Talk:Galatians 1

Proposed merge to Epistle to the Galatians

I merged this article (and all the other chapter articles) to Epistle to the Galatians, but StAnselm (hi there!) restored it, so I'm starting a discussion here. These articles were created in a similar but problematic style by a now-banned editor, and I think the text here is not worth keeping as a standalone article. Bible books don't divide nicely into topics by chapter; given topics or events often span chapters, so it's better to have subarticles on topics or events rather than chapters. (For example, we have Genesis creation narrative rather than "Genesis 1" and "Genesis 2".) Especially given how short the chapter is compared to the analysis here, readers are probably better off simply reading the full text of the chapter rather than this partial regurgitation of it, and having the book-level article give context. Specifically, by section:

• Text - this is redundant to the list in Epistle to the Galatians#Surviving early manuscripts and is more or less the same for all chapters. The per-chapter articles are missing context on authorship, which is extremely important when evaluating the message of the text.
• Opening Greetings (1:1–5) - The fact that a letter opens with a greeting is not interesting. The definition of "apostle" is better covered in Apostle. The different translations as male-only or mixed gender in verse 2 might be interesting to linguists, but it does not seem religiously important.
• Rebuke (1:6–9) - This is just repeating the text in different words, creating a disjointed partial summary. The contents of the book are already summarized in a more cohesive way at the book level.
• Proclamation of the Gospel (1:10–12) - Ditto; this is just repeating the contents in different words without providing context or analysis.
• Paul's Pre-Christian Life and Conversion (1:13–17) - The note about Judaism is actually interesting; I added that to the book-level summary since it's so short.
• Verse 18 - this repeats the text and then gives a bit of an opinionated spin on it.
• Verse 19 - this repeats the text and gives context which is better handled by the article James, brother of Jesus, and that is already linked from the summary on Epistle to the Galatians.

-- Beland (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that chapters are not always the best divisions, but they have a long history behind them. I think the rule of thumb is that every chapter deserves an article because all the information that could be included would make the book article too long. There is obviously so much more that could be said about these verses, that it would be better to expand this article rather than merge it. For example, "Instead of the usual note of thanksgiving following the greetings" could be expanded into a full paragraph - so much has been written on how this makes Galatians different from all of Paul's other letters. Even as we have it in the article, it is not (as you say) "just repeating the text in different words". StAnselm (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, it's true the Rebuke section does add a bit of context, and the rebuke itself is only mentioned in the outline in Epistle to the Galatians. So if you think it's important, I'm happy to merge the full text of the short Rebuke section here into the Contents section of the book article. The phrasing is a bit unclear as to what is meant by "thanksgiving" (who is being thanked?) and it's also unclear to me why the omission of that is notable. It wouldn't seem significant that someone is simply rambling on a bit less in one letter compared to another, and as far as I know this isn't the basis of any notable doctrine or controversy.

Not sure if you mean "long history" on Wikipedia or in how the Christian Bible is organized. I'm sure a hundred things could be and have been written about any given verse in any popular holy book. That might be appropriate for a religious study class or sermon, but it does not seem appropriate for a general-audience encyclopedia.

You didn't mention any reason to keep the sections on verses 1-5, 10-12, and 18-19; I'm curious if there's a good argument for keeping any of that. -- Beland (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Thanksgiving" means God is being thanked - e.g. "I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 1:4). This is a good example of why a merge is not appropriate, in fact: the Epistle to the Galatians article could say something like "Instead of the usual note of thanksgiving following the greetings, Paul criticizes the Galatians for deserting his teaching of God's grace and turning to a different gospel" - this article could explain that with comparisons to other epistles and quoting scholars to show that the omission is a significant one. E.g. Robert E. Van Voorst, "Why Is There No Thanksgiving Period in Galatians? An Assessment of an Exegetical Commonplace" (Journal of Biblical Literature 129, p. 153.) That's the thing: there are so many articles and monographs written on so many verses of the Bible. (The use of "anathema" in verse 9 has also produced a lot of scholarly literature.[1]) Here on Wikipedia we have had a rough consensus not to have an article on every verse, but to have one on every chapter. Nevertheless, when I said "long history" I meant "how the Christian Bible is organized". I know you merged all the 1 Corinthians (and some other) chapter articles - I would like to see them all restored. StAnselm (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good argument that we should use chapter divisions simply because they are old, if they represent arbitrary divisions rather than logical topical divisions to which we could scope an article. They also vary across religious traditions, so that can create some awkwardness in scoping and a bit of a neutrality issue. They are certainly useful for specifying text segments, though, as long as the variation across traditions is accounted for.

Reading the abstract of the Voorst article, it sounds like Christian scholars debate why there isn't a thanksgiving portion in this letter, but it doesn't sound like anyone has come up with a definitive answer of what Paul was thinking. It also does not really establish why the question is important to a general audience. It seems important to superfans of the Bible in the same way that daily updates on what Tom Cruise is up to on his vacation are important to celebrity superfans (which we don't include in subarticles about Tom Cruise), but for the general audience that Wikipedia is targeting, I have to ask: "so what?" For whatever reason of pacing or brevity or emphasis, it doesn't show up here. This seems very unimportant compared to the life-changing doctrinal issues being discussed in the rest of the letter. I would prefer not to mention it at all, but for scholars interested in the structural aspects of the letter in addition to the content, we can take care of it in a single sentence. We just point out it's different from the other letters, and give some good footnotes so people interested in the irrelevant-to-anyone's-real-life academic debate about this can read about it in full detail.

Religious use of the word "anathema", including this instance, is covered in detail on the article you mentioned, anathema. If you think there's more to say about this instance, it can be added to that article. It would be much more helpful to readers to get all the context about different translations and different instances in one place, rather than have details scattered around a bunch of per-chapter articles. The anathema article also gets about 30x the page views that the chapter articles are currently getting, meaning that information would also be more widely discovered and disseminated. All we need on the Epistle to the Galatians article is a link to anathema embedded in the sentence mentioning the rebuke.

Since no argument has been made for keeping the per-verse coverage of verses 1-5, 10-12, and 18-19, I'm dropping those sections. -- Beland (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(further discussion splitting into separate sections)

Oppose merge, as the current structure of an overview of the book followed by daughter pages at Galatians 1, Galatians 2 etc. works well for readers; there is extensive scholarship on the New Testament, often at the level of verses let alone chapters. It would also seem better to have an omnibus discussion of all chapters, rather than consider them individually. To merge all chapters would make Epistle to the Galatians awkward to navigate for readers. Klbrain (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Verses 6-9

In the text of this article, I've added a link to the no-thanksgiving article you cited, plus concrete examples of thanksgiving in some other epistles, clarified the language about who is being thanked, and added the link to anathema as discussed. Does that need any further tweaking or is it missing anything important? -- Beland (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand - there is loads more that could be added; I've just given you a couple of examples here and there. This isn't just for "superfans of the Bible"; this is stuff produced by decades, if not centuries, of serious scholarship. If you're not interested - that's fine; you don't have to edit these articles. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm worried about, that excessive details will be added that will drown notable information of broad interest in a flurry of centuries-old trivia. This isn't about my personal interests; I actually do dive into individual verses of the Bible sometimes and dig up scholarship about them. The question is what level of detail is appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia. That's different that what is appropriate for biblical exegesis undertaken for religious purposes. -- Beland (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that I'm skeptical there is anything else to add about verses 6–9, what's the next-most-important thing you would want readers to know about them? -- Beland (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Paul's "surprise" in verse 6 has gotten a couple of articles.[2][3] Then there is the "angel" of verse 8.[4] StAnselm (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not at all the way to carry out a merge discussion. As well as being deficient in subject area knowledge, I think you lack understanding in how Wikipedia actually works. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've done dozens if not hundreds of merges and merge discussions on all sorts of topics, but I'm always open to suggestions for improvement. What would you like us to do differently in this discussion? -- Beland (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Leave off trying to gut this article. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear example of WP:NOMERGE #2: "Merging should be avoided if... the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". Note that word "could": the articles do not have to be expanded yet (see also WP:NOTFINISHED). StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds less like a procedural objection and more like an argument for a specific position on the disagreement over about what level of detail is encyclopedic for this topic. The only way to resolve that question is to discuss what should be kept and why. You've already made some good points and convince me to keep some snippets I previously deleted. That's why I'm asking for your comments on the remaining material you haven't discussed other than to say it's "important".

If there are good reasons to keep all the content on all the per-chapter articles, then I would agree with you that merging into the per-book article would be a bad idea. Whether or not this article "could" be expanded depends on what level of detail is encyclopedic for this topic. I come to the discussion thinking the opposite, that it "could" actually use some trimming, and skeptical that much more appropriate material "could" be added from reliable sources as we have them today. That's why I'm asking what you would want to add, to give you an opportunity to convince me that expansion on certain points actually is worthwhile. Maybe those are different than the ones the banned user saw fit to start the article with. You've highlighted some interesting sources and I am finding it useful to evaluate them in detail. -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Verses 1-5

@StAnselm: OK, so taking this one section at a time...I asked if you any particular reason not to remove this text given the arguments I made for removing it, and you didn't say anything about it, so I removed it. You said it was "important" in your edit summary of the revert of that removal. Could you explain why you think it's important? -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not having heard back from StAnselm on this, I'll ask for a third opinion. To make my argument for removing it in more detail:

Letting readers simply read the full text of these verses is probably adequate (and we link to the full chapter). The fact that a letter opens with a greeting is not interesting. The definition of "apostle" is better covered in the article Apostle, if anyone is curious about what that word means. The fact that verse 2 uses "adelphoi" instead of addressing particular people as other letters do...well, it's a different letter. Not sure this tells us more than we'd get by simply reading the full text of the letters, if we were curious to get a flavor for them. The fact that this word can mean men or women...that's kind of an issue for the translator into English to handle. Curious readers can look up the word on Wiktionary...pretty much any word could generate curiosity about how it's been translated (and differently in different translations) so it doesn't seem to me that's a reason to remark on it as one of the most important things readers need to know about this chapter. -- Beland (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

It is unusual to ask for a WP:Third opinion when only one side has opined on the talk page, but I'll give it a shot.

The burden to gain consensus for inclusion rests on the person who wants to include something. StAnselm's edit summary says "this is important, cited material, and there was no consensus on the talk page to delete it", but no consensus is required to delete a passage if it is unsourced, badly sourced, or if it cites only primary sources.

In this case, however, the citations don't appear (for the most part) to be primary sources; rather, they cite scholarly analysis and commentary. Wikipedia, therefore, should present the subject in a similar context, describing the analysis and commentary. That's what I'm seeing here.

Sure we could delete it and let readers look at the primary source. At the extreme, we could simply list only sources and write no prose, but that isn't useful to readers.

In my opinion, that section in this article has encyclopedic value rather than doing harm by its presence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)