Preterists claim that the Septuagint calls Israel, “Gog” in Numbers 24:7 But what does that passage actually say?
7 “He shall pour water from his buckets,
And his seed shall be in many waters.
‘His king shall be higher than Agag,
And his kingdom shall be exalted.’ ” (Numbers 24:7 NKJV)
In the Masouratic text, the Hebrew word here translated “than Agag” is מאגג, magag in our alphabet. This is אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with a “Mem” prefix, here meaning “than.” In the Septuagint, this word is translated as η Γωγ, e Gog in our alphabet, which translates literally as “than Gog.” The previous words, και υψωθήσεται, kai upsiothesetai in our alphabet, translates as “And shall be rasied up high” and the following words, βασιλεία αυτού, basileia autou in our alphabet, translate as “his kingdom.” So the actual words of the Septaguint here are “And shall be raised up high[er] than Gog his kingdom.” So there is no logical way to even pretend that this is calling Israel, “Gog.” Instead, it is literally saying that Israel “shall be raised up higher than the kingdom of Gog.” So the only difference here between the Septuagint and English translagions is adding the vowel “o,” rather than adding the vowel “a,’ as this title is transliterated in English. (The vowels have to be added because the Hebrew alphabet does not contain vowels.) To see the real meaning of this title, we need to examine how it is used in other scriptres. So we read:
8 “He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.” (1 Samuel 15:8) The Hebrew word here translated “Agag” is אח־אגג, et-Agag in our alphabet. This is the same אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with an “et” prefix, indicating that “Agag” is the direct object of the verb “took.” The Septuagint renders this word as τον Αγάγ, ton Agag in our alphabet, which translates literally as “the Agag.” (For Agag was a title, not a name.) But then the Septuagint goes on to say βασιλέα Αμαλήκ, basilea Amalek in our alphabet, whch literally means “king of Amalek.” So in this case, the Hebrew word אגג was clearly indicated as the title of the king of Amalek, not as another word for Israel.
9 “But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.” (1 Samuel 15:9 NKJV) The Hebrew word here translated Agag is על־אגג, al-Agag in our alphabet. This, again, is the same אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with an “al” prefix, meaning “on.” We inderstand this when we realize that the Hebrew word here translated as “spared” was literally “pitied.” So the Hebrew text said “pitied on Agag.” Here the Septuagint reads “preserved the Agag.”
20 “And Saul said to Samuel, ‘But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.’ ” (1 Samuel 15:20 NKJV) Here, as in verse 8, the Hebrew word translated “Agag” is אח־אגג, et-Agag in our alphabet. This is again the same אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with an “et” prefix, indicating that “Agag”
is the direct object of the verb “brought.” The Septuagint renders this word as τον Αγάγ, ton Agag in our alphabet, which translates literally as “the Agag.” And here, the next words in the Hebrew text are םלך עםלק, melek amaleq in our alphabet, which translate literally as “king of Alalek.” and here, the Septuagint reads “the Agag king of Amalek.”
32 “Then Samuel said, ‘Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.’ So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, ‘Surely the bitterness of death is past.’ ” (1 Samuel 15:32 NKJV) Here, as in verse 8, the Hebrew word first translated “Agag” is אח־אגג, et-Agag in our alphabet. This is again the same אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with an “et” prefix, indicating that “Agag” is the direct object of the verb “bring.” The Septuagint renders this as τον Αγάγ, ton Agag in our alphabet, which translates literally as “the Agag.” The two other times we find this word in the English text of verse 32, are, in the Hebrew text, simply אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary. In the second case, the Septuagint renders it as ο Αγάγ, ho Agag in our alphabet, literally meaning “which Agag.” and in the third time this title occurs in this verse, it is simply the word Agag.
33 “But Samuel said, ‘As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.” (1 Samuel 15:33 NKJV) This last time this Hebrew word occurs in the Bible, it is, as in verses 8 and 32, the Hebrew word אח־אגג, et-Agag in our alphabet, the same אגג, Agag in our alphabet, word number 90 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, with an “et” prefix, indicating that “Agag” is the direct object of the verb “hewed.” The Septuaging here again renders it as “the Agag.”
So we see that in every case except Numbers 24:7, The Septuagint rendered this Hebrew word as the title “Agag,” rather than as the name, “Gog.” The only logical way to explain why, in the sole case of Numbers 24:7, the translators of the Septuagint did this, would be that at the time the Septuagint was translated, roughly 200 BC, Gog was a great king. According to Ezekiel 38:2, he was “of the land of Magog,” and was also “the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.”
According to Josephus “the Magogites” “were by the Greeks called Scythians” ( “Jewish Antiquities,” by Flavius Josephus, Book 1, chapter 6, sec. 123, from “The New Complete Works of Josephus,” trans. by William Whiston, revised by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999, pg. 57.) So by the time the Septuagint was translated, “Gog” was indeed a great king.
But the Scythians did not become prominent until the seventh century BC., around a thousand years after the time of Moses, who wrote the book of Numbers during the seventeenth century B.C. So it was unreasonable to have assumed that Balaam was speaking of “Gog,” instead of “Agag.” But that is what the translators of the Septuagint appear to have done.
(continued nest post)