Talk:Essenes/Archive 2

I removed the following content from the article:

According to Joseph Lightfoot, the Church Father Epiphanius (writing in the 4th century CE) seems to make a distinction between two main groups within the Essenes:^[1] "Of those that came before his [Elxai, an Ossaean prophet] time and during it, the Ossaeans and the Nasaraeans."Part 18^[2] Epiphanius describes each group as following:

The Nasaraean—they were Jews by nationality—originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws — not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nasaraean and the others...^[3]

The reasons are:

1. WP:UNDUE – devotes undue amount of the article to an unsubstantiated relationship between the Essenes and the Nasoraeans. The topic is already more succinctly addressed in the “Scholarly discussion” section of the article, no need to repeat it here.
2. WP:AGEMATTERS – we need better sourcing than an 1875 book by Joseph Lightfoot.
3. WP:EASTEREGG – Easter egg link to [[Nazarene_(sect)#Nasoraean_Mandaeans|Nasaraeans]].
4. WP:RELEVANCE – the first long quote from a primary source is devoted to the Nasaraeans. It says nothing about the Essenes and is not relevant to the article.
5. MOS:QUOTE and WP:NOFULLTEXT which say that paraphrasing is preferable to quotations and that primary sources should not be quoted at length.
6. WP:VERIFY – the second quote needs support from scholars that Epiphanius’ identification of the Nasaraeans and the “Ossaeans” is correct and that they forbade the books of Moses – not mentioned elsewhere in the article. - Epinoia (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The quotes have been an important part of the article since 2007, I don't see why they should be removed now. There should be a consensus to remove themMcvti (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

- just saying it is "important" doesn't make it important - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#It's valuable, "Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies" - for "part of the article since 2014" see WP:UNCHALLENGED, "Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way" - and seeking consensus is why we are here on the Talk page - Epinoia (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Epiphanius and Josephus are the two most important historians/writers that described in great detail the Essenes. The amount of sourced material you have removed has altered the article to the point it no longer mentions what Epiphanius stated about the two divisions of the Essenes (Nasaraeans and Ossaeans). Previously you objected to the possible connection with the Mandaeans in the section and I removed the sentence. Removing Epiphanius' entire quote is extensive and requires a consensus. -Mcvti (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What Josephus or Epiphanius say is unimportant - what is important is what modern scholarship says about the accuracy of their statements as Epiphanius was writing hundreds of years after the events he describes - what he says cannot be taken as true or accurate without independent support from scholars, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Articles should rely on secondary sources" and WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" - quoting Epiphanius is not enough - a connection is already given WP:DUE presence in the article in the "Scholarly discussion" section, "the Nasaraean division of the Essenes described by Epiphanius" with citations - Epinoia (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There is NO CONSENSUS to remove Epiphanius section. Since there's no agreement, a lack of consensus results in the content being kept. You stated "what Josephus or Epiphanius say is unimportant". You have deleted all information describing the Essenes by Epiphanius. I am concerned that you will next delete all information in the article describing the Essenes by Josephus. - Mcvti (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

- no consensus has been reached on restoring the deleted content - no evidence has been provided to show that the content is not WP:UNDUE or to address the other guidelines cited, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:EASTEREGG, WP:RELEVANCE, MOS:QUOTE, WP:NOFULLTEXT, WP:VERIFY, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:PSTS. The topic is already more succinctly addressed in the “Scholarly discussion” section of the article, no need to repeat it (which means that all information describing the Essenes by Epiphanius has not been deleted). To say, "I am concerned that you will next delete all information in the article describing the Essenes by Josephus" is just making stuff up and clouding the issue. - Epinoia (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Epiphanius quotes are not addressed in the scholarly section. It simply states 'Nasaraean division of the Essenes described by Epiphanius.' That is hardly enough to understand where the Essenes lived, what they believed in, dietary laws, nationality etc. according to Epiphanius, and the scholarly section has no mention whatsoever about the Ossaeans. None of this information is in the scholarly section. The quotes are vital to compare and differentiate between the two divisions of the Essenes according to Epiphanius which is not addressed in the scholarly section. The notion that the topic is already addressed in the 'scholarly section' is simply not true. The entire article, apart from the scholarly section, is based on information from Josephus, Epiphanius, Pliny and Philo which you consider to be unimportant primary sources. - Mcvti (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Information from Epiphanius' Panarion is also used in Ebionites, Borborites, Elcesaites, Nicolaism, Simon Magus, Ophites, Valentinus (Gnostic) and other articles. By the logic you are proposing, that what Epiphanius or Josephus says is unimportant, would mean all these articles to have sections or important information deleted. - Mcvti (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

- Epiphanius says nothing about the dietary laws of the Essenes, he refers to the dietary laws of the Nasaraeans, a similar sect but not the same. Epiphanius was writing a couple of hundred years after the events so we don't know how accurate his information is. We need confirmation from reliable secondary, scholarly sources to support what Epiphanius says. We can't rely on primary sources per the guidelines cited above. And as for Epiphanius being used in other articles, see WP:OTHERCONTENT, "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists...in some other page." - Epinoia (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Nasaraeans and Ossaeans are, most likely, the two divisions of the Essenes. That's why the quotes by Epiphanius are in the article to begin with. Even Josephus hints at two groups within the Essenes. Epiphanius goes into greater detail comparing and contrasting them which is why his quotes are important. Do you have reliable sources claiming that the Nasaraeans mentioned by Epiphanius are not a division of the Essenes or do you simply want to remove them because your opinion is that they are not a division of the Essenes? - Mcvti (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are of the opinion that the Nasaraeans are not a division of the Essenes, why did you delete Epiphanius' quote about the Ossaeans? This is not a neutral point of view and you have not provided any reliable sources to back up your claims before deleting Epiphanius' quotes. - Mcvti (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that the Nasaraeans are not a division of the Essenes - they may well have been, but we need citations to reliable secondary sources to confirm the claim, we can't rely solely on primary sources such as Epiphanius - my objections are not to Epiphanius, but that the content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines on the use of primary sources, WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Articles should rely on secondary sources" - no sources have been provided to support the claims of Epiphanius (except for an 1875 book by Joseph Lightfoot) - I also object to a large part of the article on the Essenes being devoted to the Nasoraens, which is WP:UNDUE - the Essenes and the Nasoraeans may have been related, but they were not identical so we can't assume that anything said about the Nasaraens applies to the Essenes, so content on the Nasoraens in the Essene article does not meet WP:RELEVANCE - I have not made any claims that require citations to reliable sources, I have only been following Wikipedia guidelines and the contested content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is already a secondary source by Joseph Lightfoot in the article, which you don't accept and have also removed, and you didn't provide an alternative reliable source. The article does not devote a large part on the Nasaraeans, they are only discussed in Epiphanius' quote and are pertinent to the article since they are likely a division of the Essenes. Removing the quotes, removes all description about the Nasaraeans and Ossaeans in the article. Epiphanius' quotes do not violate Wikipedia guidelines and they have been part of the article since 2007. The information provided by Epiphanius, Josephus, Pliny and Philo are all necessary to better understand the Essenes. Removing the quotes and Joseph Lightfoot would mean the article no longer has any information by Epiphanius describing the two divisions of the Essenes according to him. - Mcvti (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia depends on verifiability – see WP:VERIFY, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
• The Lightfoot book is from 1875, long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the excavations at Qumran, so the information in the book is not up to date – see WP:AGEMATTERS
• you didn't provide an alternative reliable source – see WP:BURDEN, “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material," so it us up to you to provide sources
• they are likely a division of the Essenes, as you say, "likely a division of the Essenes", so the relationship is not definite – a reliable secondary source is required to confirm the relationship between the Essenes and the Nasaraeans – the long first quote is about the Nasaraeans and says nothing about the Essenes – anything said about the Nasaraeans cannot be automatically applied to the Essenes as they were different groups although likely related
• Epiphanius' quotes do not violate Wikipedia guidelines and they have been part of the article since 2007 – as already pointed out, the quotes from Epiphanius count as primary sources and Wikipedia has guidelines for the use of primary sources (see comments above) – and as already pointed out, "Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way" per WP:UNCHALLENGED, so the length of time the quotes have been in the article is irrelevant
• The information provided by Epiphanius, Josephus, Pliny and Philo are all necessary to better understand the Essenes. Removing the quotes and Joseph Lightfoot would mean the article no longer has any information by Epiphanius describing the two divisions of the Essenes according to him – you are arguing for content here – the problem is that the content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for use of primary sources or for due use (WP:DUE) – Epinoia (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sourced material which you removed is available, but you don't like it. The quotes are from Epiphanius' Panarion, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, so Lightfoot as a source is relevant. You are the one removing sourced material and have not provided an alternative reliable source. I say likely, since we are dealing with a sect from over 2000 years ago, nothing is 100% certain, but that can be said for most sects of the time. You state "anything said about the Nasaraeans cannot be automatically applied to the Essenes as they were different groups although likely related." This is your opinion and not relevant to the article. The Nasaraeans as a division of the Essenes are not a different group, they are a division within the Essenes meaning the Nasaraeans and Ossaeans both comprise the Essenes according to Epiphanius and Lightfoot. Josephus also mentions the Essenes consisting of two groups. Again, Epiphanius' quotes do not violate Wikipedia guidelines. The article uses sources from Josephus, Pliny and Philo which you do not object to, you only have an issue with Epiphanius' quotes although you say that your objections are not to Epiphanius. There is no consensus to remove the sourced material from the article. We are both repeating ourselves and not going to agree so continuing this discussion is pointless. - Mcvti (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

- as consensus cannot be reached, I have requested arbitration through Wikipedia:Third opinion - I will be happy to abide by whatever decision the arbitrator makes - Epinoia (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Essenes and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I have no prior content knowledge about this topic, so take this with a grain of salt. To me, it's unclear that Epiphanius is describing the Ossaeans and Nasaraeans as both being parts of the Essenes. He discusses all three in different sections and describes them as different sects. As far as I can tell, no other secondary source, besides Josephus, views Epiphanius' descriptions of Ossaeans and Nasaraeans to apply to Epiphanius. I find that to be too loose a connection to justify such a lengthy quotation. I would be glad to look at any other sources that might add to the DUE argument for including the quote. I have this page watchlisted, and am happy to answer clarification or follow-up questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for Epinoia and Mcvti. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a new section that captured the beliefs and rituals that the Esennes shared in common with other Jewish sects of the time, and the differences between them. Pngeditor (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The comparison section is sourced to the Jewish Virtual Library and appears to be a rather direct copy/paste job. Furthermore, according to Perennial sources the JVL is generally considered unreliable. As such I'm going to cut this section. I'm gonna leave this comment over at Sadducees and Pharisees too. IrishStephen (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have heard that the Essenes subscribe to historical determinism rather than strict predestinationism while the Qumran Community did subscribe to predestinationism. I would like some sources on this -- I was a student in the class of Dr. Gabriele Boccaccini and that was his view when discussing the topic 35.2.147.173 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Would like to see someone with knowledge on the subject edit the page on the subject that it is widely believed that the Masons originated as Essenes. Then became the Poor fellow soldiers of Christ, then the knights Templar. When they fled to Scotland, they started the first Masons lodge Robertball118 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

By whom? I have never heard this claim before 35.1.230.166 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)