Talk:Gog and Magog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dacia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Gog and Magog:
No to-do list assigned.

wikipedia is neutral concerning religious material[edit]

Why is Mohamed being honored by stating(peace be with him) in the islamic explanation? This isn´t a religious website, it´s a neutral site. I believe this should be altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothfairy72 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

added by an IP this morning. Removed. REDVERS 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[edit]

In no way does this source meet our criteria at If any of this material is to be added it should be reliably sourced and with consensus. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is not a good source? Its a legitimate university, and brings down an exact quote of the letter, where Khazarian king gives his genealogy. If the is bothering you, fine, I can remove it. The reason I've added this source, was because they are the ones that brought this issue up. King Joseph gives his genealogy, which contradicts the view that Khazars are Magogites. To not add this fact to the article, i think is an intellectual crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) is a fine source, but that text is a primary source, and editors can't insert their own interpretations of primary sources into articles. That's what your edit was doing.--Cúchullain t/c 15:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what if i just write this. "However, according to the Khazar correspondence (, 'Know this, we are...'" I completely leave out any opinion, and just use the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's not relevant. The Khazar source doesn't mention Gog and Magog at all, so it doesn't belong on this article.--Cúchullain t/c 12:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel its not relevant? The Khazar source mentions its ancestor as, "Togarmah". According to the bible, Togarmah was the nephew of Magog. Is that not relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get your point. There is already a section of the article explaining what the traditional Jewish interpretation of Gog and Magog is, and anyone can see that it isn't Khazars. I don't see any justification for putting in an argument against other interpretations. Almost all the sources arguing for one interpretation include reasons against other interpretations; should we include them all? It is better to just list the interpretations that have been made. Actually there is a very important one missing: the theory that Gog and Magog were entirely mythological. Zerotalk 03:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is not to include the Jewish view. My point is to include the Khazar's own point of view. Since, we are talking about Khazar's, shouldnt we include their point of view (on this issue)? If their view is documented somewhere, why not include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Standing on the shoulders of giants[edit]

I have removed the paragraph relating "Standing on the shoulders of giants" on the UK £2 Coin with Gog and Magog and the City of London. It is not referenced and is directly contradicted by the Royal Mint[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

New edits by User:Koakhtzvigad and the need for consensus[edit]

User:Koakhtzvigad has indicated, through edit summaries and notes on my own talkpage, that he scorns the consensus process; he feels there is no need for consensus because he feels this is a topic "belonging" to Jews and therefore only the Jewish Bible (complete with "Hashem") shall be used on wikipedia. He also denies edit warring, despite his having reinstated this version four times today. Even more alarmingly, the significant fact that the phrase "Gog and Magog" (the subjects of this article) appears for the first time anywhere in the New Testament, has been repeatedly removed by this user, who is new to the article. I am all out of 3RR reverts now, but I have warned him, and I also appeal for anyone who is paying attention to rollback these unwarranted and undiscussed unilateral changes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(moving discussion - Gog and Magog what consensus?)

What possible consensus are you talking about? Are you telling me that the modern Christian NIV translation from KJV into English is better than two Jewish sources with a dozen rabbis signing in them? Next you will be telling the Chinese how to read the I Ching? WP:Bold is one thing, but this is not it. Do you even know where NIV comes from? Its a commercial cite that sells bibles! Should not even be used in Wikipedia. And how many clicks does one need to find out the translators? Try here Half the people are New Testament specialists, with a couple of Greek language specialists. I see four people with PhD from the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, which seems to be "the" prerequisite for teaching Hebrew in Christian education institutions. And this despite saying "The NIV is founded on the belief that if hearing God’s Word the way it was written and understanding it the way it was meant were the hallmarks of the original reading experience, then accuracy in translation demands that neither one of these two criteria be prioritized above the other." But it is better in the original, right? Compare that with studying Hebrew from 7, Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic from 10, full time, for life. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop this. I am not edit-warring, but editing. All you had there is the wrong translation, and unreferenced. There is no call for consensus where consensus is explicit in the sources provided. I don't need to seek consensus on the translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews....its their Bible! If you want to say that the Christians translate the Hebrew Bible differently, you are welcome to it. However, if you persist to remove my edits and their accompanying references, you will be reported Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You do know what the word "consensus" means, right? It's how we operate on wikipedia. You don't make UNILATERAL changes against policy, like determine which Bible translation is "acceptable", without consuting other editors. There is no such policy saying your favorite translation only shall be used because it is the best or whatever. As for "Gog and Magog", the article should point out clearly the fact that the exact phrase "Gog and Magog" originally occurs in the Christian New Testament book of Revelations for the first time anywhere -- but your edit has the effect of obscuring this point. Revelation should certainly be listed prominently along with all the other books where these names are mentioned, and attempting to censor it on whatever pretext isn't going to get very far. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly don't give me the 3RR. You completely failed to see I was editing. Did you see the now words with new references? Thats editing, not reverting, which is what you did.
WP:CONSENSUS - Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. So, what is your legitimate concern, that Jews don't know how to read the Hebrew Bible? Or is it your insistence of the one mention of Gog and Magog in Revelations be displayed more prominently then the three sources in the above-mentioned Hebrew Bible from which it is derived? If this is not WP:POV, I don't know what is.
My editing was not "unilateral", I usually edit alone! I didn't see you editing there, and in fact you hadn't edited since 03:26, 23 January 2011, so what is your problem? How far back should I go, and how many editors should I consult before I press EDIT?
Censor what? I merely repositioned the reference to Revelations in its chronological order, that is after the Hebrew Bible. What is the problem with that? It originates from Ezekiel, so why would you "put the horse before the cart"? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a habit of just making up your own policy as you go along? Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH POLICY that says because your POV is that this is an exclusively Jewish topic, we have to use a "Jewish" translation. You are making this stuff up. Now if you do it once, it could be overlooked, but hitting the revert button FOUR TIMES is called "edit warring" on wikipedia, regardless of what you may call it. The article formerly mentioned that the phrase "Gog and Magog" (as a pair) was first originated in the Christian New Testament. Now it doesn't mention that any more. Don't you think that ought to be made clear? Please answer on the discussion page, since discussing the topic here isn't fair to editors on that page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? Did you even read ANY sources on the subject? Even Wikipedia says that the Book of Revelations is derived from Tanakh, so how can you possibly claim it originated with New Testament? So the answer is no, I don't think we ought to mention in Wikipedia something that is untrue and would constitute WP:OR.
The policy is to edit using reliable references. I have. Before then there were no reliable, or even unreliable references. The only thing that was there was a link to the verse on a Christian Bible selling site.
Also, do not' misrepresent what I said. I did not a)feel this is a topic "belonging" to Jews and b)therefore only the Jewish Bible (complete with "Hashem") should be used. What I said is that these sources, that are Jewish, seem to be reliable so far as translation goes. As for using Hashem, its a direct "quote"! However, I see nothing wrong with using the Jewish edition of a Jewish Bible as a source, do you? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't see anything wrong with using a Jewish translation provided there is discussion and consensus among editors to do so. I do see a problem when one editor keeps ram-rodding it in there, and is so convinced of his own correctness in doing so, that he scorns the need for consensus, denies he is edit warring, and abusively tells me to "get a grip" for not seeing things his way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
And regardless of your personal theories about the origin of Revelation being in the Tanakh, the well-known fact remains that the phrase "Gog and Magog" never appeared in print until the New Testament. Don't beat your head into a brick wall. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't see a problem with my sources, what are you seeking consensus on?
I don't have personal theories about the origins of the Book of Revelations. Those are referenced in the article on it. :::::::The first print appeared in the 16th century :) "Gog and Magog" are used by John as a reference to a well known set of verses in Hebrew. Hence no need to translate word for word (unless, see below).
What is the significance of them being "together"? Can you add a source that highlights this significance and say why it is significant?
The fact that it is the first time it appears as such is mute since it is the only time it appears as such, and in Greek. Remember, most Jews at the time were either bi, or tri-lingual, and learned texts by heart since scrolls were expensive and highly perishable. Greek texts written on papiraii even more so. If John's mother tongue was Aramaic, he may have had less command of Greek, so translation word for word would have been tasking. On the other hand if he was a Hellinized Jew, he may have only head a general knowledge of the verse, or had seen it in the Greek translation, and so could not have had it translated from Hebrew even if he had the manuscript.
In general only scholars (rabbis) were fully conversant with Biblical Hebrew (hence Mishnaic variety). However, this is speculation on my part that I remembered seeing somewhere. If you think this should be included, I'm sure sources can be found since there is no shortage of publications on this subject KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by User:Koakhtzvigad[edit]

Once again, User:Koakhtzvigad is opting for unilateral edit-warring his POV in lieu of discussion with other editors on this article. I implore you to be patient and wait for consensus in accordance with policy, rather than take this approach of reverting everything you don't like. The name of the article is "Gog and Magog". It is of the utmost significance to most scholarly sources that this exact phrase "Gog and Magog" first occurs in the New Testament, but not in the Old Testament, where one is a prince and the other is a land. Indeed, this fact was sourced in an entire book written on the subject (the one by Sverre Boe), which stands as a definitive scholarly and exhaustive work on every single known allusion to Gog and/or Magog in all of historiography. However, because you seemingly wish to suppress this unassailable and sourced fact on the pretext that you find it too trivial to the subject "Gog and Magog" to mention where the source first occurs (or possibly because your theology is uncomfortable with acknowledging this sourced fact?) you have placed your own opinion above the source, and removed the source on the origin of the phrase "Gog and Magog". In addition you stated that I know nothing of the subject. You have already reverted four times in the last 24 hours. Once again, I implore you to stop being a one man revert machine, and reach some consensus here on the discussion page first, before summarily reverting references on the subject just because you don't like what they say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued problems with User:Koakhtzvigad's view of this topic[edit]

"Gog and Magog" in folklore is a concept unto itself. That is the main scope of this article, hence the title, "Gog and Magog". It occurs in folk beliefs of people around the world, like it or not. Like many related folk beliefs (eg "Armageddon"), the beliefs often do not square exactly with their Biblical origin, but they have taken on an extra-biblical life of their own. They are what they are, and we have to describe them as they are.

For example, in more than a few cases the name has actually fused in the popular imagination into one, "Gogmagog". I can tell you from personal experience that in Ethiopia, a country that has known of the Bible longer than many countries have, there is a derived political expression "Gugmangug" meaning roughly autocrat or misguided dictator, e.g. "Gaddafi is a Gugmangug". (I haven't looked for a source for this yet, so I'm not about to add it to the article)

Back on topic - just about every book or study ever written on the subject, or encyclopedia article written on the subject, will mention the significance of the fact that the original phrase "Gog and Magog" makes its first definite appearance in the New Testament Book of Revelation. In the Book of Ezekiel, when it mentions "Prince Gog of the land of Magog" this is invariably seen as a sort of obvious ancestor or prototype of the later concept "Gog and Magog", but not precisely the same. Every other study, article or source outside of wikipedia on the subject, sees fit to preserve this precision in detailing the origin of the concept, but here we now have a user Koakhtzigad who feels it is "UNDUE" if wikipedia contains the same information as is available everywhere else. And feels so quite strongly, gauging from the amount of pillorying he has subjected me to for opposing his unilateral overhauls of the topic. The fact that the prototypical Ezekiel concepts took its current form in the New Testament apparently doesn't sit well with him. He also has indicated that it is so important to him to sweep this fact under the rug, that he sees no need for things like "consensus" because it would seem the correctness of his own views on the subject trump all consensus. As a result, the article is rapidly becoming distorted, particularly the part on REVELATION.

It looks like the familiar situation whenever someone is uncomfortable with the truth, so: first they accuse you of "OR". Then they cry it is "UNDUE". Then they come to fight you, yelling you don't know the first thing about it... and then... ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...and then you get a reply.
Its very simple. The Greek form "Gog and Magog" is derived from the Hebrew form "Prince Gog of the land of Magog". No source can change that Ezekiel lived 500 years before Christianity begun. After 500 years there was nothing original about "Gog and Magog" which probably became a euphimistic allusion for the entire 38th chapter.
Rather what you want to say is that, "The Greek rendering paved the way for the later view[who?], according to which Gog and Magog were the names of two persons[why?] (see Rev 20:8). The LXX rendering of Ezek 39:6 as Gog for MT's (Masoretic Text) Magog. This also seems to confirm that the names Gog and Magog were interchangeable." (J. Lust, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible,pp.536-537), however, this would be a huge leap-of-a-theory. Firstly what is the source of interpreting them both as personal names? Secondly, what is the proof that the extant LXX MS is not corrupted? Finally, as one of my sources points out, the use of just two words instead of quoting the entire passage by the author of Revelations clearly suggests that he was using it as a reference for the reader, rather than trying to confuse the future reader of his writing. Who were these potential readers? Not Greeks, and not Romans, nor any other local pagans, but fellow (though perhaps Hellenised) Jews who were just as familiar with the Tanakh. This is the importance of dating the Revelations. However, even the most recent date is still within a generation of the destruction of the Temple. There was no Christian community to speak of just yet.
What you need to find therefore is some reliable source that plausibly argues for abandonment of the exegesis of Hebrew Ezekiel for the Greek Revelations reference you are so adamant to give prominence in the article.
You do of course have a wide choice of literature since there is no shortage of suggestions for this exegesis ranging from "sublime to ridiculous".
However, when you do, you can be assured I won't be reverting or removing anything. Just make it as rational as possible please Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, we still don't seem to be communicating on the same wavelength. I am not arguing any unusual origin theory, please don't complicate the issue. My position could not be simpler. Either we mention, as every other source does, where the phrase 'Gog and Magog' makes its first appearance in that form, or else this basic fact is, as you say, UNDUE and insignificant to wikipedia (though it would seem significant enough to all the sources one can easily find elsewhere.) Since its relative significance could be more of a subjective point, it is proper to solicit opinions and consensus from other editors per WP:BRD, since we never have been, and never will be, governed by the fiat of any one editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Didn't say its unusual, the Greek texts are replete with paraphrased excerpts from Tanakh.
It says in the article now where 'Gog and Magog' makes its first appearance in that form
"it would seem significant enough to all the sources one can easily find elsewhere", so you shouldn't have any problems finding one?
"it is proper to solicit opinions and consensus from other editors" - Well, I am giving you my opinion that its significance is only within the realm of those commentators which choose to interpret it as such in isolation from the Ezekiel text. I'm happy to hear from other editors who may differ.
I edited that the same form is found in Hebrew from the Dead Sea scrolls Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Does your source really use the word "proves"? Would you mind putting the exact quote here? I fail to see how the existence of the Hebrew Qumran fragment can be taken as "proof" ( a very strong word) that Greek Revelation borrowed from it, and I do know most competent scholars tend to be far too cautious, to recklessly throw around claims of "proof". I suspect that the "proof" part is more of your editorialising / pov pushing. But even if that source does call it "proof", we cannot ignore another prominent scholar (Boe)'s treatment of that same Qumran Scroll. Boe, who wrote a scholarly book specifically about the phrase "Gog and Magog", does not even seem certain that the tiny scrap allegedly bearing the isolated words "Gog and Magog" really say that at all. And he does give that scroll an in-depth treatment too -- so I fear it may be a bit premature for us yet to go about endorsing any strong claims of "proof" of the original inspiration of the Book of Revelation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you can't look up the reference yourself? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

4Q523 Qumran reference[edit]

This is in reference to 4Q523, a Qumran fragment published by E Puech in 1996. His translation of line 5 included the only legible letters “Gwg u Mgwg” (Gog and Magog) but no surrounding context. This is described in the source that you brought to the table, despite obliging me to do the hunt for your source.

“It is possible that 4Q523 contained an eschatological prophecy, but this cannot be inferred from the remaining lines. Therefore, 4Q523 cannot be used as an early witness to the existence of an eschatological Gog and Magog tradition. Nevertheless, 4Q523 is still important for our present purpose, since it contains the earliest known reference to 'Gog and Magog' instead of 'Gog of the land of Magog'. Moreover, it is the only occurence of the combination of Gog and Magog in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In commentaries on the book of Revelation, it has been argued that the expression 'Gog and Magog' depends on the LXX of Ezek 38:2, 'Gog and the land of Magog' instead of the Masoretic 'Gog from the land of Magog'. The discovery of 4Q523, however, has demonstrated that the phrase and Magog' originated in Hebrew, not in Greek. It may be that [Gwg u mgwg] came into being as a short formula for 'Gog and (his people) Magog’. [...] Perhaps the combination ‘Gog and Magog’ stems from a tradition consisting of an abbreviated version of Ezekiel’s prophecy about Gog and Magog. Unfortunately, 4Q523 is too damaged to draw any conclusion in that respect...”

The other source, Boe, says very much the same thing in a section beginning on 177 of his book on “Gog and Magog”. here’s a link for your convenience. He tentatively speculates these are “negatively loaded terms for contemporary political enemies.” but concedes “The very fragmentary nature of these texts makes it impossible to interpret the Gog and Magog reference meaningfully. Still it is very interesting to find both names together with only a conjunction between them.”

Based on what both these two sources tell us, I am still not happy with the info in the article in general, especially the much rasher language (compared to these scholarly sources) in the current section on Revelation (and why does it have to be named ‘Christian tradition’ when the only one mentioned there is the Book of Revelation, it should rather be titled by the name of the book on a par with the sections for Hebrew Bible books.)

The mention of "Gog and Magog" in Revelation is invariably treated as central to this topic in secondary sources, yet curiously, you want that necessarily treated as "undue weight" without really establishing why this is not just some subjective POV on your part. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I try to provide sources available online (but not always), in the first instance through GoogleBooks. However, they do not stay there forever in preview mode.
There is no need to quote the entire page. The point is that this fragment shows use of Gog and Magog as a pair in earlier Jewish tradition in Hebrew. Not much else can be derived from the texts, either Hebrew or Greek for the purpose of an encyclopaedia article.
Actually Gog and Magog are found in the Torah (Bible in Hebrew), Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). This is why they are listed separately. It is also found in the Talmud.
Revelations is not something unique to Christianity, hence Christian tradition. Other uses can come from titles like:
  • The Book of Revelations: A Sourcebook of Themes from the Holy Qur'an
  • Book of Revelations: A Collection of Poetry
  • The Book of Revelations: A Year's Worth of Facebook Wisdom
  • A Little Book of Revelations (This book is a radical reappraisal of the Christian life-style.)
  • The Book of Revelations about the Sacred Company of the Virgins of Cologne (in Elisabeth of Schonau, p.213)
Yes, it is not central to the Book of Revelations, but many (most!) secondary sources are (particularly Christian) focused on working out the future based on two words. However, when this discussion begun there were no secondary sources mentioned. As you have seen, in the more scholarly sources, even where they devote space exclusively to "Gog and Magog" it is a section in a chapter, so not really central. The book that Doug would say is not reliable (self-published in lulu) is like that. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? What about "Book of Revelation"? (Note, no S on Revelation - the actual title in question)... And what exactly is all that supposed to prove in logical terms anyway? We use real logic here, not hermeneutics. And in real logic, pointing at a bunch of off topic books with the word "Revelations" in the title, as if that were somehow meaningful to the question, would be called a "fallacy". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad and sources[edit]

I've just reverted an edit by Koakhtzvigad which uses a blog and a self-published book. WP:RS makes it clear we shouldn't be using such sources. It also added a claim "no further etymological meaning can be derived." which had no source at all. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually you reverted the entire edit, and not only those that you refer to in the edit summary as we don't use blogs or self=published works as sources, statement "no further etymological meaning can be derived." is unsourced. Would you then please care to undo your revert and remove only those portions that you consider as not being supported by reliable sources.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Your 'not very well considered' explanation doesn't explain why you added the stuff about " why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism." which had no reference. I'm not putting anything back without a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Til insisted on including that the phrase appears in Revelations once and once only.
There is indeed no other record before appearance of Christianity where the phrase appears in Greek
There is an example of the same phrase appearing in a Qumran fragment in Hebrew, but dated clearly to well before appearance of Christianity.
This established, as I wrote in preceding text (referenced) that it was a well known form of reference that was used as much by the Essene sect in Hebrew as by the Christian sect in Greek
The sentence you quote is simply a closing for the paragraph, and doesn't need a reference.
However, if you can find a reference where someone proves that something didn't exist, i.e. Greek reference to Gog and Magog before appearance of Christianity, be my guest
However, what you did is to perform a wholesale revert without offering adequate explanation, indeed you were selective
My editing restored a number of edits that PiCo removed due to what I would politically call bad judgment
It seems to me that there are guidelines about what one describes in edit summaries, and they ought to describe as closely as possible what editing you had performed, which in your case they did not.
I'm happy to describe why PiCo's prior editing was 'not very well considered', but I'm not here to cause embarassment to other editors Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can find a reference in a reliable sources saying there is no such record, fine. Without such a source, we can say nothing about it. I'm surprised you think my edit summary less clear or explicit than yours. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If I started undoing all of PiCo's bad editing one at a time it would take too long. The problem is that he removed content that should not be removed, but merely improved, usually through better referencing. Having badly referenced content which is essentially valid is better than having none, which conflicts with PiCo's philosophy of editing. It is very much more difficult to re-reference content while having to look for it in the revision history. In PiCo's editing history of over 17,000 entries, only a couple of dozen are edits accompanied by references. These are unfortunately offset by removal of references that PiCo thought were 'old', and removal of content because it had no references, but was in fact viable. Hence I was content to leave the (as you pointed out) less good references (though still acceptable despite your assertion to the contrary), because it left a clue as to what to look for while providing continuity in the content, rather than leaving an integrity gap that arbitrary removal creates, and which is often evident in very many Wikipedia articles.
However, I'll humour you. Below is the content as I edited it which you removed. Please Specifically point to what you have a problem with.

The term "Gog and Magog", as distinct from Ezekiel's "Gog of the land of Magog", first appears in the Christian New Testament's Book of Revelation.[1] The discovery of the 4Q523 Dead Sea scrolls fragment proves that the expression in Greek is derived from Hebrew which is the earliest record of 'Gog and Magog' rather than 'Gog of the land of Magog'.[2] Gog and Magog appear in only one verse of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 20:8), and are equated in the vision with "the nations in the four quarters of the earth".[1] The more recent interpretation of the prophecy in the received Christian text that suggests a battle waged by the Satan's forces, "god of this world"[1] at the close of the Messianic kingdom is based on the Strong's Concordance entries #01463 Gog, #04031 Magog, #04902 Meshech, and #08422 Tuval.[1]

The abbreviated Greek form of the Hebrew borrowing by John may have been because the passage was well known to him[3], and in the Jewish community where this Ezekiel passage precedes those read on Shabbat Chol Hamoed (intermediate) of Sukkot festival, the Ezekiel 38:18 - 39:16 haftarah.[4]

The tradition is difficult to date due to the protracted period of Hellenization in Judea.
You then replace it with the following

While "Gog and Magog" are closely associated with one another in the Ezekiel passage, they are used only as a reference in the Christian New Testament Book of Revelation, and not as a complete translation from Ezekiel, which is why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism.

The part "and not as a complete translation from Ezekiel, which is why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism." was added by me before I found that in fact the pair did appear together before the book of Revelations was composed, and the dating of the Qumran fragment is dated before separation of Christianity and Judaism, hence the part is edited out and replaced with information on the 4Q523.
The blog reference is good because it provided English translations of Hebrew (but not linked) which are referenced. However, I can find more acceptable sources for the same material. The self-published ( book is not authoritative, but is typical of its genre, and has references for what it says. I haven't looked, but I'm sure it will not be difficult to find similar statements in other books by similar-minded Christian authors.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic tradition[edit]

I believe Islamic tradition of Gog and Magog should have its own sections, just like Christians and jews. Why its in other traditional in the first place ?? (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they the anderthals?[edit]

Are they the anderthals? the same discription as in quran? has anybody thought of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasriDefend (talkcontribs) 01:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for this sort of discussion, you need to find a forum somewhere else. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispensationalist View[edit]

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am hesitating to post anything myself, but I would submit that, in various re-edits, the Dispensationalist view (which was once presented in this article) has disappeared and should be restored.

In short, most Dispensationalists view Gog and Magog as a reference to Russia (and, usually to a Russian leader), citing Josephus and similar ancient sources.

Citations of authority: "The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text" by Gregory Beale (1999), at page 1025;

"The Man of Sin: Uncovering The Truth About the Anti-Christ" by Kim Riddlebarger (2006) at page 57.


AVERHOES (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The view that Gog/Magog is Russia is in the article, though I guess your point is that it should be more detailed. I rather doubt that myself - a simple mention is enough, surely. PiCo (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pico - You are correct that there is a reference to Russia being identified as Gog and Magog in a couple of contexts (a) ancient Jewish scholars such as Josephus associated Gog and Magog with the Scythians; and (b) "during the Cold War", Russia was identified as Gog and Magog. The Dispensationalist view predates the Cold War, and continues to be held to this day - that Biblical references to Gog and Magog refer to Russia. My point is that there was once a statement in the text affirming that a modern theological movement still views Russia in this light, but that such a statement disappeared from the text about 6-8 months ago. As currently written, a reader could assume that no one in the post Cold War period subscribes to the belief that Russia is viewed as Gog and Magog, which is demonstrably incorrect. I would also respectfully point out that several paragraphs are included on legends (not having any scriptural basis and not embraced by any segment of modern Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) that Gog and Magog references either Ireland or England. If this theory is worth several paragraphs, surely a single sentence could be devoted to Gog and Magog as Russia?

Averhoes — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVERHOES (talkcontribs) 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

bavel v magog[edit]

I think what this phrase "by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog), but this account, like the others, has problems." is really trying to describe the following: In Hebrew Bavel is spelt bbl. The relationship to magog (mgg) is to advance each letter by 1 so that b>g b>g l>m and then spelling it backward. I find this interesting, but... not very likely. Most obscure things would normally be encoded in a variant of an atbash cypher. However, ad hoc, this would be yyo - which doesn't help. It is interesting to note that "gog" in hebrew means "ceiling". Persia at the time of the prophecy was pretty much at the top of the known world and Russia could be considered as descended from "the roof of the world" or "magog" (as opposed to Europe which is generally considered as being descended from Eisav via Troy>Italy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedmic (talkcontribs) 11:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is not a blog for engaging in speculation and conjecture by wikipedians. We can't 'decide' anything here. We can only use speculations that already appear in 3rd party sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Gog and Magog in the Islamic sources Qur'an, Hadith[edit]

lot of information but need to translation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Russia & Indo-Europeans??[edit]

I need to find some links but any time I've ever heard recognized and respected Christian evangelists speak of Gog & Magog, it has been accepted as a reference to Russia. Magog being the ancestor of the Indo-Europeans (scientifically supported with the Indo-European language group and the DNA Y-marker R haplogroup)

How come no-one has managed to include this? Arabs the Bible makes clear in Genesis descend from Abraham via Hagar (Ishmael) and the sons of Ketarah. Prior to this it was the land of Canaan and Ham.

I need to find links to some of the many sermons as this is the Christian world faith :) (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does not the Hebrew prefix "ma-" mean "land of"; and does not "Gog" in Hebrew refer to the "Caucasus" mountains (which do indeed reside to the north of Israel)? Russia's link to "Gog" seemingly stems from General Secretary Joseph Stalin, from modern Georgia, in the Caucasus. According to Hebrew Kabbalah, Divinity is symbolized, mathematically, by the number "26" — according to Hebrew Gematria, "YHWH" sums to 26. Steel is an amalgam of iron, the 26th element; and carbon, the 6th element. And Stalin, through WWII, brought to fruition the Jewish "missing waw" Prophesy from the book of Leviticus, cp. Rabbi Benjamin Blech. And, "waw" is the 6th letter of the Hebrew aleph-beth. In 1945, Stalin (Iron+Carbon, 26+6), from the land of the Caucasus (ma-Gog) marched into Poland, where 6 million Jews had been murdered (-6, -waw), and erected the "Iron Curtain" (26+6-6=26). Forty million Slavs, and ten million Germans, also died during the manifestation of the aforestated Kabbalistic Apocalyptic Prophesies, from Divine Scripture (Leviticus 25:10 in the Hebrew Torah, Revelations in the Bible). i understand, that Kabbalah is amongst the most popular (and prima facie dominant) Religions world-wide on earth, today. (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Islamic View[edit]

Foretelling by the Prophet: "The people will continue performing the Hajj & Umra to the Kaaba even after the appearance of Gog & Magog", narrated by AbuSaid Al-Khudri. Narrated Shuba: The Hour (of the Day of Judgment) will not be established till the Hajj (to the Kaaba) is abondoned. Hadith No.663, Sahih Al Bokhari Chapter No.26: Pilgrimage (Hajj). Ilaila (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

section: "Gog and Magog in American Politics/Iraq"[edit]

I think the section "Gog and Magog in American Politics/Iraq" is injecting politics into a biblical topic, is dubious because it comes from one book by someone who doesn't like Bush, ostensibly from a French president who doesn't like Bush, and it is in a section about landforms called Gog and Magog. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A "biblical topic"? This article is more than just a biblical topic, it has never been exclusively Biblical in scope, it has covered all related uses of "Gog and Magog" together including Gog and Maog in geography, mythology, etc etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was non-notable for this article, and whomever inserted it put a context on it that was not found in the sources cited. "Intrestingly" is more commentary than neutral encylopeic language. The editor seemed to wish readers to infer there was some sort of significance beyond conincidence that the source he was cited didn't.--Wowaconia (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than the word 'interestingly' there is nothing wrong with presenting this information, it is 100% notable, nor can "whomever" be blamed for "wishing the reader to infer" anything more than it actually says. For that matter it cannot be blamed for "implying" anything, anybody can "infer" things from any sentence that aren't implied, but that ism't the writer's fault. The only reasonable course is to take the words at face value and not infer them to mean something different (a strawman), and then attack the strawman that was never even stated nor implied.
So what exactly makes this sentence (not even the same one Tucker is talking about) "non-notable" according to you? It doesn't really matter. If other people find it "notable", but you don't, you have no business removing it just because YOU, for unknown reasons, don't consider it noteworthy, or want anyone to be able to learn all the facts about this topic that you "don't like" for blatantly political reasons. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Biblical" article or not (and that wasn't the thrust of my argument), it is not NPOV, it is hardly from a unbiased source. (As an aside, it's from the type of book that if it were about Obama, 100 editors would declare it fringe and bias and remove it.) If you want to include it, it is in the wrong spot, it should be up with Revelation, not in the geography section. But I think it's just Bush-bashing palaver and borders on trivia. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In Zoroastrianism?[edit]

It is really interesting that this may correspond with something in Zoroastrianism as recently added to the lede, but I would like to know more, and I hope a section can be added to the article explaining this. The lede sections are ideally only supposed to summarize the article content. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because apparently it cannot be substantiated. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious: George W Bush[edit]

This entire section is extraordinarily questionable is present. It reads: "According to US media reports, in the prelude to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US president George W. Bush told the French president Jacques Chirac that biblical prophecies were being fulfilled there and that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East." Bush said Gog and Magog would come from modern-day Iraq, and it was important to try and stop that.[49][50] The French presidency then rapidly consulted Prof. Thomas Römer, of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), to have a report on Gog and Magog and understand George Bush's references."

Cite 49 is a book review of a book that makes the claim rather than the actual source and therefore isn't a sufficient source. 50 is an opinion piece. Additionally, the chronology of the first sentence is very confusing. In 2007, Chirac noted that in the prelude to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Bush said that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East." There is little evidence to suggest that Bush literally believed the statement - rather Gog and Magog referred to (as they do in the bible) unknown agents with malicious intent. He most certainly did not say "biblical prophecies were being fulfilled." Nor did he say that "Gog and Magog would from from modern-day Iraq, and it would be important to try and stop that." The French president did not understand the reference and consulted [...] is fine.

The overall point being that the article tries to paint Bush as a looney who believed that biblical prophecy was being fulfilled. The reality is that Bush made a biblical reference to unknown malicious individuals which the French president did not understood and found somewhat odd. The recorded interview with Chirac makes this very clear. It is my belief that this content is not really worth of inclusion in the article by itself or might better fit in a longer "contemporary references" section, if one was even appropriate for this article. Perpetualization (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the reference to the "American invasion of Iraq" is somewhat telling - as per 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the invasion was multinational. Perpetualization (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The subsection should probably be retitled as it gives the impression that Bush might be identified with Gog or Magog. Rather than "media sources" the actual name of the author of the piece should be cited, but the piece did appear in the NYTimes so seems notable enough for a few lines in the article. It seems the style could be reworded to give greater neutrality rather than being deleted. --Wowaconia (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted an edit that restored potentially harmful information. As per wikipedia's policies, the section should either 1) not exist or 2) be from a NPOV. The NYTimes piece is a book review and goes into detail about other factual errors present in the book. The quote is from the book. If used as a reference, the book should be the citation, not the NYTimes article. That's citing sources 101. Additionally, "biblical prophecies were being fulfilled" is erroneous. You didn't even attempt to respond to what I said again. I have reverted. Please discuss here, share your viewpoint, and try to build some consensus before simply reverting again. Perpetualization (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly, please identify something that is WRONG with the current version before changing. The factual errors in the old version (the "American" invasion, etc.) demand that it not stand. I feel that the current text is more than sufficiently detailed for this article. Perpetualization (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the lastest diff I see similar info in both versions but I think Perpetualization's edit is preferable and more npov, ie just presenting the quote with a minimum of additional observations. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference BelyeuIrene was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, The Gog and Magog Tradition in Revelation 20:8, in, H. J. de Jonge, Johannes Tromp, eds., The book of Ezekiel and its influence, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p.172
    • ^ Berner, Douglas C., The Silence Is Broken! God Hooks Ezekiel's Gog & Magog,, 2006, p.282
    • ^ Scherman Nosson & Zlotowitz, Meir, eds., TANACH: The Torah, Prophets, Writings, The Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated and Annotated, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, 1996, p.x