Talk:Gilyonim

Section "Contention of meaning"

"However R.T. Herford identified gilyonim as gospels." It is not true! Herford himself writes on p. 155, n. 1: "The word גליון means the unwritten portion of a book, the margin. But, as in modern books, the margins of ancient MSS. were used for annotations ; and it is reasonable to suppose that these annotations would include texts of Scripture, quoted as illustrations. Hence the question would arise whether, although the corpus of the book was heretical, the marginal citations of Scripture were to be regarded as sacred. Jost (Gsch. d. Jdtums. ii. 40 n.) says that גליון (giljon) plainly denotes ' evangelion ' in the passage before us. No doubt the Gospels are included amongst the ' Books of the Minim ' ; but I do not think it can be shown that ' giljon ' by itself ever means a Gospel. If that were the case, there would be the less occasion for the plays on the word ' Aven-giljon ' and * Avon-giljon ' which will be mentioned below (s. p. 162). Friedlander (d. Vorchr. jtid. Gnosticismus, p. 83 fol.) identifies the ' giljonim ' of the Minim with the Diagramma of the Ophite sect of the Gnostics. This may be correct ; but as the Talmud never gives any indication of what the ' giljonim ' contained beyond ' memorials,' the guess is hazardous." Александр Порядин (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, Herford's book was not published in 1907, but in 1903. Александр Порядин (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The source for this appears to be the next reference (Pearson, p.19), which says "On the other hand, subsequent attempts to interpret all occurrences of these terms as references to Jewish Christianity, as is done by R. T. Herford,15 fall to the ground in face of the facts." I imagine someone took this, and replaced "Jewish Christianity" with "Gospels". Pearson references the 1903 text, page 97 and continuing. How would you reconcile Pearson's assertion with the quote you brought, and how would you propose to rephrase the article? Ar2332 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose to replace the corresponding sentence with the following: "Even R. T. Herford identified the guillonym not as the Gospel, but as «the fields, the unwritten part of the book.» Although he presents them as references to Jewish Christianity." Please correct my English if necessary. Александр Порядин (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That looks good (I have some minor English corrections but those can come after you have added it into the page) Ar2332 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Then I rule, and it's up to you. Александр Порядин (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In connection with the last revision, the question arises as to how correct the preamble of the article is. Because there is no basis for the phrase "to refer to a book or books they considered heretical, likely the Evangelion or the Gospels" now. Previously, this basis was the words of Herford. But we corrected them, and now I do not find any other basis. Therefore, the preamble misleads the reader and also needs to be edited. I suggest a new version like this: "are terms used by Jewish rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras to refer the fields, the unwritten part of the book". And then, of course, you will have to edit other parts of the article in which גליון (gilyon) are identified with the Gospels. After all, gilyon is something smooth, clean (Is. 3:22, 8:1). And only the later און גליון and עון גליון in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116^a:10) can be reliably identified with the term Gospel. Because in 116^b there is a quote from עוון גליון, which conveys the meaning from Matt. 5:17: אֲנָא לָא לְמִיפְחַת מִן אוֹרָיְיתָא דְּמֹשֶׁה אֲתֵיתִי (וְלָא) לְאוֹסֹפֵי עַל אוֹרָיְיתָא דְמֹשֶׁה אֲתֵיתִי (I did not take away from the law of Moses came [and did not] add Moses to the law). So let me ask you, what do you think about this? Александр Порядин (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)