Categories
Booze In The Bible

Twenty To One Revisited

Let’s revisit the claim that wine was diluted to a water-to-wine ratio of Twenty To One.

This ratio comes up in support of the claim that the only use for wine in biblical times was for purifying water. Citing this ratio as support shows not only the absurdity of the claim, but also reveals the low standards for research among prohibitionists.

First, the twenty to one ratio is absurd on it’s face. Wine diluted to that degree would serve no purpose. It would not have any effect on microbes in the water, and would even be insufficient to improve the taste or the appearance of contaminated water. Add to the this the prohibitionist claim that wine in biblical times had significantly less alcohol than modern wine, and the twenty to one ratio becomes impossible to believe.

Second, the claim of twenty to one reveals sloppy research at best. Some don’t even research the claimed ratio to learn its source. Of those who do, some stop at “we know from Homer” and are not the least bit suspicious about Homer’s credentials as a writer of mythology. Of those who look deeper and see that the ratio comes from The Odyssey, few are at all concerned about that book’s status as mythical fiction. If we count those who sought out a copy of The Odyssey to read first-hand the context in which the ratio was found (magic wine used to defeat the Cyclops), there would be virtually no one. How can a man with a Ph.D. not know what The Odyssey is, and not be immediately suspicious of it being cited for historical support?

So, when we see a prohibitionist claim that wine in biblical times was diluted twenty parts water to one part wine, we know two things about that prohibitionist: that he knows nothing about water purification, and he knows even less about history and literature. When I hear about how thorough their research was, I can’t help but laugh.

As soon as they say “twenty to one” their research has lost all credibility.

Categories
Booze In The Bible Reference

Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus

Below are links to a two-part article written by John MacLean in 1841. Dr. MacLean was Professor of Ancient Languages at the College of New Jersey at the time.

In this two-part article, John MacLean examines the claims made in two articles:

Bacchus, by Ralph Barnes Grindrod

Anti-Bacchus, by Rev B. Parsons

In John MacLean’s introduction he says:

The comparative merit of the two Essays we shall not undertake to discuss, as our purpose is merely to examine some of the positions assumed, and to show that they are utterly untenable, being contrary to the word of God and the testimony of antiquity. So far as the object of these Essays is to promote temperance, we cordially approve it and we only regret that in the prosecution of an object so important, and so benevolent, the authors have not confined themselves to arguments which will stand the most rigid scrutiny. 

These two articles form the foundation of modern prohibitionist arguments, and John MacLean refutes them soundly.

The Princeton Review
Volume 13, Issue 2
April 1841
pp. 267-306
Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus, Part 1
The Princeton Review
Volume 13, Issue 4
October 1841
pp. 471-523
Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus, concluded

The distribution of these documents was made possible by: Princeton Theological Seminary.

Articles in The Princeton Review were published without identifying their authors. However, in 1868 an index was published which made it possible to identify the Authors, such as John MacLean.