Talk:Alcohol in the Bible

Septuagint equivalent(s)

See section Septuagint equivalent(s) for yayin. A person who is an "oinopotes" in Prov 23:20 (Septuagint) is associated with the Hebrew term "sawbaw." Thus "Oinopotes" is a person, so is not really equivalent to a thing: "yayin". Likewise for sumposion, katoinousthai. I suggest the wording could be made clearer. Officelamp (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The Septuatint equivalent(s) for yayin previously stated: gleukos[14] (see below), katoinousthai ("to be drunken"),[15] oinopotes ("drunkard"),[16] oinos (see below), sumposion ("drinking party")[17][18] Officelamp (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Now oinopotes is on a new row. Officelamp (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation for GA

Alcohol in the Bible SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality	A	A	A	A
Neutrality	A	A	A	A
Writing	A	A	A	A
Sources	A	A	A	A
Citations	A	A	A	A

Overall the article is excellent. There are plenty of citations and sources. All the pictures are A-OK. Neutrality is not even a problem when all they are doing is making references to the Bible and other Christian related material concerning a subject that does not have a mass countermovement against it. As for the writing, it is interesting. The subject is "Alcohol in the Bible" so the reasonableness of the sources used is a no-brainer. With 138 citations and the other things I just mentioned, I find it highly likely that someones agrees and is therefore willing to pass it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmarinas86. Are you waiting for someone else to give a second opinion? (If so, may I humbly propose that you note that on the candidates page.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That person is me. No doubt about it, this one's ready for GA.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isaih 65:8

Can the concept of "new wine" being alcoholic be reconciled with Isaih 65:8, which makes reference to new wine being from the cluster? I've noticed that many prohibitionist Christians use this verse to support the notion that the Bible also speaks of grape juice, yet I noticed it's not mentioned in this article, even though new wine is mentioned frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.206.191 (talk • contribs)

The purpose of this article is not to discuss every individual argument made by various interpreters but to present an overview of generally accepted knowledge concerning the Bible and alcohol. Nonetheless, I think the "Discussion" section and the table entry for "tirosh" sufficiently address this sort of argument and present the broad consensus. To answer your question, though, it is generally agreed that Hosea 4:11 and Acts 2:13 constitute proof of the intoxicating properties of at least some new wine. For more on how Christians have understood what the Bible says about alcohol through the ages, see Christianity and alcohol. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for your answer. However, my point wasn't to suggest that every argument of interpretation be discussed, but merely to question as to why "new wine" is so clearly alcoholic, as this article states with such certainty. I most definitely do not agree with prohibitionists that new wine is grape juice (especially given certain verses, which you cite), but was simply wondering as to how the page comes to the clear conclusion, without any question to the contrary, that new wine is potently alcoholic. Either way, thanks again for your answer!

Jesus drank wine?

Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus drank wine? On one occasion at a wedding he turned water into wine but that action doesn't necessarily encourage its consumption. During the last supper he never uses the word wine to describe his drink. Where do most people get the idea he drank wine and orders us to drink it?70.58.5.164 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question -- Matthew 11:18f says, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man [i.e., Jesus] came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." The plain implication of the passage is that Jesus, unlike John, drank wine, a common beverage in the day.

Regarding the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11; cf. 4:46), it is even more plain that Jesus intended for the wine he transmuted to be consumed, and indeed the steward of the feast did just that.

Regarding your second question, it relates to the rite instituted at the Last Supper, which took place during passover. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "Wine is specifically mentioned as an integral part of the passover meal no earlier than Jub. 49:6 ['... all Israel was eating the flesh of the paschal lamb, and drinking the wine ...'], but there can be no doubt that it was in use long before.... In the accounts of the Last Supper the term [wine] occurs neither in the Synoptists nor Paul. It is obvious, however, that according to custom Jesus was proffering wine in the cup over which He pronounced the blessing; this may be seen especially from the solemn [fruit of the vine] (Mark 14:25 and par.) which was borrowed from Judaism." Comepare "fruit of the vine" as a formula in the Mishnah, Tractate Berakoth 6.1. Calvin likewise comments that "the words related by Matthew — I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine — plainly show that what he delivered to the disciples to drink was wine."[1] The point Calvin is making in context is to oppose the Roman Catholic doctrine that the content of the cup was actually blood, but he states incidentally that "fruit of the vine" means it was wine in the cup -- a point on which there had been universal agreement for 1800 years and now only a few dissenters (see Christianity and alcohol).

IMO, the formula that is often used during communion/eucharist celebrations ("...do this...") does not require the exact elements Jesus used, but I think they should be used if possible since they have rich symbolic and historical significance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Format for references

I need some suggestions on how to improve the references on this article. In the recent peer review of this article, User:Konstable (now retired) suggested I divide the references into notes and references along the lines of Islam or Demosthenes, both featured articles. Konstable's main reason for this suggestion is that some of the citations have quite a few different sources (e.g., "... abused,[8][9][10][11][12]" from the lead), so he said I should combine them into a single footnote for each cited item with multiple sources within each note.

I attempted to do this in my "private" version of this article, but I ran into some issues. First, I don't want to introduce manual footnoting unless I absolutely have to (compare the manual "letter" footnotes in Demosthenes) since they're a maintenance hassle. Second, I want to be able to use the <ref name="NamedNote">xyz</ref> ... <ref name="NamedNote"/> style notes since I have several sources that I cite a number of times (e.g., "Wine" from Easton's Bible Dictionary). Looking at my "private" version, where should I go from here? --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish view

Your article is more modern thinking than the ideas of the days you write about. As a teacher of the torah and bible for 30 years, I often review other's ideas on what is written. I learn something new everyday. What I've discovered over the past thirty years is that most people write based on the concepts they learned from their basic church's doctrines. If you really want to write a correct article about alcohol in the bible, you need to leave the Christian writings completely and delve into the midrash (legend) books. For instance, one word that is often used describing Jesus is Nitzer. This was translated that he was from Nazerene. The word is greek for Nazerite. When you use this concept of Jesus being a Nazerite and understand the actual laws surrounding a Nazerite, then re-read the New Testament, a whole new story comes out of it. Jesus is only accused of drinking alcohol but no one actually sees him drinking it. As for alcohol, the Midrash (legends) is that the process was taught to man by the fallen angels (referred to as the Sons of G-d in the Book of Genesis) to mankind (decendants of Cain) before the flood. If you look deep into the Torah, you will discover that wine and strong drink was actually sent into the tabernacle for the LORD to enjoy. How deep are you willing to go into the actual words of the Torah bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitteringsword (talk • contribs)

I believe that the article as written reflects the broad consensus of scholars and theologians and is sourced appropriately from Christian, Jewish, and other reliable sources. Certainly I am open to investigating specific claims to the contrary on any point, major or minor, however. If you can help supply additional Jewish perspective (appropriately sourced, of course), it would be appreciated (n.b., this article is on alcohol in the Bible proper, not the Midrash, though certainly it and the Talmud could provide some valuable input on the matter; the Mishnah is already referenced in this regard, as are non-canonical works such as the Psalms of Solomon and Jubilees). --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian bias

The article is clearly written from a Christian perspective, which either has to be removed or made clear that his article is only about the Christian POV. Example of the this bias are

• Use of the term "Old Testament"
• making no distinction between the Hebrew bible and the Christian bible. The word "bible" is use many times to refer to both
• Multiple use of Christian sources yet not a single source from a classic Jewish POV (though sometimes a Jewish view is mentioned in a scholarly source).
• Many references to Christian views ("All Christians agree that...", "Some Christians assert..", "Some Christians argue...", "according to Christianity...", "Christians are instructed...", "...often understood by Christians...", "...but Christians differ over...") but only one reference to Jewish view ("...that have had significant influence among Jews and Christians alike...") which, by the way, is false (apocryphal books have almost no influence of Jewish thought - it says as much in the source cited).

Frankly I think it would be easier to rename this article "Alcohol in the Christian Bible" then to remove all of the bias and insert a Jewish view. Jon513 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. This article did spin off from Christianity and alcohol, so some weight in that direction might be expected and help in adjusting it is appreciated. That being said, aside from some verbiage (e.g., "Hebrew Bible" vs. "Old Testament", which, like AD/CE, is often used in secular, scholarly literature -- note that even one of the cited articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Old Testament" to refer to the Hebrew Bible), I don't see that this article exhibits such an overwhelming or even incorrigible bias as you seem to be suggesting. Here's why:

1. Judaism shares the common view that wine in the Bible (both Hebrew/OT and NT) is alcoholic. There is a small minority of Christians who dispute this, but other than that, AFAICT, there is no dispute on the content of any point of this article (though perhaps minor points could be adjusted here and there). Thus, we could easily add views from Jewish sources and replace "Christians" with "Commentators" where applicable.
2. All mention of Christianity (or Judaism) should not be struck. In some cases, parts are only applicable to Christians, e.g. "Christians are instructed..." refers to a New Testament passage, which doesn't have canonical status with and thus doesn't apply to non-Messianic Jews. In other places, only that small minority of Christians (i.e., no Jewish or secularist scholars) disagrees with the prevailing view, and they can be mentioned explicitly. If there are some views specific to Judaism, they can be added and attributed likewise.
3. There are multiple references that reflect Jewish views: Magen Broshi is a Jewish scholar writing in the Israel Museum Journal, and citations to two articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia appear. (BTW, you'll note the source for the claim you dispute regarding the influence of apocryphal books like Sirach is the Jewish Encyclopedia, which has a section on Sirach's popularity among the Jews and another on its popularity among Christians. The former doesn't seem to square with your own view.)

Perhaps the real issue in your mind as far as incorrigibility goes is that the article mixes HB/OT and NT passages in its summary of Biblical references to alcohol. I don't see this as a flaw because this practice is common among secular reliable sources (e.g., Illustrated Dictionary of Bible Life & Times and the Oxford Companion to the Bible) and because to separate them out into sections on the HB/OT references would create considerable duplication and break the flow. Compare the guidelines on CE/AD at WP:MOS#Longer_periods.

In short, I think the article can be modified to conform to the neutrality policy on this point with a relatively small effort.

PS, What do you think of doing a parallel article to Christianity and alcohol (and Islam and alcohol, for that matter) called Judaism and alcohol or similar? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about separating Hebrew Bible, Christain Bible, and Apocryphal references? I think it could go a long way in improving the article. Jon513 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I think this would break the flow unnecessarily. I think we can make it neutral without resorting to this. Let me take a whack at it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraphs are already written in order of the bible (starting with the hebrew, then dealing with the christian). All I am saying is that this division should be made clear. Also I think it would add much to the article if there were two reference columns (one for the Hebrew bible, another for the Christain bible) in the charts in the Lexigraphy section. Jon513 (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a first cut at it. I don't like the idea of splitting each topical section into a HB/OT, Apoc/Deut-con, and NT subsections because it will separate topics that are related. Instead, I propose that we tweak the wording (as I have already tried to do, though I may have missed some things) so that all the "biblical literature" is dealt with in one topic neutrally and in an academic, scholarly way. (BTW, I'm still working on the Septuagint column in the Lexigraphy's Greek subsection which will show further connections between all the biblical literature since it's the HB in Greek, it contained the deut-con books, and it's what the NT quotes most often.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I've made a good faith attempt at addressing this valid concern and haven't received any negative feedback, I'll remove the notice until further specific concerns are raised. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Never Drank Alcohol

Inappropriate forum discussion. See WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people are so in love with alcoholic and intoxicating beverages that they refuse to see that it's a sin in any way. There are many who justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages by falsely saying that Jesus drank it. They point to Jesus turning water into wine at Cana, the good Samaritan using wine in the parable, the Pharisee's accusation towards Jesus, and the Last Supper. The word "wine" in olden times was used indiscriminately to mean either fresh grape juice or fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The context in which the word is used tells the reader which meaning is appropriate. If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice. Don't believe me? Look in any English dictionary over 200 years old and you'll see the word wine meant any grape juice. In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wine”. Yayin which is intoxicating, fermented wine, tirosh which is fresh grape juice, and shakar which is an intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referring to other intoxicants than wine). The Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as "wine" are oinos and gleukos which can refer to either unfermented grape juice or alcoholic wine. Many have said grape juice was fermented to preserve it. There were many methods back then besides fermentation to preserve grape juice and even when it was fermented the alcohol content was MUCH less than the wines of today. 67.42.243.40 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Your views do accurately represent prohibitionism, but they do not represent the accepted knowledge of the vast majority of students of the Bible. As such, your view is covered briefly in this article, but the majority of the text represents the much more broadly held view. Moreover, you must be more civil and assume good faith rather than assuming others are merely oenophilic bigots. Yes, we all have biases, but we also strive to keep them in check (as must you). --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) "If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice." - Wow, how convenient for your own point of view! How can you possibly take yourself seriously? This barely qualifies as an argument. Do you seriously wonder why this view of yours is so unpopular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.33 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) As someone who is quite interested in the history of wine (the beverage also known as fermented grape juice) could you please tell me which methods available in antiquity would allow grape juice to be kept fresh for any length of time, especially in the sun-drenched Middle East? My understanding is that without access to sterile filtration, sulfites and refrigeration, it would be easier to keep whole grapes ("table grapes") fresh than grape juice. (So if you wanted unfermented grape juice, you had better crush the grapes just before the meal.) The reason why fermentation starts immediately after grapes are crushed is that wild yeasts able to ferment the glucose and fructose of grape juice populate the waxy skin of grapes. Break the grapes, and the outside yeasts and the inside juice/sugar come into contact! The addition of industrial yeast in winemaking is a rather recent phenomenon, and many winemakers still prefer to use the naturally occuring yeasts. Tomas e (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC) It is often suggested by prohibitionists that grape juice was boiled down to a syrupy, jam-like concentrate that did not ferment, was storable, and could be remixed with water like we do with concentrate drinks today (see e.g., [2]). BTW, this is not a discussion forum. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I agree about the discussion part, but sometimes it's difficult to resist clarifying a few facts when content of an article is protested on its discussion page. Grape juice has to be very concentrated not to ferment at all (such as the very rare Eszencia from Tokaj-Hegyalja which is exceptionally difficult to produce). Many ancient wines were made from sun-dried grapes and diluted before drinking, no doubt about it, but they fermented to a high enough alcohol level to be characterised as "fiery" before being diluted. Modern-day simple sweet sherry is made by fermenting Pedro Ximénez must that has been artifically concentrated, and they are also alcoholic. So while a mixture such as the one you describe will be weaker, it is not likely to be nonalcoholic. Tomas e (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Alcohol in the Bible/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This reassessment is going to look at how the article matches up against the current GA Criteria. Since the article was passed before the current criteria was established, the GA Sweeps project is going through each article to determine if it still meets the new and more stringent criteria. Given the fact that this is a controversial subject I refrain from making judgments on its content but instead focus my review on prose, MOS compliance, and adherence to the GA Criteria. I note at first glance that there are several maintenance tags, this is a concern, I will evaluate the validity of these tags as I read through the article.

Lead

• I'm confused by this sentence, "The inhabitants of ancient Palestine also drank beer and wines made from fruits other than grapes, and some references to these appear in the scriptures, too.The inhabitants of ancient Palestine also drank beer and wines made from fruits other than grapes, and some references to these appear in the scriptures, too." Poorly written with a hanging participle. Beer is obviously not made from grapes and as far as I know has never been made from grapes, so that part of the statement is stating the obvious. Seems like it could be removed altogether without impacting the content much.
• Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, covering all the subjects in a few paragraphs (up to four depending on the article's length). At a quick glance the lead does not appear to adequately summarize all the issues raised in the article.

Biblical literature

• I'm not sure what this section is serving. I understand the need to establish what is meant in the article by the term "Bible" but this section is so ambiguous about what "Bible" means that it really doesn't do what (I think) the editors are trying to accomplish.
• I'd also question this assertion, "Christianity's centerpiece of scripture" in reference to the Gospels. There is no citation and this appears to be the author's opinion.
• This sentence, "The Hebrew Bible and the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books contain the background assumed by the New Testament and particularly by the Gospels, Christianity's centerpiece of scripture, and the New Testament teaching on and exemplary use of alcoholic beverages reflects the attitudes and ideas found in earlier biblical literature." is poorly written and should be reviewed.

Lexigraphy

• There are no in-line citations in the first paragraph of this section.
• "While some apocryphal/deuterocanonical books may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, some were written in Greek, and they are all best known in the Greek version found in the Septuagint." Since no reference is included in this sentence I am left assume that it is the author's opinion that they are best known in the Greek Septuagint. Please reference.
• "The Hebrew Bible was largely written in Hebrew with portions in Aramaic;" repetitive sentence see above.
• At this point I have a stylistic comment, I note that the tables in this section have what appears to be about 100+ links to scripture references. I would assume that this is nearly an exhaustive list of every use of each term in the Bible. This approach is duplicated throughout the remainder of the article and I believe is what is prompting the clean-up/maintenance tags. In a nutshell this is too much information. The reader needs one or perhaps at most two in-line citations referencing a verse that they can look at if they so desire. To list 25 verses that contain yayin is cumbersome and unnecessary. Trim it down to one or two and that will do a lot to help clean up the article. H1nkles (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• In the Alcoholic Content section we have another example of extensive referencing. This time it appears to be quotes from authors on the subject. I feel that this is another example of overkill on referencing. I know that seems odd, to claim too much referencing, but in this case I feel it breaks up the flow of the article. It also puts the onus on the editors to be consistent. This causes readers to question sections where there is little or no referencing. For MOS guidelines on references see WP:CITE. This will give some input and subarticles on the subject.

Biblical references

• I'm not sure what the subsection on Winemaking has to do with Biblical references.
• In the Drunkness subsection there is a reference to the NIV, which many Evangelicals will know to mean the New International Version of the Bible, but for people of other faiths they will not understand this even if it is linked, I recommend spelling out the abbreviation.
• A couple of verses would be fine to establish the point. Perhaps two from the Old and two from the New Testament. Twelve is too many.
• In the Sacrifice and feasts subsection this sentence, "Jews also customarily partook of bread and wine at burials for the dead." is tagged on the end as its own paragraph. I recommend combining with the previous paragraph to avoid a stub.
• There are more translation abbreviations in the "Bringer of joy" subsection that should be expanded.
• "In the New Testament, Jesus uses wine at the Last Supper to signify the "New Covenant in [Jesus'] blood,"[302] but Christians differ over precisely how symbolic the wine is in the continuing ritual of the Eucharist (see Eucharistic theologies contrasted)." This is an example of a stub paragraph, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. There are a few of them throughout this article.

Notes and References

• Ref [227] is a dead link that needs to be repaired.
• When placing an in-line citation referencing a book then the format in the notes section should include the author's last name, publishing date, and page number(s). The full book reference would then be found in the references section as you have put it. In this article I see that early on in the Notes section this format is followed but as the article continues portions of this format are left out. Examples include citation #'s 63, 76, 99, and 100 where the author's last name and publishing year are present but no page number. Citation #'s 98, 113, 118, 121 have last name and page number but no publishing date. And citation #'s 107, and 237 there is just the author's last name. These are examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list.
• Some of your books have publishers listed and others don't. H1nkles (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Overarching comments

Generally I am concerned about this article. I feel it does not meet several of the GA Crieria. The article is certainly comprehensive covering all of the Biblical traditions from OT, Apocrapha and NT. It is a controversial subject but it does appear to be stable. The images are solid and the writing is fairly neutral, not giving weight to one side or the other. The following is a list of my concerns as they match up against the GA Criteria:

1a I feel that the writing is burdensome, with lots of qualifiers and parentheses. Tighten up the prose. Examples can be provided upon request.

1b There are several issues with MOS compliance. The extensive lists of citations. Listing in-line citations should be done after a punctuation, preferrably at the end of the sentence, rather than in the middle of a sentence. Abbreviations should be spelled out. The Lead could do a better job of summarizing all the aspects of the article.

2a&b Verifiability is an issue. Use of Biblical texts to support assertions can be considered a primary source, which is to be avoided in Wikipedia. See WP:PSTS for thoughts on this. There are sections that are not referenced and others that have a hundred+ references. Consistency in the reference formatting is also an issue that is discussed above.

At this point I will put the article on hold for a week and notify the concerned projects and editors. If you have questions or concerns you can list them here and/or contact me on my talk page. I am more than happy to civilly discuss any of my criticisms and reverse my opinion should I be presented with a convincing and cogent argument. This is a collaborative process and I do hope that we can work together to make this article better. If no work is done within a week and no extension of time is requested then I will likely delist the article from its GA standing. H1nkles (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to GAR

Ok, I've done as much as I'm willing to, for the time being, to fix up this article. I've addressed most but not all of the issues you've raised. I worked on the prose, but didn't make big changes; it seems fine to me. I added a short paragraph to the lead which refers to the different sections of the article. There are still some problematic one-sentence paragraphs, as I'm unwilling to expand them, and I can't tack them on to other paragraphs, but nor am I willing to delete them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another response to GAR

I saw your review of Alcohol in the Bible. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. I haven't had time to do a lot of editing lately, but I'd like to improve the article along the lines of the comments you made. One problem I've had, which I'd like your advice on, is how to handle the controversial nature of the subject material.

First, there is a small but ardent minority of Christians, who view alcohol as sinful and argue that "wine" in the Bible means "juice" wherever it is positively used and "alcohol" when negatively used (see some such complaints above; more are implicit in the edit history). Several persons of such a persuasion have added material and/or requested the many citations I've given at places, and others I put in as a pre-emptive strike of sorts. I've tried to represent their viewpoint fairly, but it is clearly not the view of the vast majority of Christian, Judaic, or other scholars. How should I reference the article to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and undue weight while at the same time satisfying these "squeaky wheels"? This has been a real problem for me. (I'm getting flashes of past edit wars, particularly on Christianity and alcohol, from which this article spun off.)

Second, how should I cite the Bible? Some say it is too disputed to use as a primary source - and in many articles, I agree - but in this case, I tried merely to give instances of alcohol appearing in the Bible. Given the broadly accepted meaning of the terms "wine" and "beer" as alcoholic beverages, few of these references should be controversial, and where they are controversial, I included commentators' differening views (e.g., on Proverbs 31:4–7 under the Drunkenness section). As the article stands now, nearly all of the footnotes with Bible verses have been stripped out, but see this revision where I have many footnotes to verses. As a case study, we might look at this semi-randomly selected paragraph from that older revision:

The Naziritic vow excluded as part of its ascetic regimen not only wine, but also vinegar, grapes, and raisins,^[143] though when Nazirites completed the term of their vow, they were required to present wine as part of their sacrificial offerings and could drink of it.^[144] While John the Baptist adopted such a regimen,^[145] Jesus evidently did not during his three years of ministry depicted in the Gospels.^[146][147]

143. Nu 6:2–4; compare Jg 13:4–5; Am 2:11f

144.Nu 6:13–20

145. Compare Lk 1:15.

146. 146. Mt 11:18f; Lk 7:33f; compare Mk 14:25; Lk 22:17f

147. Raymond p. 81: "Not only did Jesus Christ Himself use and sanction the use of wine but also ... He saw nothing intrinsically evil in wine.[footnote citing Mt 15:11]"

Does this meet WP:PSTS? To prohibitionists, it is non-neutral and blasphemous, but to anyone outside that small circle, I fully expect it would not be at all controversial. In its present form, the paragraph is unchanged except that all but the last footnote are omitted, and to my mind, that is significant a loss. Standard reference works on a topic like this include many direct references, cf. [3] (again picking semi-randomly).

Third, I got some complaints on the use of the term "Bible" (see #Christian_bias above), which is why I added the section on the meaning of the term. Do you think the criticism was unwarranted? How should I have handled it?

Again, many thanks for your time and efforts! --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

First off thank you for fighting the battles you have evidently fought. It is unfortunate that articles must be burdened with copious amounts of references in order to satisfy a small, but vocal, minority. I have seen this issue played out in many articles on a vast array of subjects. Unfortunately in my experience there are no easy answers. I'll try to give my impressions, but they are truly opinions based on my interpretations of the MOS as it applies to this article.

• Regarding the issue of citations in response to the ardent objections of a group of editors. My initial concerns regarding the referencing was that it appeared as though you had given every possible verse that has any mention of what you are trying to convey. In the current version of the article it appears as though many of these verses have been stripped out. In my first read-through though I found in the Hebrew sub-section of the Lexography section that yayin had 25 verses, which obviously was an attempt to show the reader just about every instance of that Hebrew word for wine in Scripture. To me this is overkill and if it is done to silence a minority then I would strongly recommend listing this page at WP:RFAR and having an arbitrator help address the issues. I honestly don't feel as though the article was out of balance from a neutrality stand point. It addressed all the points of view fairly, so from that stand point I think you're fine. I'm not sure if that completely addresses your initial question.
• To your second question about citing the Bible. Having attended an Evangelical Christian university, and minoring in Biblical studies, professors routinely accepted highly academic papers supported by myriads of Bible verses. Wikipedia is not a university setting, though, and while primary sources are critical for master's theses, they are frowned upon when used in an encyclopedia because they imply a certain degree of interpretation. Since WP seems to be more about being unbiased (giving credence to all points of view) than about pure truth and facts, secondary and tertiary sources are weighed more heavily because they have interpreted the primary sources and are viewed as more "neutral".

That said the title of the article is Alcohol in the Bible, to strip out all mention of the Bible seems counterintuitive. I would keep Biblical verses in as references as long as they are supporting the claims made within the article. What I mean by that is when there is a direct reference to an event within the Bible it is perfectly acceptable to use the Bible as the reference. For example, "Saint Paul later chides the Corinthians for becoming drunk on wine served at their celebrations of the Lord's Supper." This statement is referenced by 1 Cor. 11:20–22. That is an event within the Bible that is supported by the Bible, I see no problem there. Most of the Biblical references currently in the article are in the Lexigraphy section and support the various Greek and Hebrew words used to refer to alcohol in the Bible. I see no problem here for the same reason as above. Where we run afoul of WP:PSTS (in my opinion) is when the Bible is used to support opinions and interpretations or when the Bible is the sole support for controversial facts. So in your example above regarding the Nazarites there is the claim, "While John the Baptist adopted such a regimen,^[145] Jesus evidently did not during his three years of ministry depicted in the Gospels.^[146][147] The Bible is used to support the interpretation that Jesus drank wine and goes further in [147] to say that He sanctioned the drinking of wine. I can't help but make a side comment here, I don't see how Mt. 15:11 can be used here to support the idea that Jesus sanctioned the drinking of wine. That's a bit of an interpretive stretch. Anyway, back to my point, the Bible is the sole reference used to support the idea that Jesus drank alcohol (obviously a controversial subject) and it is an interpretation using one version of Scripture, which is a weakness when using the Bible as a source. In your example you would be well served to use some Biblical verses but also have secondary sources to augment the primary source. The one secondary source quoted (Raymond p. 81) serves only to inflame the argument rather than support what is said in the sentence. In other words, Raymond's quote doesn't really support the statement that Jesus didn't share in the Nazaritic vow. What is ironic is that it is only Raymond's quote that remains the current version of the article. Am I clear in this? Does it make sense to you? If not I can try and clarify.

• Now regarding a Christian bias within the article and the Biblical Literature section. I have read the string regarding the Christian bias. Admittedly I read the article with a bit of a blind spot to this as I come from a Christian background. I therefore can't speak to whether or not the article is overly biased. I feel as though weight was given to OT, aprocraphal and NT literature. I note that one of the complaints was the use of the term "Old Testament" rather than "Jewish Scriptures/Old Testament". I agree that using the latter term at every reference of the OT would be onerous and would break up the flow. I feel that one mention of this in the beginning of the article would suffice. For example, "The Hebrew Bible, which this article will refer to as the Old Testament, was largely written in Biblical Hebrew, with portions in Biblical Aramaic. I think that gives a nod to the fact that many view the OT as the Jewish Scriptures while also allowing for some economy of effort and flow of the article. I have found that removing some of the "biased" terminology doesn't detract of the article itself. Could the term "Christian" be removed from some (not all) portions of the article? Would the article still maintain its integrity? I'll leave that to you to decide. I see a value to defining the terms, Alcohol and Bible, but this could be done fairly simply. Bring up the differences between Jewish and Christian views of the Bible and define what the article means when it refers to the "Bible" the "Old Testament", and "Apocrapha", and the "New Testament". You could even preface it by acknowledging that there is controversy surrounding these terms and you are not attempting to clear up the controversy but only to define the terms for the readers so that they will understand what is meant by these terms in the article. Nothing will really make everyone happy, and there may be land mines that I haven't considered as I have not fought a lot of these religious terminology battles, so I don't know all the arguments. For me it would be acceptable to define the terms very simply and move on.

I hope that these comments help address your questions. Please feel free to reply and I will continue the discussion. As an Evangelical Christian I have wanted to engage in articles related to Christianity. While I don't really have an axe to grind on the topic at hand, I do find the debate as to how the article should fit into WP standards and yet also convey the heart of the subject stimulating. I welcome your response. H1nkles (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• After finishing my extended reply without saving I noted that carl bunderson made comments below that resulted in an edit conflict. I take responsibility as I didn't save intermittently enough so the above comments do not reflect a reply to the thoughts below, which I have yet to read. Sorry about that. H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond as well, Flex, unsolicited though my opinion may be.

First off, I apologize if my stripping of primary sources was inconsiderate of the work you've put in the article.

I agree with H1knles that the article has a balance on the POV issue.

As for citing bible verses: As a via media, perhaps if you reinstated the verse references which you believe are necessary. But if their interpretation is challenged by anyone, they should be removed. (Allowing, of course, for the interpretation of the verse by RS to be included instead.) I believe this is a practical solution, as it allows for the use of relevant citations from the bible, while at the same time avoiding problems of interpreting primary sources (ie, if everyone agrees on the interpration, there's no problem).

I don't believe the section discussing the bible is necessary. It is rather tangential to the article. We have entire articles on the bible and its different parts (ie OT, Hebrew Bible, NT, deuterocanon), so persons can go to those articles if they want. A wikilink to Bible is all that is needed.

Your instinct in saying, "I don't like the idea of splitting each topical section into a HB/OT, Apoc/Deut-con, and NT subsections because it will separate topics that are related", is right. It seems to me that Jon513's comments were primarily in reference to his perception of too-much Christian pov in the article, rather than desiring a section explaining different views of what constitutes the bible. That (what constitutes the bible) is such a basic topic that it is too tangential here. That is not to say that you didn't handle the complaint well; with no-one else participating in the discussion, it was the prudent thing to do at the time. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support carl bunderson's comments regarding the definition of the Bible. It makes sense that such a foundational book would have farily clear definitions that can be found simply by wikilinking. I'd leave it as such and avoid a lot of linguistic controversy. H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look at my toughts above, that were added after your reply here, regarding the specific example of the Nazritic vow and my concerns about using Biblical sources only to support an interpretive statement. Does this jive with what you're saying or am I off base? H1nkles (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it jives. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

After a hiatus on my part from reviewing, much discussion and a community reassessment I will delist the article from its GA status. The reason for delisting is that it does not meet the current GA Criteria, in format and adherence to the MOS. If there is disagreement about this determination please discuss it at the GA community reassessment page. H1nkles (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I've been away for a bit, but I may have some time to address these concerns in the near future. Cheers! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fitzsimmonds references

There are a couple of footnotes referencing a work by Fitzsimmonds, but a full citation isn't provided anywhere. --macrakis (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been accidentally deleted, but I restored it now. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article has a Fitzsimmonds reference for tirosh. Is this place ideal? Which word does Fitzsimmonds think is "particularly potent"? Tirosh in Micah 6:15 cannot be "potent" at all. Is his comment about "new wine" saying more about his view of the Greek word gleukos in Acts 2:13 and less about the Hebrew word tirosh in the Old Testament ("grapes" Micah 6:15 ESV)? Does he make a consistent distinction between various Hebrew and Greek words? (After mentioning Acts 2:13 again, Fitzsimmonds says gleukos "means literally ‘sweet wine’; the vintage of the current year had not yet come, but there were means of keeping wine sweet all year round." Fitzsimmonds does note what others often say of tirosh: "tiros, sometimes translated 'new' or 'sweet wine', has often been regarded as unfermented and therefore unintoxicating wine...") Officelamp (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wine in the Bible

There is no word "Alcohol" in the Bible. Article should be called "Wine in the Bible". --Вишера Олег (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the word "alcohol" does not appear in the Bible, but the article talks about more than just wine. Alcoholic beverages are summarized in the Bible itself as "wine and strong drink", and that is how some reference works list it (see footnotes). Others do, however, put it under "Alcohol" (e.g., The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology), and consider also the books by teetotaler Stephen Reynolds The Biblical Approach to Alcohol and Alcohol and the Bible. Surely, therefore, the current title is acceptable, and for that matter, Wine in the Bible already redirects here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alcohol in the Bible

Cyberbot II has detected links on Alcohol in the Bible which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DRUNKENNESS/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/V/VINEGAR/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

New book "The Spirituality of Wine"

Somebody should examine this book and reference it in the article as appropriate:

Kreglinger, Gisela H. 2016. The Spirituality of Wine. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Wine and Strong Drink.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC) --82.169.115.181 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete etymology of the word 'alcohol' and non-neutral wording

The etymology of the word 'alcohol' given in the second and third paragraphs in the introduction is obsolete. This etymology can be found on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alcohol under 'Various old etymological notes'.

Besides, the author of these two paragraphs seems to have a strong aversion to drinking alcoholic beverages, which shines through the words and examples he/she uses. This clearly violates neutrality. --82.169.115.181 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the original sources are sufficiently reliable, so removing the properly sourced content is inappropriate. - DVdm (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which original sources? The author uses GoogleTranslate. If you translate 'alcohol' to Arabic using GT, as the author does, you'll get the word 'al-kohl', the same word wiktionary mentions as the correct etymology. The author uses the obsolete etymology 'ghoul' to bolster his aversion to drinking alcohol in the third paragraph. It is based on the wrong etymology and far from neutral in its wording. --82.169.115.181 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources added show that Ghawl is not obsolete, being used both in 3rd party published works and in everyday use in the Arabic language. Copying the sources into a google search shows they are traceable to confirm this root word for alcohol. Showing the root word and the meaning of Demon helps explain why many Christians abstain from alcohol, as the Bible mentions Jesus drove out demons. Arabic is also a Semitic language, it is of the same branch as Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) and Hebrew.Statescontributor (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

But this article is about what is in the Bible, as discussed in WP:Reliable sources. Not a place for WP: Original research about what Americans read into the Bible based on word association. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources are relevant or acceptable. For instance, it doesn't matter that Arabic is a Semitic language- you're trying to seize upon an etymology of the Arabic word 'alcohol', which connects it with demons, but even if this etymology were true (and none of your sources serve as evidence for this in any way), this is still irrelevant, as the same connection is not present in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek terms for alcoholic drinks, such as those presented in this article. If Jesus ever made the connection between demons and alcohol, Arabic is simply not a relevant source for this. All of my objections to these paragraphs may be found here. As it stands, your edits have clearly been motivated by a distaste for alcohol. Either this, or you simply have no clue how evidence works. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you, I'll only say this- if anyone wants to be sure that the paragraphs in question ought to be deleted, just take a look at the edits starting from here. I also recommend that bad actors, such as Statescontributor, be prevented from continually vandalizing this page. - Hil44 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fayenatic thank you for your feedback, with respect, if this article was just about what "is in" the Bible, then it wouldn't have the word "alcohol" in the title, as that word is not in the Hebrew Bible, yet that word is in the title, because the article is about "alcohol in the bible". As "alcohol" is not a word found in the Bible though, the whole of the article attempts to define places where it could be present in the Bible by association. The whole of the article spends time pointing out where alcohol is thought to be, by utilizing terms like drunkenness, or demons, or stumbling blocks, or toxins of different sorts, through the association of drinks that are known today to sometimes contain alcohol or where the "character" of alcohol might be present in a Bible passage. This is how the article as a whole approaches the topic, as it is the only way. Due to that, providing an understanding of the word alcohol so that it can be recognized when found in the Bible becomes pertinent for connecting to places in the Bible that associate with the meaning of the word as presented. Whether or not it is the only way of defining it in the Bible is not what I have any argument with and you'll note I have made no attempt to remove any content from the article related to any views expressed there, I have only provided the sources (all reliable by Wikipedia standards, and not original) that clearly show and define this root word and meaning of the word alcohol so that it can be understood in that context when that association is found in the Bible. As Wikipedia's purpose is to be as comprehensive as possible, I continue to view that this evidence should be presented here and not ignored, as there is an association with it in the context of the root word and Biblical passages as presented, and neither it or any other association should be eliminated with the many other associations the rest of the article explores. Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

All you're showing me is that you have not understood how Wikipedia is written. It's not a forum. It's second hand, based on WP:RS. Not just based on facts in RS, but summarising arguments that are presented in RS. Do try to get your head round WP:No original research. Unless you can show that the Pope, or the Methodist Conference, (etc.) make a connection between the etymology of the word alcohol and biblical exegesis, then your views do not belong in this article. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To that point, with respect, both reliable and published sources have been added at every point when requested in these paragraphs where the points made require it, and these sources are not original per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable published citations are listed. To add to that, per your request, I've added an additional citation regarding context between alcohol and use in argument through the Bible with the verse connecting it to the "cup of demons" for which the association with the root word of alcohol suggests a correlation. The citation verbiage specifically contains this argument (among other association) - "If when you set up for yourselves, think yourselves happy in getting clear from the restraints of a sober regimen, and take the liberty of the drunkards, what reproach it will be to you! What a degeneracy! What a fall from your first love! And where will it stop? Perhaps you have given up the name of your Lord Jesus at his table; and dare you partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils?" - The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine Vol. 36, 1813. Pgs. 93-94. Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you have not provided what the other editors consider reliable sources, and most of what you have written is therefore original research. Furthermore, you still have not shown that the Arabic word underlying the English word alcohol has anything to do with the Bible's view of alcohol. The fact that at least three editors disagree with your approach and no one has supported it means that you need to come up with better sources and reasoning. I have reverted your additions and urge you to actually discuss your changes here rather than baldly asserting that you have provided reliable sources and are not engaging in original research.

Also, I note that you have reverted the removal of your material three times today. Please be aware of Wikipedia's three-revert rule and do not immediately undo the deletion. Indyguy (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response from Fayenatic, as my last update was not the same as past reverts as this time a question was actually asked that hadn't been answered, rather than having the content removed without any question that had already been answered or without question asked, which is what happened when the past reverts were made. The new question, whether there is any correlation in the Christian tradition that can be cited which ties the use of alcohol to demons as the etymology given also mentions that correlation, and with that is there a tie of alcohol use in Christian tradition with the verse in the Bible mentioning "the cup of demons"? Given this question the content has been updated to include the requested citation that specifically associates the use of alcohol to the partaking of the cup of demons from the Bible verse that was provided. Fayenatic, out of respect, as you mention in your talk page that you also try for a neutral and objective view on edits, even going so far as to correct your edits or restoring content if necessary, given that, I would love to hear your feedback and thoughts given this most recent citation that you had requested, that you mentioned would tie the content association stated between the word alcohol and its meaning as shown in the two paragraphs that were reverted. Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the only difference between the first edit you made on 16 November and the most recent two is the addition of the citation for The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, which was presumably in connection with the 1 Corinthians 10:21 verse. Since it was published in 1813, it really can't be used to support the contention that alcohol is derived from ghawl (assuming that is what that source even contends). Other than the addition of that citation, you still haven't addressed the inadequacy of your other sources. Indyguy (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But the comment on the other sources was answered, a reply was given that the sources had been vetted and was in fact the first question in this etymology talk thread, where a reply was given by a senior Wikipedia editor that they are reliable sources and removing them would be inappropriate Indyguy. Please see the first question and it's answer in this thread, please also let Fayenatic respond to the new citation request that was provided. Statescontributor (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Statescontributor: you are not listening. From Special:Contributions/Statescontributor it is clear that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. Please desist, unless you really want to be blocked. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Fayenatic, I defended the removal of two paragraphs that had been there for two years, and that DVdm had properly vetted at the top of this Etymology thread, mentioning their reliable sources and that it would be inappropriate to remove them. I then listened to your request for a new citation being needed for the connection to be made, and I added it, and in asking for a reply to that you have not given one, and have not reverted your removal of the two paragraphs, you've only referenced my defense of the material from someone else who wouldn't read the sources or respond to their content but remained holding to their view. DVdm or anyone else, I ask you to please review what has gone on and if you agree that if these paragraphs and sources have been removed inappropriately, to please revert them.Statescontributor (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)