Talk:Gabriel's Revelation

Excessive focus on Knohl

The scholarship on Gabriel's Revelation has thus far excessively focused on refuting the theories of Israel Knohl. There's a two issues with this: 1) It overwhelms discussion of the text itself and other interpretations of it. 2) It makes Knohl look bad. I don't see anyone denigrating Knohl as a scholar; he just disagrees with the majority. Both of these problems are, and will continue to be, present in this article as it summarizes existing scholarship. Please be mindful of these concerns as you edit. Daask (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not sure what the title should be, but I don't think "Gabriel's Revelation" is best. Collins (2015) uses "Gabriel Revelation". "Hazon Gabriel" seems to be the most common term, and is used by the recent Novenson (2017), so I'm inclined to use that. It is apparent that even the same authors use these terms interchangeably in different works. Daask (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Reconstructed translation presentation

In this article, I added the translation "In three days, live, I Gabriel com[mand] yo[u]" from Knohl 2008b. The same text appears without brackets in Knohl 2007, so we have the editorial choice whether to include or exclude the brackets. To me, they're useful and meaningful, but is the general Wikipedia reader familiar with this kind of notation? Should we include the brackets or not? Daask (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hamidovic dating

I don't have access to either of Hamidovic's works (2009, 2012). However, I think his opinion is a notable dissent from the majority view. Unfortunately, I'm not even clear on his dating of Gabriel's Revelation from these secondary sources:

• "David Hamidovic (2012) departs from mainstream interpretation. He dates the script after 50 C.E., suggests Titus’ siege of Jerusalem as its historic setting, and Vespasian as an anti-type for the Davidic messiah" (Elgvin, p. 16)
• "By comparing the script of the “Hazon Gabriel” with the one of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the one of the Murabba`at Papyri (the latter dating from the Bar Kokhba revolt), Hamidovic concluded that the “Hazon Gabriel” should be dated from the first half of the first century of the Christian era." (Cohen-Matlofsky)
• "David Hamidovic, which places the stele in the first half of the first century after Christ" (it:Rivelazione di Gabriele citing Hamidovic 2009, 2012)

Elgvin is obviously the most reliable source, so I went ahead and added that to the article, but I wish I had access to Hamidovic, 2012 or a reliable summary of his view. Daask (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References within references

Please see the end-of-page layout before and after my edit, paying attention to the footnotes associated with "references within references. Is there a better way? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Modern forgery?

Isn't this currently (2020) widely regarded as a modern forgery?

• Hazon Gabriel: A Display of Negligence

• The Gabriel Revelation (Hazon Gabriel): A Reused Masseba Forgery?

• The Gabriel Stone: A Chronological Bibliography

The current text gives no indication of this, or even of a controversy.

Eac2222 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The article has been edited since your comment, and the sources you mentioned are all cited in Gabriel's Revelation § Authenticity. I believe the article accurately represents reliable sources available at this time. Personally, I wish there were more scholarly discussion on this topic for us to summarize. Daask (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)