Gog and Magog: Contributions toward a World History of an Apocalyptic Motif [17, 1 ed.] 9783110720150, 9783110720235, 9783110720242

Citation preview

Gog and Magog

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – Tension, Transmission, Transformation

Edited by Patrice Brodeur, Alexandra Cuffel, Assaad Elias Kattan, Katrin Kogman-Appel and Georges Tamer

Volume 17

Gog and Magog

Contributions toward a World History of an Apocalyptic Motif Volume 1 Edited by Georges Tamer, Andrew Mein, and Lutz Greisiger

ISBN 978-3-11-072015-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-072023-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-072024-2 ISSN 2196-405X Library of Congress Control Number: 2023938967 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Dr. Julia Eva Wannenmacher (5.5.1966–26.10.2019) in memoriam

Acknowledgments The contributions in the present book are based on papers presented at two conferences on this topic. The conference “Apocalyptic Otherness: ‘They are Gog and Magog, gathered together for Battle’. Scyths, Arabs, or the US-Army?” which took place on February 14–16, 2018, in Erlangen was generously funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The second conference “Politics – History – Eschatology: Functional, Inter(con)textual Structural and Comparative Approaches to Gog and Magog” on September 23–25, 2019, also in Erlangen, was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the Universitätsbund and the Interdisciplinary Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (IZEMIR) of the Friedrich-Alexander-University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg and the Leibniz-Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung, Berlin. The preparation of the publication was financially supported by the Chair of Oriental Philology and Islamic Studies at the FAU. My sincere gratitude goes to all sponsors. This publication shows that this support was worthwhile. Ms. Ariadne Papageorgiou was instrumental in the organization of both conferences. Mr. Ramy Abdin was responsible for the organization of the second conference. The contributions to the two volumes were carefully prepared for publication by Ms. Valerie Jandeisek. I would like to thank them all at this point, also on behalf of Andrew Mein and Lutz Greisiger. The sparking idea that it is necessary to deal with Gog and Magog in an interdisciplinary way arose in a conversation between Julia Eva Wannenmacher and myself at the International Consortium for Research in the Humanities “Fate, Freedom and Prognostication” at the University Erlangen-Nürnberg. That she could not live to see the fruits of our exchange gathered in this book continues to fill me with sadness. In recognition of her contributions to the study of apocalyptic motifs and to keep her memory alive, this book is dedicated to her. Erlangen, in August 2023 Georges Tamer

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720235-202

Contents Volume 1 Acknowledgments 

 VII

Georges Tamer Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 1

Agustí Alemany Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 23

David Engels “Impenetrable, Physical, Tall, Powerful, Beautiful?” Comparative Considerations on the Imperial Border Walls of the Ancient World (Sumer, Egypt, Assyria, China, Rome, Iran)   55 Susanne Talabardon Gog from Magog: A Supporting Actor in the End Time Restitution 

 83

Mark Dickens Gog and Magog in Syriac Literature I: Literature Unconnected to the Alexander Legend Prior to Michael the Syrian   105 Helen Spurling The Reception of Gog and Magog in Jewish Traditions at the Emergence of Islam   133 Mark Dickens Gog and Magog in Syriac Literature II: Literature Connected to the Alexander Legend Prior to Michael the Syrian   153 James T. Palmer Gog and Magog between Exegesis and Prophecy in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries CE   211 Wolfram Brandes Gog & Magog in Byzantium – A Pessimistic Story 

 227

X 

 Contents

Charles G. Häberl The Enclosed Nations of Mandæan Lore 

 243

David Cook Gog and Magog in Islam: A Permanent Geographic Problem 

 277

Mark Dickens Gog and Magog in Syriac Literature III: Literature from Michael the Syrian to the Modern Era   289 Julia Eva Wannenmacher Hide and Seek with a Monster: Gog and Other Antichrists in Joachim of Fiore’s Eschatology   329 Matthias Kaup Gog et Magog nondum sunt in orbe nec umquam fuerunt. – John of Rupescissa, the Hardened Dregs of the Next Antichrist and Christian Self-Criticism   339 Hans-Christian Lehner The Formation of the Gog/Magog-Concept and Its Use in Medieval Latin Historiography (until 1200)   403 Florian Kragl Het ez sant Peter getan, / Ez wer wünders mehr dann vil. Alexander, Gog und Magog in der (deutschen) Literatur des Mittelalters   421 Peter K. Klein Von Riesen und Rittern zum islamischen Feind. Gog und Magog in der mittelalterlichen Apokalypse-Illustration   457 Felicitas Schmieder Gog and Magog as Geographical Realities in Late Medieval Latin Europe  Matthias Riedl Gog and Magog or Allies? The Perception of the Ottoman Empire in Martin Luther and Thomas Müntzer   507

 495

Contents 

 XI

W. Sasson Chahanovich Alexander and Gog and Magog in Ottoman Illustrated Texts: Presenting the Pādişāh as the End-Times’ World Sovereign in an Age of Eschatological Enthusiasm   533 Andrew Mein From Turk to Tyrant: Gog in Seventeenth-Century English Ezekiel Commentary   575

Volume 2 Majid Daneshgar Gog and Magog in Malay-Indonesian Islamic Exegetical Works  Todd Lawson Yaʾjūj and Maʾjūj in the Báb’s Qayyūm al-Asmāʾ 

 597

 617

Ian Richard Netton Towards a Comparative and Literary Anthropology of Force and Chaos: Gog and Magog with Particular Reference to Kitāb al-Fitan by Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād al-Marwazī (d.229/844) and The Tower of London by William Harrison Ainsworth (1805–1882)   629 Gadi Sagiv Gog and Magog in Hasidism: Actualizing, Spiritualizing, and Marginalizing the Evil that Precedes Redemption   651 Ellinor Morack “The Climate Will Change Again and Yeʾcüc and Meʾcüc Will Leave Their Places”: Gog and Magog in Two Late Ottoman Texts   669 Tiborc Fazekas “I Am the Son of Gog and Magog.” Assuming the Role of Destroyer and Renovator in a Programmatic Poem by Endre Ady (1906)   701 Jörn Happel Asian Horsemen, Bolshevik Monsters. Europe’s Primal Fear of the East 

 715

XII 

 Contents

Christian Zolles The Enemy within: A Structural Approach to the Transmission of the Motif of Gog and Magog into the Modern Dialectics of Internationalization and Nationalization   743 Dustin Atlas Outside, Over There: Buber’s Gog and Magog and Why He Told Stories about Evil   767 Ramy Abdin The Faces of Gog and Magog in Islam 

 787

Yaakov Ariel Awaiting the Battle of Gog and Magog: Christians, Jews, and the Yearning for Apocalyptic Times   819 Nader El-Bizri with Zeinab Mirza Gog and Magog in Muslim Teleological Eschatology: Traditional Islamic Narrations and Modern Islamist Politicizations   843 Anna Ayşe Akasoy Narrative Subordination: Comparative Approaches to Gog and Magog as Literary Figures   865 Marina Dessau GOG/MAGOG. A Disinformation Campaign 

 877

Lutz Greisiger “Russia is a Gog”: Scenes from a German Tradition  Bibliography  Index 

 959

 1047

List of Contributors 

 1069

 913

Georges Tamer

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds The present two-volume publication has emerged out of two conferences on Gog and Magog.1 A major concern of both conferences was to trace the development of this pair of apocalyptic figures and to analyze, as far as possible, the various manifestations they have taken in Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other related traditions as well as in arts, literatures and cultures influenced by them. From the Bible to the Qurʾān, and from ancient Greek myths to medieval European folklore up to contemporary popular culture, the motif of Gog and Magog has taken on different meanings and interpretations related to the context in which it has been used, while retaining certain essential others. Furthermore, Gog and Magog are strikingly to be found also in present-day politics and journalism in East and West. How did this apocalyptic motif develop in the Near East throughout history and move from there into other contexts? Which function has it played respectively in the various sources? What are the mechanisms by which such an ancient motif is still able to exert influence on the political activities of major powers in the 21st century? These and other questions motivated the interdisciplinary investigation of Gog and Magog, which resulted in this book. Before discussing them and putting them in relation to the studies included herein, I will briefly present basic, deeply influential texts on the subject in the holy scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Synopsis of Images and Descriptions The roots of the Gog and Magog motif lie in the ancient Orient.2 It first appears in the Hebrew Bible. In Genesis 10:2 and the First Book of Chronicles 1:5, Magog is a son of Japheth, son of Noah. In 1 Chronicles 5:1–4, Gog descends from Reuben, the

1 The conference “Apocalyptic Otherness: ‘They are Gog and Magog, gathered together for Battle’. Scyths, Arabs, or the US Army?”, organized by myself and my late colleague Julia Eva Wannenmacher, took place on February 14–16, 2018, at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in Erlangen. The second conference “Politics – History – Eschatology: Functional, Inter(con)textual Structural and Comparative Approaches to Gog and Magog” took place on September 23–25, 2019, also in Erlangen, and was organized by the two of us and Lutz Greisiger who was significantly involved in the conceptual and communicative preparation of the second meeting. 2 Cf. Agustí Alemany’s illuminating study below. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720235-001

2 

 Georges Tamer

firstborn of Israel. Gog and Magog are, according to these passages, decedents of Adam. However, it is not clear from this whether they are human or humanoid – a reason for numerous speculations in the exegetical literature. Nevertheless, Gog and Magog later lose human features. In the Book of Ezekiel 38:2, the prophet is commanded to set his face against Gog, who is in the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him. Gog is portrayed in Ezekiel 38–39 as an eschatological enemy who is coming from the dark north as the opposite of the south, the homeland of the prophet and his people.3 In Ezekiel 39:6, Magog also seems to be the name of a place. According to the prophecy, Gog and Magog will be defeated by God, and their armies will be destroyed. From here onwards, this idea of Gog and Magog as a representation of evil and destruction has been a recurring theme. It is in the early Christian Book of Revelation, chapter 20, verse 8, that Gog and Magog are paired as apocalyptic peoples which shall gather to battle: “the number of whom is as the sand of the sea” – an extended version of the apocalyptic motif from the Book of Ezekiel, now applied to the new people of God, the followers of Jesus Christ. It is a vision of the end times in which Satan is released from his prison and leads Gog and Magog in an attack against God’s people. Gog and Magog are depicted as nations that will gather for battle against the people of God, but they will be consumed by fire from heaven. This vision is often interpreted as a symbolic description of the ultimate conflict between good and evil, and the defeat of Gog and Magog as representing the triumph of God’s kingdom over the forces of darkness. In early Christian exegetical works, Gog and Magog are either allegorically regarded as the last manifestation of the Corpus diaboli before the Day of Judgement, or identified with real historical enemies. The apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelation has inspired numerous artists and writers throughout history, who have depicted Gog and Magog as monstrous creatures or evil spirits that represent the forces of chaos and destruction. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d. ca. 100 AD) mentions Magog as a descendant of Noah and states that the Greeks called the Magogites “Scythians”.4 According to Josephus, the Scythians “inhabiting at the Lake Meotis” – nowadays the Sea of Azov, between Russia and Ukraine, north to the Black Sea – planned to

3 In Septuagint manuscripts, Gog seems to be confused with Og, the mythological king of Bashan. He represents “the evil darkness of the north and personifies the powers hostile” to God: J. Lust, “Gog,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. v. d. Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. v. d. Horst, 2nd extensively revised edition (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 373f. 4 Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 6, No. 123, in The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, new updated edition, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987, 24th printing 2011): 36.

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 3

fall “upon Media [a region of north-western Iran] and the parts beyond it, in order to plunder them; with which intention they treated with the king of Hyrcania [a historical region south-east of the Caspian Sea in modern-day Iran and Turkmenistan]; for he was master of that passage which king Alexander shut up with iron gates. This king gave them leave to come through them; so they came in great multitudes, and fell upon the Medes unexpectedly, and plundered their country [. . .] while nobody durst make any resistance against them”.5 Probably in this passage, the roots of mingling Gog and Magog with Alexander the Great can be found.6 In the Qurʾān, Gog and Magog, called “Yājūj wa-Mājūj” or “Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj”, appear twice. The presumably earlier appearance is in the Surah of the Prophets, Q 21:96f. It says that the “true promise” of the Day of Judgement will have been “drawn near” when Gog and Magog “are unloosed, and they slide down out of every slope”. They belong to the signs of the Hour. We are told more about them in Surah 18 al-Kahf, 83–101, where they are embedded in the story of Alexander the Great. Dhū l-Qarnayn, the Two Horned, as Alexander the Great is called in the Qurʾān, is asked by “a people scarcely able to understand speech” (Q 18:94) to build a wall keeping Gog and Magog behind it, in order to prevent them from sowing corruption on earth. Alexander builds the wall and keeps Gog and Magog behind it, until “the Lord’s promise comes to pass” (Q 18:98). The story of Gog and Magog is also mentioned in several Hadiths, sayings of Prophet Muhammad. There these apocalyptic figures are among the ten great signs of the approaching end times. A battle between Jesus and his followers, on the one hand, and Gog and Magog, on the other, is also anticipated. Jesus’ final victory over them is possible only after God’s intervention. However, there are Hadiths that convey Muhammad’s concern about the imminent appearance of Gog and Magog.7 Representative for the treatment of Gog and Magog in Qurʾānic exegesis is the extensive work of aṭ-Ṭabarī (d. 923 AD). In his interpretation of Q 18:94, he reports that there are three kinds of Gog and Magog: the first is as tall as a cedar, the second is as broad as they are tall, and the third can cover their body with one ear and lie on the other. He says that Dhū l-Qarnayn explored their country and saw that their

5 Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 7, Chapter 7, Nr. 4 (244–246), The Works of Josephus: 762. 6 For later sources attesting the three elements of this narrative: Gog and Magog as ethnically identifiable, Alexander as the builder of a barrier against them, and their end-time invasion of the civilized world, cf. Lutz Greisiger, “Opening the Gates of the North in 627: War, Anti-Byzantine Sentiment and Apocalyptic Expectancy in the Near East Prior to the Arab Invasion,” in Peoples of the Apocalypse: Eschatological Beliefs and Political Scenarios, ed. Rebekka Voss, Wolfram Brandes, Felicitas Schmieder (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016): 63–79, esp. 63–67. 7 Cf. Ramy Abdin’s article for further details on this topic.

4 

 Georges Tamer

length is half that of an average man, but that males and females are equally tall. They have claws instead of fingernails, their teeth are like those of a predator, their gums are as strong as a camel’s, and they grind their teeth when they chew. They foresee their own death; no male will die until he has fathered a thousand children, and no female until she has given birth to the same number; they mate like animals. Aṭ-Ṭabarī offers several descriptions of the eschatological scenario featuring Gog and Magog. One of them is as follows: every day they scrape away at the barrier until they can almost see the sun shining through it, or until the sound of their axes can be heard by their neighbors on the other side. When they are about to break through, their foreman tells them to go back and finish the work the next day. But each night, after they have gone, God rebuilds the barrier, making it stronger than before. Only when their foreman adds “in shāʾa llāh” (God willing) are they able to dig their way through. After that, Gog and Magog will spread over the earth. When they march, their vanguard will be in Syria and their rear in Iraq. They cover the earth, eat everything they find, and drink the waters of the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Sea of Tiberias. They also kill countless people. People and animals take refuge in fortresses. When Gog and Magog reach Jerusalem, they think they have destroyed life on earth. Then they shoot arrows into the sky, and when they fall back stained with blood, they think they have destroyed the sky as well. Then God, through the intercession of Jesus, sends down worms that enter their noses and ears, come out at their necks, and kill them. Their bodies are eaten by the beasts or, according to other traditions, carried into the sea by the rain that purifies the earth.8 This is briefly how Gog and Magog are described in the authoritative writings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These are only a few statements about their location, their function as apocalyptic figures in the eschatology of these traditions and their identification as fearsome peoples who must be defeated if peace is to finally come, but whose defeat is possible only through ultimate divine intervention. These complex depictions of an elusive apocalyptic motif have fired the imagination of writers and artists in East and West for centuries. Hardly any culture is without its own repertoire of creative representations of Gog and Magog. Numerous examples are presented and analyzed in the studies included in this book. Many more can be added. The corpus of testimonies of Gog and Magog is boundless, unmanageable, endless. It encourages researchers to look into it further. Most striking, however, are the diverse political functions assigned to Gog and Magog throughout history. They have been used to refer to nations or empires that are seen as threats to other nations or empires. During the Cold War, the Soviet

8 https://www.altafsir.com/ (last accessed 20 July 2023).

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 5

Union was often referred to as Gog and Magog by some Christian groups, who saw it as a godless nation that was intent on destroying the Western world. Some Islamic scholars have identified Gog and Magog with various nations throughout history, including the Mongols and the Turks. In some political contexts, Gog and Magog have been used to refer to the Western powers, who are seen as a threat to Islamic countries and the Islamic way of life.9 Nevertheless, Gog and Magog, defeated and disciplined, can also act, in English folklore, as protective giants, as is interestingly the case in London.10 In Western literature, Gog and Magog have been used as symbols of chaos and destruction. In medieval Europe, they were often depicted as giants who were locked up in a cave and would be released at the end of the world to wreak havoc. In 16th-century Europe, Gog and Magog were widely identified with the Ottomans, who were seen as a threat to the Christian world.11 In more recent times, the names Gog and Magog have been used in the political discourse to refer to nations or groups that are seen as enemies of the West. For example, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush referred to the terrorist threat from the Middle East as Gog and Magog, suggesting that they were part of a larger, apocalyptic struggle between good and evil.12 Muslim caricaturists, for instance in their interpretations of everyday politics during the Iraq war, portrayed British and American soldiers as Gog and Magog. On the other hand, representatives of various Christian denominations made use of the same motif when they portrayed Gog and Magog in the figure of the ISIS fighter in their sermons. In both cases, the respective prophecies and their exegeses are given a strong contemporary relevance. With the declaration of the antagonist as eschatological enemy, one’s campaign becomes a divine mission, justified as the righteous struggle of God’s chosen people to be led securely to the end of time, and to heaven. With this declaration, apocalypticism becomes politics. The studies included in this two-volume book reflect the diversity of depictions and interpretations of Gog and Magog. Their scope is broad, as Gog and Magog, the “nations which are in the four quarters of the earth” (Rev 20:8), continue to be the 9 On the political instrumentalization of Gog and Magog in different contexts see below the studies of Happel, Ariel, Bizri, Dessau and Greisiger. 10 See e.g., https://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/STELLA/STARN/prose/GALT/GOG/main.htm; https://chron icleoflondon.home.blog/2019/07/24/the-guildhall-giants-gog-and-magog/; https://exploring-london. com/2012/12/10/famous-londoners-gog-and-magog/ (last accessed 22 July 2023). 11 Cf. Andrew Mein, “The Armies of Gog, the Merchants of Tarshish, and the British Empire,” in In the Name of God. The Bible in the Colonial Discourse of Empire, ed. C. L. Crouch and Jonathan Stökl (Leiden: Brill, 2014): 133–149, as well as Riedl’s article below. 12 Stephen Spector, “Gog and Magog in the White House: Did Biblical Prophecy Inspire the Invasion of Iraq?,” Journal of Church and State 56 (2014): 534–552.

6 

 Georges Tamer

eschatological interpretation of the Other, of foreign nations and their religions as an apocalyptic foe. The authors examine the Gog and Magog motif from its ancient Near Eastern prehistory, through its origins in the writings of the Old and New Testaments, early Christian literature, medieval Latin exegesis, and further transmission in the Occident. Furthermore, the development of this motif, its reception and further development in Syriac and Islamic thought is examined, beginning with the Greek Alexander legend, continuing with the narratives in the Qurʾān and their various interpretations in Islamic theology and exegesis, along the way paying due attention also to ‘minor’ (Mandaean and Bahāʾī) religious traditions and ending with the modern age. Finally, in both strands of tradition, the Oriental and the Occidental, the links between apocalyptic and contemporary interpretation are considered: for example, the modern and even contemporary revival of the Gog and Magog motif in contemporary political theory, and the perception of the foreign in the apocalyptic worldview. Moreover, in the present two volumes we try to find out what the function of the motif is within the respective historical and socio-political context. While the usual view is largely that it serves “othering” discourses and the demonization of enemies, the embedding of Gog and Magog in the biblical narrative of universal ethnogenesis can both act as a trigger to all kinds of fantastical projection and also leave room for the motif’s application in realpolitik. There are even cases in which it functions as an element of ethnic-national self-representation (e.g. when tracing the origins of Hungarians to the Hunor and Magor of medieval Hungarian chronicles, who are often identified with Gog and Magog). A comparison of the different uses of the motif makes a generalization or a typology of its functions very difficult. Another theme that deserves further investigation is the functions of the motif within the ideological-theological and narrative context of a particular source or discourse that the source reflects. More specifically, what is the logic of the appearance of Gog and Magog within the development of eschatological events? How does it fit into the particular eschatological “timetable”? How does it relate to other events that occur in the course of the eschatological drama (the coming of the Savior, the millennial interlude, the reign of the Antichrist), and how does it relate to the other actors (the Antichrist/Armilus/the Dajjāl, the Messiah/the returning Christ/the Mahdī/the ten lost tribes of Israel/the last Roman emperor/the dābbat al-arḍ, etc.)? Can the comparative study of these functions provide a single or multiple illustrations of the use of this motif and its ideological-theological entanglement? The Gog-and-Magog motif lends itself especially to a deeper analysis of interlocking aspects of an eschatological perspective: the temporal, spatial, and ethical. Not only in the temporal, historical dimension do Gog and Magog mark an ultimate frontier (the end of history), but also in the spatial, geographical dimension (they inhabit remote regions at the edge of the earth, often beyond impenetrable bar-

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 7

riers), as well as in terms of the ethical or moral foundations of human existence (they consume “unclean” and deeply disgusting things, make entire countries uninhabitable by consuming their natural resources and reducing them to scorched earth, and commit the most heinous crimes such as infanticide, cannibalism, etc.). Given the prevalence of the Gog and Magog motif in the monotheistic traditions and their long history of conflict among themselves, it is also relevant to ask about the regularities of its transmission. Can possible patterns of adoption be discerned here? Under what conditions does the motif stand for controversy or for the symbolic representation of conflicts between Jewish, Christian, Muslim and related communities? On the other hand, is the motif applied exclusively to those who are perceived as outsiders from the internal perspective of a community that sees itself as unified? Furthermore, these aspects strongly encourage questions about the comparability of the Gog and Magog complex with similar narratives about evil in other contexts than those of the Jewish, Christian, Islamic and related traditions or supposedly secular modern contexts (hostile peoples and states, perceived internal enemies, imaginary or imagined collective threats). An important question that should be raised here is: What elements must be identifiable in a specific discourse in order to analyze it as a version of the Gog and Magog motif?

This Book The following overview of the contents of this extensive publication is intended to show how rich and fruitful the interdisciplinary study of Gog and Magog is and, moreover, how it can stimulate further study of the impact of apocalyptic ideas on the way we deal with the political and social reality. The journey begins with Agustí Alemany’s investigation of the roots of the Gog and Magog traditions. In order to explain the historical background which probably inspired Ezekiel’s prophecy on Gog and Magog, he presents the episode of the Cimmerian invasions in Assyrian sources and can show how later Near Eastern traditions have perpetuated the motif by incarnating the eschatological foe in every newcomer from the northern steppes of Eurasia. The invasion of the Cimmerians is described as “a shocking episode which left a trail of destruction and looting in the Ancient Near East which was to remain in the memory of generations to come and which became a paradigm of evil suitable for eschatological formulation.”13 Alemany explores the historical accounts about that time, striving for an identifi13 S. below p. 52.

8 

 Georges Tamer

cation of then existent ethnical groups and through this to grasp the origin of this widely spread apocalyptic motif. One of the major characteristics of Gog and Magog is that they are, since ancient times, separated from the rest of the world by a huge wall which will ultimately fall when the world comes to an end. David Engels discusses the importance of walls as imperial border fortifications which serve the protection of the civilized world from the danger of outside destructive enemies. Engels offers a comparative analysis of the great walls in human history, historically contextualizing their construction. The last one of them is the Alexander Wall which, according to the legend, holds Gog and Magog from sweeping the world – an idea which can also be found in the Qurʾān. Susanne Talabardon offers in her contribution a detailed analysis of the famous biblical passage of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38–39, elaborating the intertextual ties of this pericope with 1 Chronicles 5:4 to Genesis 10:2. According to her, the intention of the authors of these texts is to “tie the entire history of Israel (and ultimately the world) together in one great interpretative scheme.”14 “Gog from Magog” serves in this context as a supporting actor in the end time restitution of the land of Israel, which gives the dispersed people of Israel a hopeful perspective of a future safe existence. In his first contribution to this book, Mark Dickens discusses the numerous ethnic identities that were attributed to Gog and Magog in Syriac references which are not related to the Alexander Legend and the Wall. In these texts which emerged between the 4th and the 11th century, the ethnic groups identified with Gog and Magog are often bygone enemies of the Jewish people, according to the Bible. In her treatment of the reception of Gog and Magog in Jewish sources at the time of the emergence of Islam, Helen Spurling identifies the 7th and 8th centuries as a period of significant political and religious changes in the Eastern Mediterranean, in which apocalyptic thinking appears as a response to instability. Speculations about the coming of the Messiah and the eschatological events emerge in post-Talmudic rabbinic texts in which Gog and Magog are important for understanding the narratives. The second contribution of Mark Dickens in the present volume offers an analysis of the Syriac literature connected to the Alexander Legend prior to Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) by comparing the appearance of the motif in sources which originate in the time between the 7th and the 12th century. In contrast to the first contribution, the focus in this article is less on the genealogical descendance of Gog and Magog referring to Gen 10, but on the apocalyptic passages in Ezekiel’s prophecy. No reference to Gog and Magog is found in the Greek original legend of Pseudo-

14 S. below p. 104.

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 9

Callisthenes, yet it has found its way into the Syriac Alexander tradition. Obviously, the Alexander Legend influenced both Christian and Muslim authors throughout Europe and the Middle East. Dickens shows how the sources, which are written anonymously or pseudonymously, carry on or change narratives of former writings thus also influencing the ethnic identification of the people of Gog and Magog. Dealing with the heterogeneous exegesis of the apocalyptic motif of Gog and Magog in the Book of Revelation James T. Palmer focuses on the period of the 8th and 9th centuries and dedicates the first part of his contribution to a narrow description of the exegetical scene of Latin Christendom. He finds a reason for the divergent interpretations of this motif in its varying importance at different periods of time and the comparatively short reference in the book itself. In the second part, Palmer points out how the polemical Revelation of Pseudo-Methodius, which originated in Syriac literature and was available in Latin as early as the 720s, made the motif quite influential, containing the narrative of an impending threat from the geographical north. The political insecurity caused by the threat of Viking attacks as well as the intellectual and political challenge of the spread of Islam and conflicts within Christianity formed a breeding ground for the discourse of Pseudo-Methodius. Thus, Palmer evaluates the critical exegesis of Ambrosius Autpertus (d. 767) and Haimo of Auxerre (d. ca. 865), who both argue against the apocalyptic narrative, showing how textual interpretation and perception of the reality can be intertwined. Wolfram Brandes focuses on the emergence of the terminology of Gog and Magog in the Byzantine era, with particular attention to the Greek sources, and thus confronts the problem of the infrequent reference to this apocalyptic motif. Although it is rarely mentioned explicitly, it was present for entertainment through the Alexander Legend. Focusing on Greek Byzantine literature, Brandes traces the ethnic identification of Gog and Magog by theologians such as Theodore of Mopsuestia to the reappearance of the motif in a sermon by Theodore Syncellus in the 7th century, and shows that it is the apocalyptic outline of Pseudo-Methodius that unfolds it comprehensively. Finally, Brandes illustrates the growing eschatological tension around the apocalyptic motif of Gog and Magog with the approach of the year 1000 and repeated attacks by the Rus, which led to a revaluation of the importance of eschatological thinking. In his contribution, Charles G. Häberl examines the “Enclosed Nations” motif and the occurrences of Gog and Magog, differently spelled, in Mandaean literature. The Mandaeans, formerly of southern Iraq and Iran, have in recent decades been dispersed from their place of origin; they are variously identified in the sources as ancient Mesopotamian pagans, Johannine Baptists, pre- and post-Manichaeans, Judeo-Christian Nazoreans, or post-Islamic Sabians. Searching for references to Gog and Magog in their literature shows that they were familiar with this motif.

10 

 Georges Tamer

However, their interpretive narratives reflect a reversion of roles in the case of the Enclosed Nations or Unclean Peoples: The Mandeans are protected by the Barrier of Truth from the polluting influences of the material world and freely move, while the Enclosed Nations of Mandaean lore are the Others. David Cook’s contribution is devoted to tracing the interpretation of Gog and Magog in the Islamic tradition, which identifies the Qurʾānic figure of Dhū l-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, who in the Alexander Legend is said to have built the wall to fence off Gog and Magog. Of interest in the Islamic tradition has been the identification and location of Gog and Magog, as well as speculations about their likely actions after deliverance. The impossibility of giving conclusive answers to these questions has influenced the reference to Gog and Magog in modern apocalyptic literature, making it almost “an afterthought or an embarrassment,”15 and leading to the contemporary conclusion of the possibility of their earthly existence, while acknowledging the ignorance of their geographical location. The third article by Mark Dickens is dedicated to Syriac texts from Michael the Syrian to the early modern period. Its first part contains a thorough analysis of Michael the Syrian’s 12th-century World Chronicle and illustrates the integration of the two elements analyzed in the previous essays, namely the genealogical aspect of the descendants of Magog as well as prominent motifs of the Alexander Legend and the reference to Ezekiel 38–39. He identifies the Turks as descendants of Magog. A century later, Barhebraeus also identifies Gog and Magog with the Turks. However, he also applies the motif to the Mongols. Dickens considers other writings of the period, such as The Book of the Bee by Solomon of Basra. In the last part of his essay, he extends his study by looking at the literature written after the Mongol era. He concludes with Herrmann Gollancz’s 1912 publication of The Book of Protection, which dates from the 18th or 19th century. Julia Eva Wannenmacher, whose text was unfortunately completed posthumously, discusses the eschatology of Joachim of Fiore and his interpretation of Gog and Magog. He lived in Europe in the 12th century, a period which is characterized by the emergence of new theological ideas, the desire to study non-Christian traditions, and the prevailing tendency to collect and organize information. Joachim influenced his contemporaries by painting colorful schematic representations of his view of time and salvation history. For him, the eschatological events are part of history. In Joachim’s Liber figurarum, there is a picture of the dragon with seven heads, the enemy known from the biblical book of Revelation. Surprisingly, one of the heads is called “Antichrist” and the dragon’s tail is called “Gog, the last Antichrist”. In Joachim’s writings, Gog is the eschatological figure who will appear at

15 See below, p. 287.

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 11

the end of history. Unlike Ambrose of Milan, Joachim does not attribute Gog to a specific people. In his Trinitarian view of history, however, Christ and his victory are always more present than Gog and/or the Antichrist. The Antichrist is also the subject of Matthias Kaup’s chapter. He presents several apocalyptic works by the Franciscan monk John of Rupescissa, who is said to have been the best-known end-time prophet of the Middle Ages in Europe. Kaup traces the recurring engagement with Gog and Magog in Rupescissa’s work, which he innovatively calls “Gogology”. He shows the development of its central and distinctive elements and offers insight into Rupescissa’s intentions in dealing with this apocalyptic motif. Hans-Christian Lehner’s contribution has a twofold aim. First, he shows the biblical and historical development of the Gog and Magog motif. He illustrates the importance of the Christian church fathers such as Jerome, Augustine, and Isidore in spreading the concept through their exegetical works and their differing opinions on whether Gog and Magog should be related to contemporary history. Over time, the motif became associated with Alexander the Great. Lehner unfolds the second focus of his contribution, which enables an understanding of the Gog and Magog motif in medieval Christian authors until about 1200. Due to the prevailing interpretation, many medieval chroniclers identify the invading enemies with Gog and Magog, as the example of Adam of Bremen illustrates. Otto of Freising, on the other hand, does not mention Gog and Magog when considering future events. Thus, although Gog and Magog are frequently used for an apocalyptic characterization, they are not a necessary part of every eschatological inventory. For his part, Florian Kragl seeks to uncover the deep roots of the Gog and Magog motif in the German medieval tradition of the Alexander narrative. In his thorough analysis of a number of medieval texts, Kragl particularly problematizes the handling of an axiological dilemma. Gog and Magog, on the one hand, and Alexander, on the other, are antagonists in the history of salvation. Their conflict resulted in the capture of Gog and Magog by Alexander. When the texts try to maintain a rigid negative evaluation and a clear assignment of roles in the history of salvation, they run the risk of becoming entangled in axiological and theological aporia. Some texts deal with this problem by ignoring it more or less offensively. Others take it into account and thus bear witness to a reflection on this dilemma. The motif of Gog and Magog in medieval pictorial representations of the Apocalypse is the subject of Peter K. Klein’s article, in which he uses selected apocalyptic cycles to illustrate shifts in the discourse on these figures in medieval Europe. Klein explains the surprising rarity of illustrations of the apocalyptic verses of the books of Ezekiel and Revelation by the relative brevity of the verses and their “de-eschatologization” through allegorical and ecclesiological interpretation. Nevertheless, the illustrations of the verses that do exist provide significant insights, and Klein

12 

 Georges Tamer

presents a concise selection in his contribution: The 8th-century commentary of the Spanish monk Beatus, which experienced a posthumous expansion, and the French Bible moralisée, created in Paris in the 13th century, both depict Gog and Magog according to Christian tradition. The Gothic illustrations, on the contrary, shaped the further depiction of Gog and Magog, helpers of Satan, as contemporary warriors and knights until the end of the Middle Ages. Especially in English courtly texts they are embedded in knightly scenes, a tendency that also influenced the German tradition in the 13th and 14th centuries. Although ethnic connotations are not common, there are examples of them at the end of the Middle Ages. The 14th-century Hamilton Bible is an example of an ethnic demarcation recorded in images, which is indicated by the foreign-looking clothing of the warriors and the round conical heads that were often used to typify Muslims. Besides texts and images, another significant medieval medium for depicting important historical and future events was that of the Mappae Mundi, world maps designed to represent the dominant Christian worldview. Felicitas Schmieder analyzes the information presented in late medieval Mappae Mundi regarding geographies of salvation on several levels simultaneously. She identifies four levels of understanding derived from the quatuor sensus scipturae of medieval biblical interpretation, including the literal-historical, moral, allegorical, and eschatological senses. Examining a selection of such maps from the 15th century onward, Schmieder illustrates how Gog and Magog were “depicted as future helpers of the Antichrist” that were “enclosed by Alexander behind iron gates in the ‘Caspian Mountains.’”16 In his contribution, Matthias Riedl analyzes the theological implementation of the perception of the Turks in the thought of the medieval rival reformers Martin Luther and Thomas Müntzer. Both employed apocalyptic motifs in their writings, and both were interested in the role of the Turks in the unfolding of eschatological events. Both refer to the late antique reception of the story of Gog and Magog, linking it to the legend of Alexander. Riedl discusses the question of under what conditions Gog and Magog appear as adequate symbols for the forces of collective evil and under what conditions they do not. By reconstructing the guiding principles of Luther’s reform paradigms, in short, the three dogmas of sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia, Riedl aims to show that Luther’s attitude toward the Ottoman Empire was not shaped by the prevailing contemporary discourse, which under humanistic influence did not necessarily entail an attitude of antagonism against it, but was derived from his own theological principles. Müntzer, on the other hand, offers an intense eschatological thinking that anticipates the dawn of a post-

16 See below p. 501.

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 13

imperial millennium, without using the Gog and Magog motif at all. Riedl’s conclusion is that two people living under similar circumstances could develop completely different perspectives on Islam. While the previous article examined the connection of Gog and Magog with Islam in medieval and late medieval literature and art in Europe, Sasson Chahanovich’s article takes us to the Ottoman world. His aim is to illustrate the incorporation of the motif of Gog and Magog, insofar as it is associated with the Alexander Legend, into the artistic program of Ottoman propaganda and apocalyptic discourse in illustrated books published between the 15th and 17th centuries. According to Chahanovich, the central function of Gog and Magog in the Ottoman visual traditions of this period is to fulfill the urgent need to develop a new model of sovereignty in an age of eschatological enthusiasm without a centralized classical caliphal center. As the Ottomans emerged as a political superpower at the turn of the millennium in the Islamic calendar, they sought to establish a new model of political leadership and capitalized on exuberant eschatological hopes. Thus, they utilized art as a medium of political propaganda, presenting the Ottomans as God’s appointed gatekeepers of the end of time. Andrew Mein turns to England in the turbulent years of the 1640s and 1650s, when the British Isles were shaken by civil war, regicide, and republicanism. His essay examines how four commentators (Westminster Annotations, John Mayer, John Trapp, and William Greenhill) deal with Ezekiel’s Gog oracle. Common to all is that, under the influence of earlier theologians, they turn back to history and link Gog with the Seleucid kings, especially Antiochus. In the English context, however, the turn to history is supplemented by an enthusiasm for typology that allows the ancient fulfillment of prophecy in the person of Antiochus to anticipate present and future events in the Christian dispensation. In Greenhill’s work especially, Gog presents an image of the monstrous Other as the essence of tyrannical kingship. Majid Daneshgar focuses on the Islamic tradition of Gog and Magog in Malay-Indonesian Qurʾānic commentaries, whose predominantly Sunni character is a result of the conflictual situation between Muslim groups in the past. Daneshgar wants to find out whether the Malay interpretation of the Qurʾān dedicated to Gog and Magog until 1930 is an imitation or an innovation. To this end, he identifies three crucial and interrelated phases in Malay exegetical literature that illustrate the changing history of Qurʾānic exegesis and demonstrate the influence of Egyptian and Indian commentaries on the evolving thought of modern Malay-Indonesian exegetes. The correlation between exegesis and the influence of the respective school of thought leads him to conclude, with respect to Gog and Magog, that the more traditional the background, the less innovation there is in explaining the motif; the level of imitation in following the steps of earlier scholars decreases as the political nature of the concern increases.

14 

 Georges Tamer

In his article, Todd Lawson presents the depiction of Gog and Magog (Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj) in the Báb’s Qayyūm al-Asmāʾ, a commentary on the Qurʾānic sura of Joseph. Contrary to the conventional notion of these symbols representing actual tribes breaking through Alexander’s Wall to wreak havoc, the Báb, a central figure of the Bahāʾī religion, redirects the discussion to the realm of intellect. According to the Báb’s interpretation, Gog and Magog symbolize two opposing perspectives on the interplay between divine will and human action. In this early apocalyptic work, the Báb posits that Gog represents those who believe in the absolute determination of events by God, while Magog represents those who uphold humanity’s absolute freedom. Ian Netton explores two distinct works, characterized by differing styles and periods of origin. One of these works is the Arabic Kitāb al-Fitan (The Book of Tribulations) authored by Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād al-Marwazī, presumably in the 8th century, while the other is the Victorian novel The Tower of London written by William Harrison Ainsworth during the 19th century in England. By contextualizing these texts within the narrative foundation of religious proto-texts such as the Bible, the Qurʾān, and the Hadith, Netton uncovers insights into the intertextual interplay between the texts and the proto-texts. Despite the stark differences between the two works, certain parallels emerge in their use of motifs, particularly in the symbolic portrayal of Gog and Magog, albeit with distinct interpretations, especially concerning the eschatological significance of the motif. Gadi Sagiv’s essay aims to explore the significance of the narratives surrounding Gog and Magog in Hasidic Judaism. Through a meticulous examination of various works by Hasidic leaders, Sagiv uncovers three distinct approaches employed by them to interpret this mythical tale. The first approach involves the actualization of the myth by connecting it to contemporaneous events, such as the Napoleonic wars and the two World Wars. Another approach involves spiritualizing the conflict, interpreting cultural challenges such as modernity, secularism, and Zionism as adversaries. The third approach, the marginalization of the war of Gog and Magog, entails infrequent references to the motif in the teachings of Chabad leaders. Sagiv concludes that the optimistic mindset of Hasidism sometimes made the Hasidic confrontation with Gog and Magog more hopeful than the ancient apocalyptic narratives, emphasizing the need for a collective spiritual effort required of all Jews to triumph over Gog and Magog. In her contribution, Ellinor Morack delves into the late Ottoman period, providing an insightful analysis of two texts and their treatment of the motif of the Hour and Gog and Magog. The first text under scrutiny is the religious treatise titled “Yeʾcüc ve Meʾcüc” by Hüseyin al-Cisr, published around the turn of the 20th century, during a relatively peaceful era. In contrast, Hāşim Velī’s text, written in the 1910s, examines the onset of the apocalypse in light of the political instability fueled by

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 15

the Balkan Wars and the impending World War I. Morack sheds light on how the differing contextual backgrounds and the authors’ divergent approaches to the apocalyptic motif shape both writings. Al-Cisr, a conservative thinker rooted in a literal interpretation of Islamic tradition, views Gog and Magog as real individuals who will be released at a future time. On the other hand, Velī, utilizing allegories, associates the religious motif with concrete political events and deduces thereby the imminent arrival of the end times. This analysis underscores the disparity in interpreting religious motifs, even within a relatively close temporal proximity of their emergence. “I am the Son of Gog and Magog.” This striking line opens the primal poem in the poetic collection of Endre Ady, widely credited as the beginning of modern Hungarian literature, and serves as the focal point of Tiborc Fazekas’ contribution. The statement provokes an exploration into the underlying purpose behind Ady’s proclamation. Fazekas undertakes an analysis to unravel the author’s self-identification as the offspring of Gog and Magog, delving into themes of cultural heritage and national kinship, and into Hungarian historical narratives that establish a genealogical link to Magog. The richness of Ady’s poetic language, its intricate layers, and the impossibility of capturing its full range through literal translation are revealed. However, Ady’s symbolic use of Gog and Magog emerges as a response to his personal experiences and represents a shift in interpretation: rather than portraying them as enemies as they are depicted in traditional Christian writings, he presents them as a suppressed and marginalized people. Thus, Ady transcends the simplistic binary distinction between Good and Evil. Jörn Happel’s contribution deals with the intricate interplay of apocalyptic motifs in European political discourses, with a particular focus on Europe’s deepseated fear of the East as a fear of nomadic peoples. This fear found expression in Polish and German discourse, which gradually shifted its focus onto Russia, and after World War I and the October Revolution, onto the Soviet Union. Central to Happel’s analysis is a propaganda poster during the Polish-Soviet War titled “The Bolshevik Monster” which should not merely be read as the exaggerated rhetoric of war propaganda, but rather understood within the context of Polish intellectual history. The motif of the enemy depicted as a monstrous figure is closely associated with the imagery of apocalyptic horsemen, reminiscent of the images by Arnold Böcklin and Albrecht Dürer, drawing inspiration from the biblical Book of Revelation. This connection was already made by the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz in the 19th century when he associated Peter the Great with the devil. Moreover, not only the motif of the horsemen, but also the narrative of Alexander the Great found its way into political discourse. The Polish general Józef Piłsudski, positioning himself as Alexander, sought to erect a metaphorical wall against Russia. This narrative was

16 

 Georges Tamer

later appropriated by Nazi Germany, which proclaimed the construction of a literal wall against barbarism in the East. Drawing upon the theories of Michel Foucault and Yuri M. Lotman, Christian Zolles adopts a structural approach to his analysis of the Gog and Magog motif within the modern Western discourse. Lotman’s concept of the “semiosphere” serves as the foundation for understanding that every communication occurs within a specific semiotic space of a collective, shaped by a particular culture. Building upon this semiotic framework, Zolles investigates the presence of the Gog and Magog motif in the modern Western discourse, which, due to its rational orientation, is becoming increasingly detached from notions of Apocalypse. However, the tumultuous transition experienced at the turn of the century, further intensified by the impact of World War I, sparked a resurgence of apocalyptic imagery in poetic texts. Zolles first deals with two figures named Gog and Magog in Karl Kraus’ drama “The Last Days of Mankind”. Furthermore, he highlights the revival of apocalyptic imagery in Italian poetry, exemplified by Giovanni Pascoli’s poem “Gog e Magog” and Giovanni Papini’s work. These carefully selected examples illustrate the use of the biblical narrative of Gog and Magog within the contemporary political contexts of the authors. By incorporating post-structuralist thinking into the analysis, Zolles aims to provide insights into how new approaches to pre-modern apocalyptic “counter-conducts” (in Foucault’s terminology) could be introduced into the discourse surrounding Gog and Magog. In his contribution, Dustin Atlas sheds light on the modern interpretation of the apocalyptic motif in Jewish religious philosophy by examining Martin Buber’s novel Gog and Magog. At first glance, this may appear contradictory, as the novel revolves around a tragic conflict between two Hasidic rabbis during the Napoleonic conquests. The central question at hand is whether it is permissible or even desirable to hasten the arrival of the end times. The biblical figures of Gog and Magog are not explicitly present, rendering their identity secondary to the narrative. This sets the stage for the two primary questions that precede Atlas’s analysis: firstly, the conceptual choice of presenting the subject matter in the form of a novel rather than a theoretical work, and secondly, the rationale behind titling it Gog and Magog. Atlas proceeds to illustrate how the figures of Gog and Magog, within the novel, primarily serve as symbolic representations of political evil in the form of war. Furthermore, he reveals how the creation and contextualization of the novel are deeply influenced by the historical events that occurred during Buber’s lifetime. Through Gog and Magog, Buber attempts to contemplate evil not merely as an internal or psychological force, which aligns with his previous tendencies, but as a tangible and pervasive presence in the world. Ramy Abdin’s contribution deals with the perception of Gog and Magog in Islam, focusing on religious eschatological and interpretational texts found in both

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 17

traditional and modern Islamic sources. His analysis encompasses the Qurʾān as well as contemporary interpretational texts by the Indo-Trinidadian author Imran Hosein. The objective is to uncover the connections and variations in the reception of this motif, which is characterized by its diverse figural representations and a multitude of associated symbols. In traditional sources, there was a tendency to ethnically identify Gog and Magog. However, in contemporary interpretations, there has been a shift towards transcending the ethnic affiliation and viewing Gog and Magog as a global evil characterized by ideologies and political movements that seek to disrupt God’s order. Despite this shift, the connotation of Gog and Magog with evil and chaos remains intact, as evidenced by their frequent portrayal as monsters and dragons throughout the reception history. Yaakov Ariel aims to illustrate the significant influence of Christian apocalyptic thinking on the perspectives of messianically-oriented Protestants regarding Jews, the Holy Land, the emergence of Zionism, the State of Israel, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. By tracing the historical roots of messianically-oriented thinking back to the Middle Ages and examining its ongoing contemporary impact on theological beliefs and attitudes towards the Holy Land and Israel, Ariel highlights the intricate relationship between Christian eschatology and these topics. The author delves into the diverse range of convictions held by various Protestant groups throughout early modern Europe and modern America, including Pietists, Puritans, and Evangelicals. In correspondence with the often dispensationalist nature of religious millennial beliefs, Ariel points out the fervent support for the return of Jews to the Holy Land and the promotion of Zionist ambitions. This support is perceived as a prerequisite for the unfolding of the eschatological drama that is anticipated to take place in that region. Ariel concludes that for Christian premillennialists, global events are intricately intertwined with eschatological and cosmic significance. Political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental developments are interpreted in relation to the anticipated apocalypse, the war of Gog and Magog, and ultimately, the Second Coming of Jesus to earth. The destruction of the Antichrist and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth are seen as the ultimate culmination of these events. The contribution by Nader El-Bizri, in collaboration with Zeinab Mirza, examines premodern narratives of Islamic eschatology and explores their politicization within modern political Islamist groups and theocracies. The first part of their essay employs an historiographical and philological methodology to analyze the motif of Gog and Magog in Islamic narrations, with a particular focus on the exegetical interpretations found in Muslim texts. In these interpretations, the appearance of Gog and Magog is regarded as a significant eschatological sign. Moving to the second part of their contribution, the authors discuss specific Islamist attitudes found within certain theocratic and revolutionary factions of modern Twelver Shīʿīsm. These factions are committed to politicizing the eschaton and interpret-

18 

 Georges Tamer

ing the advent of the Mahdī, aligning it with the identification of political enemies as Gog and Magog. The authors contextualize this within the era following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, examining how the concept of theocracy is understood, in general, within modern Twelver Shīʿīsm. They shed light on how the theological anticipation of the eschatological figure of the Mahdī is ideologically exploited within theocratic ideological systems to mobilize contemporary Islamist aspirations for power, serving the concrete political objectives of theocracy. Anna Ayşe Akasoy takes a comparative approach in her contribution, conducting a literary analysis of the figures Gog and Magog. In her exploration, she interprets Alexander and Gog and Magog as memes, encompassing a narrative core that resonates with universal themes adaptable to various contexts, drawing inspiration from Diana Spencer’s work. By delving into the logic of these memes and their symbolic significance, Akasoy uncovers three interconnected aspects: walls, barbarians, and evil. These aspects are situated within their historical contexts and examined in relation to the narrative tradition being studied, thereby revealing that Gog and Magog and the concept of walls can be seen as stereotypes. Their relationship with humanity is defined by a delicate balance between connection and separation. In the penultimate contribution, we move from the strictly academic to the artistic. In 2014, Marina Dessau, along with her artist collective, started a creative endeavor called GOG/MAGOG – a performance that sought to explore present-day human alienation, the sense of separation, embodied confrontation, and the fear of the Other. Set against the backdrop of online representations of political crises and propaganda, this artistic exploration aimed to delve into the depths of these themes. Of particular interest during the conceptualization phase was the diverse use of the Gog and Magog motif in online representations across different geopolitical regions experiencing political crises. Dessau’s contribution provides a comprehensive description of the performance’s four stages, which were conceived as an apocalyptic “disinformation campaign.” Each stage was situated in a distinct conflict-ridden location: Ukraine, Syria, Israel, and Europe. Dessau expertly guides readers through the discourse surrounding the ideas and narratives that unfolded within each performance, supplementing the analysis with captivating photographic reports. Remarkably, the underlying concept behind the performance retains its relevance even in the face of ongoing crises, lending it somehow a prophetic quality in today’s world. In the concluding chapter of this two-volume book, Lutz Greisiger presents a thorough analysis of how American evangelical fundamentalists of different eras and interests have identified Gog of the book of Ezekiel with Russia, repeatedly using 19th century German biblical scholarship, although these fundamentalists actually rejected the historical-critical study characteristic of that scholarship. He

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 19

then follows the tradition of identifying Gog with Russia in German religious discourses as far back through the centuries to Martin Luther, who, in keeping with the prevailing Zeitgeist, variously identified the Turks as Gog and Magog, but in explaining Ezekiel 38:2 refers to Russia. According to Greisiger’s observation, in the public opinion of today’s Germany and Western Europe, a modern military aggression is implicitly, or even unwittingly, compared to the invasion of mythical barbarian hordes, which leads to a problematic mixing of realpolitik with ancient traditions that should better be treated and analyzed as products of bygone human imagination.

A Systematization Attempt Finally, I will attempt to develop a systematic framework that encompasses the essential characteristics of the apocalyptic motif of Gog and Magog as presented in the various traditions discussed in this book. What do the various accounts of Gog and Magog have in common? I believe that the following characteristics can be seen as the common denominator of the numerous imaginaries of Gog and Magog across religions, regions, and cultures: 1 Gog and Magog symbolize an antagonism towards humanity, representing a stark contrast to the human condition. They embody the “other” who is by nature quite different, who is nothing like “us.” Although they originate as human individuals or peoples in their biblical contexts, in their later reimaginations they increasingly personify the anti-human. 2 Particularly, Gog and Magog seem to be the enemies of civilized humanity. They represent destructive chaos which aims at annihilating human order, statehood, religion, and culture. Their destructive power is inherent, essential, part of their nature. 3 The depictions of Gog and Magog emphasize their ugliness, a reflection of their fundamental opposition to human qualities. They are portrayed as deformed, abnormal by human standards. Their actions are disgusting. They are despicable. 4 Gog and Magog embody evil, a pervasive force that persists until the end times. Only through a brutal, apocalyptic war can they be ultimately defeated. 5 They are vague beings, elusive, hard to determine, to define. It is not clear what they are and how they came into being, despite the meager information about their origin in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, their descriptions remain conjectures. Their real nature remains hidden from people.

20  6 7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15

16

17

 Georges Tamer

They are difficult to localize, which is why they are the subject of geographical guesswork until today.17 The myth of Gog and Magog intertwines with historical reality, which leads to their political instrumentalization. As they represent a relevant threat, they are imagined, wherever and whenever suitable, in connection with certain communities and peoples perceived as enemies. Fear stems from the attributed brutal nature of Gog and Magog. Moreover, their unbeatable nature by human means intensifies this fear, as only divine intervention can overcome them. Gog and Magog often stand pars pro toto for the inevitable catastrophe that awaits in the end times. They represent the ultimate enemy, reaching the pinnacle of enmity. No greater enemy exists beyond them. They symbolize the enemy whom one cannot defeat, but hopes for victory at the end of time. Eschatologically, their defeat is achieved not by humans but by God. Only through an ultimate divine intervention can the world be rescued from their threat. On a metaphysical level, they embody the opposite of truth, often associated with disinformation and lies. Their existence is shrouded in unsettling anticipation, forming part of the eschaton and representing a phase of transition to salvation. Salvation necessitates a confrontation with Gog and Magog, serving as an essential step towards the ultimate redemption of humanity from suffering and pain. Their existence is temporary rather than eternal. Regardless of the extent of their mischief, they are destined for ultimate annihilation. The idea of their inherent limitation offers solace and makes their conception bearable. In the Islamic and some other traditions, they remain barricaded behind an impenetrable, artificial or natural barrier, tirelessly attempting to break through until the predetermined time arrives. Thus they are distinctly separated from humanity.

17 An example for the guesswork about the land of Gog and Magog is offered by the Jordanian author ʿAbdullāh M. Sharbajī, Riḥlat Dhū l-Qarnayn ilā l-Mashriq (ilā Arḍ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj wa-iktishāf ar-radm) (The trip of Dhū l-Qarnayn to the East (to the Land of Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj and the Discovery of the Barrier) (Amman: Al-Akadimiyyūn li-n-nashr wa-t-tawzīʿ, 2011). According to him, the barrier Alexander built was located between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, not far from North-West China, and Lake Issyk-Kul in eastern Kyrgyzstan is the lake which Alexander reached before he built the barrier.

Introduction: Gog and Magog and their Worlds 

 21

Although these characteristics are obviously inherent in the apocalyptic Gog and Magog motif in all its manifestations known so far, it must be taken into account, at the same time, that the motif also has contextual peculiarities that challenge the scholarly examination of it to a differentiated consideration. The fundamentally same motif returns again and again and is used repeatedly, but each time it is endowed with special features that stem from the particular context of its use.

Agustí Alemany

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif A Foreword on Apocalyptic “Barbarians” Hydatius of Lemica, a fifth-century Gallaecian bishop, wrote a continuation of Jerome’s chronicle which is our main source for the invasion of Spain by Alans, Sueves and Vandals beginning in AD 409. Let us recall a remarkable passage dealing with its consequences: As the barbarians ran wild through Spain and the deadly pestilence continued on its savage course, the wealth and goods stored in the cities were plundered by the tyrannical tax-collector and consumed by the soldiers. A famine ran riot, so dire that, driven by hunger, human beings devoured human flesh; mothers too feasted upon the bodies of their own children whom they had killed and cooked with their own hands; wild beasts, habituated to feeding on the bodies of those slain by sword, famine, or pestilence, killed all the braver individuals and feasting on their flesh everywhere became brutally set upon the destruction of the human race. And thus with the four plagues of sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts raging everywhere throughout the world, the annunciations foretold by the Lord through his prophets came to fulfilment.1

1 Hydatius of Lemica, Chron., ed. and trans. Richard Burgess, The “Chronicle” of Hydatius and the “Consularia Constantinopolitana,” Oxford Classical Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 82–3: debaccantibus per Hispanias barbaris et seuiente nihilominus pestilentiae malo opes et conditam in urbibus substantiam tyrannicus exactor diripit et milites exauriunt. Fames dira crassatur adeo ut humanae carnes ab humano genere ui famis fuerint deuoratae; matres quoque necatis uel coctis per se natorum suorum sint paste corporibus; bestie, occisorum gladio fame pestilentia cadaueribus adsuaetae, quosque hominum fortiores interimunt eorumque carnibus paste passim in humani generis efferantur interitum. Et ita quatuor plagis ferri famis pestilentie bestiarum ubique in toto orbe seuientibus, predicte a domino per prophetas suos adnuntiationes implentur. Note: On July 2017, during the annual Leeds International Medieval Conference, I casually noticed a session on Gog and Magog organized by the late Dr. Julia Eva Wannenmacher and felt curious about it. After attending the papers, I made a short intervention during the closing discussion where I showed my interest on the presumed historical origins of the motif and the role of Eurasian steppe nomads in the different stages of tradition, and then Dr. Wannenmacher kindly told me of a forthcoming conference on the subject. Such was the beginning of a wonderful collaboration which took me twice to Erlangen and allowed me to discover a “new” topic, which nonetheless was close to my lifetime research interests. I would like to dedicate this paper to her memory, as a token of gratitude and appreciation. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720235-002

24 

 Agustí Alemany

This is a nice example of how actual events – like inroads and invasions – can be understood as the achievement of a prophesied eschatological end, even if this passage is of little help in reconstructing the succession of historical facts, since it relies heavily on apocalyptic rhetoric and imagery: Hydatius was convinced that he was living in the world’s last days. However, the goal of this paper is just the opposite: focusing my attention on steppe nomads, I will try to explain the historical background which I believe inspired Ezekiel’s prophecy on Gog and Magog after a similar episode – in this case, the Cimmerian invasions – and how tradition has perpetuated the motif by incarnating the eschatological foe in every newcomer from the northern wastelands of Eurasia. These are the results of my 2018 and 2019 papers, which is clear from the fact that the two main sections are thematically connected, but independent of each other, in an attempt to cover as many aspects as possible. Inasmuch as the subject is huge, I have not striven for completeness, but I intend to give a broad overview of the topic with what I deem to be profitable directions for further research.2

1 The Historical Background of the Gog and Magog Motif 1.1 The Hosts of Gog & Magog: Lands and Peoples of the Near East Involved in Ezekiel’s Prophecy Ezekiel’s prophecy against Gog is found in chapters 38 and 39 of the book. Four verses of the prophecy list several lands and peoples supposed to be under his sway:

2 Since the motif is still new to me, but has been the subject of scholarly debate for generations, I am largely indebted to the monographs by Andrew Runni Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations, Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America 5 (Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932) and Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources. Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010) (hereafter G&M), which were both my starting point and reference books. Finally, I must state that the main research was carried out under the Spanish project FFI201458878-P (2015–19). I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to George Tamer, Lutz Greisiger and Andrew Mein for their proofreading and valuable remarks.

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

‒ ‒ ‒

 25

Ezek 38:2 “Gog, (of) the land of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.”3 Ezek 38:3 39:1 “Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.”4 Ezek 38:6 “Gomer and all his bands, the house of Togarmah (from) the uttermost parts of the North and all his bands.”5

Ezek 38:5 “Persia, Ethiopia and Libya”6 seem to be a later addition, since they are mentioned just once among Gog’s followers and, as we will see, they do not match with the geographical and chronological context of the other place and ethnic names; in fact, the idea of a provenance “from the uttermost parts of the North” is repeatedly stressed in Ezek 38–39.7 Needless to say, the ethnic identification of Gog’s followers, some of whom are already found in the Tabula Populorum of Genesis 10, has caused rivers of ink to flow;8 the truth is that, today, most of them can easily be equated with the following toponyms and ethnonyms of the Middle East attested in Assyrian, Babylonian and Urartian sources: ‒ Heb. ‫ ֶמ ֶׁשְך‬Mešek̠ ~ LXX Μοσοχ “Meshech” = Assyr. kur.Muški / kur.Muski, Urart. kur.Muškiné, a land East & North of Cilicia, on the outskirts of Tabal and Que, attested ca. 1165–670 BC and usually identified as Phrygia: cf. Assyrian Mita

3 Ezek 38:2 ‫ ּגֹוג ֶא ֶרץ ַה ָּמגֹוג נְ ִׂשיא רֹאׁש ֶמ ֶׁשְך וְ ֻת ָבל‬Goḡ ereṣ ham-Maḡoḡ nǝśiʾ roʾš Mešek̠ wǝ-Tuḇal ~ LXX Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ, ἄρχοντα Ρως, Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ. 4 Ezek 38:2 39:1 ‫ ּגֹוג נְ ִׂשיא רֹאׁש ֶמ ֶׁשְך וְ ֻת ָבל‬Goḡ nǝśiʾ roʾš Mešek̠ wǝ-Tuḇal ~ LXX Γωγ ἄρχοντα Ρως, Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ. 5 Ezek 38:6 ‫ל־אגַ ָּפיו‬ ֲ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫יה ֵּבית ּתֹוגַ ְר ָמה יַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי ָצפֹון וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־אגַ ֶּפ‬ ֲ ‫ ּג ֶֹמר וְ ָכ‬Gomer wǝ-kol-ʾaḡapeha Beṯ Toḡarmah ǝ ǝ yark te ṣap̄on w -eṯ-kol-aḡapaw ~ LXX Γομερ καὶ πάντες οἱ περὶ αὐτόν, οἶκος τοῦ Θεργαμα ἀπ᾽ ἐσχάτου βορρᾶ καὶ πάντες οἱ περὶ αὐτόν. 6 Ezek 38:5 ‫ ָּפ ַרס ּכּוׁש ּופּוט‬Paras Kuš u-P̅uṭ ~ LXX Πέρσαι καὶ Αἰθίοπες καὶ Λίβυες. 7 Ezek 38:6 ‫ ֵּבית ּתֹוגַ ְר ָמה יַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי ָצפֹון‬Beṯ Toḡarmah yarkǝte ṣap̄on ~ LXX τοῦ Θεργαμα ἀπ᾽ ἐσχάτου βορρᾶ; 38:15 ‫קֹומָך ִמיַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי ָצפֹון‬ ְ ‫את ִמ ְּמ‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬ ָ u-b̠aʾṯa mim-mǝqomk̠a miy-yarkǝte ṣap̄on ~ LXX καὶ ἥξεις ἐκ τοῦ τόπου σου ἀπ᾽ ἐσχάτου βορρᾶ; 39:2 ‫יתיָך ִמיַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי ָצפֹון‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה ֲע ִל‬wǝ-haʿalitik̠a miy-yarkǝte ṣap̄on ~ LXX καὶ ἀναβιβῶ σε ἀπ’ ἐσχάτου τοῦ βορρᾶ. 8 Vid. e.g. François Lenormant, “Magog. Fragments d’une étude sur l’ethnographie du chapitre X de la Genèse,” Le Muséon 1 (1882): 9–48; William Foxwell Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 43/3,4 (1924): 363–93, 378–85; Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, 3–14; Edouard Dhorme, “Les peuples issus de Japhet d’après le chapitre X de la Genèse,” Syria 13/1 (1932): 28–49, 29–32, 37–40, 42–4; Michael Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95/4 (1976): 567–79, 569; Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17–21 and 20,7–10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 99–107; G&M, 3–4, etc.

26 

‒

‒

‒

 Agustí Alemany

šar māt Muski “Mita, king of the land Muski” ~ Hdt. i.14.2 Μίδην τὸν Γορδίεω, Φρυγίης βασιλέα “Midas, son of Gordias, king of Phrygia” (718–710/9 BC).9 Heb. ‫ ֻת ָבל‬Tuḇal ~ LXX Θοβελ “Tubal” = Assyr. kur.Tabālu, Babyl. kur.Tabali, Urart. kur.Tablane, a land South-East of the Anatolian plateau, bordering on Muški to the West and North of Que, Gurgum and Melid, attested ca. 836–640 BC; maybe these two first place names are identical to Hdt. iii.94, vii.78 Μόσχοι & Τιβαρηνοί “Moschi and Tibareni” ~ Mešek̠ & Ṯuḇal?10 Heb. ‫ ּתֹוגַ ְר ָמה‬Toḡarmah ~ LXX Θεργαμα “Togarmah” = Assyr. uru.Tagarimmu, later “Assyrianized” as uru.du6-garimmu = /Tīl-garimmu/; a fortified city (dannūtu) and district in Kammanu, on the border between Melid and Tabal, attested ca. 836–695 BC; said to provide Tyre with equids (Ezek 27:14 ~ 38:4); maybe identical to Hitt. uru.Tegaramma, Luw. Lákarma (urbs).11 Heb. ‫ ּג ֶֹמר‬Gomer ~ LXX Γομερ “Gomer” = Assyr. Gimirrāja, the Cimmerians (Greek Κιμμέριοι), attested ca. 714–640 BC; they defeated Rusa I of Urartu (714 BC), destroyed the Phrygian kingdom (676 BC), menaced Syria (657 BC) and overrun Lydia, killing king Gūgu (~ Hdt. i.8–15 Γύγης ca. 645 BC) at the time when Callinus’ elegies urged the Ephesians to fight “the army of the daring Cimmerians” (fr. 5 West Κιμμερίων στρατὸς . . . ὀβριμοεργῶν); the Cimmerian Teušpa was defeated by Esarhaddon in the territory of Ḫubušna (679 BC) and later the Cimmerian T/Dugdamme (~ Strab. i.3.21 Λύγδαμις) attempted to invade Assyria without success.12

All in all, a first approach to the list allows us to conclude that here we are in no way faced with “classical” enemies of Israel or Babylon, but immersed in a clear 8th–7th century Neo-Assyrian context, as suggested by the limited chronology of the Cimmerian invasions and Tabal.

9 W. Röllig, “Muški, Muski,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 8, ed. Dietz Otto Edzard (Berlin/ Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993) (hereafter RlA): 493–95; in general Anne-Maria Wittke, Mušker und Phryger. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12. bis zum 7. Jh. v.Chr (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 2004). 10 S. Aro, “Tabal,” in RlA, vol. 8 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011–13): 388–91. 11 F.M. Fales, “Til-Garimmu,” in RlA, vol. 14 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2014): 43–4; G. Barjamovič and M. Gander, “Tegaram(m)a,” in RlA, vol. 13 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011–13): 503–4. 12 A. Kammenhuber, “Kimmerier,” in RlA, vol. 5 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976–80): 594–96; the key work on the Cimmerian presence in the Middle East is Askold I. Ivantchik, Les Cimmeriens au Proche-Orient, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 127 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 27

1.2 Heb. ‫✶ רֹאׁש‬Roʾš ~ LXX Ρως = Rusa / Urartu

The formula “chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” appears twice in Ezekiel’s text.13 The Vulgate translates ‫ נְ ִׂשיא רֹאׁש‬nǝśi roʾš “chief prince” into Latin as princeps capitis, but a major problem arises insofar as the Greek text of the LXX gives instead of these words ἄρχοντα Ρως “lord of Rōs”, suggesting that ‫✶ רֹאׁש‬Roʾš would be a fifth place or ethnic name in our list. In fact, Ezekiel’s nǝśiʾ roʾš is a hapax in the Bible. The different forms of the word ‫ נָ ִׂשיא‬naśiʾ usually appear in status constructus combined with a place name.14 Several identifications have been proposed, none of them convincing enough and often paying attention to nothing but homophony. Bochart and Gesenius already suggested various origins such as [1] Gr. Ῥωξολανοί “Rhoxolani,” Sarmatian tribes attested in South Russia between the 2nd century BC and the 4th century AD, due to Gog’s usual identification with the Scythians (Sarmatians and Scythians are often intermingled in the sources and thus called by each other’s name); by extension, [2] Byz. Gr. Ῥῶς “Kievan Rus, Russians” (~ ORuss. Русь), almost identical to LXX Ρως but in fact otherwise unknown before the 9th century AD (first mention: Annales Bertiniani 839 Rhos); or [3] NPers. ‫ارس‬ Aras (Arab. ‫ الرس‬ar-Ras, OGeorg. რახსი Raḫsi, Gr. Ἀράξης), the main tributary of the Kura River in Transcaucasia.15 Obviously, we are faced here with much later peoples bearing similar names; in the case of the Rhoxolani, the first element Ῥωξ- is explained today from Ossetian (Iron rūxs, Digor roxs “light, bright”; cf. Av. raoxšna- < OIran. ✶rauxš-na-), while the second one is the name of the Alans. As for the identification with the Russians, despite being unlikely, it has enjoyed some popularity whenever millenarianism (still today) has sought to relate Gog and his hosts to Russia.16 Even more unlikely – if geographically acceptable – is Aras because of

13 Ezek 38:2–3 39:1 ‫ נְ ִׂשיא רֹאׁש ֶמ ֶׁשְך וְ ֻת ָבל‬nǝśiʾ roʾš Mešek̠ wǝ-Tuḇal ~ LXX ἄρχοντα Ρως, Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ. 14 Ezek 21:17 ‫יאי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ָכל נְ ִׂש‬kol nǝśiʾe Yiśraʾel “all the princes of Israel”; 26:16 ‫יאי ַהיָ ם‬ ֵ ‫ ּכֹל נְ ִׂש‬kol nǝśiʾe ǝ hay-yam “all the princes of the sea”; 27:21 ‫יאי ֵק ָדר‬ ֵ ‫ ָכל נְ ִׂש‬kol n śiʾe Qedar “all the princes of Qedar”; 30:13 ‫ נָ ִׂשיא ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬naśiʾ me-ʾereṣ Miṣrayim “a prince out of the land of Egypt”; 32:29 ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֱאדֹום ְמ ָל ֶכ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫יא‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכל נְ ִׂש‬ʾEdom mǝlak̠eha wǝ-kol nǝśiʾeha “Edom, her kings and all her princes.” 15 Old identifications already given by Samuel Bochartus, Geographia Sacra seu Phaleg et Canaan (Leiden: Boutesteyn & Luchtmans, 41707), 188–89; Guilielmus Gesenius, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, vol. I–III (Leipzig: F.C.G. Vogel, 1829–53), 1253; August Knobel, Die Völkertafel der Genesis: Ethnographische Untersuchungen (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1850), 61, 70; Lenormant, “Magog,” 35, etc. 16 E.g. Jon Mark Ruthven and Ihab Griess, The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End (Longwood: Xulon Press, 2003); Thomas Ice, “Ezekiel 38 & 39,” Article Archives 1 (2009): https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/1 (last accessed February 13, 2023). – both from an academic perspective . . . or as a fairly common alternative the passage of

28 

 Agustí Alemany

its different vocalization and especially because of the fact that a hydronym does not seem the best option for naming a human group. A later, sounder proposal is Assyr. Raši/u, the name of a country east of Babylon and bordering Elam,17 but it lies too far south compared to the other allies of Gog mentioned by Ezekiel and has no historical link with them. However, just a look at a political map of the period18 can prove extremely useful. If we assume that Mešek̠/Muški, Tuḇal/Tabal, Toḡarmah/Tagarimmu & Gomer/Gimirrāja are nothing but northern enemies of 8th–7th century BC Assyria, we will soon realize that a major power of the time is astonishingly lacking in Ezekiel’s list: the land of Urartu. My proposal is that Heb. ✶Roʾš, LXX Ρως, stands here for Urart. ru-sa-ni (with postposed article -ni), Assyr. mru-sa-a, mur-sa-a “Rusa”, the name of three Urartian kings: Rusa I (ca. 730–713 BC), Rusa II (ca. 685–655 BC) and Rusa III (mid 7th century BC).19 The name of these kings would have been used metonymically instead of the name of the country, a fact perfectly possible taking into account that besides there were two cities called Rusāḫinele “(city) of Rusa” (where -ḫi-ne- looks like a suffix indicating appurtenance): Rusāḫinele Qilbanikai, modern Toprak-kale on the NE outskirts of Van, with a large temple of the state god Ḫaldi, maybe Urartu’s capital in the 7th century BC, and Rusāḫinele Eidurukai, modern Ayanıs, 35 kms. NW of Van.20 The fact that the annals of the eighth campaign of Sargon II against Urartu (714 BC) mention several times mur-sa-a kur.ur-ar-ṭa-a-a “Ursā the Urartian” seems to favour the idea of an extraneous association of the name of the king with that of his land.21 Let it be said that the usual form for the name of this country in Biblical Hebrew is ‫ ֲא ָר ַרט‬Ararat,22 which suggests – if the hypothesis be right – that this passage derives from a (misinterpretation of a) foreign source. Ronald Reagan’s speech quoted by Bøe, Gog and Magog, 1; besides, see Lutz Greisiger’s contribution to this volume. 17 Lenormant, “Magog,” 35–6; hypothesis still sustained by James D. Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land known to Ezekiel,” Grace Theological Journal (1985): 67–89; cf. Simo Parpola, “Rāši/u,” in RlA, vol. 11 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006–8): 255–56. 18 E.g. Östlicher Mittelmeerraum und Mesopotamien um 700 v. Chr., eds. Heinz Gaube and Wolfgang Röllig, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B IV 8 (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1993). 19 M. Salvini, “Rusa I. II. III,” in RlA, vol. 11 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006–8): 464–66. 20 P. Zimansky, “Rusaḫinili,” in RlA, vol. 11 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006–8): 466–68. 21 François Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.), Textes Cunéiformes du Louvre 3 (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1912) (hereafter TCL 3), 81, 92, 123, 421, 422 A. 107, 123, 138. 22 Cf. Isa 37:38 ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ֲא ָר ַרט‬ereṣ Araraṭ “the land of Ararat (Urartu)”, where Sennacherib’s sons flee to; Jer 51:27 ‫ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ֲא ָר ַרט ִמּנִ י וְ ַא ְׁש ְּכנָ ז‬mamlǝḵoṯ Araraṭ Minni wǝ-Aškǝnaz “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Aškenaz (Urartu, Mannea & Scythia)”, in Jeremiah’s prophecy against Babylon.

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 29

1.3 Urartu, Muški, Tabal and the Cimmerians in Neo-Assyrian Sources Urartu, Muški, Tabal and the Cimmerians often appear in various Neo-Assyrian texts. A letter from Sargon II to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, governor of Que, deals with diplomatic activity between Assyria and Midas the Phrygian (mme-ta-a kur.mus-ka-a-a), mentioning at the same time Urarṭu (kur.uri) and the kings of Tabal (man.meš-ni ša kur.ta-ba-li).23 In another case, Sennacherib informs Sargon II of the defeat of the troops of the Urartian king (lugal kur.uri-a-a) in an expedition against the Cimmerians (a-na kur.ga-mir) based on various reports, including a letter received from Tabal (kur.ta-bal).24 Furthermore, among the booty obtained from Muṣaṣir, a vassal city of Urartu, the annals of the eighth campaign mention eleven silver cups of Ursā and cups from the country of Tabal with gold handles.25 More specific data, however, are available in several queries to the Sungod Šamaš during the reign of Esarhaddon; here is a non-exhaustive selection:26 ‒ will the king of Phrygia (lugal kur.muš-ku) attack Melid allied with Cimmerian troops (erim.meš lú.gi-mir-ra-a-a)?27 ‒ will the troops of the Cimmerians (lú.erim.meš kur.gi-mir-ra-a-a) or the troops of the Cilicians (lú.erim.meš kur.hi-lak-ka-a-a) attack. . . ?28 ‒ will Ursā of Urarṭu (mur-sa-a lugal šá kur.ur-ar-ṭu) invade Šubria together with the Cimmerians (lú.gi-mir-ra-a-a)?29

23 Simo Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987) (hereafter SAA 1), 1, 1 (Henry William Frederick Saggs, The Nimrud Letters, 1952, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 5 [London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2001], 188–92 = Nimrud Document 2759). 24 SAA 1, 31 (Kouyunjik 181); the Urartian defeat by the Cimmerians is also the topic of SAA 1, 30 (Rassam 554) & 32 (Saggs, The Nimrud Letters 5, 125–28 = Nimrud Document 2608). 25 TCL 3: 358, P. 29–30. 26 For more detail, see Josep Llop-Raduà, “Cimerios y escitas en la documentación asiria,” Faventia 34–36 (2012–14): 225–48, who translates an extensive collection of Neo-Assyrian sources relating to Cimmerians and Scythians; the latter (iš-ku-za-a-a) are but biblical ‫ ַא ְׁש ְּכנָ ז‬Aškenaz, probably a mistake for ‫✶ ַא ְׁשּכּוז‬Aškuz. 27 Ivan Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria, State Archives of Assyria. (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990) (herafter SAA 4), 1 (BM 99108). 28 SAA 4, 17 (Ernst Georg Klauber, Politisch-religiöse Texte aus der Sargonidenzeit [Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1913] [hereafter PRT], 43); the destruction of much of the tablet makes both a third enemy and the target of the attack unknown. 29 SAA 4, 18 (Jørgen Alexander Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott [Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1893] [hereafter AGS], 48).

30  ‒

‒

 Agustí Alemany

will Iškallū of Tabal (miš-kal-lu-ú lú.ta-ba-la-a-a) and Mugallu of Melid (mmugal-lu lú.mi-li-da-a-a) wage war – or be engaged in mutual hostilities with each other?30 will Scythian and Cimmerian troops (lú.erim.meš lú.iš-ku-za-a-a lú.erim.meš lú.gi-mir-ra-a-a) invade Bit-Hamban, Šamaš-naṣir, Yašuh and Paršumaš?31

Up to here, our approach to the sources can be synthesized in the following table: Ezek 38–39 ‫ רֹאׁש‬Roʾš ‫ ֶמ ֶׁשך‬Mešek̠ ‫ ֻת ָבל‬Tuḇal ‫ ּג ֶֹמר‬Gomer ‫ ּתֹוגַ ְר ָמה‬Toḡarmah

Assyrian Rusā / Ursā Muški Tabālu Gimirrāja Til-Garimmu/e

identification Urartu (Rusa) Phrygia Tabal Cimmerians Tagarimmu

last mention 653/2 BC 670 BC 640 BC 657 BC 695 BC

1.4 Sargon II’s Death in Tabal and the “Sin of Sargon” What historical facts, in which all these actors were involved, could have inspired the background of Ezekiel’s prophecy? According to the available data, I believe that the key to the problem lies in the period from the first attested appearance of the Cimmerians (714 BC) to the destruction of Tagarimmu (695 BC), since an earlier or later date would make no sense because the source which inspired the prophecy would be mentioning a people who had not yet arrived in the Near East or a city which had already been destroyed. The most notable events of this period and, in my opinion, the ones most capable of generating an eschatological tradition are the invasions of the Cimmerians and the death of the great Assyrian king Sargon II, although this last episode lies to a large extent in darkness. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, in the 17th year of his reign (705 BC) Sargon II marched to Tabal (ana kur.Ta-ba-lu).32 During the eponymy of NasḫurBēl (705 BC) we are told that the king of Assyria (supposedly Sargon II) was killed in an expedition against Gurdî the Kulummian (mgúr-di-i lú.ku-lum-ma-a ~ Hier. Luw. Kurtis, Phryg. ✶Gordi-) and that his camp was presumably taken and sacked.33 30 SAA 4, 10 (AGS 56a); 11 (AGS 59). 31 SAA 4, 35 (AGS 36); 36 (AGS 10); 37 (PRT 24); 38 (Kouyunjik 15479); 39 (PRT 95); 40 (PRT 38). 32 Babylonian Chronicle: Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5 (Locust Valley: J.J. Augustin, 1975), 1 ii 6’, 76. 33 Assyrian Eponym Lists: Alan Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC, State Archives of Assyria Studies 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1994), 48, 60. In Assyria each year

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 31

Some years later (695 BC) his son Sennacherib sent his army “against Tīl-Garimme, a city on the border of Tabal (a-na uru.du6-ga-ri-im-me a-lum ša pa-a-ṭi kur.ta-ba-li), where Gurdî, king of the city Urdutu (mgúr-di-i lugal uru.ur-du-ti), had mobilized his weapons; Tīl-Garimme was finally destroyed and devastated by Sennacherib,34 maybe in order to avenge his father Sargon II’s death, if the two individuals named Gurdî refer to the same person.35 Later on (679 BC), Esarhaddon campaigned against “Teušpa, a Cimmerian, a barbarian whose home is remote” (mte-uš-pa-a kur.gi-mir-a erim-man-du šá a-šar-šú ru-ú-qu) and defeated him in Hubušna before dealing with the mountain dwellers in the neighborhood of the land Tabal (šá ṭe-ḫi kur.ta-bal).36 Finally, already under Assurbanipal (665/2 BC), Mugallu, [king] of Tabal (mmu-gal-li xx! kur.tab-uru), submitted to Assyria and paid tribute in “large horses” (anše.kur.ra.meš gal.meš),37 maybe for fear of the Cimmerians. As we see, at least Tabal and Tagarimmu, as well as possibly the Cimmerians, appear to have been directly involved in the death of Sargon II.38 Here is how this

was designated after an eponym official (limmu) presiding over the New Year Festival (in this case, Nasḫur-Bēl for 705 BC). 34 Annals of Sennacherib: Albert Kirk Grayson and Jamie Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part I., The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3.1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 17:V.1–14, 136. 35 Thus S. Aro-Valjus, “Gurdî,” in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1/II, eds. Karen Radner and Heather D. Baker (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999): 431–32. 36 Annals of Esarhaddon: Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680– 669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 3:II.15–26, 37. 37 Annals of Assurbanipal: Rykle Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), A ii 68–74, at 29, 216; on the tribute of horses cf. Ezek 27:14, according to whom Beṯ Toḡarmah provided Tyre with “horses, ✶horsemen and mules” (‫ּופ ָר ִדים‬ ְ ‫ּופ ָר ִׁשים‬ ָ ‫סּוסים‬ ִ susim u-p̄arašim u-p̄ǝraḏim ~ LXX ἵππους καὶ ἱππεῖς). Taking into account Togarmah’s connection with the hosts of Gog and the fact that the Cimmerians were nomadic riders, I think that perhaps p̄arašim should be translated not as “steeds,” “war horses” or “chariot horses,” as is often the case, but as “horsemen” or “riders,” as suggested by the LXX: cf. Ezek 38:4 ‫ּופ ָר ִׁשים‬ ָ ‫סּוסים‬ ִ susim u-p̄arašim ~ LXX ἵππους καὶ ἱππεῖς “horses and horsemen”; Ezek 38:15 ‫סּוסים ֻּכ ָּלם‬ ִ ‫ ר ְֹכ ֵבי‬roḵǝḇe susim kullam ~ LXX ἀναβάται ἵππων πάντες “all of them riding on horses”; cf. however Markus Saur, Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 386 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 215–16 “Wagen- und Reitpferde und Maultiere.” 38 The involvement of the Cimmerians in the death of Sargon II (already suggested by Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria 722–705 b.c. [New York: Henry Holt, 1908], 157; cf. Igor’ M. D’jakonov, Istorija Midii ot drevnejšix vremen do konca IV veka do n.è. [Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1956], 236) is not directly mentioned by any extant source and is therefore a controversial issue. The name of the Cimmerians was restored in Robert Francis Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914), 473, 18 after two signs and part of a third (kur.Gi-m[ir-ra-a-a]); the text is badly

32 

 Agustí Alemany

king, founder of a new dynasty and one of the most powerful rulers of the Neo-Assyrian empire, conqueror of Samaria, Urartu, Babylon and the Neo-Hittite states of northern Syria, fell unexpectedly fighting in a remote region in the northwestern periphery of his empire and not even his body could be recovered.39

1.5 Hebrew ‫ ּגֹוג‬Goḡ ~ LXX Γωγ = Gašga Heb. ‫ ּגֹוג‬Goḡ ~ LXX Γωγ40 has been related to [1] Gyges, king of Lydia (Assyr. Gūgu, Gr. Γύγης), and consequently to the Mermnad dynasty established by him – or to a

damaged, but it seems to refer to the death of an Assyrian king; vid. in this regard Ivantchik, Les Cimmeriens au Proche-Orient, 53–5; Josette Elayi, Sargon II, King of Assyria (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 210–13, 240–41. 39 This fact was astonishing to his contemporaries, as Wolfram von Soden, Herrscher im alten Orient (Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg: Springer, 1954), 103–5 rightly points out when dealing with the so-called “sin of Sargon”: “seine Leiche blieb entsprechend einem Brauch, den auch die Assyrer selbst in zahllosen Fällen bei ihren Feinden geübt hatten, unbestattet den Raubvögeln zum Fraß; eine Heimholung durch die anderen Truppeneinheiten war nicht möglich oder wurde nicht gewagt. Dieses Ende des großen Eroberers, der während seines Lebens gegen die Möglichkeit einer Ermordung durch eigene Leute jede erdenkliche Vorsorge getroffen und keine Rücksicht auf die Kräfte seiner Untertanen gekannt hatte, erschütterte sein Volk und seine Familie gewaltig. Wir erfahren davon aus einer leider nur sehr schlecht erhaltenen Proklamation seines Sohnes und Nachfolgers Sanherib. Sanherib ließ danach mehrere Gruppen von Priestern und Opfernschauern unabhängig voneinander Untersuchungen darüber anstellen, wodurch sich sein sonst doch so frommer und den Tempeln gegenüber freigebiger Vater so gegen die Götter versündigt haben könne, daß sie ihm in ihrem Zorn ein solches unrühmliches Ende bereiteten.” On the “sin of Sargon” (ḫi-ṭu šá ilugal.gin), probably the fact that he broke a treaty with Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon which he had sworn by the god Aššur, vid. Hayim Tadmor, Benno Landsberger and Simo Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 3 (1989): 3–51, 48–9. As for how a prophecy inspired by these events could enter the biblical text, Margaret S. Odell, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Ezekiel (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwis, 2005), 4 has compared the structure of the book of Ezekiel with that of the Babylonian versions of the temple building inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (ca. 680 BC); in a similar way, Donna Lee Petter, The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 246 (Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) has proposed a connection of Ezekiel with the genre of Mesopotamian city laments, e.g. page 115: “Ezekiel merges enemy invasion with storm imagery in this chapter [38], and he does so with a language which is similar to the [Mesopotamian city] laments. The Day of Yahweh compares to the Day of Enlil in that both deities invoke an enemy as an agent to bring on the decreed destruction.” 40 For the different identifications of Gog see an exhaustive and still recent survey in Bøe, Gog and Magog, 91–5.

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 33

hypothetical Lydian dynastic title derived from his name;41 [2] the Armenian land of Γωγαρηνή (Strab. xi.14.5: Arm. Գուգարք Gowgarkʿ), to the south of the Kura river and bordering Georgian Iberia;42 [3] a Sumerian form gug (in fact, kukku2) “dark places, darkness”;43 [4] the ethnic name Gaga in an Amarna Letter, first linked to Karkemiš44 and later – correctly – to the Gašga;45 [5] Gâgi, prince of the city of Saḫi, probably in Media, defeated and captured by Assurbanipal but otherwise unknown;46 [6] the Babylonian god Gaga known from the third tablet of the Enūma 41 Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? Eine Biblisch-Assyriologische Studie (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1881), 246–47; the most popular identification. For Assyrian sources relating to Gūgu, see Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, “Gyges and Ashurbanipal: A Study in Literary Transmission,” Orientalia 46 (1977): 65–85; W. Röllig, “Gyges,” in RlA, vol. 3 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1957–71): 720–21. This hypothesis was already criticized by Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, 6–7, since the Lydian empire never extended so far east, Gūgu seems to have been killed by the Cimmerians (Gomer) –and not to have become their ally– and Gog would designate –according to this scholar– nomadic riders from the Caucasus; cf. Bøe, Gog and Magog, 91–3, 99. Similary, D’jakonov, Istorija Midii ot drevnejšix vremen do konca IV veka do n.è, 320–21 suggested that the background of the prophecy was a war between Lydians and Medes which took place ca. 590–85 BC, in Ezekiel’s lifetime. 42 Lenormant, “Magog,” 41–2; Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, 5–6, who tried to relate it to the მაგუგეთი Magugetʿi of the Georgian chronicles; cf. Robert William Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles: The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 179–80. The Armenian place name, however, is of much later date, and although the territory corresponding to Arm. Gowgarkʿ was probably part of Urartu, the name of its Urartian parallel has not survived; according to Heinrich Hübschmann, Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen (Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1904), 276, from an old form Gōgarkʿ (gr. Γωγαρ-), but “seine Herkunft is dunkel.” 43 Albin Van Hoonacker, “Eléments sumériens dans le livre d’Ezéchiel?,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 28 (1914): 333–36, at 336; according to him ✶ma.gug (with Sum. ma ~ mada “Land”) would be “the land of darkness”; this interpretation was already dismissed by Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” 381; cf. The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary s.v. kukku [dark places] (online at http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/nepsd-frame.html). 44 Jørgen Alexander Knudtzon, Otto Weber and Erich Ebeling, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln i–ii, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2.1–2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915) (hereafter EA), I 62–3 from their reading of EA 1:38 ien mâtuga-ga-ia “irgend eines Gagäers”; II 1015, 1573 “Gaga-Gog-Karkemiš ist der Mittelpunkt eines alten Hethiterstaates im nördlichsten Syrien gewesen” (Weber’s commentary). 45 Proposal defended by Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” 381–82 and confirmed by the new reading in Anson Frank Rainey, The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, Handbook of Oriental Studies I.110 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015), 60–1 (EA 1:38 Middle Babylonian) i-en kur.Ga--ga-i̯ a “one of the Kaskeans”; also clearly attested in Rainey, The El-Amarna Correspondence, 326–27 = EA 31:25 Hittite) nu-mu an-tu-uḫ-šu-uš Ga-aš-ga-aš kur-i̯ a-aš up-pí “send me people of the land of Gašga.” 46 Lorenz Dürr, Die Stellung des Propheten Ezechiel in der israelitisch-jüdischen Apokalyptik, ATAbh IX/1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1923), 98–9; cf. E. Ebeling, “Gâgi” in RlA, vol. 3 (Berlin/Leipzig/

34 

 Agustí Alemany

eliš;47 [7] a name of ancient lore ✶Goḡ (instead of Aḡaḡ) taken by Ezekiel from the oracle of Balaam;48 etc, etc.49 As for Heb. ‫ ָמגֹוג‬Maḡoḡ ~ LXX Μαγωγ, I think that the most likely approach is to see it as a pair of ‫ ּגֹוג‬Goḡ, maybe a place name – a ‫מ‬-locale construction based on the latter, as suggested by Ezek 38:2 ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ַה ָּמגֹוג‬ereṣ ham-Maḡoḡ “the land of Magog.”50 My proposal partly picks up on the fourth hypothesis: while it is true that the later correction of the reading Ga-ga – which reminds us of Ezekiel’s Goḡ – into Ga--ga seems to invalidate it, the available evidence leads me to think that Heb. Goḡ would be nothing but an evolved form of the name known in Hittite as Gašga/ Kaška (see below for phonetic issues),51 designating a non-Indo-European tribal and semi-nomadic people in the mountains of Pontic Anatolia since the reign of king Ḫantili (ca. 1530 BC), the main enemy to the north and northeast of the Hittite empire. In spite of dating back to the 16th century BC, the conclusive fact – as far as New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1957–71): 132; with nothing supporting it but the phonetic similarity of the name. 47 Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel, übersetzt und erklärt, KAT Bd. XI (Leipzig/Erlangen: Deichertsche Vbh-Werner Scholl, 1924), 244; on Gaga (in fact phonetically written dkà-kà) cf. D.O. Edzard, “Kaka,” in RlA, vol. 5 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976–80): 288; improbable. 48 Gillis Gerleman, “Hesekielbokens Gog,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 12 (1947): 148–62, non vidi: cf. Bøe, Gog and Magog, 94; Gog would not be a historical figure. The problem lies in the fact that his starting point is a reading Γωγ given by the LXX and other versions instead of Heb. ‫ ֲאגַ ג‬Aḡaḡ in Num 24:7. 49 Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog,” 572–79 related the prophecy to the Babylonian didactic poem known as the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin, but without providing a proper explanation of Gog’s name. For other identifications (Alexander the Great, Antiochus III the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Mithridates VI Eupator, etc.) based on the idea that Ezek 38–39 is a later addition to the text of Ezekiel see Robert Henry Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 21948), 562; Bøe, Gog and Magog, 94. 50 Bøe, Gog and Magog, 95–9 collects other conjectures about Maḡoḡ (Scythians, Babylonians, Lydians, Parthians) based on evidence from later sources or on the presumption that the name Magog stands for peoples not mentioned verbatim by Ezekiel; also explained from an alleged Akkadian form ✶māt Gūgi “the land of Gyges,” e.g. Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog,” 569; cf. our footnote 41. Gog and Magog have often been considered a “couple,” e.g. Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” 379–80, “obviously based in some process of blending or rhyme-formation,” although Magog is usually given precedence because it already appears in the Tabula Populorum (Gen 10:2). 51 Einar von Schuler, “Kaškäer,” in RlA, vol. 5 (Berlin/Leipzig/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976– 80): 460–63; cf. Egypt. Kškš, Assyr. Kasku; maybe Ugar. kṯkym (PRU II 163), Aramaic ktk (Sfire stele); evidence collected by Einar von Schuler, Die Kaškäer. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasien (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965), 84–9; cf. however the objections by Rainer Degen, “Zur Schreibung des Kaška-Namens in ägyptischen, ugaritischen und altaramäischen Quellen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einer Monographie über die Kaškäer,” Die Welt des Orients 4/1 (1967): 48–60 to see the Gašga in the last two forms.

Beyond the Wall: Eurasian Steppe Nomads in the Gog and Magog Motif 

 35

I am concerned – is that the Gašga are still attested under Tiglatpileser III (738 BC) and Sargon II (721–705 BC) between Muški, Urarṭu and Tabal. This geographical location in Neo-Assyrian sources fits extraordinarily well with the peoples mentioned by Ezekiel in the Gog prophecy (Ezek 38:2–3; 39:1 Goḡ ereṣ ham-Maḡoḡ neśiʾ ✶ Roʾš Mešek̠ wǝ-Tuḇal). ‒ Dadīlu of the city Kaska and Uassurme of the land Tabal (mda-di-i-lu uru.kaska-a-a mú-as-sur-me kur.ta-bal-a-a) are mentioned, often together, as having submitted to Tiglatpileser III and bringing tribute to him;52 ‒ according to Sargon’s cylinder, among other lands this king “conquered Urartu, Kasku (and) Tabalu as far as Musku” (kur.ur-ar-ṭu kur.kas-ku kur.ta-ba-lum a-di kur.mu-us-ki ik-šu-du).53 ‒ other inscriptions of Sargon II state that this king “uprooted Kasku, all of Tabal and Ḫilakku, and drove out Mita, king of Muski” (na-si-iḫ kur.ka-as-ku gi-mir ta-ba-a-li u kur.ḫi-lak-ku ṭa-rid Mi-ta-a šar kur.Mu-us-ki).54 Because of the centuries elapsed since its first attestation, I wonder if the name Gašga/Gog could have been anachronistically used – if not already in the Neo-Assyrian period, at least by Ezekiel – maybe as an archaism, or maybe in a broad sense for “Northern Barbarians”; cf. similar cases in Achaemenid Babylonian Gimirri “Saka, Scythians” (originally “Cimmerians”); in the archaizing use of Gr. Σκύθαι “Scythians” by Byzantine Historians as a label for most steppe nomads (Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs, Turks, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Oghuz, Cumans, Seljuqs, Mongols/Tatars, Ottomans); or in Gr. Οὖννοι, applied to

52 Annals of Tiglatpileser: Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 14:12–15:1; 27:5; 32:6; 35:III.10.15; 47:rev.8’–9’ (p. 47–8, 70, 77, 87, 122); cf. Trevor Bryce, The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms. A Political and Military History (Oxford: University Press, 2012), 265, 267. 53 Sargon’s Cylinder 15, cf. David Gordon Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s Königs von Assyrien (722–705 v.Chr.) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1883), 32–3; Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2, Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927], 61, § 118); modern edition in Amitai Baruchi-Unna and Mordechai Cogan, “The Cylinder Inscription of Sargon II: a Study in the Relationship between Text Composition and City Construction,” Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 9 (2018–19): 41–57, 50. 54 Pavé des Portes IV 35–38; similar text in the annals of Salon XIV 16, cf. Hugo Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, vol. I (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1889), 82–3, 148–49; Kašku and Tabālu are also mentioned together in the Bull inscription (Stier-Inschrift 21–22), cf. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 40–1; English translation of these sources in Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia II, 41, § 80 Salon XIV; 46, § 92 Bull; 51, § 99 Pavement IV).

36 

 Agustí Alemany

some twenty peoples after the Huns themselves, and its counterpart Հոնք Honkʿ, a usual designation for “Northern Barbarians” in Classical Armenian authors.55 Nevertheless, there is a main objection to the association of Gašga with Gog from a phonetic viewpoint. In spite of all, taking into account that: [1] the Hittite form Gašga (instead of Kaška) is the most widely attested, even if it is uncertain whether there was a distinction between voiced and voiceless stops in Hittite and whether such statistics should prove significant or not;56 [2] Hitt. stands for /s/; [3] assuming that the voiceless sibilant /s/ in ✶Gasga could have become voiced /z/ because of assimilation with the following stop /g/, if not in Hittite, maybe in an intermediary language from which Hebrew borrowed the form Goḡ, an evolution ✶Gazga > ✶Gāga – with loss of the voiced sibilant and eventual compensatory lengthening – could be expected. There is evidence for such an evolution in Latin and Sanskrit, e.g. Lat. dīgero, iūglāns < ✶dizgezō, ✶iuzglāns (both with a ✶-zg- cluster); also Lat. īdem, nīdus, sīdō < ✶izdem, ✶nizdos, ✶sizdō, etc; Skt. nīḍaḥ, mīḍhaḥ < ✶nizdos, ✶mizdhos (in these cases with consonant clusters ✶-zd-, ✶-zdh- showing cerebralization because of ‘ruki’ law).57 [4] the evolution ✶ā > ō present in ✶Gāga > Gōḡ could be explained by the so-called “Canaanite shift” exemplified by Heb. ‫ ָׁשלֹום‬šalōm ~ Arab. ‫ سالم‬salām < Sem. ✶ šalām-; this phenomenon is also found in loans, such as Heb. ‫חֹותם‬ ָ ḫōtam ~ Arab ‫ خاتم‬ḫātam “seal” < Egypt. ḫtm; in any case, the problem lies in the chronology of this change, which seems to be Proto-Canaanite, given that it had already taken place in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, as shown by the Amarna documents (e.g. EA 256:9 sú-ki-ni, 362:69 sú-ki-na /sōkin-/ “prefect”