Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine Conspiracy/Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Crazynas 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manner vote conducted

It is divided up by Keep, Merge, Delete and Comment. Please keep comments short. Only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page. If you don't wish to vote, but wish to make a comment, please leave it in this section.

This article is original research and goes against the Cannon

It relies on assuming that Jerome's statement about a "Gospel of the Hebrews" was accurate It is an almost universal opinion amongst academics and non-academics that Jerome's statement was an error caused by lack of information. It contains an opinion of why people might have wanted the Gospel of Matthew to exist.

It presents an extremely POV view of Constantine, which is totally inconsistent with the facts.

The article is even written as an essay/thesis, with introduction and conclusion. Nothing but Weasel words, a whole lot of quotations, I don't even know if the subject deserves its own article.--Anikk 09:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In this article I have used no original research. Every fact can be backed by at least two sources. Nor am I trying to put forward a point of view. From my study of the sources, Constantine seems to be trying to do what is right. However, Jerome, Epiphanius and other Church Fathers state clearly that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by the Apostle Matthew. Its disappearance has affected the Christian faith.

1) "They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the Gospel to writing in his native language. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent." (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6)

2) "They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. " (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7)

3) "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew " (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)

4) " Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. " (Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)

5)"The Constantine Conspiracy: Another remarkable claim in The Da Vinci Code is that the Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, (231). Brown lifted this idea straight from Holy Blood, Holy Grail: It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine’s commission must not be underestimated.7"

6) "The story of Emperor Constantine and his conspiracy with the apostate church to change the times and laws of God. Accounts his anti-Semitism, his ruthlessness, and the error of the church.Documented using centuries old writings of Jesuit priests." (David M. Hargis, The Constantine Conspiracy, 2005. http://mbiy.safeshopper.com/11/42.htm?198 )

--MeBee 11:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue is not the validity of the argument. It is whether the argument exists separate from the work of the
  Gnostic and other early Christian texts disappeared after the First Council of Nicaea, whether or not the Council discussed what was and what wasn’t holy writ. See the web page http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html for some (not necessarily unbiased) discussion of this issue. However, based upon what records we have extant today, the Gnostics were losing out to the Paulines (if you will accept the name for the purposes of discussion) for some time prior to Constantine, with various church fathers proposing lists that did not include the Gnostic texts. For a layman’s presentation of this process see, for example, Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why by Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Certainly by the Council of Laodicea
  in 363 CE there was good agreement on what constituted holy writ.

Regardless of whether one calls it a 'Constantine Conspiracy ' or a purging of heretics, the record is clear, see Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8. and Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch.6ff. that Constantine did order the destruction of heretical books (although we don’t have a comprehensive list of what those were), and used his imperial power to carry it out. If that were what this article focused on, it would be a lot easier to accept. The current article has POV problems, is argumentative, and is not well structured. It does not have a proper clear statement first sentence. Instead of using crossreference (linking), it includes tangential material. Using only the central information presented by User:MeBee, the overall article would be quite short. However, a slightly broader approach with more inclusive data should yield a solid NPOV encyclopedia article. For that reason, and because the issue is not central to Constantine reign, I would oppose merger. But absolutely this article needs to be rethought out, restructured, and rewritten. Bejnar 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge it with Constantine, or some other relevant article. I'm not convinced this deserves its own entry. Either merge it or delete it. Georgeslegloupier 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going to be helping MeBee with the technical process regarding the AfD as (s)he is new and requested help. Crazynas 11:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I too have considered a merge, but this article would be way to long. Please read the whole article (including the writings of the Church Fathers) carefully and you will see what I mean.--MeBee 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bejnar, I agree with most of the points you made! . . . Thanks ! --MeBee 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC) > See the talk page.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.