The Schism: Wasson vs. Allegro
Were Psychoactive Drugs Involved in the
Foundation of Christianity?
A Critical Analysis
By J. R. Irvin – November, 2007
[6 page excerpt only – this article is not yet released]
Beginning in the 1950’s a serious theoretical disagreement regarding art interpretations emerged within the fields of theology and entheobotany. Entheobotany is the study of how certain cultures use plants and fungi for religious purposes. The centrally important question that underlines this disagreement concerns the study of the origins of religion, and more specifically Judeo-Christianity. Gaining insight into the core issues of this disagreement is of utmost importance to anyone with an interest in understanding the origins of religion.
The question: Were psychoactive drugs involved in the foundation of Christianity?
This question has caused a schism within theological studies, and especially within the field of entheobotany itself.
One side argues that the use of psychoactive substances can be traced only up until, and their impact is limited to, the earliest writings of Genesis, about 1000 B.C.E. –which excludes Christianity.
The other side argues that the use of psychoactive substances was more widespread and their use is a core part of the foundation of nearly all religion, including Christianity, traces of which can be found into more modern times.
It is important for biblical theologians and entheobotany scholars alike to understand the cause and effect of this schism if open dialogue is to continue. Until this issue is resolved and faced head on, scholarship, in regards to Judeo-Christianity, is at a standstill.
Introduction
In 1952 leading art historian, Dr. Erwin Panofsky, wrote to famed amateur mycologist, R. Gordon Wasson, that the Plaincourault mushroom tree that depicts a mushroom with Adam and Eve was not a mushroom, but a stylized Italian pine tree. Wasson uncritically accepted Panofsky’s interpretation and thenceforth began a practice of enforcing the Panofsky interpretation on other scholars. Uncritical acceptance of the Wasson-Panofsky interpretation lasted unchecked for nearly fifty years. Their interpretation of the Plaincourault mushroom has unnecessarily caused a major schism in biblical theology and entheobotany. In 2006 Michael Hoffman and I reevaluated the critical points of the ‘Plaincourault as Pine’ argument (Hoffman & Irvin, 2006), and found them baseless. Other scholars, including Giorgio Samorini, have also recently attacked the Wasson-Panofsky interpretation (Eleusis ns 1, 1998, pg. 87-108).
The purpose of the following article is to show the source of the schism between two primary juxtaposed theories within the field of entheobotany, as well as these theories’ lasting effects on biblical scholarship. These theories are:
1) Psychoactive substances, and especially mushrooms, were used only at the earliest stages of the formation of Judeo-Christianity. With regards to Judeo-Christianity, their usage is limited to, and does not go beyond, circa 1000 B.C.E. These substances were possibly used with the writing of The Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Their usage may extend into other minor heretical Christian sects. There is no evidence to support that psychoactive substances were used in the foundation or body of Christianity itself. Depictions of these substances in art work, such as the Plaincourault, are purely fortuitous misinterpretations.
This theory was first proposed by R. Gordon Wasson, the famous amateur mycologist who in Soma, Divine Mushroom of Immortality, 1968, first proposed that the Rig Vedic Soma was the Amanita muscaria mushroom – a theory widely accepted today.
2) Psychoactive substances, and especially mushrooms, were not only part of the earliest stages of the formation of Judeo-Christianity, but are actually a core part of Christianity’s foundations. Their usage may be seen all the way into more modern times. This fact is evidenced by, but not limited to, artwork such as the Plaincourault.
This theory was
first proposed by John M. Allegro, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and
Those in support of either of these theories have briefly and haltingly argued their points of view in various entheogen books and letters to editors, etc, for nearly four decades – and more often than not, rather uncritically.
The effects of these theories are not limited to the field of entheobotany, but have had strong and lasting implications on theology as a whole, especially with regard to biblical scholarship and the study of the origins of Judeo-Christianity.
Scholars who’ve been swept up by this schism include, but are not limited to: Dr. John Pilch and Dr. Dan Merkur who have clearly stated their positions against Allegro; D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.), who supports some of Allegro’s ideas (Acharya S., 1999); and Dr. Robert Price, who was at one point sided with Wasson, but has since accepted some of Allegro’s ideas. In Price’s original review of Acharya’s book The Christ Conspiracy, he wrote:
Having mentioned the Dionysian associations of the hallucinogenic mushroom, it
behooves me to mention [Acharya's] rehash of John
Allegro's claim (in The Sacred Mushroom
and the Cross) that an ancient Christian catacomb fresco depicts Adam and
Eve flanking, not a tree, but a red-capped Amanita
muscaria mushroom, implying perhaps that the early Christians cherished the
forbidden knowledge of the mushroom, as the ancient Soma priests of
Price has since removed his entire review of Acharya's book from his website and replaced it with a promise for a revision.
(http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm)
The reason understanding this schism is important is because each time the topic of psychoactive substances (entheogens) in Christianity is discussed, Allegro’s name is brought up in opposing arguments as if he is some sort of joke, a show-stopper, the end all to a logical discussion. As Pilch wrote me personally:
[W]e discussed Allegro when I was in graduate school in the late 1960’s. His scholarship is not respected and his conclusions are fanciful. He should really write science fiction.
~ Dr. John Pilch, biblical scholar,
Wasson is perceived as credible as compared to Allegro. But Wasson doesn’t cover entheogens in Christianity. Allegro does. Thus this anti Allegro, and pro Wasson impression gives the appearance that entheogens in Christianity is baseless.
To
the extent that Wasson covers Amanita in Judeo-Christianity – he affirms
Amanita in Genesis, but rejects it in Ezekiel, Revelation and later Christian
practice. But Allegro finds entheogens in the entire Bible era, and to some
extent, after, such as in the Plaincourault.
To overly credit Wasson, and under credit Allegro is to underestimate the extent of entheogen use throughout the Bible era and later. It’s giving all credit to Wasson in an undiscerning way.
Wasson’s theory is preventing the integration of Allegro’s paradigm changing research while also keeping the field of Christian origins from the value of Allegro’s research – thus preventing its evolution and causing its stagnation.
Not recognizing Wasson’s flaws is preventing Allegro’s voice from being heard and his valid contributions from being recognized and integrated into these fields. As long as Wasson is seen as a saint he is preventing scholars from recognizing the value of Allegro’s insights.
When it comes to many of the arguments against Allegro, misconstruing evidence and making it up where often none exists seems to be standard protocol. Allegro’s ideas, and the ideas of those that have continued this area of research, are often unjustifiably swept aside. They are too often dismissed and ignored in an uncritical and largely unfounded diatribe which refuses to review the specific points of the arguments:
This article is a follow-up to Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita co-authored by Michael Hoffman and me from May 2006 in the Journal of Higher Criticism, in press in November 2007. It is recommended that the reader read both articles in order to gain understanding of the importance of the following information as it pertains to the history of Judeo-Christian religions and their origins. Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita may be found online in full at:
http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
This article helps to further bring an end to erroneous claims such as:
Included herein is a complete list and breakdown of Allegro’s entheobotanical citations used in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (SMC). These citations are intentionally kept limited to those with specific regard to his entheogenic scholarship. The breakdown includes important textual references which highlight many of the erroneous arguments used by Wasson and those in support of his theory, as well as academia at large, against Allegro’s scholarship.
These references also reveal errors Allegro copied from other scholars, as well as several of his own errors. All of these errors are extremely important to the discussion herein. When reviewing the citations in a structured format, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Allegro took the blame for many errors that were not his own, but those he simply copied from other scholars. This happens especially with regard to the chemical constituents, taste and effects of the Amanita muscaria. The original errors, and the scholars who made them, were largely, if not completely, ignored.
In order to give the reader the best possible understanding of this schism, both the personal letters and the letters published in The Times Literary Supplement (TLS) betwixt Wasson and Allegro are included in full. Also included is an important letter from Wasson to the editor of TLS, Arthur Crook, which is used for important additional analysis. These letters are provided in full because they form the foundation of this study and reveal the origins of the schism between Wasson and Allegro. In doing so, they also reveal the beginnings of the schism in the field of entheobotany, and beyond into Judeo-Christian theology, that has continued to the present day.
Critical analysis of the words exchanged between Wasson and Allegro suggests a deeper, almost hidden, argument between the two men. I suggest it is this argument that has caused serious shockwaves that have had strong, long lasting repercussions on theological research, especially with regard to Judeo-Christian origins, long after both their deaths.
Allegro caught Wasson in contradiction of himself in a private letter to Dr. John Ramsbottom, dated December 21, 1953. Wasson thus appears angry toward Allegro, lashing out at him in the press, personal letters, and interviews. And to the undiscerning public eye, Wasson’s antipathy appears justified. Allegro’s point ends up being almost completely overlooked, and from there he remains unresponsive, which appears to only further escalate Wasson’s antipathy, who continues his attacks almost until his death, 16 years later.
Commentary is provided throughout this article to serve as analysis of the critical points.
The Wasson & Allegro missives
1) Wasson to TLS, pub. 21 August 1970
Sir, I have just read John M. Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (reviewed in the TLS on May 28). I will refrain from passing on his philological evidence, which others have already treated thoroughly. But I will call your readers’ attention to a question of art history, that I have not seen mentioned in the various reviews that have come to my attention.
Facing page 74 of his book Mr Allegro exhibits a
photograph of what he calls “a Christian fresco showing the Amanita muscaria as the tree of good and
evil in the Garden of Eden”. His publishers have reproduced a mirror-image of
this on each of the end-papers of the book and also on the jacket.
This fresco, an expression of French provincial Romanesque art, was first
called to the attention of the learned world in the Bulletin of the Société Mycologique de
France in 1911 (vol. xxvii, p. 31). It has been picked up frequently in
mycological publications, especially in
I drew attention to this error in our Mushrooms,
Russia & History (1957) and at greater length in my SOMA Divine Mushroom of Immortality
(1969). In this last book I quoted from a letter that Erwin Panofsky had
written me in 1952:
The plant in this fresco has nothing whatever to do with mushrooms…and the
similarity with Amanita muscaria is purely fortuitous. The Plaincourault fresco
is only one example – and since the style is provincial, a particularly
deceptive one – of a conventionalized tree type, prevalent in Romanesque and
early Gothic art, which art historians actually refer to as a “mushroom tree”,
or in German, Pilzbaum. It comes about by the gradual
schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman
and early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying
this development – unknown of course to mycologists. … What the mycologists
have overlooked is that the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but
from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite
unrecognizable.
I checked with other art historians including Meyer Schapiro, and found that
they were in agreement. I was struck by the celerity with which they all
recognized the art motif.
One could expect mycologists, in their isolation, to make this blunder. Mr Allegro is not a mycologist but, if anything, a cultural
historian. On page 229 of his book, in his notes, he shows himself familiar
with my writings. Presumably he had read the footnote in which I dismissed the
fresco on page 87 of Mushrooms, Russia
& History and, more especially, Panofsky’s letter reproduced on page
179 of SOMA. He chooses to ignore the
interpretation put on this fresco by the most eminent art historians.
R. GORDON WASSON
Commentary
Unsolicited, Wasson fires his first attack against Allegro.
He states: “I drew attention to this error [Plaincourault as mushroom] in our Mushrooms, Russia & History (1957) and at greater length in my SOMA Divine Mushroom of Immortality (1969).” But Wasson avoids the fact that his own position in Soma (pg. 221) is that the Plaincourault does, nonetheless indirectly, represent the mushroom:
[…] the mycologists were right also, in a transcendental sense of which neither they nor the artist had an inkling, when they saw a serpent offering a mushroom to Eve in the Fresco of Plaincourault. ~ Gordon Wasson
The Plaincourault was already discussed in great detail in my previous article (Hoffman & Irvin, 2006) that art historians typically don’t read mycology books either. In that article we revealed the Wasson-Panofsky argument as insupportable.
Here in the last paragraph, Wasson makes an unnecessary jab at Allegro. Wasson states: “Mr Allegro is not a mycologist but, if anything, a cultural historian.” Wasson doesn’t just say Allegro is not a mycologist, the likes of which he’s just put down, but includes the caveat “if anything,” purely as an insult to Allegro. He then ends with “a cultural historian,” as if that’s bad! Contrary to the image that Wasson wants to portray of Allegro, Wasson is himself a banker and not a mycologist or art historian! Allegro, in his own right, was an eminent cultural historian, theologian, and philologist. But here it doesn’t matter that Allegro isn’t a mycologist because Wasson has just attacked the mycologists for not studying art.