Talk:Holy anointing oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bible (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cannabis (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger with Chrism[edit]

Oppose merge. Chrism, as that article explains, is a Greek word representing a specifically Christian concept in current use in various churches, whereas the Hebrew Bible concept of Holy Annointing Oil is shared between Jews and Christians and supports specifically Jewish interpretations not appropriate for the chrism article. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge, for the reasons stated above; and also because even within the Christian context Holy anointing oil may or may not be Chrism, depending upon the context. The Orthodox will use Chrism for Baptism, consecrating Antimensia, and anointing kings, but holy anointing oil is used for Unction and on other occasions. Even within baptism there are two anointings, one with blessed oil before the baptism and one with Chrism at the Chrismation. MishaPan 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge since neither the reason for use, the process of use and the materials used are compatible to the distinct societies and cultures, at different times in history.--Mrg3105 (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and remove it. If anyone still thinks it should be there it can be reconsidered. —Whig (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Shemen Afarsimon[edit]

  • Propose merge. A merger is a no brainer here -- the two articles are on the identical topic, see WP:Content forking. The only question is what to name the article. Note that one will simply redirect to the other. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Chrism should be merged for certain. -- SECisek (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There was a discussion at Talk:Holy anointing oil#Merger with Chrism which resulted in insufficient support for merger. The merge tag was deleted. If you object you might want to mention this in the discussion and restore the merge tag. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually not. The Afarsemon article needs editing. Afarsemon oil was not a religious artifact, it was a secular product and a major item in Middle-Eastern trade. It was the product that made Ein Gedi a wealthy town. That some of this product may have been used in the Temple doesn't make it inherently religious. -- Zsero (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


There are many translations of scriptural texts. Relying upon one translation to the exclusion of others is problematic. Whig (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


The Holy Anointing Oil as described in Exodus 30, is NOT used in Chrism in any Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, nor is it systematically used in any other denomination that believes in the sacrament of "Chrism." Therefore to merge this article with Chrism would make little sense.

The Shemen Afarshimon of Psalm 133 which was used in anointing Kings, Priests, and Prophets is most probably not the Exodus 30 Oil which was to be used on the Aaronic Priesthood only. If the Jones Institute is using the correct name for the oil found it may be the Persimmon Oil or the Balsom Oil used for Kings, Priests and Prophets who were not of the sons of Aaron. Again this question merits this article retain it's separate identity.

Finally, including the translation of the Exodus 30 ingredient called "Calamus" while neglecting translating the other ingredients betrays the authors personal agenda in proving the Holy Anointing Oil was used as an hallucinagenic sacrament. Serious translations do not harbor such a frivolous thought.

In the future, if time permits, I intend to register as a Wikipedia editor and will attempt to add to this article. I simply have no time at present.

Dr. W (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that calamus is a potent hallucinogenic herb in its own right.[1]Whig (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you any idea just how uncertain the translations of terms in that part of the bible is? There's very little certainty about the correct translation of the ingredients; Calamus is certainly not the usual translation. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would turn this article into a disambiguation page to be honest. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Needed[edit]

This article is parsimonious in content of a subject consisting of great depth. I would like to add some to this article.

I am concerned about the emphasis translating one ingredient over the others. This is a very hotly debated translation and would seem better suited in the existing Cannabis article ( or at least in a separate section at the end of this Holy Anointing Oil article). However I do not want to just charge in editing things disrespectfully. I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation needs work[edit]

I'm new here and I just noticed an error that had been (I believe) unintentionally created. I reverted to an older edit that appears correct. I would like to fix a couple punctuation errors as well but I do not want to over step my boundaries as a new user. If an admin would like to gloss over the article I'm sure they would see the minor errors I'm talking about and could change them w/o me. I will wait a while before I make any more edits. In a few days I plan on removing a period and maybe adding some parenthesis, maybe a comma -I'm going to check with a peer review board and an MLA textbook first. =) Shantideva (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and make what changes you think appropriate. If others disagree with your changes they can always be changed back or modified. —Whig (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose the reason I'm taking my time is that I'm uncertain about the best format for this line: 500 shekels (about 6 kg) of myrrh, according to the Ra'avad. Maimonides translates this substance as musk.[1] It just seems inconsistent that it ends with a period rather than a comma. I have a few ideas about better punctuation/phrasing, but I'm not even entirely certain it's wrong. I'm a very slow moving perfectionist, feel free to beat me to the punch. =) Shantideva (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Calamus as a hallucinogen[edit]

I would like to comment in response to a Wikipedian making the claim that acorus calamus is a hallucinagen comparable to LSD.

At various times acorus calamus has been cited as being a hallucinogen (entheogen). This is simply an urban legend. Calamus, which is related to the cattail plant, has different strains. The Indian Jamu strain contains beta-asarone which was isolated and fed to lab mice in very massive doses over a prolonged period of time. Although this was a component that occurs in only one strain of calamus (and was an isolated concentrate used in massive doses) the FDA now claims calamus is a possible carcinogen.[1] This same component is also the same substance some claim to be a hallucinogen. This urban reputation is based solely on two pages of a book written by Hoffer and Osmund entitled "The Hallucinogens." Virtually everything you ever hear quoted comes from these two pages. The information on these two pages came from anecdotal reports from a couple of people who told them that they used it twice (hardly reputable sources). The statement in this book was highly misleading and very overstated. Acorus Calmus is NOT hallucinogenic. Those who do continue to claim it has psychoactive properties say that the effects are "very subtle," "hard to put your finger on," "most people will not even notice it," and that "countless people say it has no effect."[2] A very good description of a placebo effect. It has also been been said that "if you're looking for a cheap legal buzz, something to party with, then calamus is not for you. Calamus takes time, and effort with very subtle results. It also may not do anything for you the first time or the second time or possibly ever. It doesn't work for everyone, and for those it does it is fickle."[3] An even better description of a placebo. Another source who thinks he may have experienced some subtle effects says that the massive doses taken resulted in a bout of violent regurgitation. I have yet to find anyone who experienced a hallucinogenic trip of any sort or even experienced a "high" feeling. Except for the anecdotal reports of a couple of people who used calamus a couple of times, which was written about in a couple of pages, there exists zero proof that acorus calamus is hallucinogenic. Which is all a moot point anyway . . . the Holy Anointing Oil is not to be consumed, it is to be anointed with. Even if it did contain a hallucinogen the human organism would not be able to absorb any of it from the small amount used in anointing. However I have a solution for seekers everywhere: If one wishes to get high, go to a rave. If one wishes to be anointed, go to church.

[1] [2] [3]

CWatchman (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Better research needed[edit]

I did some hunting to see what the mysterious "cane" really is, and so far I'm most edified by an old e-mail in a NORML newsletter archive. ( - which, by the way, denies that any of the actual historical finds contained any cannabis as claimed in the current version of the article. I think I need some remedial education regarding how to search this stuff, and judging by this group of articles I don't think I'm the only one. I tried Google Scholar, I tried Anthropological Index Online, I tried PubMed - I got more from regular Google than any of them. Surely the people digging up this material publish somewhere besides the newspapers, don't they? Wnt (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the citation of calamus as being cannabis, since the article stated it as a proven botanical fact. In all fairness I added the section "Alternate theory identifying calamus." The idea that calamus is cannabis is a radical fringe theory among users of marijuana and a fringe group called the THC Ministry. CWatchman (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fringe, but not at all radical. My personal bias is that recreational drug use is a horrible thing, and I'm hesitant to endorse anything that could promote that, but there is a lot of evidence to support the cannabis claim. has some decent insight, specifically the Sula Benet reference. Shantideva (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep cannabis fringe theory in the cannabis section[edit]

Mr., in an earlier post I wrote:

"This article is parsimonious in content of a subject consisting of great depth. I would like to add some to this article. I am concerned about the emphasis translating one ingredient over the others. This is a very hotly debated translation and would seem better suited in the existing Cannabis article ( or at least in a separate section at the end of this Holy Anointing Oil article). However I do not want to just charge in editing things disrespectfully. I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"

I have done as promised. I added a section concerning the alternate theory of calamus as cannabis. In the introductory list of those ingredients recorded in the Bible, we list the most widely accepted translations of those ingredients. For example Myrrh is simply listed as "myrrh" and not as every substance every translator believes may have been the myrrh referred to here. Myrrh is believed by some to have been labdanum, some believe it was a musk from living deer, others believe it to oppobalsamum, some believe it to was commiphora myrrha while others believe it was oppoponax. If we were to include every substance thought to be the myrrh, cassia, etc. there would be no room in the beginning of this article and much confusion. There is room in the rest of the article to discuss alternate theories. In all fairness I added the Cannabis section for all the THC enthusiasts who feel calamus is cannabis. Please do not attempt an edit war least you be barred from Wikipedia. Please civilly discuss your reasons for feeling cannabis should appear outside of the cannabis section.

I still do not want to just charge in editing things disrespectfully. As stated before, I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. Thank you very much for understanding. CWatchman (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis is absolutely not fringe theory. There is more than enough evidence that the recipe used Cannabis and may have been altered in a translation error to create uncertainty. Additionally Calamus is toxic and known to be pro-carcinogenic, unlike unlike Cannabis which is anti-carcinogenic and nontoxic. With evidence of Zoroastrian use thousands of years prior to the Torah, one can not say with certainty fragrant cane is Calamus and not Cannabis. Without certainty, both should be included and in the article. BG19bot should not be altering the page automatically and both ingredients should be in the recipe list. Ploxhoi (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What evidence that Zoroastrians used Cannabis, can you provide a citation? I've looked exhaustively and seen nothing that would support the idea? The KJV bible pretty clearly calls it Calamus as does every other version I can find. Furthermore properties of Calamus in other sections of the KJV are described that are inconsistent with Cannabis. Sweet Cane of Palestine for example. Where the bible does reference Cannabis it stems from the hebrew word kineboisin or Qineh and does so explicitly and is usually rendered with the proper translation of "hemp". It is common knowledge that hemp was a major agricultural and industrial product of the era just as it continues to be today. There was no stigma attached to the use of these substances back then. In short if it were Cannabis oil the word would have been Qineh and the translators would have rendered it "Hemp Oil" as they do in several other places. It's only the last 100 years that hemp and cannabis have taken on a negative connotation, the authors and translators of the bible would not have hidden hemp oil, hash oil or any other substance any more than they did Opium or even Wine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been studying Zoroastrianism and Parsis for 15 years. Zoroastrian have and do use Bhang for healing and pain relief when and where they are allowed to do so. In the United States and other countries that have bought in to the racist politically and economic biased drug war against Cannabis they are not allowed to. Many Zoroastians in the United States have no idea cannabis is part of their faith. Here is one citation I have posted before. Nanavutty, Piloo (1999). The Gathas of Zarathustra. India: Mapin Publishing Pvt Ltd. ISBN 1890206091.  Ploxhoi (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Then please go to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Religion and notify editors there that you want to make changes to Religious and spiritual use of cannabis. That has nothing to do with this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Juglet of Qumran"[edit]

Regarding my rollback of the deletion of that section, it was done because it involved deletion of large, well-written sections with perjorative comments such as "quacks" and so forth. Instead of excising so much work, which is sourced, address the issues in tone, and improper sourcing. Also note that one of the things considered "unencyclopedic" was a quote from an archaeologist, and therefore is appropriate in this context. --Pstanton (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Which quote was that? None of the "alleged discoveries" are properly sourced. Using a pseudo-scientist's website or books to source a quote by said pseudo-scientist is a violation of WP:RELIABLE. Also, stating that a "discovery" was mentioned in "several news sources" is not the same thing as quoting an actual source. (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
the quote is from Jones: "“the Holy Anointing Oil was made by Moses himself and was for all generations to come. Moses made 24 juglets of the Holy Anointing Oil... this twenty-second juglet was used for 844 years... less than a third of the juglet was used. This is the juglet of the Holy Anointing Oil that our team found in 1988. Since that juglet was made by Moses himself, it is the item of earliest antiquity in Israel." Your edit summary: "Pseudoscience. "...made by Moses himself", Not encyclopedic."[[2]]. And the entire point is that they are alleged discoveries. Yes, he might not be reliable, but that is the entire point of the section being titled "alleged discoveries" instead of "discoveries". This would be a case when more references can be added. Deletion doesn't seem appropriate here.
I have to ask you, does that sound like anything that an actual scientist or archaeologist might say? Vendyl Jones is an unreliable source. He was not an archeologist or scientist qualified to make claims about the authenticity of any purported historical artifacts referenced in this article. According to his own vanity website (and his vanity page on Wikipedia which quotes it verbatim), he received a Bachelor's degree in Divinity, and a Master's degree in Theology from "Bible Baptist Seminary", a school which does not even exist. His bio claims "advanced studies at the Bowen Biblical Museum" under a "biblical archaeologist." "The Bowen Biblical Museum" is located at Bob Jones University, which exists, but was not accredited at the time he would have studied there (it was not accredited until 2005 and the quotes pre-date that time). The VJRI, his "research institute", is objected to on the same grounds. They certainly shouldn't be used to assert, through Wikipedia, that something was "made by Moses himself" and "the item of earliest antiquity in Israel". I will spell out my objections in detail for each of these three "alleged" sections because they simply do not meet the standard for Wikipedia. Please do not replace this section unless there are reliable sources for these quite amazing assertions. Withough sources, anyone can assert anything they like in Wikipedia, tag an "allegedly" on it and according to your logic, that's encyclopedic enough. It isn't so. There are policies governing these things. (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vendyl Jones was quoted extensively by National Geographic and other sources which are far more credible than Wikipedia.

This article has been continually hijacked in the past by a fringe group of dope smokers who allege Jesus was stoned during his ministry. One of the reasons many desire to see the rediscovery of the exact ingredients of the Holy Anointing Oil is to simply put a stop to such nonsense. It is my opinion if one wishes to smoke dope they should go to a rave and do so, but if they want Christianity they should go to church. Falsifying history does not justify a behavior, it only places more question on it.

Since we are referring to "reliable sources" and "verifiable," please do us all a favor and do not leave anonymous posts. To sign your posts please register with Wikipedia and sign all posts with four tildas at the end of each post.

Thank you for understanding CWatchman (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Vendyl Jones was quoted extensively by National Geographic and other sources" - Please find the National Geographic article and provide a reference. No one ever has. As to signing posts, please stop the ad hominem attacks. My randomly assigned IP number serves as a pseudonym as does your 'signature'. You might also want to learn how to indent to keep the flow of conversation coherent. I have given explicit reasons why Vendyl Jones is not a reliable source. You have only referred to articles you assert exist but can't locate or quote. (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Archeology is a science, not an opinion. I removed quite a bit of pseudo-scientific archeological quackery, several paragraphs of it. Half of this article read like a sales pitch for donations for further "research" by said quacks and/or their minions. Articles must be verifiable. WP:VERIFY Please use reliable sources. WP:RELIABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since we are referring to "reliable sources" and "verifiable," please do us all a favor and do not leave anonymous posts. To sign your posts please register with Wikipedia and sign all posts with four tildas at the end of each post.

Thank you for understanding.CWatchman (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Jerusalem Juglet"[edit]

The paragraph says a juglet was found in Israel in the early 20th century. It contained something. It was very old. No source is given for the incredible claim that "tests...revealed that the deposits within the juglet were indeed the aged remains of the Holy Anointing Oil of Exodus 30." No source at all. Not even a name for the gallery in which this astounding relic is kept. This is an extraordinary claim that just is not sourced at all and there should be no argument that it does not belong in Wikipedia. I have removed it. Please do not replace this unless it can be substantiated with reliable (WP: RELIABLE), verifiable (WP:VERIFY) sources. (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Other Alleged Finds"[edit]

In this section, we hear the strange tale of "The Messianic Holy Anointing Oil vial".

"News About Israel" is not a reputable news organization. I am not sure exactly what kind of organization they are, but I did learn through a simple internet search that they apparently partnered (circa 1990) with two companies identified as "Olim Creative Products of Tiberias" and "Christian Floral Delivery of Colorado" to announce what they claimed to be the "discovery" of the "Ancient Messianic Synagogue Seal" used by the Nazarenes over 2000 years ago. Amazingly enough, this "discovery" was also made by an elderly hermit monk! Just like the "The Messianic Holy Anointing Oil vial" was ALSO found by an old hermit monk! What lucky monks! ADD: "News About Israel" claims to have gotten a "patent" on the "Messainic seal."

Bob Fischer, by the way, who was never properly introduced but relied upon as an expert as another of our "Messianic Holy Anointing Oil vial" sources - is credited in the above article as the "president of Olim Creative Products and co-author with local historian and artist Reuven Schmalz of their book, The Messianic Seal of the Jerusalem Church".

"Evangelical Press News Service" is not a reputable news organization, particularly about scientific matters. Its publisher describes it as a "wire service" for about 100 "Christian newspapers." It runs articles with titles such as "Lutheran denomination liberalizes sex teachings" and "Suit filed against Bible-based marriage efforts". It should not be relied upon to authenticate and translate purported "ancient Aramaic" translations.

After many meanders, twists and turns, we come to a scholarly dispute between two Rabbis over certain inscriptions on an ancient vial. Notice that this vial is NOT the same vial we started off discussing at the beginning of the article, the one discovered by that lucky old monk. The paragraph even ends with "To date it has not been tested for residue of the Holy Anointing Oil". Then WHY are we talking about it in an article entitled "Holy Anointing Oil"?

Wikipedia requires reliable (WP: RELIABLE), verifiable (WP:VERIFY) sources. "Alleged" doesn't even begin to cover it. I am removing this section. Please do not replace this unless it can be substantiated in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia. (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since we are referring to "reliable sources" and "verifiable," please do us all a favor and do not leave anonymous posts. To sign your posts please register with Wikipedia and sign all posts with four tildas at the end of each post.

Thank you for understanding CWatchman (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

CWatchman Who are you talking to? The content above was signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


The section "Alternate Theories" was removed from the end of the article and placed between sections "In Rabbinical Judaism" and "Archeology." This broke the train of thought of the article. "In Rabbinical Judaism" poses the question of the possiblity of a continuity of the Holy Anointing Oil. The "Archeology" sections poses a possible solution which many are considering. To place the "Alternate" section in between them breaks the continuity of the article. I placed the "Alternate section back to its original placement. Please be advised that a fringe theory has attempted many times in the past to use this article as a leverage in proving that the Holy Oil was a marijuana elixer which left Moses, Jesus and others "stoned," hence marijuana is (to them) a holy sacrament. May I quote my original reason for creating the "Alternative" theory section at the end of the article,

" If we were to include every substance thought to be the myrrh, cassia, etc. there would be no room in the beginning of this article and much confusion. There is room in the rest of the article to discuss alternate theories. In all fairness I added the Cannabis section for all the THC enthusiasts who feel calamus is cannabis. Please do not attempt an edit war least you be barred from Wikipedia. Please civilly discuss your reasons for feeling cannabis should appear outside of the cannabis section.

I still do not want to just charge in editing things disrespectfully. As stated before, I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. Thank you very much for understanding."

CWatchman (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for above comment. The section "alternate theories" is badly labelled - what that section is is "historical Jewish views", and belongs in the Judaism section. Hence pulling it back from the end of the Christianity section, into Judaism.
The "see also" link to cannabis was removed since there is no WP:RS in the article for such a see also. Forgive me "THC enthusiasts" ? doesn't mean anything to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If it will make you happy I will make the two sections (In Rabbinical Judaism" and "Archeology" into one combined section. I personally wrote thses two sections as a continuity of thought.CWatchman (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, why? There is no continuity of thought between Rabbinical Judaism and Archeology, archeology is a discipline separate to Rabbinical Judaism and vice versa. WP:Synthesis. So no, please don't do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you please revert these edits until there is a WP:IRS to support them for the reasons given above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would also suggest that the "archeology" of Vendyl Jones appears as WP:Fringe as the cannabis link I deleted. But that's by the by. Please move the Christian material back out of the Rabbinical section. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The continuity factor is not exclusively rabbinical. The section also refers to Apostolic Succession which is a Catholic doctrine. Groups both in Judaism and in Christianity search for a continuity of the Holy Anointing oil. Thats what these sections are all about—continuity. This can be realized only through archeological discovers or tradition.CWatchman (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

CWatchman, I do not understand what you mean by "realized"? But no, that is not correct. Archeology (which didn't exist as a discipline before Napoleon's invasion of Egypt) has no relation whatsoever to the development of incense in Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look over the article and try to figure out how this section should be properly broken up. I will try to do this in a timely manner. Please keep in contact. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well could you please totally separate Christianity/Catholic and Judaism/Rabbinical, because unless sources appear otherwise, then beyond the commonplace observation that some similarities are inevitable given the shared Hebrew Bible/Old Testament heritage there is no shared continuity and any comparative observations are going to be prone to WP:Synth and WP:OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi CWatchman, after another look at the article, I did it myself. Please do not move anything related to Vendyl Jones' hunt for the oil back into either Judaism or Christianity without first providing a WP:RS for doing so. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Article structure, in line with other Ancient Israel articles[edit]

The history of this page is very odd, seems to have originated as a puff-piece for Indiana Jones style lost relic theories, and still has bits of that in odd places in the article. Can any editor passing by please be at least generally familiar with article structure in other related Ancient Israel topics before altering this article structure. Most of them start with an Ancient Israel section, then Judaism, then Christianity, then non-mainstream views. E.g. Contents: 1 Hebrew Bible 1.1 Anointing oil in the Ancient Near East 2 In Rabbinical Judaism 2.1 Rabbinical identifications of Calamus 3 In Christianity 3.1 The Roman Catholic Church 3.2 The Armenian Church 3.3 The Assyrian Church of the East 3.4 The Coptic Church 3.5 The Saint Thomas Christians 4 Other views 4.1 Vendyl Jones 4.2 Cannabis advocates . Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Discoveries[edit]

The article originally made sense and had a continued flow of thought. However the references to "alleged" discoveries did not set well with other Wiki's due to lack of reputable sources.

But then again, there WOULD be a lack of reputable sources in anything which is "alleged."

The inclusion of these alleged findings were simply demonstrating the importance of continuity to various groups desperately attempting to locate the sacred oil.

As stated above the article originally made sense and had a nice flow of thought but various editors have deleted and turned things around so much that in it's present butchered state it needs rewritten. This I will do in the future when time permits.CWatchman (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For example—the new section "The Roman Catholic Church" makes absolutely no sense in this article. What does Apostolic Succession have to do with the Holy Anointing Oil? It is now out of context. However in it's original placement it made perfect sense.CWatchman (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi CWatchman,
Well I'm sorry but as I said I consider the original article WP:synthesis. It is more WP:NPOV to stick to chronlogical ordering - Ancient Israel, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Simple.
I don't know, what does Apostolic Succession have to do with the Holy Anointing Oil? I've asked this question on Wiki Project Catholicism, to see if anyone there can provide a WP:RS for any "continuation" between the Levitical/Davidic anointments and anointing of R C priests.
Regarding "various groups desperately attempting to locate the sacred oil" after the death of Vendyl Jones, which groups, either Christian or Jewish, are attempting to locate a remnant of oil from the temple? Can you provide a source please? Thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The original section concerned the "Continuity factor" and it's universalism. The second line stated, "Customs utilizing the continuity factor is found in many of the world’s religions." The article then began to give examples of this beginning with the Rabbinical belief in an unbroken chain of semikhah which began with Moses and continued to some unknown period after the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem(which has NOTHING to do with oil, only of the CONTINUITY of rabbinical ordination). The next example is the emphasis of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of Apostolic succession, the continuity of laying on of hands for ordination, in an unbroken chain (which has NOTHING to do with oil, only of the CONTINUITY of Catholic ordination). The next example cites the belief in the importance of continuity of the ashes of the red heifer (which has NOTHING to do with oil, but with the CONTINUITY of the ashes). Next it cites the the search, which has been undertaken by different Christian groups, to locate these ashes by following the map of the Copper Scroll. It next spoke of the modern custom of some Jews concerning challah. Next it cited the continuity factor believed in by the Churches of the East who keep back a portion of their liturgical bread, called the Holy Malka, and when new bread is made the old being added to the new. Next it mentions the belief in the continuity factor of the Assyrian and Saint Thomas Churches in which a portion of the old anointing oil is added to the newly made anointing oil to establish a continuity of the oil. It then explains the Rabbinical belief that their must be a continuity of the original oil (and not the simple reproduction of the Exodus 30 formula) and the hopes of many (mostly Christian groups) that a portion of the oil may be discovered and that this portion will either multiply in volume either by supernatural means or simple be the base for the addition of new oil.

It is now obvious that this section was demonstrating the CONTINUITY factor of the religions of the world and how two of these religions (Judaism and Christianity) have applied this universal belief to the Holy Anointing Oil and why having the original Holy Anointing Oil is so important to them. CWatchman (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi CWatchman Right, I see that's what the article was saying, I'm just asking for a WP:RS to support each one of those points. I did a brief thumb around in a couple of sources for "continuity"+"anointing oil", including JSTOR and Google Scholar and came up with hands empty. Maybe if you search Google Books you can identify something? Best. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
When I get the time. Thank you for searching. CWatchman (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your comment "continuation between the Levitical/Davidic anointments and anointing of R C priests" I have never heard of such a thing. Apostolic succession has nothing at all to do with continuity of oil but of the succession of ordination.

Concerning "chronological ordering" it should be done in the context of the belief in continuity or it makes no sense whatsoever.

Concerning "which groups, either Christian or Jewish, are attempting to locate a remnant of oil from the temple," National Geographic Magazine covered the alleged finding of the bottle of anointing oil and Jones writes that he believes he has discovered the original anointing oil (Jones,ThD, Professor Vendyl, Researcher 17, March 2004). Rabbinical Jews believe that when the Ark of the Covenant is found that the Holy Anointing Oil will be found because they believe the Holy Anointing Oil was contained and hidden with the Ark of the Covenant. Some believe Messiah will bring the original oil with him. When the third Temple is rebuilt, the furnishings must be anointed with the original Oil as must the priesthood and Messiah. Since it is forbidden to simply make a new batch of oil, the old must be recovered by some means.

There are abundant references for these facts, however, I lack the time to hunt these up for an article in which I am not being paid to write. It took me several years to get around to adding what information I did write.

Perhaps sometime in the future CWatchman (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

--I'm sorry but this is all fantasy. I don't have time to refute all this happy horsepuckey. Perhaps someone else will. Maybe it will stand here so long it will serve as truth. (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you refer to their faith and beliefs as "fantasy" or "horsepucky" is irrelevant. They believe what they believe and that much is "fact".

The tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East teaches that their oil has a continuity reaching back to the Last Supper of Jesus Christ. They have historical records referring to the continuity of the Holy Anointing Oil (Holy Myron) and Malka as far back as the eighth century (it is alluded to much, much earlier). Yohanan bar Abgareh referred to it in 905 as did Shlemon d-Basra in the 13th Century. Yohanan bar Zo’bee in the 14th Century integrated this alleged descendant of the Holy Oil with baptism and other rites.

It is no secret that the Torah commands the articles of the Mishkan be anointed with the Holy Anointing Oil.

It is no secret that Vendyl Jones made claims which was published by National Geographic.

Much has been written about the Messiah's return and with his return the restoration of the Temple including the Holy Anointing Oil.

Fantasy or not, it is the substance of things not seen which is sacred to many. It is not nice to call it "horsepucky." CWatchman (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"They believe what they believe and that much is 'fact'" - CWatchman, the issue is that belief is not the standard for an encyclopedia. Beliefs and allegations are not facts. I do apologize for using the term 'horsepuckey.' I was not referring to anyone's system of belief, but to unverified assertions that were in the article. Even if "Vendyl Jones made claims which was published by National Geographic" - we need to see the article to see how those claims were presented. I can't make sense of the reference "Jones,ThD, Professor Vendyl, Researcher 17, March 2004". That doesn't seem to refer to a National Geographic article, you see? You seem to have a great interest in the subject and I encourage you to provide any reliably sourced information to the article. (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


reworded restated claims on /* Rabbinical identifications of Keneh Bosem */ since these two popular authors are not rabbis. More importantly no academic source shows any trace of any "Hebrew University etymologist" (who?) making any such claim. First you'd have to ask what department of Hebrew University would have an "etymologist"? That's a limited group of Hebrew language scholars and lexicographers. While it's worth noting this as an urban legend, such an easily verifiable (it was true) fact rules out representing it seriously without verification. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recipe Citation[edit]

None of links provided for the recipe of the oil mention Cannabis, they all say Calamus. The recipe should be updated to reflect the cited sources or a different source should be used instead. (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Going to strongly agree with the reasoned consensus on Calamus vs Cannabis. The original Hebrew Text, where the recipe resides at Exodus 30:23, translates literally to English as "aromatic calamus", or rather "calamus-aromatic" in the original form. The word for "calumus" is transliterated "qaneh" (pronounced kaw-neh), meaning "cane reed", and is a plant indigenous to the area, and related to sugar "cane" and bamboo like "reeds". The word for "aromatic" is "besem" (pronounced beh-sem), meaning sweet fragrance, spicy smell or odor; and it is related to the balsam plant. The two words together refer specifically to the Calamus cane reed plant. Meanwhile, the word Cannabis comes from the Greek and Latin, and a single Hebrew word "qannabōs" (kah-nah-bos), which literally means "smoke bringer", or a "means to produce smoke". There is no clear relationship between the qaneh besem (kaw-neh beh-sem) sweet cane reed Calamus plants used in making the "holy oil", and qannabōs (kah-nah-bos) Cannabis plants used for making smoke; and which also do not develop into reeds or canes. The entire principle connecting the two distinct plant types appears to be built entirely on a flaky fringe foundation of purely coincidental pronunciation, and it reeks of POV-pushing by fans of legalized cannabis. Extremely solid proof from an extraordinarily reliable and unbiased source would be required to overturn 5000 years of Hebrew translation. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

[[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get 'Hebrew word "qannabōs" (kah-nah-bos), which literally means "smoke bringer"' from? Cannabis comes from words Kanna meaning Cane or Reed and from Bis meaning Repeated.

Additionally you are missing other religious documentation of Cannabis being using in healing. Zoroastrians used Cannabis in their sacred drink (Cannabis and Ephedra) and for other healing properties. In the creation story God (Ahura Mazada) created Gavievdad the first bull and Gayomard the first man. Satan (Angura Mainyu) then came forward and brought evils to the world. Satan brought pain and disease and sicked both man and bull, but not before they spread their seed. Before God could reach man, he had died. God was able to reach the bull before Satan and gave the bull Bhang (cannabis) to chew so he would suffer less from Satan's torture. Nanavutty, Piloo (1999). The Gathas of Zarathustra. India: Mapin Publishing Pvt Ltd. ISBN 1890206091.  The healing properties of Cannabis are truly amazing. Zoroastrians have influences on and from Judaism, therefore I do believe Cannabis is not a fringe belief. Ploxhoi (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Linking to a dab page is useless, simply we dont do that so why, Ploxhoi, did you revert to the dab page,. Your claim that the botanical article is about cannabis as recreation rather than the drug article being about this is absurd, please explain yourself. Your revret was about as unhelpfula s I have seen and you need to explain why you did so here♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis is the botanical page.
Cannabis_(drug) is the recreational drug usage page.
Cannabis_(medical) is the medical drug usage page.
I undid your changes because the list of ingredients are meant to link to the botanical pages, not the usage pages. Even if you want to speculate why Cannabis was added, then the medical page would be more appropriate as the oil is meant for healing, not for a recreational high. Also you keep breaking the link to the Calamus botanical page. Ploxhoi (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the addition of "or Cannabis", back to article status 3 January. See User:T-dot's sensible comments above, so the discussion of where to link cannabis to is a secondary issue, if there's no need to add "Cannabis" in any form to the ingredients list. It is linked in the Benet section, but I'm wondering if the time has come to move the fringe theory of Benet out to the Benet bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I know many are calling Benet's theory fringe, but I have have to disagree. Zoroastrians were using Cannabis for healing well before the Torah was created. The Zoroastrian faith had influences on the Jewish faith and the Torah. I find difficulty in believing Cannabis is not a plausible ingredient. With the changes of the meanings of words and possible translation errors, Zoroastrian use, and evidence of cannabis use in other religious research cannabis is not a fringe theory. The only reason the theory is fringe is due to the popular racist morality issues created in the 1930's when cannabis was banned for greedy economic reasons. Prior to the 1930s cannabis was a widely used, effective, and accepted ingredient in many healing remedies. Due to propaganda over the last 80 years, still to this day getting people accept that cannabis is not the devil's weed and is actually beneficial for medical use is like pulling teeth. Ploxhoi (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel, I reverted back to 3 Jan status, you've added "cannabis" back in. What reliable sources state that cannabis was an ingredient in this oil? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel, what reliable sources state that cannabis was an ingredient in this oil? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not playing along with the old circular argument and trick questions, I already know how it goes. "You must find a source stating cannabis was an ingredient. The only caveat is, if it's a source stating cannabis was an ingredient, it's pre-disqualified! So therefore, there is still no evidence whatsoever that even one person in the world thinks cannabis was an ingredient, and you could have made this all up entirely yourself, so there. Now happy hunting!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Til Eulenspiegel, this is an encyclopedia article. Sources should be reputable academic NPOV sources. Hans Arne Jensen The Plant World of the Bible CALAMUS p.24 has an extensive entry giving cymbopogon or acorus calamus. In the absence of academic sources supporting cannabis we should follow what academic sources say. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is there are two competing definitions of "academic" used on wikipedia. One, the one I use, is the definition found in all dictionaries of the English language. The other definition of "academic" as commonly used by more and more wikipedians is "agreeing with my pov = academic". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, but that's not my problem is it.
Hans Arne Jensen is an academic, a botanical archaeologist - his publications include Bibliography on Seed Morphology (1998) Seeds and Other Diaspores in Medieval Layers from Svendborg (1974) Investigation of Anthesis, Length of Caryopsis, Moisture (1976) Catalogue of late- and post-glacial macrofossils of Spermatophyta from Denmark, Schleswig, Scania, Halland, and Blekinge ‎Danmarks geologiske undersøgelse (1985) Macrofossils and Their Contribution to the History of the spermatophyte flora and so on.
Do you agree Hans Arne Jensen passes as an academic source for ancient plants? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds like his viewpoint would be relevant, but I don't see him cited in this article. What does he think about the cannabis question? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hans Arne Jensen, like all reputable sources, doesn't even mention the possibility - as this article shouldn't, it's fringe nonsense and belongs in the bio of Sula Benet only. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sula Benet's theory is one of those schools of thought that has a following, per WP:NPOV we aren't supposed to be declaring victors and losers here based on your POV, but the recent trend with POV pushing editors is to get right "in your face" with asserting that their opinion is the only correct or allowable one. I remember a few years ago when wikipedia wasn't like this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is why we have the WP:FRINGE guideline, please find a WP:RS source. Unsourced fringe content has no place in any article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

Should Cannabis be removed from the list a ingredients? There seems to be a lot of people with the belief the ingredient should be listed as Calamus or Cannabis. Evidence in my research over 15 years of Zoroastrianism and Parsis show cannabis was used in the region for healing before the creation of the Torah. We also know language has changed in time as well as meaning of words, and with the addition of translation errors the ingredient may have been changed. There is also this debate with Zoroastrian Haoma. In order to keep the article neutral I believe the article need to show there is evidence and debate of both points of views. By only listing one ingredient of the other seems to be a bias point of view. I have revert the page to keep the article neutral. Ploxhoi (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No it should not be added. Adding it is not a "neutral" view, it is a WP:FRINGE view. First find a WP:RS reliable source and then you can add a reliable source. No source, no addition. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"Fringe" is your personal characterization or assessment of the view. Other editors disagree with you. Please stop using FRINGE as a pretext to prevent information you DONTLIKE from seeing light on wikipedia. Thank you, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE is objective - when there are no reliable sources it is fringe. Instead of adding "cannabis" repeatedly, please find a source to support your belief. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You have a circular argument - A source (Sula Benet) states this, you DONTLIKEIT, therefore to you she is "unreliable". You have proved nada. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No, this is your problem - your issue. For most non-involved en.wp editors an expert on botanical archaeology (not just James A. Duke - 201, but a case in point) is more an expert on botanical archaeology than a writer who knows nothing about and has no qualifications in botanical archaeology. This kind of expert/non-expert reliable/unreliable distinction is relevant to any topic area, not just Hebrew Bible plants. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this long. Especially Til Eulenspiegel's edits, edit summaries, and outrageous section title (removed) referring to canvassing, are below par. 1. Ploxhoi admits this is his personal research, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia 2. No sourced provided. It is beyond discussion that Ploxhoi has been challenged and per WP:BRD and WP:RS a source must be provided before his edit can be restored. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To the point. The first 5 articles I see on Google when searching for "ingredients of anointing oil" do not mention cannabis. Just a first observation. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sula Benet is a reliable source for purpose of establishing that this is one of the POVs out there. It is not wikipedia's job to try to prove the source wrong or "unreliable" simply because you DONTLIKEIT. You have no sources establishing that she is considered "fringe" or "unreliable" by other scholars, this is merely an unfounded personal opinion of wikipedia editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this source and this one. If that were quoted, it could probably be used. On the other hand, perhaps it is a fringe opinion, since these articles both mention only one and the same article. We'll probably need to establish some consensus first. Stress "first"... Debresser (talk)
Thanks Debresser, good to focus on the issue of WP:RS.
Til Eulenspiegel, the issues you raise are addressed by WP:FRINGE. The guideline makes it reasonably clear what constitutes fringe and how fringe views are handled/represented/articled on en.wp. For example Sula Benet having notability for an article, can include her views. Likewise if Chris Bennett (cannabis activist) [7] is notable for a BLP stub in Category:Cannabis activists, then Chris Bennett's views are notable only in the context of such a BLP article. This is how NASA-faked-the-moon-landing, Loch Ness monster, Roswell and other non academic-reputable but notable views are handled on en.wp. No reason, based on present source evidence at least, why this non academic-reputable but notable view should be handled differently. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that she is FRINGE, how precisely did you establish that she is? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Fairly straightforward: WP:FRINGE describes fringe as "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" - the two relevant fields here, Hebrew lexicography and paleo-botany (plant archaeology) do not support this theory. Ergo, per WP:FRINGE, it is fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of other scholars have endorsed this theory, but there is no reason not to mention that the view exists in reality and create a wiki-fantasyland where nobody thinks this about the Holy anointing oil merely because some editors DONTLIKEIT. We should reflect the reality of views in scholarship even though you don't like it and to censor this is some editors enforcing their own point of view on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Who? Scholars of what? The 3 modern plant lexicons of Michael Zohary (the standard modern work), James A. Duke, Hans Arne Jensen (the most recent work) don't so what scholars, and scholars of what? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I see quite a few hits on Google scholar and Google books and looking through so many I don't know where to start. This isn't just a lone kook, it has been picked up by numerous authors. New Scientist journal alluded to it in 13 November 1980 issue [8] but the relevant wikipedia article has to pretend it doesn't exist just because you are of the persuasion that it couldn't possibly have been cannabis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
How does "I don't know where to start" square with your confident and insistent re-insertion of "cannabis" into this article? Or more to the point how does "I don't know where to start" square with your claim that "Plenty of other scholars have endorsed this theory" - when Michael Zohary (the standard modern work), James A. Duke, Hans Arne Jensen (the most recent work) give other identifications and don't even mention cannabis.
You cite Tim Malyon and Anthony Henman - your source says "Tim Malyon was previously coordinator of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign, and Anthony Henman is author of Mama Coca (Hassle Free Press, London, 1980)" I submit that the coordinator of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign is not as much an expert on Ancient Near East languages and botany as paleobotanists such Michael Zohary Hebrew studies - Volumes 25-26 -1984 Page 230 "Professor Michael Zohary is professor emeritus of botany at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. For half a century he has been studying the biblical flora and is regarded as the outstanding authority on the subject. His work has been published in several books and articles, earning him a number of distinguished awards. " The Legalise Cannabis Campaign is not an authority on ancient Hebrew botany. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I see no sources for the alleged supporting scholars. One article, and from a person whose neutrality on the subject is arguable, makes for a good definition of fringe in my lexicon. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
But you are not the only editor here, and you don't get to make up unilateral original definitions of "FRINGE". Citing scholars who don't mention cannabis at all is trying to prove a negative from an absence or omission: completely bereft of logic. It still doesn't make all the many books who say cannabis was used (or may have been used) go away and dissapear, just because letting people know this idea exists outside of wikipedia doesn't fit in with your agenda. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


All evidence is that this goes back to Benet, and that it's entirely her idiosyncratic theory, and that outside the marijuana advocacy and alternative spirituality communities it has no real traction. Benet says, flatly, that the ancient use of "calamus" in the Septuagint is "incorrectly translated", without citation or any other justification. Her cognate argument is rejected in this paper as "purely speculative and most likely false." The real issue is that the disagreement over the ingredient is vastly WP:UNDUE and could be reduced to a few sentences. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see all the activity on the neutral point of view. The research I have done over the last 15 years on Zoroastrianism makes me believe cannabis is not fringe at all. Maybe we need to start compiling sources for those that keep claiming cannabis is fringe, which is also a POV. A small part of the research I found on Zoroastrianism and the use of cannabis was from Chris Bennet and Neil McQueen, most was either university scholars or were Zoroastrian mobeds. All of the research I have seen from Chris Bennet and Neil McQueen has been well researched and sourced. I do not understand how you can dismiss scholars like Chris Bennet and Neil McQueen when many other scholars, academic and religious have come to the same or similar conclusions. I suggest reading Chapter 3 Cannabis and the Hebrew Bible. [9] Ploxhoi (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:SPA. FWIW Chris Bennett (cannabis activist)'s webpage says that he is a member of Church of the Universe. Not sure what bearing if any that has on this page. All of this is derivative from Sula Benet and its not acceptable that Sula Benet has more airtime in this article than University of Jerusalem lexicographers and botanists. I suggest content on Benet (and Bennett) be trimmed down and moved out to the Sula Benet article if relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This has even come up in prominent US Court case law in Hawaii and elsewhere recently. As usual, people can easily get info on this in the real world, outside wikipedia, but here in wikipedia-land, there's always gotta be someone who doesn't like something and doesn't want it to be mentioned. The origin of the term FRINGE is pejorative (short for lunatic fringe) and editors are all too willing to throw that term around as rhetoric for things they personally dont agree with and to marginalize and set their own opinion over other editors and even scholars who do agree with it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but as you well know WP:FRINGE is not "pejorative" - it is a WP guideline, "pejorative" is more apposite to the tone and content of your own posts on this talk page in response to requests to follow WP:RS. Please step back. You need to make your peace here that an article on a Hebrew Bible subject is going to follow academic sources and not cannabis activists.
This can probably be best addressed by a full quote from Michael Zohary's 1985 entry on the plant. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I said the ORIGIN of the term fringe is pejorative. It is widely used in rhetoric and polemics and it is widely abused by wikipedia editors to try to stand in the way of thing they personally "DONTLIKE". It is unfortunate that wikipedia crows about standing for "neutrality" while allowing editors to insist articles reflect their own personal POV only. Why don't you try looking up to see what the word "academic" means in English, according to English dictionaries? It doesn't have any kind of magical membership card definition designed to exclude academics you DONTLIKE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. I didn't write this guideline. And the personal attacks have got to stop. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You may have not written the guideline, but you are clearly using the guideline to push you biased point of view. I think anyone can see your bias point of view on my talk page. Ploxhoi (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the best pieces of evidence of that calamus is is not the ingredient is the bible itself. Ezekiel 27:19 mentions the same trade source of cassia, kaneh bosm, and massive iron. [10] Cassia comes from India or China and calamus was grown locally, which would make one believe calamus would not have been imported and was not kaneh bosm. Vedan and Javan are unknown locations, although there are theories. Looking were iron is quite common and cassia is grown leads you believe the source for kneh bosm is either India or China. Cannabis was also sourced from this region. Ploxhoi (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not an acceptable authority in the matter, so your arguments along these lines are irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So who exactly is an "acceptable authority" in the matter? Ploxhoi (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
LOL "We don't like the hypothesis that K=C. We can't prove that K does not = C, and neither has anyone else proved anything, but it's a lot easier to win the argument by simply declaring all sources for the other POV unreliable, therefore we can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, while scoffing any heretic who thinks this as "FRINGE"...! All in the name of NPOV! Just call it NPOV 2014 style... " Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Little more time to look over this issue of "WP:FRINGE" and this is definitely WP:NFRINGE. There are WP:RELIABLE sources and the theory has been published in many times by different scholars and news sites. Although not accepted by mainstream, especially in the west where cannabis a very bad, very evil plant, the theory does fall under WP:NFRINGE. While some will say scholars like Bennett are not reliable source, I always ask why? He may not be a skilled writer, but he does do research that is not WP:NOR and he does make his works WP:VERIFY by . Although Bennett maybe WP:BIASED, that does not mean his works are not WP:RELIABLE nor WP:VERIFY. Source criticism by Wikipedia editors against this theory or the sources is not their jobs. If you are a scholar then get a paper published disproving Bennett's research or any of the other sources, that way we can cite work too. So to maintain WP:NPOV, as stated many many times, cannabis must be included.Ploxhoi (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, it is included. But it is very much a minority view, and not one supported by the principal experts in this area. Therefore it should be treated as a minority view and given the weight appropriate. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What bothers me as an apparent violation of NPOV is for wikipedia FTN to play arbiter and "settle" controversies by declaring one team their favorites, "experts in the area", and send all sources speaking for the other view out into the cold, on basically its own authority. This might be more appropriate in some situations here there really is only a lone kook in scholarship opposed to everyone else in scholarship. The abuse is that this isn't one of those "lone kook" situations by any stretch, and FTN editors are doing their utmost to paint it into one. By the way, cannabis experts at universities who research and write scholarly peer-reviewed works about the history of cannabis are also "botanists", so all this hand waving about how nobody in botany ever thought such a thing is part of the fabrication going on here, and philistine knee-jerk stigmatization of any source, no matter how erudite, that has the word Cannabis in the title, on the grounds basically that it has the word Cannabis in the title, so look no further, nothing legitimate to see. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent Major US Court Case involving Anointing Oil[edit],47

The above link is an official documentation for a recent major US Court case in Hawaii that involves a guy who actually makes Holy anointing oil according to the biblical recipe, using cannabis, not calamus. Normally this would be of relevance and interest to the article about Holy anointing oil, but some editors seem uncomfortable with reality and seem to object strenuously to allowing access to this sort of information here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The courts in Hawai'i did not make a ruling as to what the text of Exodus said, which is unsurprising since interpreting a religious text would be a profound 1st amendment violation. In any case they are not competent to give such rulings anyway. If the case pointed to expert texts upon which they relied, those might be valuable to us, but I don't see that in the summary. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's the fact that this guy makes anointing oil and this came up as a major point of the case. It doesn't matter what they ruled about it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Which might at a stretch make it notable maybe for Church of the Universe or similar, but not for an article on practices 1,000 BCE In ictu oculi (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The scope of the article is Holy anointing oil. You can't exclude someone claiming to make it today abecause he didn't live 1000 BCE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Does not the court case make it reasonable that a bunch of people are going to find their way to this article and want to read about the fact that even though biblical scholars don't accept Benet's theory, a lot of modern cannabis activists do? If holy anointing oil is in the news it's likely to be because of the cannabis crowd's pushing her theory, so why not discuss that to some extent?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Evidently yes, there is a case for a Fringe corner at the bottom of the article - linking out to main articles on Church of the Universe, Sula Benet and so on. And in fact there has always been a substantial WP:FRINGE corner in the article. The problem with recent edits has been the attempt to plant "cannabis" up in the main text body as a credible academic alternative. Now we are dealing with that we might as well address the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE issues with the paragraph at the bottom of the article at the same time. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinning it all on Sula Benet[edit]

One of the recurring arguments of detractors of the cannabis hypothesis is that the hundreds of references mentioning this can all be dismissed as inadmissible with a single blow, arguing that they can all be tied to Sula Benet as supposedly the originator of the idea. If this is possible nearly *any* idea discussed on wikipedia can probably be excluded along with anyone who subscribes to it, with the identical arguments, because nearly *all* ideas that gain followings can be traced to an originator; so what? Where is this stigma reflected? Why are all the scholars and university professors who have researched this automatically defined as "fringe", and any wikipedia editor who dares discuss what they said tarred as a "clown"? These seem like cop-outs for seriously addressing the abuundance of sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Look: Bennett and McQueen, who seem to be some of the better sources about the cannabis side, says, "Any identification of cannabis as kaneh bosm following this can be credited to Benet's work as the disseminator of this information. There is ample evidence of this." (p. 73 in "Cannabis and the Hebrew Bible", pub. in Rush. John, ed. Entheogens and the Development of Culture: The Anthropology and Neurobiology of Ecstatic Experience--Essays.). And even this is a problem work: this is published by North Atlantic Books, which in spite of its innocuous name is an "alternative" (i.e., fringey) publisher. I would take this book as a reasonably good source for the "cannabis" side, but the problem for that side is that it hasn't persuaded anyone outside the cannabis advocacy and fringe religion camps. The continued rant about their and our prejudices is beside the point, and I do not see this great array of authorities that people keep claiming. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It would help considerably if you could make a comprehensive list defining all the religions you deem "fringe religions", so all good editors will know what to steer clear of. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Til, whatever snappy comebacks you want to throw out me, the fact is that you've got the kind of source that you like saying what we have all been saying. How do you propose to discount it? Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has disputed that Sula Benet first proposed the theory. So what? All theories can be "pinned" to someone who first proposed them. Her proposal has received hundreds of endorsements, not much we've seen in the way of rebuttals from scholars, though wikipedians (wouldn't you know it) who in themselves "know better than" these published academics and scholars, claim they can rebut them all, every last one, not even by persuasive rebuttals, but merely by crying "fringe! fringe! cannabis! STIGMA!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis issue: think of readers?[edit]

OK, I'm essentially convinced by the arguments above that Sula Benet's theory is fringe according to the technical wikipedian meaning. I can see that although her paper is cited often, it's cited almost entirely by cannabis activists and people who study entheogens and that their work is not reliable for the truth of her claim, nor do their citations lend it any weight.

However, may I propose that because there is a great deal of discussion of her claim in the modern cannabis activism and entheogen studies literature, it is possible that a number of readers might come to this article wanting to learn about that. To me this suggests that adding some information about the use of Benet's theory by modern cannabis activists is appropriate so that readers who come here to read about it will have something to read. It's perfectly appropriate to say that all biblical scholars and paleobotanists and etc. disagree with her, but I think that is insufficient to satisfy what I'm convinced is a significant portion of the readership of this article.

I do not have a concrete suggestion for how to handle this, but I thought I'd suggest it here as a way out of the impasse unfolding above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Carl A. P. Ruck, professor at Boston University of classical mythology, also agrees and says "There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion" but since a wikipedia editor disagrees with him, I suppose the professor cannot be called an "academic" nor a "scholar" eh? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, I wondered how long it would take you to do the minimal amount of looking for sources to find Ruck - who is of course an expert on Ancient Greek religion and mushrooms. The fact that you didn't find him earlier suggests you didn't do any looking for sources before making the stream of personal attacks on other editors above.
But be that as it may, I hadn't seen Antiquity of the smoking habit in Africa - which presumably relates to antiquity of the smoking habit in Africa not to calamus in Ancient Israel. So please give the text, (1) what is the actual text and (2) does Nikolaas J. van der Merwe mention Sula Benet as his source? Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
First you say academics and scholars don't talk about this. I found some who do, I'm not going to pick them apart or help formulate any original rebuttals. No doubt your expertise surpasses theirs and allows you to critique and reject them. You say it is "fringe" but I cannot find a single reliable source stating this is "fringe", rather those scholars that mention it do not call it "fringe" so I cannot establish any compelling reason to label it "fringe" other than your and another editor's say-so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, I asked you a question. I am familiar with Ruck so don't need to ask on that. But the Antiquity of the smoking habit in Africa does not appear to be accessible through ATHENS, so I ask - have you seen the article you are quoting? And if so, (1) what is the actual text and (2) does Nikolaas J. van der Merwe mention Sula Benet as his source? Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No I have not seen it apart from an excerpt where he wrote: "In Exodus 30: 23, for example, God commands Moses to make a holy anointing oil of myrrh (Commiphora myrrh Engl.), sweet cinnamon, kaneh bosm (Cannabis spp.), and kassia (Cassia L. spp.). The word is also rendered in traditional Hebrew law as kannabos and kannabus." So this lets us know it has receive additional scholarly attention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the URL please? I put those strings in Google and can find no source, partial hits only like That reads like an excerpt from THC Ministry article. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I already gave you the URL I have. The text appears on searching "Google scholar" for all the relevant scholarly works mentioning cannabis and holy anointing oil. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Got it thanks. I'm not sure if he is notable though - the opinions of someone who can't read Hebrew and isn't a botanist are interesting, but still fail WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don;t you just come out and say that you find any source that disagrees with your POV non-notable and therefore you declare them over ruled? It sure would save us the trouble of having to look for academic sources only to have them pooh-poohed by your considerable personal expertise in the matter. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Til, you need to stop making personal attacks on other editors - "pooh-poohed by your considerable personal expertise in the matter" - see WP:NPA. You need to control your language.
Michael Zohary passes WP:RS correct?
James A. Duke passes WP:RS correct?
Hans Arne Jensen passes WP:RS correct?
Up to this point no one else has passed WP:RS - it's that simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they DO pass RS. According to RS policy, such sources may be used for purposes of establishing that this is one of the povs. As usual, you are confusing this with using sources as "reliable" for purposes of proving the POV "right" or "wrong". Nobody to date has proved any pov "right" or "wrong", wikipedia is supposed to report impartially and not get into proving any pov "right" or "wrong", but you are attempting to do so based on the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" in the absence of any compelling proof. As for controlling language, try focussing a little less on the language speck in your neighbor's eye. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are an appeal to academic authority. Anyway, good, if all are agreed that these standard Plants of the Bible-type reference works pass WP:RS then we can add them. Excellent. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose they should go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do any sources actually indicate this is "fringe"? Here's what they actually say[edit]

[11] Mentions that scholars proposed this as long ago as the 1930s. "A link since accepted by some Jewish authorities". "I have seen long lists of botanists, etymologists, anthropologists, mythologists and linguists who accept the possibility that the Biblical keneh-bosm is cannabis. [footnote]"Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link for the first footnote (3). The link for the second footnote is dead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, academics do not usually respond to any subject dealt with by WP:FRINGE by using the word "fringe" they either (a) ignore Sula Benet as not worth commenting on as Michael Zohary and other reliable sources do, or (b) include it in ideas to be rejected. And no, the BBC probably can't tell the difference between Chris Bennett (cannabis activist) and a professor of Hebrew or of botany - the BBC is for entertainment not scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"The "fragrant cane" in the English translation was originally "Keneh bosem" in Hebrew. There are at least four possible translations, "cannabis" being one of them—based on cognate pronunciation (Kaplan, 1981]. Nevertheless, this argument is unlikely to persuade any anti-marijuana Jews and Christians, who could believe that one of the other translations is more accurate. In fact, most Christians would likely consider that argument blasphemous." -- Pot Politics : Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition Page 243 by State University of New York, Mitch Earleywine Associate Professor University at Albany - 2006. Assuming this source meets even the most stringent special litmus test for "academic", we now have a source that establishes that there IS a p.o.v. that opposes this information on religious grounds. These religious grounds could possibly explain the reasoning why the information and research is being marginalized and called FRINGE and all sorts of other highbrow names here. BTW I wonder if the Christian God considers it blasphemous, since He didn't mention this in the definition of blasphemy in the Bible. But there you go, source says there are some Christians out there who consider it blasphemous. This modern day "Christian" view has more to do with the word of William Randolph Hearst than that of Jesus, methinks, since Hearst was the one who owned all the newspapers in the 1930s and engineered public opinion against the dreaded dangerous evils of hemp to get it illegalized - not Jesus. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So which article do you think this conspiracy theory stuff should be in? Remember en.wp isn't about WP:TRUTH, it's about WP:RS - which means paleo-lexicographers and paleo-botanists. Everything you've said on this Talk page convinces me more that Sula Benet's theory needs trimming in the WP:FRINGE paragraph and the reliable sources increased. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Convinced you? So there you have it, instant consensus, all the editors who disagree with your assessment just vanished, or conceded, packed up and went home defeated, right? Nope. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with In inctu oculi on this. Scientists don't usually discuss fringe theories. Also, the amount of text the article dedicates to this fringe opinion is exorbitant. I have started cutting it down, and suggest to cut it down even more. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
So in short, the only way we can know and establish that the numerous academics and scholars who have written about this hypothesis are all FRINGE is because selected editors here SAYSO who DONTLIKEIT and favor one of the other hypotheses. No scientific method or logic required. This scholarship is fringe and therefore heresy to be burnt at the stake BECAUSE "WE" SAY SO. That's IT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, the invective and attacks WP:NPA need to stop. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Four different hypotheses to identity of keneh bosem

Please note again what the academic source quoted above states: "There are at least four possible translations, "cannabis" being one of them—based on cognate pronunciation (Kaplan, 1981]."

There is NOT consensus or agreement among scholarly works which translation is correct. There are competing schools of thought. For partisans of one school of thought to claim precedence and get the other schools of thought and all their myriad sources banished reeks of partiality, bias, pov pushing, intolerance, closed mindedness, only telling the half of the story that one finds convenient, withholding academic research from consumers of wikipedia, and bullying. If you hold to the school of thought that keneh bosem equals calamus, I am happy for you. Please stop attempting to use marginalization tactics and peer pressure as a substitute for logical discourse, on the considerable number of those who disagree with that unproven hypothesis. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First you were asked, again to cease from personal comment, yet your post above is almost entirely couched in personal comment and attack language:
"banished" = personal comment and attack language
"reeks of partiality" = personal comment and attack language
"bias" = personal comment and attack language
"pov pushing" = personal comment and attack language
"intolerance" = personal comment and attack language
"closed mindedness" = personal comment and attack language
"only telling the half of the story = personal comment and attack language
"only telling the half of the story that one finds convenient" = personal comment and attack language
"withholding academic research from consumers of wikipedia" = personal comment and attack language
"bullying" = personal comment and attack language
"attempting to use marginalization tactics and peer pressure as a substitute for logical discourse" = personal comment and attack language
Secondly, Aryeh Kaplan does not say that - you're quoting from Pot Politics : Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition 2006 essay How in God's Name Do We Reform Our Marijuana Laws? by Charles Thomas. It is Thomas who says that. Charles Thomas is executive director of Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative "a 501(c) 4 political lobbying organization committed to mobilizing people of faith nationally to bring about drug policy reform." He is not a botanist or a Hebrew scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree with In ictu oculi. Til basically says "I found one fringe opinion which I like. The fact that all other editors, both here and on WP:ANI say this is fringe, I DONT LIKE. But if I say so, nobody will listen to me. So let me do something smart, and accuse THEM of I DONT LIKE." Til, as far as I am concerned, all discussion with you is closed here till you come up with something new. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good, I am getting tired of your editorial responses that fail to refute the central point of these academic sources and concentrate rather on questions of style and substance (see again Graham's hierarchy of disagreement) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, please note that what you DONTLIKE is what is written in these scholarly sources within academia. Whereas, what I DONTLIKE is some selected wikipedia editors taking it on themselves to over rule the academia they DONTLIKE and declare them heretical. See the difference? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How about a Request for Comment[edit]

Is anyone afraid of doing a neutral request for comment RFC instead of running straight to Admin Noticeboard and advertizing for revert help in selected projects? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Even with this you had to load yet another series of personal attacks into the question. That's not fair, and doesn't show a collegiate level of respect to other editors.
There doesn't appear to be a problem if all editors will agree to abide by en.wp guidelines re sourcing. Then as with any other ANE/Bible article we include sources which pass WP:RS in the main body of the article, and those that don't into the WP:FRINGE section bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you even comprehending what I am repeatedly trying to explain to you about RS policy, with regard to the difference between using sources for purpose of establishing that a pov exists, which is fine, and using these sources to endorse who is right and wrong in a controversy, which we have no business doing? It is established that the pov exists, not one, two three but numerous authors, all of which academic sources you seem to be using your personal authority to brush off as FRINGE, even though we cannot yet find a logical basis to do so, other than that you disagree with the sources. So as usual it is a typical case of wikipedia editors personal opinions vs. the academic sources those editors DONTLIKE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This again contains personal attacks - as scrolling up the page every single one of your posts contains at least one and sometimes four or five ad hominem attacks against other editors.
Please cease from attacks on editors and discuss the actual sources. Specifically, please provide a Hebrew lexicographer or ANE botanist who differs with the findings of the standard reference works. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't get bent out of shape. Editors should be able to counter the faulty logic in your arguments without you construing that personally as an attack on you. I've said nothing here that can really be called an attack - I figured you might respond to the points of logic in various ways, but hurt enough to complain on ANI wasn't what I expected. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
May I note that the person making personalized comments in any context is not a neutral arbiter in assessing their own comments. Objectively most of your posts above use personalized attack language - so does this, "don't get bent out of shape" - putting the blame on one of the editors you are making personalized attacks against.
I repeat: Please cease from attacks on editors and discuss the actual sources. Specifically, please provide a Hebrew lexicographer or ANE botanist who differs with the findings of the standard reference works. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on this talkpage, with a post on WT:JUDAISM asking for comment here, and even on WP:ANI editors went out of their way of not getting into content issues and said they agree that you are wrong. In addition 1. you have already been accused there of pushing all kinds of fringe theories, and as a most respectable editor said, you were lucky you didn't get blocked. 2. the editor who first added the word cannabis to this article has already been shown there to push Benet fringe theory on a number of articles. In short, I see no reason for an RFC. This issue has been exhausted, and people disagree with you. Perhaps you should read WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you are afraid to put this to an RFC. I can imagine why that is. That makes it more likely and will be coming soon. ANd if anyone is hurt by my pointing out their logical fallacies and thinks I have used exceptionally harsh language, obvuiously ou want a one sided debate where no one is allowed to call you out on your fallacies or they are in danger of being muzzled. I have been on wikipedia too long to kowtow to such reprehensible tactics. An honest conversation is the only way to go, failing that it is RFC time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your endless personal attacks are becoming tiresome. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should all the academic sources hypothesizing that keneh bosm in Holy anointing oil refers to cannabis, be excluded as "FRINGE"?[edit]

A bitter dispute has arisen in the preceding talk sections over the hypothesis found in numerous books written by scholars of cannabis botany, Ancient Near East experts, including Universities, etc. etc., suggesting that the ingredient identified in Hebrew as keneh bosm in fact was not calamus, but rather cannabis. It seems a faction of a few editors is so convinced that this hypothesis is incorrect and that the calamus hypothesis is the correct one, that they seek to use WP:FRINGE to have the article endorse only the calamus hypothesis. I disagree with them because to me this approach seems one-sided and antagonistic to NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on this talkpage at length on more than one section, with a post on WT:JUDAISM asking for comments, and even on WP:ANI editors went out of their usual way of not getting into content issues and said they agree that Til Eulenspiegel is wrong. In addition 1. Til Eulenspiegel has already been accused at that same WP:ANI thread of pushing all kinds of fringe theories, and as a most respectable editor said, he was lucky he didn't get blocked. 2. the editor who first added the word cannabis to this article, Ploxoi, has already been shown on that same WP:ANI thread to push Benet's fringe theory on a number of articles. In short, I see no reason for an RFC. This issue has been exhausted, and people disagree with it. Instead of opening an RFC I recommend studying WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Is that a personal attack? Because I have not pushed Benet's theory on any thread, unless you mean subjectively. I looked at a lot of the research that others had linked, beside knowledge I have of the middle-east and theology, which I have provided citations for review. Besides Benet's theory at minimum is WP:NFRINGE and not fringe as you claim. You can have your biased view of the the theory, but that does not change the fact that the theory is WP:NFRINGE and needs to be included for WP:NPOV.Ploxhoi (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's NOT a DEADHORSE either, because I'm STILL waiting for any attempt at an explanation of "by what authority" do a handful of wikipedia editors get to overrule entire sections of academia they disagree with? If they cannot tell us by what authority, this needs to be put to a wider audience and ideally nobody would be fearful of doing so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
See WP:TE where you fit One who repeats the same argument without convincing people, One who assigns undue importance, One who accuses others of malice and One who never accepts independent input (see the opinions at WP:ANI). I would add Wikipedia:TE#One_who_is_STILL_waiting_for_an_answer and Wikipedia:TE#One_who_replies_to_all_conflict-related_posts_within_5_minutes,_24_hours_a_day. :) Debresser (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You haven't even attempted to respond to the central points that this is found in academic sources but just say you haven't been "convinced" and resort to other means to squelch open discussion. Well you haven't convinced me that it is necessarily calamus either, so both sides could equally be called tendentious and entrenched here, I'm just trying to get wider views from more editors to resolve the dispute as per recommended procedure, why does that scare you so? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Did I say it scares me? Til Eulenspiegel was a clown, not a horror movie. :)
I do not have to convince you that it was calamus, because that is well sources with a multitude of reliable sources. It is you who has to convince the community that there are reliable sources that it could be cannabis and that those sources do not represent a fringe theory. So far you have miserable failed to do so. I use the word miserably, because you are beating a dead horse here, as above sections have shown for all but the most blinded.
Your last reply was just an extra confirmation of Wikipedia:TE#One_who_is_STILL_waiting_for_an_answer. 17:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It's still you and other editors recruited from WP:JUDAISM, WP:FRINGE and WP:ANI vs. the academic sources you disagree with and seek the self-declared authority to overrule without explaining whence you derive this authority. We all know what the views of the respective editors who have commented so far. Please let us sit back now and suffer some voices from additional editors to be heard without attempting to stifle the conversation further. If it's really as obvious to everyone else as we are led to believe that this controversy should not be treated as a controversy and I am a "clown" for dissenting from you, you should have nothing to fear by inviting further comment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Excuse you, but why do you say I was "recruited". I object to your choice of words. I have already stated at the end of the section above that your not so veiled personal attacks are becoming tiresome. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the WP:FRINGE (see definition) sources should be briefly mentioned in an appropriately WP:WEIGHTed section at the end of article - The question in the RfC is time wasting and a giant case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, and should not cause dragging out the simple removal of unsourced material from the main body of article. The WP:FRINGE section should also be trimmed, as already agreed above, as duplication of what is already in Sula Benet and Carl Ruck's bio articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You and the other editors who are trying to overrule the academic sources on your personal "authority" have openly employed just about everything in the book to discourage anyone who disagrees with your pov from voicing an opinion here - including threats to have those who have already disagreed with you blocked from the conversation. Give it the customary amount of time to see if any editor not recruited from FRINGE, ANI and JUDAISM will be bold enough to weigh in on whether only one side needs to be told JUST BECAUSE "YOU" SAY SO AND NO LOGICAL REASON, or whether neutrality means telling BOTH sides and letting readers think for themselves. What is going on here is complete abuse of the academic sources (there are more sources supporting cannabis than calamus as the ingredient, do you know you seriously water down your beloved "FRINGE" card every time you use it in a situation where there isn't only one RS but literally HUNDREDS of RS you are trying to stigmatize in one fell swoop?) The dispute will never end like that with you guys pretending you control both sides of the debate - no matter how imperiously anyone barks at their opposition to just "go away" - it then become a source of serious frustration because disputes just don't "go away" like that and are NEVER truly "resolved" like that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Of those "hundreds of reliable sources" you mention, are there any that can be shown to be independent of Benet's work? Debresser (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well on the one hand we have hundreds of sources including academics and University professors who agree with Benet, and on the other hand we have User:Debresser et al. who have rebutted these hundreds of sources and say they're all mistaken. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Was that a reply to the question? Debresser (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have fully answered it many times but I guess you haven't heard the answer since you keep on asking the same thing over and over. Here is another copy of my latest answer given above: Nobody has disputed that Sula Benet first proposed the theory. So what? All theories can be "pinned" to someone who first proposed them. Her proposal has received hundreds of endorsements, not much we've seen in the way of rebuttals from scholars, though wikipedians (wouldn't you know it) claim they can rebut them all, every last one, not even by persuasive rebuttals, but merely by crying "fringe! fringe! cannabis! STIGMA!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So one theory, which is still possibly fringe. Okay, thanks for clarifying this for me. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the section on "Keneh bosem" was an utter mess. It just repeated itself constantly, and then contradicted itself. Much of the content was endlessly recycled from this passage in The Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan:

"Keneh bosem in Hebrew. Ancient sources identify this with the sweet calmus (Septuagint; Rambam on Kerithoth 1:1; Saadia; Ibn Janach). This is the sweetflag or flag-root, Acoras calamus which grows in Europe. It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7). Other sources apparently indicate that it was the Indian plant, Cympopogan martini, which has the form of red straw (Yad, Kley HaMikdash 1:3). On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim). Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel)."

Passages from this paragraph were copied word-for-word in the main text, then repeated with variations, or chopped up in ways that made it meaningless. The two main identifications, Acoras calamus, Cympopogan martini were mixed up in such a way that it was unreadable. Then we had the largely uncited section on cannabis, which was certainly giving undue weight to a minority view. However, it's clear that Kaplan treats that theory as legitimate, if relatively marginal.

There is a sentence asserting that Kaplan endorses Maimonides' view, identifying the plant as Cympopogan martini. A footnote quotes a source to support this claim. However, I am inclined to think that the source has been misinterpreted. I think Kaplan is simply endorsing the view that Maimonides meant to refer to Cympopogan martini (using whatever pre-Linnean name he did), not agreeing with him that it's "Keneh bosem". Certainly nothing in the quoted passage suggests that Kaplan is endorsing Maimonides. However, I have left the passage as an endorsement, pending discussion. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Erdmann's Dictionary of the Bible (2000) states that "Among the plants thus referred to might be sweet flag (Acorus calamus, also called calamus), Indian lemon-grass (Andropogon citratus), and other grasses and reeds. These plants were used in perfumes (Cant. 4:14) and in the incense made for the tabernacle and temple worship (Exod. 30:23; Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20; cf. Exod. 30:23, "aromatic cane")." (p.1259), which suggests another identification: Andropogon citratus (ie Cymbopogon citratus). Hans Arne Jensen in Plant World of the Bible also lists Cymbopogon citratus and Cymbopogon schoenanthus. James A. Duke quotes Zohary saying that it is "hopeless to speculate" about the exact species intended by biblical writers, but that a Cymbopogon is very likely. if the section is to represent scholarship, this is what should be given weight. Cannabis is an outlier. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Why turn a blind eye to all the scholarship that suggests Cannabis was keneh bosem? What is it precisely about this scholarship that defines it as FRINGE? If anyone could make me understand WHY it is "fringe"; I have asked and asked and still no answer beside "because we say so". And pointing only to other books that don't even mention cannabis, logically, is trying to prove a negative by an absence or omission, does not make the scholars you consider "less reliable" go away, or their pov disappear from the equation, nor will it resolve the dispute. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Til, do you think you could stop knee-jerk ranting. I have has a look at good sources to the best of my ability. I didn't look for books that "don't mention" cannabis. I looked for books on Biblical plants by respected scholars. If I had found that cannabis was widely discussed as a likely identification, I would have said so. I simply do not see evidence of "hundreds" of scholars identifying it as cannabis. I see a minority view, based on a book published (surprise, surprise) in the 1960s, and which, whenever it crops up, (surprise, surprise again), generates articles in the popular press. Wikipedia policy requires that we give due weight to views as they represent the best scholarship, not because they are titilating, or appeal to journalists. I might as well ask you why you are so keen on this idea? Have you suddenly turned all Rastafarian? Paul B (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You might as well ask why so many scholars and academics are keen on the idea. When they have published so many books stating that this is one of the theories about keneh bosem, I as a layman and others who come across those books can certainly be forgiven for supposing that this is one of the theories about keneh bosem. I am asking who got to decide these books are "fringe" and how, and the "response" to my question, yet again, is to be told I am just "ranting", which response still leaves me wondering what the answer to my question is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The most insight on that question I have been able to get so far was from Mangoe when he said it is fringe, because it is followed by a "fringe religion". But when I asked him to clarify how he came to define "fringe religion", suddenly he did not want to, changed the subject, and said my asking him what he means by "fringe religion" is a "snappy comeback" on my part (see above). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What question? I am just about sick to death of your hysterics, Til. I haven't seen any evidence in all this talk page of books by relevant scholars. You've written stream after stream of high-pitched demands and accusations and have provided minimal evidence. In the meanwhile the section in the article has been turned into incoherent mush. Whose fault that was I don't know, since I haven't looked at the edit history. All I can say is that I see no evidence of constructive debate here. I tried to present a balanced view in my own contribution, and I get you flying off the handle yet again, and utterly ignoring the attempt to create useful dialogue. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The question, one more time: who got to decide these books are "fringe" and how? The answer: __________ (please fill in the blank). Characterizing my sensible request as "high pitched" and "hysterical" for me is merely a rhetorical technique based more in emotion than logic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The answer is same one that's usually given. We decide on the basis of what experts on the topic say about the matter at hand. And, BTW, I never said anything about it being "fringe", which it may or may not be. I said, "Kaplan treats that theory as legitimate, if relatively marginal". Paul B (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul B, for the nice rewrite of those messy parts of the article, and for resolving the UNDUE problem along the way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Paul Barlow, ditto, that was a very neat set of solutions to all the problems in that area. If you feel moved to move into the "continuity" section issues as well it would be greatly appreciated, but that's already a good solution to the hotter problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If we would like to get down to the truth, Til, I never said the idea was "fringe". I personally don't think it is credible: As I and anyone else out there will tell you, the fact that the words are (more or less) cognate is never sufficient evidence, and while the Septuagint is not infallible I would give it a lot of weight as being much closer to the source. Also problematic is the absolute lack of a Judaic source for this; the only such I could find (linked to above) resolutely denied the claim. Finally, the trade issues seem murky at best. I've found several papers talking about this independently of the marihuana writers, and when they are reluctant to accept calamus, they tend to head over to the Cymbopogon genus.
But my opinion is beside the point. What isn't beside the point is that I'm seeing a pattern where the notion is picked up by a very limited set of people, and where it hasn't gained acceptance outside that group. That people who deal with Jewish religion— which is a vast field— don't pick up on this is a very bad sign. Thus I think while we should mention the thesis, we have to describe it as that of one small segment, and not something that stands on an equal footing with the age-old identification with sweet flag. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Should this RfC now be closed also?[edit]

I see that admin User:Laser brain has closed the related section on ANI related to the edits here, with the result that Til Eulenspiegel cannot post for a week in the RfC he/she opened, whether this RfC should be closed too? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Ploxhoi, the close at ANI did not comment on yourself, but as the editor who added "cannabis" into the plant description up in the main section of article, can you please take notice of what other editors have said here and there about your personal researches into Zoroastrianism. Please note in particular that no other editors here, or there (including in fact Til Eulenspiegel) have supported your personal researches into Zoroastrianism providing any ground for additions to an article on Judaism. It would be helpful to indicate that you have read WP:OR and understand and recognize the concern. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Close because 1. it should never have been opened, 2. the general gist of that WP:ANI thread implies that closing this Rfc would be an option 3. (most importantly) nobody agrees with the proposals of this Rfc anyway. 4. (practically speaking) the recent edits of Paul B have rendered this Rfc moot by solving all issues to satisfaction. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This hilarious because there are plenty of references all over Wikipedia backing up Zoroastrianism and Judaism connection, and by other well noted scholars. A fact that is blatantly being ignored. Even Jewish scholars recognize the significance. [12] I referenced person experience in my research because I do not have all the sources readily available to cite, but I will cite them in time. Additionally there are many references cited by others as well as myself. What is disturbing is Wikipedia editors blatantly and willing violating Wikipedia rules to prevent a WP:NPOV they are biased against. I am so disgusted with a select few of the editors on Wikipedia, probably will stop contributing and donating. Ploxhoi (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are pretty annoyed all of you. I think this cannabis theory is quite unlikely, really. It you are going to add that you need to really explain where this new theory coming from, and who came up with it. Something like this: It is generally held by academics specializing in the archaeology and paleobotany of Ancient Israel, and those specializing in the lexicography of the Hebrew Bible that cannabis is not documented or mentioned in early Judaism. Against this some popular writers[1] have argued that there is evidence for religious use of cannabis in the Hebrew Bible, although this hypothesis and some of the specific case studies (e.g., John Allegro in relation to Qumran, 1970) have been "widely dismissed as erroneous" (Merlin, 2003).[2] The primary advocate of a religious use of cannabis plant in early Judaism was Sula Benet (1967), who claimed that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and used in the holy anointing oil of the Book of Exodus, was in fact cannabis,[3] although lexicons of Hebrew and dictionaries of plants of the Bible such as by Michael Zohary (1985), Hans Arne Jensen (2004) and James A. Duke (2010) and others identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus.[4]

Hafspajen (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

To talk about something else for a bit: the "continuity" section[edit]

I have to say that I don't get the point of the section now titled "Continuity". Maybe the first subsection has some merit, but the rest of it seems to be a catch-all for various subjects relating to anointing in general or to I-don't-know-what. Is there any of this worth keeping in this article? Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a mess too and originally why I watchlisted this article. There was an earlier editor who had some idea related to The Red Heifer, The Original Ashes, The Temple Institute (?) and Vendyl Jones - i.e. another WP:FRINGE axis totally unrelated to the Entheogen issue. I tried to edit out some (please scroll up) but by the end wasn't 100% clear on what the editor was trying to say. The whole Mosaic/ancient Israel section of the article could do with being rewritten to look more like ABD/Erdmans/JPS, and then the following Rabbinical (?) and Christianity sections trimmed/sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Dan Merkur The Mystery of Manna: The Psychedelic Sacrament of the Bible (2001); James D. Dure, Manna Magic Mushroom of Moses : Manna Botanical I.D. of a Biblical Sacrament (self published, 2000)
    • ^ Economic Botany M. D. Merlin Archaeological Evidence for the Tradition of Psychoactive Plant Use in the Old World - University of Hawaii "23 May 2011 - ".. Judaism (Dure 2001; Merkur 2000), and Christianity (Allegro 1970; Ruck et al. 2001). Although this hypothesis and some of the specific case studies (e.g., Allegro 1970) have been widely dismissed as erroneous, others continue"
    • ^ Rowan Robinson, The Great Book of Hemp, Health & Fitness, 1995, pag. 89
    • ^ Lytton J. Musselman Figs, dates, laurel, and myrrh: plants of the Bible and the Quran 2007 p73