Talk:Gabriel's Revelation/Archive 2

Translation?

There is a translation link (Translation of the text in English and Hebrew) in the External links section, but it links only to an article. I recommend changing that link to a more appropriate title. It doesn't appear to be a translation, but an essay. If I'm missing something, then please clarify that, because its not user friendly in the current linkage. --Trippz (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, That page isn't a translation. There are no translation links that I can find, but I am wondering if there even is a translation yet. If there is, I would like to see it too so if somebody does find a translation, please inform me as well. --Ehrnhart (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one: http://www.hartman.org.il/SHINews_View.asp?Article_Id=162&Cat_Id=303&Cat_Type=SHINews

A pdf here: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/GabrielStoneTranslation.pdf

And yet another: http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/responding-to-the-gabriel-stone/

--cregil (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done The translations in these links, or equivalents of them, are all included in this article. Daask (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note from Prof. Knohl

This is for information so that we don't use the misquote, but we can't quote this as it fails the verifiability test. It's an email to Stephen Goranson:
Dear Mr. Goranson
I have seen your comment with regard to the article on the Jerusalem Report and the Gabriel Revelation.
The journalist at the Jerusalem Report misquoted me. I did not tell him any thing about the geological composition of the stone. The details of the geological test which was made by Prof. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University would be published in his forthcoming article in the IEJ. The claim in the Jerusalem Report that I "posit" the existence of another tablet is also misleading. I have only mentioned the comment of Yardeni and Elitzur in the Cathedra that since we do not have the opening of the text we can not rule out the possibility that it started on a separate tablet.
You may publish my comment in the internet.
With best wishes
Israel Knohl
Doug Weller (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah Son of Joseph

It would be useful and adhering to the Neutral Point of View to actually include one of the signifcant aspects of this inscription...a 1st century inscription that refers to Messiah ben Joseph or also known as Messiah ben Ephraim/Messiah Son of Joseph. You can include the link to the wikipedia article. This is a central part of the paper as it was introduced to the academic community:

http://www.imj.org.il/DSS_conference_2008/abstracts.html#Knohl
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=34&Issue=5&ArticleID=14

79.178.238.41 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done This is now included in the article. Daask (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Knohl abandoned his reading

Knohl abandoned his reading "לשלושת ימין חאיה" ("in three days, live") in line 80, and accepted Ronald Hendel's reading "לשלושת ימין האות" ("In three days, the sign"). See: Israel Knohl, "The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context", in Matthias Henze (ed.), Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation (Early Judaism and Its Literature 29), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, p. 43 n. 12. אחד ש. (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the opposite of what Knohl said in the source you linked. In fact, Knohl says:

I have rejected the reading suggested by Prof. Hendel for the third word on line 80 for two reasons...

- Joshua S. Bennett (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said that in the source I cited, not the one I linked. ראובן מ. (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young source unreadable

I can't open the document at http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc14/ianyoung.htm although the HTML source shows text, and search engines can see it. Perhaps it is my browser? Can anyone else read it or recover text from this document? Daask (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have this problem, but note that the article is also available (and readable) at academia.edu (free registration needed). ראובן מ. Reuven M. (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Replaced with better link to same content. Thanks, Reuven! Daask (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. If this is to be revisited in the future, I suggest presenting data from reliable sources to show which title is more prominent in scholarship. Dekimasuよ! 23:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel's Revelation → Hazon Gabriel – Currently preferred term in scholarship and less ambiguous. See Talk:Gabriel's Revelation#Article title Daask (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mahveotm (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Gabriel's Revelation" is a more interesting name (non-blah). Also, it seems to be more popular (e.g., BAR uses it). Ordinary mortals are more likely to take interest in G's R and search for that on Google. G's R is more notable. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please Clarify the Obtuse Discussion of Variant Readings

It is not clear in the article just what are the variant readings / interpretations of the disputed wording. The article says: ???

(1) "to rise from the dead within three days". . . .

"rise" could alternately mean "show up" [thus]

(2) "to show up from the dead within three days" ?

(3) "In three days, the sign"

"sign" is a more probably reading than "live" [thus]

(4) "In three days, the live" ???

(5)? "to sign from the dead within three days" ???

(6)? "to live from the dead within three days" ??? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@PeacePeace: Your confusion is partially because there is no agreement on the interpretation of this phrase, and it is so fragmentary that any interpretation of this line is questionable. I'll work on how to edit the article, but for starters, here's the translations:

~~"rise"? (It's discussed in several sources, but I don't see it in the translations.)~~
"In three days, live, I Gabriel com[mand] yo[u]" (Knohl 2008)
"In three days the sign will be [given]. I am Gabriel..." (Qimron & Yuditsky 2009, p. 36)
"In three days ..., I, Gabriel... [?]," (Yardeni & Elizur 2011, p. 17 )
"By three days, the sign. I Gabriel … " (Knohl 2011, p. 59 )

Daask (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the choices seem incredible. How could the same string of letters be interpreted variously as one word "rise" and also by 11 words "In three days the sign will be [given]. I am Gabriel..."??? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@PeacePeace: I'm sorry. I think I wasn't clear. When I said sources discuss "rise", I was thinking of Witherington rejecting this translation. A more careful review suggests that this was never a suggestion for a proper translation, and was only used in paraphrases in news articles to sensationalize the text. Otherwise, the reconstructed translations above don't seem that different to me. Daask (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done The article seems clear to me now on this issue, moreso than when this was first raised. Daask (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]