Did John misread the Septuagint?

Question

The Book of Revelation implies that Gog and Magog are nations:

8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle...

Ezekiel, meanwhile, gives us no reason to doubt that Gog is a person from Magog. He is "of Magog" and "a "chief prince." The whole chapter speaks to him as a person, not a nation alongside Magog.

I've heard that the Revelator treats Gog like that because he was referencing an error in the Septuagint:

2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch and Thobel, and prophesy against him...

The LXX says "Gog and Magog" rather than "Gog of Magog." How can we understand this, given our belief that Christ dictated the book?

Answer 1

Factor 1: Person and Place

Magog is a person

• “Japheth’s sons: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.” (Genesis 10:2 CSB17)
• “The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.” (1 Chronicles 1:5 NIV11-GKE)

Magog is a place

• “<1> The word of the LORD came to me: <2> “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshek and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:1–2 NIV11-GKE)
• “I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD.” (Ezekiel 39:6 NIV11-GKE)

Conclusion 1

One of the typical features of OT literature is that the person is also linked in with the place and people that follow. Israel is both the son of Isaac and the place/land where the descendants of Israel would later live. And, so that we're clear, this is also true of Gog. The name refers to both a person and a place (cf. Ez 38:2, 39:6; 1 Ch 1:5). We see this pattern especially in the table of nations in Genesis 10, where, as the people spread out across the world, first Moses uses the name. But then, at the same time the name is used for a geographic area.

So limiting the prophetic perspective to just a person (both in Ezekiel and in Revelation) is not in keeping with how the biblical authors speak. The names refer to both a person and a place.

Factor 2: LXX vs. MT

The Hebrew for the verse in Ezekiel reads:

• ”בֶּן־אָדָ֗ם שִׂ֤ים פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ אֶל־גּוֹג֙ אֶ֣רֶץ הַמָּג֔וֹג נְשִׂ֕יא רֹ֖אשׁ מֶ֣שֶׁךְ וְתֻבָ֑ל וְהִנָּבֵ֖א עָלָֽיו“ (Ezekiel 38:2 HMT-W4)
• "Son of man, place your face towards/against Gog, land of Magog, prince of head of Meshek and Tubal, and prophecy against him."

The challenge is what to do with the phrase, "Gog, land of Magog." With the way the Masoretes point the text, they lead us to conclude that the phrase is explicative/epexegetical/appositional: "Gog, that is, the land of Magog." Jerome goes that same direction in his Vulagate: "“fili hominis pone faciem tuam contra Gog terram Magog” (Ezekiel 38:2 VULG-T)". The Greek and Syriac include the word, "and" (instead of "of):

• “Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ” (Ezekiel 38:2 LXXS-T)
• ”ܒܪܢܫܐ݂. ܣܝܡ ܐ̈ܦܝܟ ܥܠ ܓܘܓ ܘܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܡ݁ܓܘܓ.“ (Ezekiel 38:2 PESHOT-T)

This might seem like a difference and difficulty. The problem, though, is in both Greek and in Syriac, they can use the copulative ("and") in apposition. In other words, "and" in both of these languages can mean, "Gog, that is, Magog." The Greek Grammar, BDF speaks of this feature this way:

(5) THE ARTICLE WITH APPOSITIVES

268.

(1) Appositives with proper names take the article if a well-known person is to be distinguished from others with the same name: Ἰωάνης ὁ βαπτιστής,

(F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Accordance electronic ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 140.)

Likewise, concerning the so-called Epexegetical Kai, BDF writes:

(9) Καί ‘that is to say . . .’ (epexegetical καὶ), e.g. Jn 1:16 καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

(F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Accordance electronic ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 228.)

Conclusion 2

There is no data to prove that John is misquoting the LXX or even the MT. John's grammar and usage in this verse falls completely in line with both Hebrew and Greek usage.

What is John citing?

There is the assumption here that John is quoting the LXX. But John does not need to quote the LXX. He can simply allude to the OT in general and let the reader pile up all the references to that name/place on his own. This, in fact is a common feature of the Apocalypse. More than one pastor has said in his time that there's a reason that Revelation is the last book. John assumes that before reading the Revelation of John, he will have read and absorbed the gospel of John and the epistles of John thoroughly. And, for my own part, in tackling the Revelation of John, I conclude that that is a low bar. For John alludes to the OT very often and without direct citations.

Conclusion 3

The question above assumes that John is quoting the LXX. There is no evidence that he is quoting the LXX at all. And since there is no proof, John could have been referring to both Gog and Magog (as most English translations render the verse)

Final Conclusion

• Gog/Magog can be both a name and a place
• "And" can either be copulative ("and") or explicative ("that is...")
• If one limits what John is writing, there needs to be a justification to do so. And here, especially in Revelation, there is none. So it's best to leave some flexibility in translation.

Answer 2

καὶ ἐξελεύσεται πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν ταῖς τέσσαρσι γωνίαις τῆς γῆς, τὸν Γὼγ καὶ Μαγώγ, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, ὧν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης.

Revelation 20:8
Westcott and Hort 1881

As per usual, Rotherham is quietly careful with this :

... and will go forth to deceive the nations that are in the four corners of the earth, the Gog and Magog, to gather them together unto the battle––the number of whom, is as the sand of the sea.

Revelation 20:8 Rotherham

I have to assume that John, like you and I, also would have been at least aware of :

υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐπὶ Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ ἄρχοντα Ρως Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ καὶ προφήτευσον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν

Ezekiel 38:2 LXX

Son of man, Set thy face against, Gog, of the land of the Magog, Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal,––And prophesy concerning him ...

Ezekiel 38:2 Rotherham

In other words, τὸν Γὼγ καὶ Μαγώγ - the Gog ... and Magog, is faithful to the septuagint Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ - Gog ... of the land of the Magog, and ultimately, the original hebrew.

And, btw, the greek in Revelation is ultimately how it appears in Ezekiel at any rate :

'... τὸν Γὼγ καὶ Μαγώγ ...'

'... Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ ...'

Answer 3

A cursory answer is that it is not a quote of Ezekiel, because there are different things being clarified. Ezekiel is clarifying who Gog is or where Gog is — “Gog, the land of Magog.” But Revelation clarifies who or where the nations in reference are — “the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog.”

Furthermore, in the Old Testament Magog does not solely refer to a land. Magog is a son of Japheth, just as Meshech and Tubal (Genesis 10:2 and 1 Chronicles 1:5). So he is a person, and talked of as a person in the Hebrew bible. But similar to Israel, his name seems to have become synonymous with his land by the time of Ezekiel.

However, it could also be the opposite. Magog can mean “Land of Gog” but it can also mean “From Gog.” So possibly Magog the son of Japheth is named after a place called Gog, possibly in the Caucasus region.

Another (lesser?) possibility is that Gog is a shortened form of Magog. If Ma’Gog means “Of or From Gog” then it seems not unlikely to shorten a name down to simply Gog.

Magog was clearly a person in Genesis, and possibly the land was named after Magog. This is not uncommon. It is similar to how Israel was a person (Jacob), but Israel also refers to a geographical location called Israel then and now (“throughout all the coasts of Israel . . .” 1 Kings 1:3). Also, Moab a son of Lot would later have his land called after him (“called his name Moab” Gen. 19:37; “The border of Moab“ Numbers 21:11, 13).

To say, Gog and Magog in Revelation seem to be more for clarification as to which nations, or in what lands those nations are more than anything resembling a direct quote of Ezekiel. Revelation hearkens back to Ezekiel, but maybe the Revelator also chose to hearken back to Genesis 10 as well.

Also, keep in mind that the Bible does not have to follow 21st-century rules or the Chicago Manual of Style to be accurate. It may have been an all-encompassing choice to say, “Gog and Magog.” Styles and rules of grammar are different in different societies, but because this was not set up as a direct quote (something like “Ezekiel says, ‘Gog and Magog will . . .’”) then it is difficult to make it a contradiction. Ezekiel may say, “Gog, the land of Magog” and so clarifies which land; but Revelation says “the nations” and then clarifies “Gog and Magog.” So each writer is clarifying something different, and one would think for different audiences, thus negating contradiction.

In addition, Gog may represent the spiritual principality and power over the region, perhaps once a local geographical power that eventually spread in all four cardinal directions of the earth by the time of Revelation’s prophecy.

Source: Who Are Gog and Magog in the Bible & What’s So Evil about the North?

Answer 4

These uses are personifications of the simplest forms of language and represent "Me" and "Mine". Gog and the Land of Magog is a way of saying it was a land of beings that believed in "Me" and "Mine".

"8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle..."

"and will go out and deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth - Me and Mine - to gather them for battle."

This is a signification of rulership.

"2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch and Thobel, and prophesy against him..."

"2 Son of man, set thy face against "Me", and the land of "Mine", Rhos, prince of Mesoch and Thobel, and prophesy against him..."

This is a statement of what what they are against which is the selfish me (Gog) and mine (Magog).

"“Japheth’s sons: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.” (Genesis 10:2 CSB17)

Japheth is a concept with sub-parts. There are 7 names listed which makes me think these might be correlated with the 7 deadly sins with Gog and Magog being Greed. Greed is listed as the second deadly sin which is also reflective of "Me" and "Mine".

If they are considered divine entities then Gog from Magog is a representation that the son comes from the divine mother who therefore must be primary. If you want to know who thinks they are in charge, it is Gog and their corollary Magog.

In other tellings the names became Sodom and Gomorrah.