical problem involved with
regarding wxro as an
adjective--the adjective intervenes between the
construct noun xyWin;
(prince of) and its genitive nomen
rectum lbAtuv;
j`w,m, (Meshech and
Tubal). This is a syntactic
anomaly. Opponents of the view dismiss
the problem by observing that broken construct
chains do occur in
Biblical Hebrew. Simons discounted the
problem by stating, "The
translation of Eze. xxxviii 2.3 and xxxix 1 by “Gog,
chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal' is
grammatically difficult but cannot be said to
be impossible."12 But is is very doubtful that this problem can be
brushed off so lightly and that the ancient
references to the land of
Rosh
can be ignored.
This article demonstrates that Rosh was a
well-known place in
antiquity as evidenced by numerous and varied
references in the
ancient literature. The article also
demonstrates that in Ezek 38:2, 3;
39:1
the absence of the conjunction with j`w,m, is inconsequential and
it
is syntactically improbable that wxro, is an adjective. A logical explana-
tion is offered for the
origin of the interpretation of wxr as an adjec-
tive. The conclusion is
drawn that the best translation of Ezek 38:2, 3;
39:1
is "prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal."
PHILOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
Rosh was a Well-Known
Place
Rosh has not been recognized among the place
names of antiquity
because scholars have failed to take into
account the well known
phonetic shifts that occur within the Semitic
languages. When differ-
ences in pronunciation are
taken into account, I found the name
Rosh
(or its phonetic equivalents) twenty times in five different
ancient sources without an exhaustive search.
Variant
Pronunciations of Rosh
The word that means "head" as a noun
and "chief" as an adjec-
tive is common to most of
the Semitic languages, but its pronuncia-
tion varies. Due to the
phonetic phenomenon known as the Canaanite
shift13 the word is pronounced ros in Hebrew and
the Canaanite
11 Pinches, "Rosh," 4:2623.
12 Simons, Geographical and Topographical Texts, 81.
13 William S. LaSor,
Handbook of Biblical Hebrew (
1979)
70
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
dialects,14 but in the other
Semitic languages it is pronounced as rasu
(Arabic),15 res (Aramaic),16 ris/resu (Ugaritic),17
and resu/rosu
(Akka-
dian).18 The
final vowel (u) is the nominative case ending; alternative
final vowels supply the genitive (rasi/ resi) and the accusative (rasa /
resa). Wherever the Semitic
word for "head/chief" was used as a
place name, it is expected that it would follow the
pronunciation and
orthography of the language in which it was used.
That was true for
most place names that were derived from the
meaningful Semitic
vocabulary.
Rosh
was a Name
The word wxro, (ros or its phonetic equivalent ras / res) was
not.
used exclusively as a common noun or adjective in
the Semitic
languages. The word also was used as the name of
persons and
places, and in compound names of persons and places.
The use of
ros as the name of a
specific land is demonstrated in the next sec-
tion. Rosh was the name of a
son of Benjamin (Gen 46:21), and
Resh was the name of an Akkadian
temple.19 Also, the word is found
in compound place names such as Resh-eni;20
and in modern Arabic
place names such as Ras Shamra, Ras Naqura,
Ras el-Ain, etc.
Additionally,
the word is found in many compound personal names
of antiquity, such as Rashi-ili,21 Resh-Adad king of Apishal,22 Resh-
beli father of Tubalit-Bini,23
Resh-Dumuzi,24 Resh-Ea,25 Resh-ili
son
14 BDB, 910.
15 Ibid.. 910; the
Semitic /s/ shifted to /s/ in Arabic.
16 Ibid., 1112.
17 Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965)
31.
18 Theo Bauer, Akkadische Lesestucke (
19 "Resh
338, 342, 344, 345.
20 David D. Luckenbill,
"Bavian Inscription of Sennacherib,"
Historical Records of
wood, 1968) 2: 149.
21 Mentioned three times by David B.
Weisberg, Texts from the Time of Nebuchad-
nezzar, vol. 17 in the Yale
Oriental Series: Babylonian Texts (
University,
1980) 17:63.
22 "The Sargon
Chronicle," ANET, 266.
23 Stepheri D. Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents, vol. 14
in the Yale
Oriental
Series: Babylonian Texts (New Haven: Yale University, 1978) 73.
24 Samuel
vol.
12 in the Yale Oriental Series: Babylonian Texts (
1979) 50.
25 Ibid., 50.
PRICE:
ROSH: AN ANCIENT LAND KNOWN TO EZEKIEL 71
of Sulalum,26 Resh-Irra,27 Resh-Marduk
son of Ipqu-Amurru,28 Resh-
Nabium,29 Resh-Shamash,30 Resh-Shubula son of Ibn-Adad,31 Resh-
Sin,32 and Resh-Zababa.33
Rosh
Mentioned Twenty Times as a Place Name
The place name Rosh (or its phonetic equivalents
in the respec-
tive languages) was found
three times in the LXX, ten times in
Sargon's
inscriptions, once on Assurbanipal's cylinder, once
in Sen-
nacherib's annals, and five times
on Ugaritic tablets--a total of twenty
references in five different sources. The following
sections list the
references.
Rosh in the LXX. The LXX translates Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1 as
a@rxonta Rwj, Mosox
kai> qobel. The Greek obviously
transliterated
the Hebrew pronunciation.
Rosh in Sargon's
Inscriptions. Various inscriptions of
Sargon
mention the
follows.
(1)
The Annals of Sargon (year 12, 11. 228-316):
Til-Hamba, Dunni-Shamshu, Bube, Hamanu, strong cities in
the
(array) and entered
Bit-Imbi.34
(2)
Sargon's Display Inscription:
In
the might and power of the great gods, my lords, . . .
I cut
down all my foes. . . the
lands of Ellipi and Rashi
which are on the
Elamite border on the banks of
the Tigris.35
(3)
Sargon's Display Inscription of Salon XIV:
In
the might of Assur, Nabu
and Mardu, the great gods, my lords,
who sent forth my weapons,
I cut down all my enemies . . . the lands of
26 Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents, 73.
27 Ibid., 73.
28 Feigin,
Legal and Administrative Texts, 50.
29 Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents, 73.
30 A popular name, listed 3 times by Feigin, Legal and
Administrative Texts, 50,
and 3 times by Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents, 73.
31 Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts, 50.
32 Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents, 73.
33 Ibid.,73.
34 Luckenbill,
Historical Records of
35 Ibid., 26.
72
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Rashi and Ellipi
which are on the Elamite frontier, the Arameans who
dwell on the banks of the
Rashu is also mentioned as a place name in the
following additional
inscriptions of Sargon: (a) Sargon's
Bull Inscription,37 (b) Sargon's
Pavement
Inscription (mentioned 5 times),38 and (c)
Sargon's Cylinder
Inscription.39
Rosh in Assurbanipal's Texts. The
in Assurbanipal's Texts
on the Rassam cylinder, the eighth campaign
against
In my
eighth campaign, at the command of Assur and Ishtar, I
mustered my troops, (and) made
straight for Ummanaldasi, king of
time I captured (together
with) the
Manamu with its (surrounding)
district.40
Rosh in
Sennacherib’s Annals.
The
in the annals of Sennacherib:
First
year of Nergalushezib: . . . One year and 6 months
was
Nergalushezib king
in
day, his people made a
rebellion against Hallashu, king of Elan, . . .
and killed him. . . Afterward
Sennacherib marched down to
and destroyed. . . (the country) from the
Bit-Burnaki.41
(Rishi is the
equivalent of Reshu.)
Rosh in Ugaritic Literature. The Ugaritic
literature mentions
people of the
(Text
1337)42
(1) mit.tlt.mbhrm
(1) One-hundred (and)
three deficit
(2) ‘l nsk. kttglm (2) against the metal smith
of Kttglm.
(3) arb’
m.tlt mhsrm (3) Forty-three deficit
(4) mtb’l.risy
(4) (against) Motbaal the Reshite
36 Ibid., 41.
37 Ibid., 45-47;
the Akkadian text spells the name ra-a-si. See D. G. Lyon, Keil-
schrifttexte Sargon s Konig von Assyirien (reprint;
Deutschen Demokratischen
Republik, 1977) 14, 42 ,93.
38 Luckenbill, Historical Records of
39 Ibid., 60-62;
Lyon, Keilschrifttexte, 2.
40 Luckenbill,
Historical Records of
41 ANET, 302.
42 Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 240.
PRICE:
ROSH: AN ANCIENT LAND KNOWN TO EZEKIEL 73
(9) bms.mnt.tlt
(9) five minas.
Three
(10) ‘l mtn.risy (10) against Motan the Reshite.43
(Text
2078) 44
(1) rism.qnum
(1) The Reshites: Qanum
(2) bn
ilrs (2)
the son of Ilrash
(3) etc. (3) etc.
(Text
2027) also a list of Reshites.45
(Text
2079) also a list of Reshites.46
(Text
2095)47
(1) li.mat.lim.kbdsmn
(1) Six hundred sixty kubdas of oil
(2) l.abrm.altyy
(2) for Abram the
Cypriote.
(3) mit.tltm.kbd.smn
(3) One hundred thirty kubdas of oil
(4) l.abrm
msrm (4)
for Abram of Egypt.
(5) mitm.arb’m.tmn.kbd
(5) Two hundred forty-eight kubdas
(6) l.sbrdnm
(6) for the men
of
(7) mit.l.bn.’zmt.risy
(7) One hundred for Ben Azmot the
Reshite.
(8) etc. (8) etc.
These references to Rosh (Rashu
/ Reshu) demonstrate that it was
a well-known land in antiquity on the banks of
the
bordering on
George C. Cameron, the noted historian of early
the land as "the Rashi
tribe of Arameans, well known to the Assy-
rians from Sargon onward and
located in the mountains east of Der,
where was its capital, Bit Imbi.”48 Other
of its prominent cities were
Hamanu, Bube, Bit Bunakki, and Bit Arrabi.49
The cumulative effect of the preceding is that
Rosh was a well
known place. The next section demonstrates that the
word wxro, is
most probably not an adjective in Ezek 38:2, 3 and
39:1.
43 Translations of the Ugaritic
materials are my own.
44 Gordon. Ugartic Textbook, 22*.
45 Ibid., 10*.
46 Ibid., 23*.
47 Ibid., 25*.
48 George C. Cameron. History of Early
1936) 116.
49 Ibid., 200.
74
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
SYNTACTICAL ARGUMENTS
Contrary to the objection of Simons, the absence
of a conjunc-
tion between wxr, and j`x,m, does not make it
impossible for wxro, to be "
a place name. On the other hand, the fact that
the word xyWin; (prince)
is a construct noun does make it extremely
doubtful that wxro is an
adjective (chief)."
Missing Conjunction is
Inconsequential
Although it is customary for Hebrew to use
conjunctions between
all the words in a series, it is not mandatory.
Many exceptions to the
rule are found. After giving the previously noted
rule of polysyndeton
in Hebrew, Gesenius
cited the exception, "Sometimes, however, only
the last two words are joined."50 Examples
are found in Gen 5:32
(tp,yA-tx,v;
MHA-tx, Mwe-tx, Hano dl,Oy.va / 'And Noah begot Shem,
Ham, and
Japheth'),
Gen
Abram,
Nahor, and
livestock, in silver, and in gold '). This exception
corresponds exactly
to the syntax of Ezek 38:2, 3; 39: 1; consequently
wxro, can be a noun
in a series without violating normal conventions
of Hebrew grammar.
Hebrew Syntax Expects wxro
to Be a Name
If wxro is regarded as a name,
then the syntax of the passage is in
keeping with the normal conventions of Hebrew
grammar. In this
case, the construct noun xyWin; ('prince of') is
followed by a compound
nomen rectum consisting of a series of three names (Rosh, Meshech,
and Tubal). Although
Hebrew avoids lengthy series of coordinate
genitives depending on one nomen regens, numerous examples are
found in the Bible of short series of closely related
words.51 Examples
are found in Gen 14:19 ("Possessor of heaven
and earth"), Gen 28:5
("the mother of Jacob and Esau"), Exod
of Isaac, and of Jacob"),52 Num
20:5 ("a place of grain or figs or
vines or pomegranates"), 1 Sam 23:7 ("a town
of gates and bars"), Ps
8:2
("the mouth of babes and infants"), and Isa 22:5 ("a day of
trouble and treading down and perplexity").
These examples demonstrate that regarding wxro as a name con-
forms with known conventions of biblical Hebrew.
However, the next
section demonstrates that regarding wxro as an adjective does not
so
conform.
50 GKC. 154a; note other
examples at Gen 10:1, 14:1, 30:39; Jer
51 GKC. 128a.
52 Note the absence of the
conjunction between" Abraham" and "Isaac."
PRICE:
ROSH: AN ANCIENT LAND KNOWN TO EZEKIEL 75
Syntax Rejects wxro as an Adjective
If wxro is regarded as an
adjective, a syntactical anomaly re-
sults. One of the fundamental
principles of Hebrew grammar is not
observed--a word normally does not intervene
between a construct
noun and its nomen rectum.
Joshua Blau stated the basic principle of
this convention of nonintervention, "Nothing
must intervene between
the construct and the nomen rectum. Accordingly, even an adjective
attribute of the construct has to come after the nomen rectum.”53
As this convention applies to the words "lbAtuv; j`w,m, wxro
xyWin; of
Ezek
38:2, 3; 39:1, it indicates that it is quite unlikely for the adjective