Talk:1 Corinthians 13

Expert tag

I've added the "needs expert" tag because this article isn't very strong on theology or biblical scholarship. Mattmm 07:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Would not most of the content here be better classified as 'I Corinthians 13 in Popular culture?' --Mr Jakobos 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep - still not enough scholarship! I've put the expert tag back. I'm not sure why it was removed... Mattmm 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation

In biblical times, people did not have telescopes or eyeglasses. What is this refering to when it talks about looking through a glass. This article contains no information at all about the meaning or history of the passage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

According to my study bible, this isn't about looking through things - it's about reflection. Now, before you ask if they had mirrors back then, they used shiny metal such as the back of a shield to do that. Thus these reflections were not perfectly clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elwyn5150 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 January 2007.

Well, I think it's partially right because what it means is that we see God only through our misconceptions, not the true viewing that will be possible afterlife (according to the passage). marlos 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the through a glass darkly section to provide both Strong's opinion that the glass is a mirror, and Clarke's opinion that it means lens. Clarke connected this corresponding passages from the Rabbinic literature that use similar imagery, and I quoted them for comparison. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

Most of the chapter (aside from descriptions/definitions of love) is about why love is so great. In the end, in heaven, Hope gives way to attainment, Faith gives way to knowledge (but love never fails). "The imperfect gives way to perfection". That is, there is a time when even Hope and Faith are put aside (like childish things) and that is why love is the greatest: because love never fails. The rhetoric is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.228.6 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The usual word for a mirror was katoptron (looking backwards), rather thean e(i)soptron (looking into). The King James word "glass" means "looking glass" or mirror. The Greeks believed that the future crept up on you from behind (you can't see what's coming), whereas when it has passed you and continues on in front, it becomes the past, and thereafter you can see it. Consequently, they used mirrors to try to see into the future. Their mirrors were polished bronze and gave very poor images (you only see darkly with them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.229.232 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In context

At the risk of OR this article appears to ignore the obvious.

Chapter 13 was never intended as an essay on love, as the article implies and as many wedding ceremonies assume. Rather it is an essay on the particular sort of love that Paul sees as the gift of the spirit, and part of a larger essay 1 Cor 12-14 on the gifts of the spirit.

I'll look for sources to back this up as I find time. Or, any help doing this appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Very Minimalist

I augmented quite a bit of this. All religious texts are subject to controversy. As this passage is a cornerstone of Christian theology, this is even more true. I expact that people will take issue with it.

Being an expert or authority in one context or according to one standard (academic for instance) does not immediately give one credibility elsewhere. Furthermore, matters of interpretation are inherently subjective. Thus, an expert tag is seeking something probably unattainable: a definitive interpretation. The closest thing to an authoratative interpreation would come from reading the numerous translations themselves, and then, secondarily, reading the vast assemblage of online commentaries. I used multiple translations in my modifications today.87.175.202.187 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

President Obama / In Popular Culture

I find this to be a pointless addition that does not fit with the rest of the article. If you were to list every significant person who ever quoted the Bible, Wikipedia would be in need of a few new servers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.115.92 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved it to popular culture (where it probably belongs) and also trimmed it to avoid phrases like "to the nation". Still, I wouldn't mind removing it alltogether. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do frequent references not qualify the phrase as important? Certainly, the bit about being a child is used at some point in Ghost in the Shell. Though you could debate it's cultural significance... 188.222.179.211 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that Blair and Obama quoted this be moved into a new sub-heading called something like 'In Popular Culture'. The Ghost in the Shell ref could be added then. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Other notable passages"

Currently it states that there are two other notable passages, yet currently, only verse 11 is listed. Clarification? Eug.galeotti (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Replace with a redirect?

See Talk:First Epistle to the Corinthians#1 Corinthians 1x articles restored. Викидим (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Image

The image does not depict the subject of the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a good one. Located at Corinth, and with the text of the first 8 verses of the chapter in four languages. First image shows Greek and hmmm... perhaps Russian? It appears to be Cyrillic, But it doesn't look quite right for Russian. Anyway, the Greek text is definitely there. Second image is the English face of the same monument.

• 
• 

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice! That other script and language is Old Church Slavonic. I added the English side photo. Hermeneutix (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should have guessed that! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Authorship attribution to Sosthenes

There is little evidence that Sosthenes was the author of the epistle.

Fee: Sosthenes "seems to have had nothing to do with the letter as such," and his name "may be merely the means of identifying one of Paul's present companions."

Blomberg: he "does not seem to have been involved in the actual composition," and raises the alternative that Sosthenes may have been Paul's amanuensis (the secretary taking dictation). -- Hermeneutix (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:First Epistle to the Corinthians#Authorship: Sosthenes is a co-sender, not established as a co-author, and if this chapter gets a separate article it should probably just mirror that language. One of the nice things about not having a separate article is not having to repeat all that sort of context and maintain it and keep them in sync. -- Beland (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Review

I've reviewed your draft, and have some comments. There is some impressive work in what you have drafted, which shows clear familiarity with several commentators and a deep reading of the subject. Nevertheless in its present form it reads more like a biblical commentary rather than a general-audience Wikipedia entry, with issues of scope, balance, and general accessibility that I believe fundamentally prevent mainspace acceptance in this form. I know that will sound discouraging, but I will say that there is indeed a case for the general notability of this, one of the most famous passages in the Bible. But that article should look less like an American evangelical commentary and more like an article that evaluates the impact and notability of the chapter more generally, and contains the interpretative material within an interpretation section.

Lead

The lead appropriately situates 1 Corinthians 13 in its canonical and historical context, notes authorship, location, date, and its place within Paul’s argument about spiritual gifts and love. However it includes significant interpretive content that is not really appropriate here. It would benefit from a description of reception and cultural influence, including historical cultural influence, and the extent to which its reception has evolved over time. This, of course, would first need such a section in the main text. The lead should summarise the chapter’s content, historical context, and significance with detailed exegetical claims deferred to later sections.

Structure

I think you have thought hard on the structure and your structure mirrors the structure in your reading. However, The Analysis subsections almost exclusively report the views of a small set of modern commentators (Fee, Hays, Witherington, Bruce, Blomberg, Bailey, plus MacArthur on cessationism). Of these, only Bruce is not American, and he seems to be quoted largely because the others have quoted him. The piece read like a survey of a subset of the secondary literature rather than an encyclopaedia overview. You quote Fee a lot, and that's no bad thing. Fee is very strong on 1 Corinthians, but the charge here would be that this is really a summary of Fee's view, rather than a general encyclopaedic entry. Further, I am surprised that, having quoted Fee so much, Barrett didn't make it onto your list. Fee refers to Barrett a lot.

Secondly there is no dedicated neutral summary of the chapter as a whole. One major danger, of course, in having a page just on this chapter is that it pulls it out of its context. Chapters 12-14 are a unit, and this chapter sits squarely within Paul's argument there - but also reinforces the messages of the whole letter to that point. Without a strong overview, readers who are unfamiliar with the chapter will find themsleves dropped into a specialist debate they are unprepared for.

Balance

You have put a lot of work into sourcing, which makes what you have quite valuable, but as above, it pulls too much from American evangelicals, especially Fee. You are attributing intrepretation now, which is good, but there needs to be consideration of why these interpreters are chosen. You handles textual criticism and manuscript evidence carefully, but that is quite detailed information, that can be here, but really should not be the core of a general article.

So on the American protestant skew, there is almost no engagement with Roman Catholic commentators, major historical figures beyond a few patristic references, or modern non-confessional or critical scholarship. Some obvious omissions would be Collins, Thiselton, Fitzmyer, and Barrett of course.

Audience Accessibility

The draft reads a bit like a commentary, but this level is a bit high for the general reader. Terms such as ring composition, chiasm, epideictic, digressio, deliberative rhetoric, middle voice, are all terms that you will find in academic literature, and you have unglossed talmudic quotations and the like. Although this is okay for the more involved sections, this language may be inaccessible to some general readers. We can have technical sections but broadly the article should be written for a general audience.

Cessationism

I actually dispute that the cessationist use of verse 10 is as central as you claim. Cessationists may have often used it as a proof text, but they didn't find their cessationism there, and very many of them accept (and have always accepted - c.f. Calvin's commentary) that its use as a proof text is poor exegesis, and so many (not just MacArthur) reject it. Further it is very much an evangelical protestant preoccupation. Perhaps we should just flag it and send people to the cessationism page on that point.

Reception

The section is brief but promising: it notes liturgical and wedding usage and the iconic status of "through a glass, darkly" in English and its influence on Bergman’s film and other works. I think this should be broadened to mention how the passage has featured in Christian devotion, hymnody, theological reflection and in secular literature. I would have thought there is much more to be said here, and it is in how the text has been received and become culturally relevant that we find the actual claims for the notability of the article. I also don't think it should be buried at the end. It is the cultural context that is key to why this deserves an article at all.

Conclusion

This article was previously merged with 1 Corinthians. Although what you have would make a good start class article, I think you should really address the issues with neutrality and the broader scope, and concentrate on the reception, before the case is made for a spin-out that reverts a merge. I think a spin-out is probably merited - but not for the article as it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and helpful feedback!

It is a lot and will take me a while to make the changes.

I'll see if I can get hold of Barrett, Thistleton, Collins, Fitzmeyer. I contributed what I have at my disposal (although I also don't want it to be an American Protestant article), and was hoping others would add other perspectives once published. But will see what I can do.

Happy to add the context of Chapters 12-14 and a neutral summary and a general overview for less technical readers, gloss the Greek, etc.

Happy to place less emphasis on cessionism too.

Reception: The [previous article]) had a lot of reception content before it was redirected to the main page. I can reuse that, and try to filter it - I was afraid it strays into WP:TRIVIA, but I agree it is where much of the notability comes from. Will give it a shot, but it is not my area of expertise. Thanks again for taking the time. Hermeneutix (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. On re-using the reception from the earlier article - I wasn't intending to argue for any kind of editor collation of trivia and in popular culture style lists of mentions. Rather, what I mean is that the reason this chapter is, I think, independently notable is because it is a chapter that is used as a unit as a statement of the meaning of Christian love. It, I think, has a role in the establishment of Christian ethics, and its cultural relevance derives from this. Perhaps a start might be Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros: A Study of the Christian Idea of Love (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932) . However Nyrgen is really looking at the history of the idea of love, so it is not quite right for this article. What we could really do with is someone discussing the history of the reception and impact of chapter 13 on the ethics of love and culture of Christianity. I don't have a source to hand on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I understand and agree. I have Nygren on my list, BTW - will cite. On your last question, I believe Tom Holland in Dominion traces the cultural impact of the chapter (and the supremacy of love, an idea foreign to the Greco-Roman world) on Christian and beyond that Western ethics. Will check again and add as part of draft. Hermeneutix (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Holland has no sustained discussion of 1 Corinthians 13 in Dominion, even though he does indeed talk about the supremacy of love as a world-changing moral principle. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I reread Holland also Simon May (Love: A History), and added a paragraph to Reception citing them (I tried to stick to what they say, not what they don't) Hermeneutix (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I made substantial changes to the page and addressed your points. Thank you for the input! Please have a look when you get a chance (it is long, no rush). Hermeneutix (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I will read through more fully soon. I think this does now demonstrate that the passage is independently notable, so although there are probably changes that could be made (a couple spring to mind, but I'll save it until I have read more closely), I'd be content with a move into mainspace at this time. Does Beland agree? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I was expecting some trimming to reduce unencyclopedic commentary, but there have been massive additions since the above comments. I'll have to take a read through to assess the state of the article now. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both. Sirfurboy, thank you for the go-ahead. Beland, since there has been no further comment, I am going to move this to mainspace in a few days; happy to keep discussing trimming there. On the length: much of the growth is the reception and theology-of-love material Sirfurboy identified as the basis for independent notability. Hermeneutix (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)