Over the last week, Benny Shanon’s article “Biblical Entheogens: A speculative hypothesis” has been a rather popular topic online, both in mainstream media outlets and specifically in the skeptical community. I wonder how much of this interest, especially in the the skeptical community, is just a case of Schadenfreude.
After my skeptical comments on the article earlier this week, I have decided to go through the article thoroughly, and offer a more concrete review of Shanon’s work.
Effectively, Shanon’s thesis is that Moses, throughout his encounters with God, was under the effects of an Entheogen, a mind altering psychedelic drug, which lead to hallucinations and an altered state of consciousness. This is certainly an interesting theory, but one that I believe Shanon fails to support.
His main evidence appears to be comparison to known historic and modern usages of such substances in religious and spiritual endeavors. However, his comparisons to Pre-Columbian and modern American examples may serve as example of entheogen use, they cannot serve as evidence of Israelite use. I am also somewhat skeptical of his use of Zoroastrian and Vedic examples. While, I am open to the possibility that Soma and Homa were psychedelic substances, there are certainly other explanations that have been offered. Let us also not forget that the Zoroastrian religion may not even have been formed during the time that Moses would have lived, let alone the fact that contact between the Pre-Davidic Israelites and these Iranian and Indian cultures was likely limited and goes without historic mention. Finally, the texts offered by Shanon to show the psychedelic nature of these substances, really only read that way if one approaches them with such an explanation accepted beforehand. In short, they could quite easily be interpreted in other ways.
As far as comparison between Moses and Shamans, who are often tied to psychedelics, I am quite doubtful that this is an apt comparison, as Moses does not fit the general anthropological definition of a Shaman. He is not a healer nor is he associated with channeling. One strong link would be the use of entheogens, but this creates a bit of a circular situation.
I am also bothered by Shanon’s introduction, which seems to approach religion as universally tied to such substances. While religion is generally about an encounter with the numinous, there are many other ways that this has traditionally been reached, such as meditation, prayer, etc. Some religions, Mormons for instance, clearly oppose the use of such substances, and atheists and agnostics are a clear example of alternative human actions. I simply thing that this is not a universal enough position on which to base an argument.
Too often Shanon, fails to look at the bible as a traditional and long term repository of tradition and myth, not accurate history. He looks to the tradition of Manna as a possible story of entheogens, not allowing for it to be a myth or non-historic event. In his analysis of events in Moses’ life, he fails to see that they often reflect long term traditions that pre-date the Israelites. A clear example of this would be the theophany in the Sianai. The image of God in thunder and lightening fits well with a long tradition found throughout the Near East, going back centuries before the Israelites. Seeing the voice of Yhwh in thunder should not be seen as a surprise, even the Hebrew word for thunder “qol” also means “voice”. Perhaps the strongest question that Shanon fails to address, is why he views these events as historically accurate, and not aspects of tradition created much later to give life to eponymous ancestry.
I am also not swayed by Shanon’s analysis of the burning bush Moses encounters while tending the flocks. Shanon relies heavily on ethnoarchaeology, but fails to question the likelihood that shepherds wander around high while guarding their animals. In short, Shanon fails to indicate why Moses would be undergoing what he contextualizes as ritual or shamanistic use of entheogens while tending the herds. Instead, an “uninspired” ie non-psychedelic theophany seems a much more likely example.
Shanon also notes failure in finding all aspects of what he sees as the entheogen experience in the stories of Moses. I refer to the idea of a disembodied eye. As an ad hoc explanation, Shanon shifts momentarily to Ezekiel’s exilic visions. This is not a convincing explanation of why Moses would have not experienced all of the expected aspects of the proposed drugs, and the theological and ritual difference that develop between the times of Moses and Ezekiel mean that any comparison is extremely questionable. It would certainly not be right to say that since something applied to Ezekiel it would have applied to Moses.
Shanon also offers comparisons between the Israelite’s alive at the time of Moses and the Essenes and twelfth century Jews. The evidence of Essene drug use offered by Shanon is highly questionable, and he admits solely based on a modern coincidence. However, the largest problem with these comparisons is that the Israelites of the Sinai tradition were not Jews, and they were religiously, traditionally, and culturally very separate from these later traditions. In the end, placing their beliefs or actions onto the ancient Israelites is impossible and unreliable, certainly not good evidence.
Perhaps the strongest evidence Shanon offers is the use of acacia tress by the Israelites, though this is significantly undermined by the absence of psychedelically active varieties in the Sinai. Unfortunatly, there is no chemical analysis or archaeobotanical evidence to suggest Shanon’s entheogens theory. Shanon also fails to explain why we should not expect that these supernatural events which fit so well within the Near Eastern traditions we know of, must be the effects of entheogens, and not just mythic beliefs. In the end his approach and the outcome mirror the research of scholars who over analyze and cherry pick the bible to find evidence of aliens in theophany. I certainly do not mean to say that there is no possibility that the Israelites used entheogens, but that there is at present no archaeological evidence and textual evidence is questionable at best.
Anderson, Robert Magic, Science, and Health Ft. Worth, Harcourt, 1996
Green, A.R.W. The Storm-God in the Ancient near East. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Shanon, B. (2008). Biblical Entheogens: a Speculative Hypothesis. Time and Mind, 1(1), 51-74. DOI: 10.2752/175169608783489116
Filed under: Archaeology, Archaeoporn, Pseudo-Science, Religion | Tagged: Benny Shanon, Biblical Entheogens, Drugs, Moses, sinai
“Too often Shanon, fails to look at the bible as a traditional and long term repository of tradition and myth, not accurate history. He looks to the tradition of Manna as a possible story of entheogens, not allowing for it to be a myth or non-historic event.”
Well said. I completely understand that researchers will make certain presuppositions in order to explore a research question, but this is a very big presupposition that I don’t think can simply be adopted without explanation. Distressingly, I’ve noticed that the skeptical community has been making similar errors lately – that is, assuming that the default understanding of the bible should be historic, rather than mythic, when grappling with religious claims.
[...] 9, 2008 by Alun A Review of Methodology in “Biblical Entheogens” at Archaeoporn saves me the effort of writing a similar post. Basically the [...]
One could, I suppose, indulge in freewheeling speculation that people who transmitted the oral stories or who codified them into written form (during Exilic times, let’s say) were high as kites. Whether that claim is at all supportable, I lack the knowledge to say, although it has the advantage that the writing of the Bible was a historical event, or rather a historical process, even though its contents are mythological.
“Shanon relies heavily on ethnoarchaeology, but fails to question the likelihood that shepherds wander around high while guarding their animals.”
Here you are making an argument from personal incredulity which fails to consider that many millions of workers to this very day go about their job while chewing on coca leaf, betel nut, or otherwise “high”.
There is a difference between these situations and being in a ritualized hallucinogenic daze.
Certainly none of these are comparable to the shamanistic practices Shanon draws on.
Mild stimulants like coca leaves are a world away from the potent hallucinogens that Shanon is proposing. They certainly don’t cause the visual and auditory hallucinations needed.
Shanon seems to believe that the story of Moses in the Bible is literally true, and that it can be explained rationally by inferring the use of entheogens. That seems prety unlikely on a number of counts.
What is more possible is that the stories were inspired by entheogen use. But, from what Thadd is saying, there is a lack of archeological or ethnographic evidence that these drugs (even if they exist in the environment, which they may not) were used. That to me knocks the argument on the head.
try reading Dan Merkur, ‘The Mystery of Manna’ for more on this topic….
“May not” and “was likely” isn’t a very sturdy platform to present oneself as credible.
Let us also not forget that the Zoroastrian religion may not even have been formed during the time that Moses would have lived, let alone the fact that contact between the Pre-Davidic Israelites and these Iranian and Indian cultures was likely limited and goes without historic mention.
Indeed, ALL of the “Judaic” history is lifted directly from more ancient Babylonian, Sumerian and Egyptian history, including the “Moses” myth.
Sorry, I should have included the Indian myths as also predating and providing material for the much later “Hebrews” or “Jews” to steal and present as their own “unique” religion.
[...] around with his mates like some wannabe Time Team character doesn’t help matters.” Best: A Review of Methodology in “Biblical Entheogens” Moses on drugs, and why the burning bush doesn’t count as evidence. This post is “what my site [...]
[...] Debunking of Biblical Hallucinogens A Review of Methodology in “Biblical Entheogens” [...]
[...] Debunking of Biblical Hallucinogens A Review of Methodology in “Biblical Entheogens” [...]
[...] at Archaeoporn, Thadd Nelson gives us A Review of Methodology in “Biblical Entheogens.” Recent claims that Moses was high on drugs simply are not up to [...]