We, by request, are now having a look at claims that the Bible indicates the use of drugs in corporate worship. Our first analysis will be of an article titled, "Entheogens in the Bible" by someone who identifies himself as "Nemu."
An obvious caveat to begin is that such views are manifestly absurd and nonsensical on their face. No scholar (aside from the insane John Allegro, whose work has been dismissed publicly by dozens of respected scholars) would ever maintain such views…not even someone as fringe as, say, Robert Price. So it will come as no surprise that Nemu's arguments offer little substance. Even so, the request for review was made of me precisely because some people were falling for this kind of nonsensical speculation.
Nemu's prose frequently wanders and there are times when it is not clear what point he is even trying to make by telling us certain things. He begins with a quote of Gen. 3:6 (the eating of fruit from the tree in Eden) and then follows this with an extended narrative of the blue lotus described in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the lotus in Homer's works. Somehow this segues into an explanation of such things as mushroom use in pagan rites, and the use of cannabis (marijuana) in various places. It takes a while for Nemu to explain what any of this has to do with the Bible; actually, he never does explain and all we get are isolated statements that are more smoke than leaf, like the following:
In the Jewish tradition, there are no non-kosher plants at all, despite an immense number of prohibitions in the literature, specifying exactly what is lawful at which hours and in which combinations in every conceivable sphere of life. The deity's only comment about vegetation is that it is "good", and in Psalm 104 "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." 'Service' would include medicine, construction, or whatever else you might want to do with a herb, and some of the most exalted herbs in The Bible are psychoactive.
The obvious flaw here is that "service" is assumed to be inclusive of whatever we want it to be, including psychedelic use. By the same poor logic, one could argue that Psalm 104 teaches that we are free to use e.g., cannabis for the purpose of kindling a fire for arson; after all, that would be "whatever else you might want to do with" it.
A similar flaw accompanies commentary on the use of mandrakes in the Old Testament, which were used as a sort of aphrodisiac. Sure, mandrakes can be used for hallucinogenic purposes, too. So can paint thinner, but just because a home improvement text mentions using paint thinner to thin paint does not mean it also endorses the use of paint thinner to get high. If this was Nemu's point (and he never quite makes a point of any kind), it deserves classification as a non sequitur.
Similar implied non sequiturs are offered regarding other Biblical ingredients (frankincense, myrrh), and are added to with vacuous speculations such as that communion wine may have been spiked with "some dysphoric tincture for those who were frugal at the collection plate." However, if you are looking for anything in the realm of definitive proof from Nemu, regarding such points, you can forget it: For him, it seems, the mere fact that certain plants can be turned into a psychoactive is enough to assume that they must have been used that way, and that this must have been implicitly approved by Biblical authors.
Actually, not even that much evidence is needed. Nemu goes as far as saying: "Regarding the other plants mentioned in The Song of Songs, camphire is henna, and has not been found to have psychoactive effects, but then again, the ancients may have known something we don't. Pomegranate has a complex pharmacological [sic] profile, including melatonin, serotonin and tryptamine." At this rate we will soon hear about smoking banana peels…and that's not far off. Nemu claims that the anointing oil used in the Jewish cult included some stuff that could be used psychoactively, but it is never explained how the application of said ingredients produced psychoactive results, especially in such limited quantities. Nemu indeed as much as proves that you can turn anything psychoactive if you try hard enough:
One intrepid chap mixed cinnamon and pomegranate [sic] seeds, along with cayenne [sic] pepper, star anise and chai tea: I felt like I had a warm fuzzy blanket wrapped around me without CYP2D6 inhibition; but with the CYP2D6 inhibition I feel that I AM that warm fuzzy blanket [capitalization his, or maybe YHWH''s].
What, exactly, is this supposed to prove? Again, it's never quite explained, so the non sequitur remains hanging. We are, in any event, told much of how the anointing oil may have had psychedelic uses, but we are told nothing of how this would actually work in application.
So…on and on it continues, with Nemu proceeding under the assumption that if anything had a possible psychedelic application, such an application must have been intended. Actually, it would be a good idea to carefully first check out just about anything Nemu says, for example he says:
Another of Muhammad's sayings recommends a strong psychoactive dose: Whoever for 40 days eats 1 mesghal (4.6 grams) of harmala mixed in water every morning, the light of wisdom will turn on in their heart.
However, does this saying actually exist anywhere but in the imagination? I rather doubt it. The only reference I find that is even close to it comes from an alleged translation of an Arabic saying by a member of an online forum for psychedelic drug users. The link this person gives to http://www.hadithcity.com/Hadith.aspx?id=1782 seems to be numbered for a hadith found at https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/7/1782 which renders the text as: It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: "Whoever spends the nights of the two 'Eid in praying voluntary prayers, seeking reward from Allah, his heart will not die on the Day when hearts will die." I cannot authoritatively say this is a match, but the evidence is thin enough that we have reason to be highly suspicious.
Onward Nemu goes, with little but the same sort of associative speculation supposing that anything that can be made psychoactive, was in fact used for that purpose. We may consider the following as a textual claim of notice:
When the thick veil was drawn back, smoke would come pouring out of the chamber to rise up from the tabernacle door. Exodus has a famous pillar of smoke, at the door of the tabernacle rather than over the Holy of Holies at the back of the tent; but the translation describes it as descending, not ascending: As Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses...
The most outrageous addition here is "the LORD", because of all the popular translations only The Hebrew Names Version Bible faithfully relates that it was the cloud itself that spoke with Moses (fitting neatly with Strassman's alternative translation describing "the agency of the cloud"). In fact, there is no YHWH mentioned until two verses later:
And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And YHWH spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Is this true of the textual evidence for the verse in question (Exodus 33:9)? It is true that "the Lord" is added for clarity, but the addition is far from "outrageous" as the full context of verses 33:7-11 makes clear:
Moses took the tent and pitched it outside the camp, at a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. Anyone seeking the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting that was outside the camp. And when Moses went out to the tent, all the people would get up and stand at the entrance to their tents and watch Moses until he entered the tent. And whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses. When all the people would see the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people, each one at the entrance of his own tent, would rise and worship. The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, the way a person speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his servant, Joshua son of Nun, a young man, did not leave the tent.
The idea that it was the "cloud" speaking therefore strains the narrative to the breaking point. It is clearly YHWH who is the communicating entity, not the cloud. (The NET Bible, for reference, further indicates that "he" is given as the subject.)
Nemu goes on to add what he pleases to the narrative to turn it into a psychedelic drug trip by Moses, and as before, that includes adding to the dosage of ingredients in elements like incense until it becomes as psychoactive as he needs it to be. We then get to an exposition on manna, which of course is interpreted as a psychedelic drug once it had been properly prepared (by "Jewish doctors"), derived from a fungus called ergot. Rather problematic for this thesis is the fact that ergot plagues cereal grasses like rye and wheat, but which are not found in the Sinai wilderness.
In what follows, Nemu makes much of the JEDP theory and uses it as an aid in construction of a conspiracy in which "the priestly caste worried, as a later generation of secret service executioners with a monopoly over mind control worried in the 1960s, that a freely-available ergot preparation might dissolve into clay the walls holding the world up." And with that, we think we have ingested enough nonsense.