Talk:Gabriel

"Angel the Golden Locks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Angel the Golden Locks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 7 § Angel the Golden Locks until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Meaning

The article currently states

The name Gabriel (גַּבְרִיאֵל, Gaḇrīʾēl) is composed of the first person singular possessive form of the Hebrew noun gever (גֶּבֶר), meaning "man",^[7] and ʾĒl, meaning "God" or "mighty one".^[8] This would translate the archangel's name as "man of God".

Leaving aside that the Biblical Hebrew name is being glossed using a modern Hebrew noun [fixt], er, no, no, it wouldn't. The first-person singular possessive form of "man", "strong one", or "warrior" + "God" would translate the archangel's name as "God of a man", "God of the man", "God of a warrior", &c. It is fine that Biblical Hebrew composed theophoric names in an idiomatic way, but putting those two compounds together directly does not produce that result on its own. The phrasing is off.

Second, the idiomatic meaning is unexplained and uncited. There's a post in the archive where Elizium23 (talk · contribs) posted

There seems to be merit to the "Man of God" interpretation. All the Biblical Hebrew commentaries show this as the definition, and do not show "God is my strength". Perhaps we should include both, with sources.

That's peachy, but no one ever did. "God Is My Strength" is what is still up at Gabriel (name) and matches e.g. the pattern at Raphael (angel) much better than "Dudebro of God". It's fine that "Man of God" can be sourced to the same Strong glosses we're using for the other Hebrew terms in the section, but (a) it doesn't seem to be right and Strong was a 19th-century scholar, making it questionable that it is still the scholarly consensus; (b) if there's reasoning that makes it right, that isn't provided; and (c) the more common and seemingly right gloss isn't mentioned. Given its ubiquity, even if it's wrong, that wrongness should be noted and explained. (Although, sure, it would need citations as well.)

KEleison (talk · contribs) replied to Elizium that

Gabriel does have multiple translations as his name is composed of the Hebrew words for man and God, "gebher" and "El". Although the traditional translation is "Fortitudo Dei" or Strength of God, it could also be translated to Man of God.

(d) That seems right, given that the underlying Hebrew could point to the triliteral root and its verb(s) instead of the noun and even this form of the noun can be read as an adjective meaning "manly". (e) The Latin form Fortitudo Dei seems to suggest there's a longstanding Catholic gloss on this that we aren't mentioning, when it sounds like it's historically important enough that we should cover it, again, even if modern scholarship disagrees. (f) Ditto if there are Orthodox or Coptic traditions, especially since their medieval art seems to really like the archangels. — LlywelynII 22:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

See also Jmmbarberi (talk · contribs)'s comments at Talk:Gabriel (given name), iterating that the grammar doesn't seem to match "Man of God" and pointing out the further analogue with Daniel (biblical figure & name). — LlywelynII 23:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention that this name seems to be theophoric, and that the apparent patron deity is El? Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Alt names

Previously the infobox had the unsourced silliness

Known as Cebrail (Djebraïl) in some cultures

snuck in at the bottom. The place for completely random unsourced but presumably true alt name forms is this page's Wikidata entry. It should be accessible from the sidebar somewhere. If those forms of those names were important somehow, (a) the angel is known by that name in other languages, not other cultures, unless it's intended to mean that people use that name in English in some cultures, which... no, they don't; (b) the specific languages should be given and the text properly formatted to encode them with e.g. {{lang}} templates; and (c) they would belong in the Name section and/or the footnote the page is using to list all the main alternative forms of the name. More likely, those are just old/wrong transcriptions of Jibrail, which is already given. Again, Wikidata. Assuming it sometimes appears. — LlywelynII 03:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)