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)