Magog (Part 1/2)
The Apocalyptic Leader Before the Coming of the Messiah
After our exhaustive analysis of Togarmah and Gomer’s generalized Scythian bloodline, we now have a proper foundation for pinpointing Magog. While Magog is known famously from Ezekiel’s apocalyptic writings; no specific nation or people have ever been associated in Rabbinic tradition with a Gog, or Magog figure, making identification challenging.1 Complicating this is the reality that in later Jewish Tanakh Magog indeed becomes a land rather than a specific person, associated with a leader, or possibly King known as “Gog”.
While Magog is often erroneously equated to Gog, in the original text the indication is that Gog is a person, or leader, and Magog is the land in which he dwells which doesn’t imply he came from the ‘lineage of magog’ explicitly. Where this supposed “Land of Magog” might be located is difficult to parse as the attractiveness of Magog’s usage in later apocalyptic literature has clouded our picture. While there is a tendency to assume an abundance of sources would provide more clarity, in reality when all of those sources are based on a mere reading of Ezekiel, they are nothing but derivative assumptions.
We can only put Magog somewhere in that same Yamnaya heartland that all Japhetites at some point or another had originated. Where Magog went is unknown; east, south, west or if Magog stayed in that homeland is up for interpretation and further unraveling. As a result Magog’s positioning as the second son of Japheth he is the most likely candidate for a “supra-alliance” between the interconnected Japhetite steppe world especially since we know the ‘Gomerian Cimmerians’ migrated out of their region. This alliance was likely some form of Scythian coalition, a group that ravages the ancient world, having a military on par with any ancient empire and oftentimes eclipsing and defeating the Greeks, or Persians making them an obvious choice for an apocalyptic nation.
However that doesn’t necessarily imply Gog is even a “Magogite” and simply might come from the “Land of the Magogites”, plausibly located inside Scythia. We know from our previous analysis that “non-Indo-European” groups often mixed into the Scythian identity, such as the Turkic tribes, and other Caucus peoples. It could be that Magog was from the Caucasus mountains and represents one of the hundreds of sub-ethnic groups that exist in the area and not Scythian proper. Attached is a map to drive home how many ethnicities exist in the Caucasus mountains.
Despite Rabbinic tradition containing no official identity for Magog, various Jewish traditions exist, but in later eras associations become filled with propaganda meant to push singular political causes. In earliest periods sources such as Josephus identify Magog around the Caucasus mountain range, often associating them generally with the Scythians. According to Josephus these Magog-ites lived beyond a mythical “Gate of Alexander” built to hold back the hordes from the north during his conquests.
Descending from Josephus’s tradition came the later Syriac Christian ‘Alexander Legend’ which described both Gog and Magog as Hunnish kings beyond the supposed Caspian Gate.2 Within this reference though these “Huns” are actually 24 separate nations making it an obvious call back to the Scythians rather than specifically “Hunnic”. This Alexander Legend dating from around 630 AD is significantly later, but becomes the source of much of the Western literature regarding the topic of Magog. Eventually this Legend is remixed into the Alexander Romances which dominated medieval imagery.
Magog was later associated by Christians as the Khazars, who were funnily enough a Jewish horde located in what was essentially Scythian territory. The irony of the Jewish nature of these supposed Magogites appears to have been lost on Christian and Muslim writers.3 After the Khazars disintegrate the later Mongols dominate this territory and invade nearly the whole world. As a result of their widespread devastation, spreading of disease and often city razing battles the Mongols became obviously associated with traditions of Magog Apocalypticism. Marco Polo himself even places Gog and Magog among the Tartars of Mongolia, however some writers believe Marco Polo was only referring to the Great Wall of China when he used the line “Rampart of Gog and Magog”.4
The most plausible of these theories relates to the Hungarian Magyar legend that states both the Huns and Magyars descend from twin brothers named “Hunor and Magor” who lived near the sea of Azov following the flood, marrying into the Alanian bloodline. Rather than being Magogites themselves, Hunor and Magor were in some sources said to descend from the race of giants (Nephillim) having associations with Nimrod. Leaving aside potential theories about the Nephilim as other hominid non Homo Sapien groups; the similarity between Magor and Magog is obvious, and the only descended group that shares etymological similarity to Magog would be the Magyars. It is very possible the Magyars were descended from Magog, but it’s also likely the Alans could fit into this identification.
Potentially supporting this theory is yet again Josephus who recounts a story regarding the Alans - named in his source as a Scythian tribe - in which a Hyrcanian king who guarded the iron gate of Alexander is said to have given the Alans passage.5 While the Alans and Huns were separate groups the Huns fought directly with the Alans pushing them westward into Europe, which may support theories that the Magyars were Alanic. Interestingly both of these groups practiced artificial cranial deformation - the process of artificially lengthening the skulls of babies by binding their heads - a practice shared by other steppe groups like some Turkic or Mongol tribes. While the Huns were responsible for spreading this custom in Europe, the Alans originally introduced the concept which they themselves shared with the Sarmatians.6 The Sarmatians were an Indo-European “Japhethite” group, and might also fit into possible identification for Magog along with the Huns and Alans.
The Sarmatians themselves were related to the Scythians, and had moved from the Ural foothills - interestingly quite similar to potential sections of Riphath’s people - to along the Voga-Don river axis. They were in some part mixed with an earlier group known as ‘Sauromatians’ but by the 4th century BCE had easily formed their own cultural identity.7 These “Sauromatians” or “Sauromatae” were an Iron Age culture that evolved out of elements of the Bronze Age Srubnaya culture, closely linked to their neighbors in the Andronovo culture.8 The groups names are in red on the following map, and Dacian in blue. Srubnaya is the supposed progenitor culture of the later Indo-European steppe populations that stay within their original homeland (Scythians, Sauromatians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians) during the Iron Age, rather than migrating out with groups such as the Celts, Germans, Greeks, or Italians during the Bronze Age. This often serves as a cultural severance between these two populations, and is the cause for the similarity of the “Scythian” peoples in later periods due to the appellation of the original “Scythian” peoples as a unifier of the steppe.
By the 2nd century AD these Sarmatians disappear from historical records and diffuse into populations like the Greeks and Goths, while by the Early Middle Ages groups of Proto-Slavic populations assimilate Sarmatian elements during the political violence around the volga during that era.9 Another portion of the Sarmatians become known as “Alans” and migrate to the Caucasus mountains where they eventually morph into the modern Ossetian people.10
One interesting tidbit regarding the Scytho-Sarmatians was their tradition of women warriors. Nearly 20% of warrior graves along the lower Don and lower Volga from where the Sarmatians originated contained women dressed for battle as warriors providing solid evidence that these people may have had a disproportionate number of women in their armies.11 These are likely origins for the Greek ‘legends’ of the Amazons whose Greek name most probably derives from the Iranian term “ha-mazan” which means warriors, but could also come from the term “Hameh Zan” referring to a group of women in Persian.12
It’s possible this group was related in some way to the nomadic Scythian tribe “Hamaxobii” or “Amaxobians” who claimed to be descendants of the Medes - the royal dynasty, and not necessarily the entire people.13 Another Sarmatian sub group were the “Serboi” who probably moved into the Balkans where they became known as the Serbians.
Moving onto textual references to Magog in the Torah, the only notable references to Magog outside the Table of Nations come from Ezekiel where we are given:
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog, [toward] the land of Magog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal, and prophecy concerning him. And you shall say; So said the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Gog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal.
And I shall unbridle you, and I shall put hooks into your jaws and bring you forth and all your army, horses and riders, all of them clothed in finery, a great assembly, with encompassing shield and buckler, all of them grasping swords.
Persia, Cush, and Put are with them; all of them with buckler and helmet. Gomer and all its wings, the house of Togarmah, the utmost parts of the north and all its wings, many peoples with you.” -Ez 38:2-6
` Digging into the text we can turn to Rashi for an analysis of the first few lines where he says “toward Gog So is the king’s name. Magog The name of the nation, as Scripture states (Gen. 10: 2): “Gomer and Magog.” There is little confusion in Rashi’s text regarding Gog being an individual, and Magog being a nation. At first this is seemingly obvious, everyone can figure that out from the text, but a closer dig is necessary to really understand the depth of the information Rashi is giving us from these lines. Not only does Rashi dispel the later incorrect beliefs that equate ‘Gog and Magog’ as two equivalent figures - as opposed to ‘Gog from Magog’ - Rashi also provides us a clear statement that Magog was a nation (or possibly a people group). Despite Magog being an individual from the Table of Nations we can see a direct indication that Magog is potentially also the name of a nation, or group that descends from Magog.
The next words are “the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal” referring to two later children of Japheth which we will find have some interesting connections with Magog. For our purpose now, this line shows that Gog was not just a ruler of the land of Magog, but also had some sort of vassal relationship with two of his younger brothers. We know this because later on it includes other nations part of Gog’s alliance, and doesn’t imply they are vassals but rather allies.This means that despite Meshech and Tubal having their own people group, they may well have been incorporated under a brother population when it came to foreign relations and perhaps even traveled with Magog similar to how the Cimmerians traveled with the Scythians (those being, Gomerians with Japhethites).
Another important line refers to “all your army, horses and riders” certifying again that Magog was associated with equestrian traditions like many other Scythian nations. Later on we get that reference to Gomer and it’s wings - presumably Ashkenaz and Riphath who had yet to form any certified nations during the time of Ezekiel - as well as “Beth Togarmah” geographically calling back to the extreme northern nations as far as Siberia to show the coalitions truly massive scale. Nations such as Persia (the east), Cush (the south) and Put (the west) are “with them” - in other words allied with Magog - showing the sheer inescapability of how Israel would be cornered in this war from all cardinal directions.
Interestingly in the parable the nation of Magog will lead his brothers in a sort of trans-national coalition against Israel, including Persia, Cush, and Punt who at that time represented the great powers of the world. However, since this event is not a retelling of any story, but rather a forthcoming prophecy, we cannot actually glean any geopolitical realities from the story in Ezekiel. Will Magog directly lead those nations, or their metaphorical “descendant nations” or even nations similar in political traits? When, or if Magog already has led his brothers, and those nations are up for interpretation, but the timeframe of that event comes well after the period in which the brothers actually lived and operates as more of a metaphor for things to come.
Ezekiel’s next prophecy concerning Magog comes a few lines later:
“Therefore, prophesy, O son of man, and say to Gog, So said the Lord God: Surely on that day, when My people dwells securely, you will know. And you will come from your place, from the utmost north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding horses; a great assembly and a mighty army. And you will ascend upon My people Israel like a cloud to cover the earth; at the end of days it will be, and I shall bring you upon My land in order that the nations recognize Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog.” - Ez 38:14-16
Again we get a recertification that “all of them [will be] riding horses” and they will come “from the utmost north”. All of this information squares away with the steppe nomads, and locates Magog himself in the utmost north. The line “at the end of days” shows how this is a yet to occur event, and since I am writing this now I would presume we have yet to reach the period when this prophecy will occur.
In a final reference from Ezekiel we are given essentially the same information:
“Thus said the Lord GOD: I am going to deal with you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal! I will turn you around and drive you on, and I will take you from the far north and lead you toward the mountains of Israel.
And I will smite the bow out of your left hand and make your arrows fall from your right hand.” -Ez 39:1-3
We get a reference to God “smiting the bow” of these people, implying they were skilled with bows and horses as their form of war making. This squares away with what we understand from not just the Scythians, or later steppe peoples like Turks/Mongols, but with a general ‘hunting culture’ that could not be supported anywhere in the north except for the supposed Yamnaya Indo-European homeland. Sadly this is the end of information regarding Magog with only a generalized “northern” location, and not even certifying Magog as a specific land in this period; in fact the line “I will take you from the far north and lead you toward the mountains of Israel” implies these people will be migratory and there is no telling the period of time between when God will begin “taking them” from their land. Why Meshech and Tubal are so frequently mentioned is also unclear, and will require unraveling in later sections.
I will leave off Magog here for now as a second part is necessary to properly give such an important nation mentioned frequently as playing a central role in prophecy it’s due. Next week will be more focused on ethnographic and geographic groups, and honing in our identification for a single people, or set of descendants.
Once again thank you for reading, and please share any comments or criticisms below, or with me in an email. Always looking to improve these sections, including updating them with new information, or small tidbits I may have missed. While this may seem like an exhaustive analysis there is always room to expand on this topic even further.
Mikraot Gedolot HaMeor p. 400
Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis, ed. (1889). "A Christian Legend concerning Alexander". The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version. Vol. II. Cambridge University Press. pp. 144–158.
The attached picture portrays Medieval islamic depictions of Gog. The Monster of Gog and Magog, by al-Qazwini (1203–1283)
Marco Polo & Yule (tr.) 1875, pp. 276–286.
Barry, Phillips; Anderson, A. R. (1933). "Review of Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations". Speculum. 8 (2): 264–270.
Kim 2015, pp. 164–165; Sinor 1990, pp. 202–203; Molnár et al. 2014, p. 2.
Mordvintseva, Valentina I. (2013). "The Sarmatians: The Creation of Archaeological Evidence". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 32 (2): 203–219.
Melyukova, A. I. (1990). Sinor, Denis (ed.). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Vol. 1. Translated by Crookenden, Julia. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York City, United States: Cambridge University Press. p. 97-117
Chodorow, Stanley (1989). The Mainstream of Civilization. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. p. 368.
Minahan, James (2000). "Ossetians". One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups. Praeger security international. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 518.
Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press.
J. H. Blok (1995). The Early Amazons: Modern and Ancient Perspectives on a Persistent Myth
"Hămaxŏbĭi". Archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/.