Talk:First Epistle to the Corinthians

Widely Believed to be Interpolated?

However, the epistle does contain a passage that is widely believed to have been interpolated into the text by a later scribe: As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

— 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, NRSV

Is this accurate. This study describes things as an 'hypothesis'. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014610790003000204 I am unsure that this is closed to being a settled issue, but I have not done much research in this area. Thoughts? Thanks Bedfordres (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bedfordres In addition to the above, the referenced text makes the case that the passage was in fact added by Paul in the original document but initially placed by him in the margin. As such, the reference makes the opposite case of the claim it supposedly supports (although earlier it does mention that a few scholars have suggested it may be an interpolation before going on to refute that). In any event, nothing about the reference for that section supports the idea that it is "widely believed to have been interpolated into the text by a later scribe". 67.215.16.198 (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 1x articles restored

The 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Corinthians 2, 1 Corinthians 3, 1 Corinthians 4, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 9, 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 13, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Corinthians 15,1 Corinthians 16 had been restored from the redirects here to full former size by User7778. This has created a large amount of duplication. I think that the listed articles should be WP:BLARed again, but have not seen any discussion on the merge here performed by Beland. If someone knows had seen the discussion, let me know. Викидим (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:1 Corinthians 15#Unwarranted merge. Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: Викидим (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@User7778: Your edit summaries don't give a reason for restoring articles for every chapter; can you shed any light on that? Most of the material there simply goes verse by verse and either repeats the content (which readers could get by simply reading the chapter itself) or gives fairly uninformative POV commentary on it from a single source. The material I found informative and neutral is often repeated across every chapter article, which is why I merged them all into the article on the book. These articles were all created by a banned user who habitually added excessive amounts of content. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: There really is no discussion about merging these articles, as cited above by Викидим. Unjustified mergers should not be encouraged, considering that articles are created to be expanded, not to be deleted. Universally disseminated religious books have a large number of readers interested in different interpretations, considering that the most discussed topics always have broad discussions. In the case of faith, with many theories and interpretations, there is no way to state that there are essentially neutral materials, and in this way these articles can be widely expanded. Concentrating subjects of a completely different nature in the same article is not interesting, and it is better to separate them into chapters, which makes it easier for readers. I agree that citing only the verses does not make sense and could be excluded from the article.User7778 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Mergers without previous discussion are officially encouraged. Wikipedia:Merging says: "Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted)." Since there is an objection raised, I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons.

Let's start with the first chapter, 1 Corinthians 1. I have just removed all the material that only represents a single, non-notable POV commenting on a single verse, or which simply repeats the content of the verse. It looks to me that this article now triggers several of the recommended reasons for merging:

• 2 - Overlap - The article is now a 100% overlap with First Epistle to the Corinthians, and consists only of formulaic text repeated for each chapter.
• 3 - Short text - The article is not long enough to stand on its own as an interesting read, making navigation of Bible articles somewhat more cluttered.
• 5 - Context - The background in First Epistle to the Corinthians is important to understanding the authorship, audience, and purpose of the book. Seeing the chapter in the context of the other chapters of the book is more helpful than just getting information about it standalone. It also makes it easier to have a more balanced article that reflects both Christian and non-Christian views, which is required for neutrality.

Even after merging all the chapter articles into it, First Epistle to the Corinthians is under 3,200 words of prose, which is well under the WP:SIZERULE guideline of 6,000 words for a splitting threshold. It's fine with me if you want to expand it, but that article has plenty of room to grow before it actually needs to be split up. It's also unclear that if the time ever comes that it does need to be split up, that it should be split into per-chapter articles. Sometimes a single verse deserves its own article because it's theologically important and has sparked notable debate or schism (for example, Johannine Comma), and other times parts of several chapters are spun off into a single subarticle because they are closely related (for example, Fall of man). -- Beland (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not restore those articles and add more commentary from multiple sources for each one? I'm happy to do that I💖平沢唯 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to add encyclopedically noteworthy, multi-POV commentaries to this article. I'm not sure that breaking out into chapter-by-chapter subarticles is the most logical way to split things up if additions eventually make this article too long. Some of the subsections in the "Contents" article already have subarticles, and it may be better to expand those or create new subarticles scoped to those topics. In some cases, this means verses on the same topic from different books are analyzed in depth, which seems a lot more coherent for readers who are typically interested in questions like "what does the Bible say about X?" -- Beland (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Resurrection

I made some changes to the resurrection section because there were two sections. Is there a reason to have two sections? Lillebrier (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall quality issue

The orotund language used throughout the article not only interferes with the understanding of the article, but suggests that the writers don't have a solid grasp of English, and none at all of Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)