Answering "My Stand on Rosh/ Russia"

I have been getting emails asking me about my stance on Russia as well as my reference in my article series - The Mystery of Rosh.
Here is just one of many examples that I have gotten…
From the last article, couldn't understand for sure where you stand on Russian leading a coalition against Israel. What part is in the Koran? I am a firm believer in the coalition that is even now being set up.
Now I know that it goes against the common idea out there, but I believe that the "doctrine" of Russia leading some coalition is based on a falsehood originally taught from the Koran.
I ask that you please take the time to read my series "The Mystery of Rosh" so that you fully understand where I stand, and why I am looking at Russia in the series "Israel - American & God's Judgment." And why I do not see them as part of the "coalition" against Israel. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. THE MYSTERY OF ROSH

Is Russia ever literally mentioned in the bible?

This is a question I have been asking for a while now.  But all we seem to be getting is the same convoluted information.

Everyone points to Ezekiel 38-39 and says "see right there.. Russia."

Well to be honest I see  Meshech ,Tubal, Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, Gomer, Togarmah.

These are all real places, in fact Meshech ,Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah are all found in Turkey.

Persia is modern day Iran.

Ethiopia is still the same as well as Libya.

But Russia is not named literally.

So why literally name all the other countries involved and then allegorically name Russia?

When you ask the scholars you get something like this…

Ras = Rosh which = Russia because the “T” in Tiras really needs to be dropped off to form Ras so that they can become part of the Table of Nations found in Genesis 10; THEN migrate all the way from the Balkans then to the North of the Black Sea  and then to the Caucasus Mountains. WHICH.. after moving there, they then move to form Russia, Moscow and Tobol'sk which is north of the Balkans area.

Whew!

As we know, many people state that they believe this idea, but to date I still can’t find Russia in the scriptures and they can’t clearly show me it either.

I believe that this all falls under “assumed knowledge.”

Assumed?

I believe that the idea of Russia being  told for over 150+ years has now become doctrine. Everyone "assumes" that Russia is in the bible, but no one can clearly point to it.

Like the story of the king who had no clothes, everyone sees Russia when she is clearly not there.

So again we ask, where did the whole Russia idea originate from?

Well I believe I have found the possible smoking gun in where the idea of Russia originates.

So where did we get the idea of Rosh / Russia that has been taught all these years?

The Koran.

So let me get this straight Ray - from LeHaye, to Billionton, to Scofield and Fausset, all of us over the years have been quoting an idea based in the Koran.?

Yep.

I can see your face and it's disbelief right now. It looks the same way mine did when doing this investigative work.

I remember saying to myself “The Koran? No way, it can't be. ”

Like you sitting there right now, I did not want to believe it, but I found when digging in the old books what appears to be the solid evidence proving it to be true.

And you know what? It has been right in front of us all these years but no one clearly saw it.

But more on that later.

Way back in the “olden days” the early 1800s…1825 to be exact. There was a man named Joseph Freiherr (Barron) Von Hammer-Purgstall, who was a Austrian orientalist. He was also seen as one of the "jet setters" of his time.

Jet-setter ok, but what is an orientalist?

Someone who likes and studies the Orient, Middle East, Asia, ect. It was a popular thing to do back then when you  were of royalty and or wealthy.

For fifty years Hammer-Purgstall’s primary drive in life was to find an original manuscript of 1001 Arabian Nights so that he could share it with the world. It was one of those "celebrity facts" that everyone in Europe and the Middle East knew.

If Esquire or Star gossip mags were around back then, they would follow Von Hammer's travels in trying to find 1001 Arabian Nights.

While on his travels, Von Hammer also made it his business to write books on things he saw, and things he discovered about the area.

Von Hammer wrote and published numerous books he translated from Arabic, Persian and Turkish authors. They were hastily written papers on oriental history, institutions, manners, literature food and culture.

See, we have to remember that the Middle East held a "romantic" idea in many people's minds. It was artful, mysterious, with completely different ways and customs.

We have to also remember that there was no such thing as the internet and news of faraway lands took time to be written. But, if you were an author that could "crank out " books about the Middle East, then you became a popular author as well as popular person with "celebrity" status.

So to put it bluntly, Von Hammer appeared to be one of the leading “pulp fiction” authors of his time and his books were always on the "best sellers" list.

I  guess to put it in modern times, his work was a step above those harlequin novels and gossip magazines you see at the cash register checkout line.

Moving forward…

One of the books he wrote was called “Sur Les Origines Russes” which was published in 1825. In this book he claimed that he discovered the origins of Russia. This was big news.

But come to find out, his "discoveries" were based on just one verse of the Koran.

See Von Hammer found this one line in the Koran and built an entire book around the idea. But due to his somewhat less that resourceful research, it caused him to have many critics of his rather footloose work.

In fact Von Hammer was severely criticized by Friedrich Christian Diez (1794-1876), who, in his book Unfug und Betrug (1815), devoted nearly 600 pages of abusive criticism to Von Hammer.

Are you getting the picture here?

We have a pulp fiction jet-setting Barron who likes to crank out books on the Middle East. It does not matter if they are true or not, the people back in Europe are eating them up. They dream of being  sheiks in the desert, riding the spice caravans, genies in bottles, camels, kus-kus and things like that.

Von Hammer wrote about it and he made a good living doing it too.

I am not saying that he was a bad guy, in no way. My research shows that Von Hammer had the ability to speak ten languages, traveled the world, and had great connections.  But his problem was poorly researched and hugely speculative points in his work. See it is that lack of research and holding to the truth that was his down fall scientifically and scholarly.

But why should he care, his books were primarily for "mental entertainment" based merely on grains of truth, if one could put it that way. If you think about it, he must have spun some pretty good tails in his books to pay for all those trips to the Middle East .

While conducting my own journey in finding the truth, I came across a humorous but serious letter published in “The Asiatic Journal” dated January 1825. It is kind of hard to read because of the writing style being verbose and colorful.

Let me help in setting the stage here…

This letter was written by a “Turkish Philosopher” from Jaffa, who also dealt in tobacco and pipes. He is writing to the editor of The Asiatic Journal because he is upset over work he discovered where Von Hammer is making his claims about the origins of the Russian people.

How did he discover this?

While wrapping up soap.

The Asiatic Journal and Monthly

During this time the Pasha was not receiving the monies due from the taxes, so out of his infinitesimal wisdom he brought in a tons of alkaline and ordered all the merchants to start making soap. See in his thinking lots of soap means lots of sales which means a lot of tax money for the Pasha.  I tell you this because if you have a lot of soap, you will need to be package it.

This is where we pick up with our Turkish Philosopher  in his letter to the editor published in The Asiatic Journal…

Going one day to a printing office in order to get some waste paper in which to wrap up his genuine Jaffa soap, he received a mass of printed sheets upon which to his great joy he discovered Arabic Persian and Turkish characters together with French and other European tongues a smattering of which he had acquired.

He took these sheets home to his shop and found them to be a learned work entitled Sur les Origines Russe Extraits de Manuscripts Orientaux par MJ de Hammer, St Petersburg 1827. (On the Origins Russians - Excerpts from Oriental Manuscripts)

Upon slightly looking through the work, he conceived that it was a continuation of the Arabian Nights and he invited his neighbours to come and listen to the tales which he proposed to translate verbally.

Upon more attentive examination however, he was mortified to find that it was an historical work: historical tales, he remarks, are far less amusing than others.

And can you guess my dear Editor what is intended to be shewn in this history which I bought to wrap round my Jaffa soap?

The most honourable most learned most profound most fertile M de Hammer cream of the ulemas of Vienna and ornament of Namcheh writers, wishes to convince the world that our prophet make mention of the Russians in the Koran; that he has discovered proofs in oriental writers that the Russians formerly inhabited Great Bucharia and that the Cossacs of the Don existed in the tenth century !

And upon what think you does M de Hammer build these curious conjectures?

Upon а verse in the Koran which refers to certain Asshab-ar- Ras or the people of Ras.

But no one had ever before imagined that Asshab-ar- Ras could refer lo the Russians, who, whilst our good prophet was rightly prohibiting his disciple from drinking the bad wine of the Hedjaz, quaffed at their ease in total ignorance of him, the excellent beer of Scandinavia. Ebn Kathir, one of our theologians has written a long chapter upon this passage of the Koran in which I confess I cannot discover a grain of common sense.

My late father had abundant reason to dislike imams with their tedious verbiage and to refuse to let them have tobacco without the money down for truly all that Ebn Kalhir in his parade of frivolous erudition has written upon the meaning of the phrase Asshab-ar- Ras is not worth ten drachms of Latakia tobacco.

Yet M de Hammer who quotes this whole chapter Ebn Kathir has printed the Arabic text with a sort of a French translation and he attaches as much importance to and seems to believe as firmly in all the pious reveries of this superstitious doctor as if he had been promised for it a place in the paradise of Mahomet.

The Turkish Marchand-Philosophe then proceeds to criticize the translations of M Von Hammer from the oriental tongues and it must be confessed that he has established some proofs of gross negligence if not of ignorance.

It would be inconvenient to detail the various instances alleged ïn this letter we shall select one or two as examples of the rest.

In the first place the letter writer has shewn by various instances that M Von Hammer has misunderstood participles and mere parts of speech for proper names and has consequently called into existence nations which have only a “grammatical origin.”

Of such nations you will find so large a number in M de Hammer's book that you may make of them an empire more powerful than that of Austria.

Наvе you ever heard of such nations as these the Tamlessans, the Anjars, the Shefnans, the Burghaz, the Esroussiyas,  the Ssafers, the Ssakars, the Ashans, the Gharams, the Kbolekhs, the Muharikas, the Birkets?

All these people derive their birth from the pen of the learned M de Hammer in exactly the same manner as the respectable Ikiliars which signifies free will, opinion, M Von Hammer makes а proper name and the brave gerundive nation of the Munfeshas.

Take for example the country of Birket (or the basin): I will lay you a wager that you will not guess in a thousand trials what country it is although it is well known to you. It a Russia my dear Editor Efiendi!

This is the way in which M de Hammer translates a passage from the geography of Ahulfeda: “Okek is the boundary of the саmр of the king of the Tartars of the country of Birket, which docs not extend further.” Yet his majesty the king of Hama has condescended to say in a manner perfectly intelligible to those who know his language; “the encampments of the great horde of the Tartar sovereign of the empire of Bergueh-khan extend as far as Oukek, but they do not go beyond that point.”

I need not remind you that Bergueh was one of the successors of the famous Batu, the conqueror of Russia; but M.de Hammer has confounded the name of this Mongol Khan with the Arabic word birket, which signifies lake, pool, or basin, of which he has made his wonderful “country of Birket.”

M.Von Hammer, it appears, has erected his hypothesis as to the Asiatic origin of the Russian nation upon a passage in Masoudi. Our philosopher gives M.Von Hammer’s translation, and compares it with his own, “made according to the manner in which the Arabic tongue and eastern geography are understood at Jaffa.”

Certainly the discrepancy is not a little astonishing. The term in Masoudi, which M.de Hammer considers to mean Russians, is plainly shewn to signify no such thing; and the Turkish philosopher maintains that such a critic and such a geographer as M.de Hammer might deduce the origin of the Russians from the moon.

This lively and critical letter concludes in the following serious manner:

But I have written to much already, my dear Editor Effendi, about a work which at Jaffa will infallibly be treated as it deserves. I shall think I have fulfilled my object if my observations shall inspire you and your readers with a proper distrust of the translations which the learned Austrian orientalist pretends to make of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, and with which he is continually inundating the literature of several European nations. Such rhapsodies ought to excite the indignations of every lover of science, because they embarrass the progress of oriental studies, upon which they throw an unfavorable light, by making people believe that the writings of the best authors are tissues of absurdities and nonsense; and because they, moreover, propagate errors, by imposing upon the good-nature of your laborious compilers, who adopt without suspicion these wretched versions, and the false data which result there from, and incorporate them in their works.

To make the literary world acquainted with the intrinsic value of this sort of materials, which it is incessantly loaded with, under titles at once pompous and mysterious, is, in my opinion, to render a service to science.

http://tinyurl.com/asiatic-journal-von-hammer

In other words, by exposing Von Hammer, it is the writer's desire to expose him for the “pulp fiction” writer he really is.  It is the hopes that the true scholarly world will disregard his work regarding Russia and his other fabled findings.

Are you beginning to understand who Von Hammer is and what he wrote?

Enter Gesenius

It is here where we pick up the Christian Lexicographer Wilhelm Gesenius, professor of Theology at the University of Halle in Prussia. It is he who played the key role in propagating the whole Russia paradigm.

You see, it is his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon originally published in German in 1827 and then later published in English in 1846 where we are able to point the finger.

In this work we see that Gesenius makes “Rosh” not only a proper noun, but he is also professing that the word / translation for the Rosh is in fact Russia.

See the word for Rosh in the Hebrew occurs in the Authorized King James 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always translated as a title.

• head 349
• chief 91
• top 73
• beginning 14
• company 12
• captain 10
• sum 9
• first 6
• principal 5
• chapiters 4
• rulers 2

Nowhere is Rosh referenced as a land, an area, people or tribe.

So where did Gesenius get this idea of Rosh?

Yep, you guessed it, Von Hammer.

In fact you can see here in the 1846 printing that Gesenius gives Von Hammer the credit in his Lexicon for Russia being Rosh as he “discovered” it " in the Koran."

In fact, to this day you can go to any Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and still find the reference to the Koran and Von Hammer. This has been right in front of our noses all this time.

Please, google it yourself and see.

Is it beginning to make sense here?

All these years, we have been teaching an idea which has turned into a doctrine which is based from the Koran and not scripture.

But more than that I have to ask, is Gesenius truly checking his sources, or is he merely propagating an idea?

I could easily see how he might be propagating the idea, you see, Gesenius was not a historian.

In his definition, Gesenius cites Byzantine era writer Fosslan as a source of historical significance but goes no further. Just a quick blurb and he is done with it.

Gesenius does not  give any real ancient sources to which he can anchor the Rosh / Russia claim. Again, just the blurb and it is over and he is done with.

You can clearly see that he doesn’t even reference the Septuagint (LXX) which where the Rosh idea is clearly shown.

In many other instances of his lexicon you can see where he clearly references the Septuagint. So why not here? Rosh is in the Septuagint, so why did Gesenius not  reference at least so called “ancient” document?

Folks, this is the very document that many modern scholars point to when they refer to when the point to a Rosh / Russia scenario.

What I believe is that Gesenius was propagating an idea and not something based on scriptural fact.

Think about it logically for a moment.

This is the country Russia we are talking about here.

They (Russia) are the supposed be "THE" invaders of Israel and all we have is a short blurb from Gesenius  with really no details except his dogmatic statement being “Undoubtedly the Russians?”

This is rather uncharacteristic of the famed lexicographer.

Where is his proof that Rosh is “Undoubtedly the Russians?”

This point magnifies the fact that Gesenius leveraged the idea from  the very popular writer, world traveler Von Hammer.

Gesenius is impressive and a great man of God, but it must be remembered that Gesenius was a great lexicographer and grammarian, not an authority on ancient history. He is making some rather out of character moves in this statement regarding Rosh.

Think about this for a moment, Gesenius is a man of detail, he is a lexicographer, and the details are his job. So why is he lacking the details on one of the scriptures most well known players in the last days?

For example, here is what he has to say about Syria or Aram.

As you can see Gesenius goes into great detail about the word Aram/Syria quoting verses, places, examples, ect.

Compare that to Rosh and Russia’s definition and it seems to be lacking in the detail Gesenius was known for.

Again it is this sort of evidence that points to that possibility that Gesenius was more influenced by Von Hammers work, than originating the idea himself or that of the earlier 10^th century Fosslan.

To give Gesenius credence, why would he question Von Hammer?  Von Hammer was a well known orientalist, world traveler and an Austrian Barron who personally worked for the Austrian embassy in Constantinople.   The guy had some good credentials.

But there is more that could have influenced him in point blank naming Rosh as Russia.

You see Russia was in the news… a lot.

In fact 90% of the news about Russia was not good.

1800…

As a major European power, Russia could not escape the wars involving revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Czar Pau became an adamant opponent of France, and Russia joined Britain and Austria in a war against France. Russian troops under one of Russia's most famous generals, Aleksandr Suvorov, performed brilliantly in Italy and Switzerland. Paul, however, reversed himself and abandoned his allies. This reversal, coupled with increasingly arbitrary domestic policies, sparked a coup, and in March 1801 Czar Paul was assassinated.

• 1812 Napoleon Invades Russia, Russia wins due to the winter
• Russian -Turkish War 1828-1829
• Russian-Murid War 1834-1859
• Russian Conquest of the Syr River Basin 1849-1854
• The Crimean War with Russia, England, France 1853-1856 (this was a biggie)
• Russian-Kokandian War 1864-1865
• Russian-Bukharan War 1865-1868
• Russian Conquest of Tashkent 1865
• Russian-Khivan War 1873
• Russian-Turkish War 1877-1878 (another major war)
• Anglo-Russian Crisis 1877-1878
• Russian Siege of Geok Tepe 1879-1881
• Russian Conquest of Merv 1884
• Russian-Afghan War 1885

Then there was the Jewish Pogroms in Russia 1903

An estimated 50,000 Russian Jews were murdered in a series of massive pogroms that began at Kishinev, Bessarabia (Moldova). The attacks, encouraged by the Russian government, did not appreciably moderate popular unrest and the onset of the 1905 revolution; instead, they strengthened the growing revolutionary movement, while also greatly multiplying emigration to America and spurring the development of Zionism. Souce - http://www.onwar.com

As you can see, just about every 5 -10 years Russia was either invading someone, at war or in conquest of some area, people or nation. They are the bad guys of Europe and they are constantly wreaking havoc on the masses.

A Mistake That Dropped Through The Cracks?

On the 23rd of October, 1842, Gesenius died at the age of fifty-seven. His manuscripts, papers, research, etc., were entrusted to his friend, Prof. Rodiger, in order that he might complete the work of Gesenius.

A great amount of detail was given to make sure the works of Gesenius was properly given his rightly due.

Here is what the preface of Gesenius “ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon says…

“This translation was conducted on the following plan : Each root was taken as it stands in the "Thesaurus," and the " Lexicon Manuale" was compared with it; such corrections or additions being made as seemed needful : the root and derivatives were at once translated, every Scripture reference being verified, and, when needful, corrected. A faithful adherence to this plan must insure, it is manifest, not only correctness in the work, but also much of the value of the “Thesaurus," in addition to the “Lexicon Manuale "
Source - Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon Preface  – S.P.T. - SOME, February 24th, 1846.

So we can clearly see that the trustees of Gesenius’ work held him in very high regard and respect. Out of that I can see that they did not want to deviate from Gesenius’ words, findings or details. Couple this reverence with what Russia was doing in the world and one can see how the “Rosh” definition was not questioned by the trustees.

Finally we come to the smoking gun that Von Hammer based his analysis on, the very crux of this “discovery.”

Ere the days of these (Meccans) the people of Noah, and the men of Rass2 and Themoud.  Koran - Sura Qaf 50:12

I personally do not speak Arabic, nor have a copy of the Koran. So I asked my friend, Walid Shoebat, who happens to speak Arabic and was a former Muslim to make sure this is in fact correct.

Here is Walid’s comments…

The Quranic reference is from Sura Qaf 50:12 which is more of Quranic fiction then a reference to Russia.

Ibn Jarir stated that the dwellers of Ar-Rass were the people of one of Thamud's villages. Allah sent a prophet to them called Huzlah Ibn Safwan.

They denied and killed him, so Allah destroyed them. Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Al-Hassan narrated: "The dwellers of Ar-Rass had a well sufficing them and their land. They also had a just and good-hearted king. When he died, they were much grieved for him.

After four days Satan took his form and said: 'I was not dead, but I kept absent from you to see your reaction.' They were very joyful. He commanded them to set up a curtain between him and then and told them that he would never die. A great number of them believed him and were fascinated with and worshipped him.

Then Allah sent them a prophet telling them that it was Satan who was addressing them from behind the curtain. He forbade them to worship him and commanded them to worship only Allah and no partner with Him.

In spite of that, they killed their prophet and threw his body into a well. Therefore, Allah destroyed them and their homes."

But how did Von Hammer make the connection?

He dropped the “T” from Tiras found in the Table of Nations that is referenced in Genisis 10:2.

Von Hammer notes that the earliest form of recorded Semitic language they had the tendency to drop or change an initial "T" sound in a name; specially if the initial "T" was followed by an "r" sound.

This was not a conclusive finding nor a “norm” in grammatical studies. It was purely a speculation on that part of Von Hammer.

He figured that If you drop the initial "T" from Tiras you are left with "ras" and that provided the “proof” he needed to write his treatise “Sur Les Origines Russes.”

If one continues on with this form of mental gymnastics and word play it makes complete “logical sense” to Von Hammer and the others that Ras or Rass as found in the Koran is the very same thing spoken about in Ezekiel 38:2 which has the Hebrew word “Rosh.”

Von Hammer’s conclusion was naturally they must be the same people.

What has taken place is our Turkish philosopher’s worst dreams came true.

The western world latched on to sloppy work of Von Hammer through the respected work of Wilhelm Gesenius.

Because Gesenius’s work is so respected, this has been passed down for the last 150+ years through many of the great bible prophecy teachers and theologians.

Because it has been taught for over 150+ years and is backed by Gesenius, the idea of Rosh / Russia is now a cemented doctrine of Christendom.

No one ever thought that Gesenius might not check his resources, but it appears that he did just that and did not conduct his due diligence.

Today Russia being Gog /Magog has become what we call in the modern vernacular as the “gospel” truth.

Von Hammer’s error to lives on.

And it all originates from the lie we call the Koran.

THE MYSTERY OF ROSH Pt II
In part one I show where Gesenius named Von Hammer as his “historical” source in naming Rosh as “undoubtedly Russia.” That is a pretty dogmatic statement when we find that Von Hammer was really nothing but a pulp fiction author. I also show that this whole “Rosh” idea is actually inspired by the Islamic Koran and in fact Gesenius gives the Koran the credit in his own lexicon.
But in our journey to discover the  truth, we uncovered yet another problem.
The idea of Rosh is based on the Septuagint. In fact you can tell if a bible is based on the Septuagint by looking at Ezekiel 38:2

Septuagint – Eze 38:2 – Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐπὶ Γωγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγωγ, ἄρχοντα Ρως, Μοσοχ καὶ Θοβελ, καὶ προφήτευσον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν

Eze 38:2 (NASB)  “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him.

Eze 38:2 (NAS 1977)  “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of  Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Eze 38:2 (RV)  Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Here is what the King James 1611 AD Authorized Version states…

Eze 38:2 (KJV) Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

Note, no “ROSH”
Prior to King James and his Authorized Version we had the Geneva and Bishops bible that were the mainstay of Christian scripture.
The Geneva 1587 AD Bible states Ezekiel 38:2 and the following…

Eze 38:2 (GEN) Sonne of man, set thy face against Gog, and against the lande of Magog, the chiefe prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophecie against him,

Source – Geneva Bible – IMPRINTED AT LONDON by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Qveenes Maiestie. 1587. Cum priuilegio.

Again, no “ROSH”
Finally the Bishops 1568 AD Bible states Ezekiel 38:2 in the following…

Eze 38:2 (BISH) Thou sonne of man, set thy face towarde Gog, the land of Magog, which is the chiefe prince at Mesech and Tubal: prophecie against him,

Source – Bishops Bible – The holie Bible conteynyng the olde Testament and the newe, 1568

And again, no “ROSH”
The word for Rosh in the Hebrew occurs in the Authorized King James 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always translated as a title.

head 349 chief 91
top 73
beginning 14
company 12
captain 10
sum 9
first 6

principal 5

chapiters 4

rulers 2

Nowhere in scripture is Rosh referenced as a land, an area, people or tribe.
Eatons Bible Dictionary states the following:

Rosh

(Eze_38:2, Eze_38:3; Eze_39:1) is rendered “chief” in the Authorized Version. It is left untranslated as a proper name in the Revised Version. Some have supposed that the Russians are here meant, as one of the three Scythian tribes of whom Magog was the prince. They invaded the land of Judah in the days of Josiah. Herodotus, the Greek historian, says: “For twenty-eight years the Scythians ruled over Asia, and things were turned upside down by their violence and contempt.”

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance states the following about Rosh

H7218

ראשׁ

rô’sh

roshe

From an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literally or figuratively (in many applications, of place, time, rank, etc.): – band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief (-est place, man, things), company, end, X every [man], excellent, first, forefront, ([be-]) head, height, (on) high (-est part, [priest]), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top.

Why doesn’t the Authorized King James, The Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible not contain the ROSH proper noun? Instead it maintains the proper hermeneutical use of the Rosh adjective meaning Chief.
Why? Because they are not based off of the Septuagint.
So what is the Septuagint?
It is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek that is believed to have been translated around the third century B.C.

Septuagint Background
Upon the death of Alexander in 332 B.C., one of his four generals, named Ptolemy Lagus, took over Egypt as King. He crowned himself Ptolemy I Soter which literally means “Ptolemy the Savior”. It is Ptolemy who built the Great Library of Alexandria, the center of knowledge, but more than that, it was the home of Gnosticism.
Once Ptolemy died, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 285-246 BC) continued his father’s legacy. In his effort to make the Great Library the best center of learning in the known world, Ptolemy Philadelphus sought to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. The problem was that his staff found Hebrew to be a difficult language to understand, and they were not sure of the many phrases or meanings found in the Hebrew text. So
Ptolemy appointed a team of Gnostic seventy scholars, each fluent in Hebrew and in Greek, and assigned to them the task of translating the Hebrew text. Legend has it that he had 72 scholars who translated the Septuagint in 72 days, thus the Roman numeral abbreviation of LXX or 70.
Here lies the problem, it was these Gnostic scholars who translated the Hebrew text into the Greek. 
 
What is Gnosticism?
It is based off of the Greek word gnōsis, which translates to knowledge.
Gnosticism is a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god. In the days of old, they pull both from Christianity and Judaism and formed it into a mysterious hodge podge of esoteric beliefs. A close modern day equivalent is the Theosophical Society founded by Madame Helena PetrovaBlavatsky. Like the Gnostics of old, they are seekers of knowledge as well as followers of the “Bearer of Light” (knowledge) Lucifer.
It is these Gnostics that while translating the Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek added to the text as well as left out script. It is noted that the Alexandrian School is recognized as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is the  Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the oldest manuscripts, The Septuagint being a primary along with Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph. A side note, the Septuagint also contains the un-canonized books of the Apocrypha which is not found in the original Hebrew either.

For those who will say that the original 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as scripture.
It should be known that the Septuagint is not inspired and is a not a preserved text of scripture. Christ as well as the apostles did not quote from it, even when it was suppose to be in existence during their life time.  The very fact that the Septuagint’s history and Gnostic character should be proof enough to give one pause  for thought.
The light cannot have anything to do with the dark.
Scripture says…

Luke 11:36 (KJV)  If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

Jack Moorman in his book “Forever Settled” observes:

“The original LXX version of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from Theodotion. Proverbs contains things not in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was replaced, perhaps in the first century AD, by a later translation (generally attributed to Theodotion, but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is nowadays to be found in only two MSS and the Syriac. One of the translators of Jeremiah sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar meaning” (Moorman, Forever Settled).”

Dr. Donald Waite author of  “The Defense of the King James Bible” summarizes:

“It can be clearly seen … that the Septuagint is inaccurate and inadequate and deficient as a translation. To try to reconstruct the Hebrew Text (as many connected with the modern versions are attempting to do) from such a loose and unacceptable translation would be like trying to reconstruct the Greek New Testament Text from the Living Bible of Ken Taylor!!” (Waite, The Defense of the King James Bible)”

The Septuagint and modern translations based upon the LXX translates the Hebrew word Rosh in all its uses by the Greek word “Ros” or “Rhos” as a proper noun of a people and a place.
The Septuagint is a questionable document and it is one of the “smoking guns”  where the whole Rosh = Russia paradigm originate. Both the American Version and English Version both utilize the LXX as a primary document. Both of these versions were also brought into existence around the late 1800s, early 1900s.
It is these modern versions having the “Rosh” error, coupled with Gesenius’ work amplified the Rosh = the Russia paradigm and cast the whole idea into what has become hard…concrete… doctrine. 
 
The Septuagint – Proper Interpretation – Rules and Hermeneutics
The Authorized King James Version, the Geneva and the Bishops all allow for the Golden Rule of Interpretation, The law of recurrence, and the rule of a text apart from the context is a pretext.
The use of the noun “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” found in the modern versions does not.
Let’s examine this for a moment.
There are established rules of interpretation. These rules apply to all scripture, including the prophetic pages like we find in Ezekiel.

The late Dr. L Cooper, the Founder of Biblical Research Society coined the most famous of rules known as the “Golden Rule of Interpretation.”
 
The Golden Rule of Interpretation

“When the plain sense of Scripture males common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the fact of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. “

In other words, this law states that ALL biblical passages are to be taken exactly as they read unless there is something in the text indicating that it should be taken some other way than literally.
I go back and remind you that “Rosh” in the Hebrew occurs 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always literally translated as a title when dealing with a person. The defenders of Rosh as a people or place do not observe that.
 
The law of recurrence
This law describes the fact that in some passages of scripture there exist the recording of an event, then it is followed by a second recording of the same event but with more or less detail.
In fact Ezekiel 38:1-23 and 39:1-16 is an excellent example of the law of recurrence.
Ezekiel 38:1-23 gives a complete account of the invasion of Israel from the north and the subsequent destruction of the invading army. This is followed by the second block of scripture, Ezekiel 39:1-16, which repeats some of the account given in block one with added details regarding the destruction of this invading army.
Often readers see Ezekiel 39 as a continuation of 38, but in fact it is repeating the story from different prophetic vantage points.
In both cases Rosh is not used as a proper noun for a people or place, but in fact support the Rosh adjective meaning chief, leader, head, ect.
The defenders of the Rosh=Russia paradigm often point to the NASB, AV,EV, RSV, ect as their proof but ignore the fact that all of these are based upon questionable error prone text found in the Septuagint.
 
A Text apart From The Context is a Pretext
A verse can only mean what it means in its context and must not be pulled out of its context. When it is pulled out of context, it is often presented as meaning something that it cannot mean within the context.
As I have shown “Rosh” in the Hebrew occurs 598 times throughout the OT; and it is always translated as a title. The defenders of Rosh as a people or place do not observe that and in fact ignore the context of “Rosh” being “Chief, leader, head” and replace it with people.
I ask again, if this is the true use of the word Rosh, why didn’t God make that clear?
Why is Rosh seen as Chief, Top, Leader, ect 598 times in scripture but for this one and only time found in Ezekiel 38:2 – 3 all of a sudden it is a people or a place?
The defenders of the Rosh = Russia Paradigm are blatantly disregarding this rule. The verse clearly shows and stands for Chief, leader, head. That is the context that is clearly presented.
Let’s take it from another angle.
The Hebrew word s being used are “nish” “rosh” which equals “prince chief” when literally translated; this is how the original Hebrew (Massoretic text) renders this.
“Nish” “Rosh” clearly does not equal Russia.
But the defenders of the Rosh = Russia paradigm stand on the wording in the Septuagint, which is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew.

Let’s review the terms “Nish” and “Rosh”  in the Strong’s.

H5387

נשׂא    נשׂיא

nâśîy’  nâśi’

naw-see’, naw-see’

From H5375; properly an exalted one, that is, a king or sheik; also a rising mist: – captain, chief, cloud, governor, prince, ruler, vapour.

H7218

ראשׁ

rô’sh

roshe

From an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literally or figuratively (in many applications, of place, time, rank, etc.): – band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief (-est place, man, things), company, end, X every [man], excellent, first, forefront, ([be-]) head, height, (on) high (-est part, [priest]), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top.

The term “Chief Prince” clearly works well when we translate Hebrew into English. The context properly conveys a strong leader of leaders within the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38. He is the “head”(rosh) of a confederacy which goes against Israel.
In the original Hebrew (Massoretic Hebrew Text) we see the accents of “tiphha and Zaqeph-gadol. Now for those of you with Hebrew knowledge you should note that the Tiphha appears under the resh of the Hebrew word – ‘rosh’; while the Zaqeph-gadol appears on the top of the sin of the Hebrew word ‘nish’ (nasi).
So what does this mean?
Whenever the Zaqeph-gadol accent appears, it is always used in connection with a pause.
Are you lost yet? Stay with me and do not skip this. It is really important as I will show you.
Christ said that every jot and every tittle matters. Based upon this statement, Christ could not have ever quoted from the Septuagint with all its errors as well as being a translation from Hebrew to Greek even though it was believed to be in existence in His day.
The Zaqeph-gadol accent is the Hebrew mark for a pause in speech.
In Hebrew it reads…
“the prince (Nish), — PAUSE – chief (Rosh) of Meschech and Tubal”
So reading the verse would go something like this when literally translated.
Vs2….set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the prince, – - PAUSE — chief of  Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him…
Vs3…”Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the prince, – - PAUSE — chief of Meschech and Tubal.”
But Ray… Scripture reads Chief Prince, not Prince Chief.
Excellent point!
Being from the western world we read left to right, where as Hebrew is read right to left.
When looking at Hebrew Prince Chief = Chief Prince.  Simply put, it is backwards due to the Hebrew.
When reading these verses and being presented in the proper context this makes absolute sense.
But let’s take what the defenders of the Rosh = Russia paradigm and put it to the same test.
Here is what their version sounds like … ” O Gog, the nish (prince)  rosh (Russia) of Meshech and Tubal.
In their version there is no pause as Zaqeph-gadol accent shows.
But even with a pause, “Prince “PAUSE” Russia of Mechech and Tubal” it just does not sound right and it makes no grammatical sense what so ever.
I mean what is “Prince Russia of Mechech and Tubal?
Do you see what I am showing here?  When read in proper context the Rosh = Russia version kind of sounds like gibberish. Don’t you agree?
In fact, their very verbiage and context does not make sense what so ever.
But what surprises me the most is that authors, teachers and scholars would rather lean on the Gnostic inspired Septuagint than stand on the original Massoretic Hebrew text.
Why are they leaning on a translation, Greek to Hebrew, and refuse to go to the source, the Hebrew .
The Jewish people were chosen to be the oracles of God’s Word, is that not correct?
If that is the case then why go to some translation the comes from Egypt when you have the very best source already available, the Massoretic Hebrew text?
Folks, when scripture fits, we must submit.
As we have shown here scripture, the Massoretic Hebrew text vs. the Greek Septuagint,  does in fact fit and it is supported by the proper rules of interpretation and hermeneutics where the
Septuagint does not.
So I ask, why the unwillingness to submit to what is clearly shown in scripture?
Why all the mental gymnastics?
Why the need to make something out which is not there?
But here is THE BIG QUESTION…
Why are we looking at Russia and not Turkey?
These are questions that we need to ask the authors, teachers and scholars.