Talk:Blood is thicker than water

Header

... notability? 91.107.36.88 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be correct as to how the saying is actually used, but from what I understand this is actually not the original meaning of the saying. See for example: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/19/messages/141.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.9.206 (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use bulletin boards as sources. I searched briefly, and found a lot of people claiming that the "blood of the covenant" quote was the original, but I can't find any academic sources that confirm it, or where it came from. If you have one, feel free to share. 71.212.101.250 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone edited the article to make the focus this other meaning WITHOUT ADDING ANY SOURCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT. --173.77.222.19 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And now the majority of high-ranked hits on Google are ones to the false etymology. Congratulations, Internet. La Maupin (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the term money is thicker than blood (for those who favor money over family)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.55.225 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How is the viscosity of a liquid related to loyalty between people?

So what if blood is thicker. My connection to my mother is through the 'water of the womb', but then I and a friend cut our wrists and share blood (HIV dangers notwithstanding) and since the blood is thicker, we are closer than to our own mothers. Huh? But on Sundays my mother gave me pudding. Pudding is even thicker than blood so the maternal bond should again take precedence over blood sharing and covenants, if we follow this outlandish logic.

What I don't get is this: what the heck is the correlation between the thickness of a fluid and the bonds between people? I know water 'flows apart' easier than blood and pudding. Is that it? That explanation sounds kind of thin to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake, do you always take everything so literally?? "Blood" is an outdated, folk name for DNA. Can you deny that there is a bond you CANNOT break because it's a part of who you are, even biologically? Unlike "blood" that refers to ethnicity, this "blood" is REAL, altough biologically an inappropriate word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.101.205 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your connection to your mother and your father nd all other 'blood' relatives is through genetics! And, this expression simnply states that you should value your 'blood' over everyone and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.101.205 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He is asking what the term "thickness" has to do with anything. As in, does the statement really refer to something being better because it's thicker? Why is it so? What if we are all misinterpreting the saying and it is better for something to be not as "thick?" 76.112.22.222 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, "we are all misinterpreting the saying" means our interpretation is common usage, hence it doesn't really matter what it used to mean.

However, it is understood that we're talking about figurative bonds here. Literal bonds are ropes, wires or chains, and the thicker these are, the stronger they are. So this may actually a wordplay that likens the visosity of fluids to the strength of bonds - and this is probably why we understand the saying the way we do [citation needed]. --31.150.25.131 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the "water" of the saying refer to baptism?

The saying makes perfect sense to me if the "water" is taken as alludiing to Christian baptism and "blood" in its metaphorical meaning of genetic heritage. It then reflects the tension that often exists between loyalties to the biological family and to the family of faith, especially when one's family adheres to a different faith. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I'll look further. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Researching olde documents may not explain what people that say it today have in their minds. And I would have to say, after reading some of the WP editor TALK comments and edits, that we could say people agree to disagree on the meaning. One way I am looking at it (original 'research' and thought) is to change my original preference from family bonds are stronger than baptism, to think instead (original research of my own mind again) that Jihadists and true patriots have stronger feelings (after conversion and covenants) than their birthings. As the Bible says of Jesus Christ, true conversion may lead to severed family relationships, hence "the blood of the covenant was the stronger" (to quote myself.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC) PS: Again, people can agree to disagree on what the main meaning is to people today. Those with this view are probably in the minority, which now includes me.

The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb

Here's a collection of edits that describe this meaning, so that when it can be finally confirmed, it can be added. If it is just an urban legend, then maybe it should also be mentioned on the page as such? Some stuff can probably be sourced and added anyway, such as the Arabic proverb?

I recommend mentioning the urban etymology on the page so as to avoid the ongoing edits and reverts. The unsupported etymology has been visible on the page for long periods of time, with unknowing editors adding "citation needed" and improving the spelling etc. --31.150.7.208 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Weblinks and other removed references

All of the links are currently (21:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)) working.

• http://annagetsthefabulousbabes.tumblr.com/post/51690858021/random-fact-of-the-day
• http://www.cracked.com/article_20251_the-5-most-frequently-misused-proverbs.html
• http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/40/messages/121.html
• http://www.goenglish.com/BloodIsThickerThanWater.asp
• 'Dictionary of American History, James Truslow Adams, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940.
• Trumbull, H. Clay (1893), The Blood Covenant - A Primitive Rite And Its Bearings On Scripture (2nd ed.), Philadelphia: John D. Wattles, p. 10 ff. (another scan of the 3rd edition is here) supports the statements about the Arab meaning of "Blood is thicker than milk", with the "bloodbrothership before family ties" meaning: "The oneness of nature which comes of sharing the same blood, by its inter-transfusion, is rightly deemed, by the Arabs, completer than the one-ness of nature which comes of sharing the same milk ; or even than that which comes through having blood from a common source, by natural descent."
• Pustelniak, R. Richard (1994), "II. Terms", "How Shall I Know?" - The Blood Covenant, retrieved 2014-02-22 contains this quote:

"Blood is thicker than water."

This phrase has completely lost its original, covenant-related, meaning. Today, it is interpreted as meaning that blood-related family members are to be considered as more important than anyone else. However, the original meaning is, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," or, "My relationship with those to whom I am joined in covenant is to be considered of more value than the relationship with a brother with whom I may have shared the womb."

Edits

However, the full proverb is "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", and refers to relationships formed by choice are deeper than those that are forced by birth. 98.30.10.179 22:05, 21 February 2014‎

---

we can trace this back to an earlier proverb, which was that "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Which means we've actually got it backward -- the "water of the womb," or our family relationships, is not as strong as the "blood of the covenant." 81.164.111.3, 23:55, 25 January 2014

---

Alright now, my edit is probably going to get deleted, but "Blood is thicker than water" isn't the whole quote. The saying in it's entirety is "The blood of covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Meaning that the relationships you choose to be in are more substantial and meaningful than those thrust upon you be biology (I.e. family) Emmarocks55, 18:50, 20 January 2014

---

This is a commonly misinterpreted proverb. This saying is derived from the proverb, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." This is to mean that the blood of your comrades, or fellow members of the the covenant, is more important than your family ties. 24.63.229.219 (again), 17:40, 3 January 2014

---

The original meaning however, derived from the original saying 'the blood of the convent is thicker than the water of the womb', referred to fighting in battle and how relationships forged by choice are stronger than those forced by families. The examples given below have meaning depending on their time period. 68.183.208.6, 19:47, 29 December 2013

---

This is a commonly misinterpreted proverb. This saying is derived from the proverb, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." This is to mean that the blood of your comrades, or fellow members of the the covenant, is more important than your family ties. 24.63.229.219 , 17:40, 13:27, 28 November 2013

---

In reality, this proverb was misquoted a while back, and was originally meant something more along the lines of "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Rather than blood shared among family, the term meant literal blood, as in blood spilled in battle among soldiers is thicker than the blood between estranged family members that never associate. It was also used in reference of the "blood covenants" that people made in the past, which involved cutting themselves and mixing blood in order to make a promise. Since the misquote, people have all but accepted the new meaning: that family is forever, and friends are far from permanent. [..]

That commonly understood meaning, however, may be a corruption of an earlier version, cited by some Jewish historians: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," meaning the relationship with those to whom one is bound through oath takes priority over the bonds of family. An Arab version ("Blood is thicker than milk") has a similar meaning. 62.235.164.33, 11:21, 7 November 2013 (two reverts of earlier versions)

---

In modern society, the proverb "blood is thicker than water" is used to infer that family ties (blood) are always more important (thicker) than the ties you make among friends (water). In reality, this proverb was misquoted a while back, and was originally meant something more along the lines of "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Rather than blood shared among family, the term meant literal blood, as in blood spilled in battle among soldiers is thicker than the blood between estranged family members that never associate. It was also used in reference of the "blood covenants" that people made in the past, which involved cutting themselves and mixing blood in order to make a promise (sort of like a less intense version of a pinkie promise). Since the misquote, people have all but accepted the new meaning: that family is forever, and friends are far from permanent. Riversarc, 19:47, 14 August 2013

---

Although, these are all commonly misused as the true, full quote, was "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Which means, essentially, that the bonds formed by choice, rather than familial obligation, are stronger and more unbreakable."

"Origin of “Blood is Thicker Than Water”: This is one that’s completely flipped its meaning over the centuries. In the beginning, it meant something to the effect of “a bond or covenant I’ve made with someone I’ve shed or shared blood with (sometimes literally) is stronger than one I have with someone I’ve shared the womb with.” Obviously today it’s interpreted the other way, that the bond between family members or blood relations is stronger than one between people only connected by water.The phrase is thought to have its origins either in blood rituals made between people, forming a bond or covenant with one another by shedding blood, or between soldiers who fought and whether literally or figuratively shed blood together on the battlefield." Read more at [[[source]]] 76.219.251.15, 23:26, 16 July 2013

---

That commonly understood meaning, however, may be a corruption of an earlier version, cited by some Jewish historians: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," meaning the relationship with those to whom one is bound through oath takes priority over the bonds of family. An Arab version ("Blood is thicker than milk") has a similar meaning. 97.122.170.61, 23:16, 18 June 2013

---

== Misquote ==

The original quote is "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Which means that relationships forged by choice hold deeper meaning than those of mere biology. 24.46.231.206, 21:22, 2 June 2013

---

"Blood is thicker than water."

This phrase has completely lost its original, covenant-related, meaning. Today, it is interpreted as meaning that blood-related family members are to be considered as more important than anyone else. However, the original meaning is, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," or, "My relationship with those to whom I am joined in covenant is to be considered of more value than the relationship with a brother with whom I may have shared the womb."

 "How Shall I Know?"
 The Blood Covenant
 by
 R. Richard Pustelniak
 (Congregational Leader, Beit Avanim Chaiot)
 October 1, 1994

124.169.26.90, 08:17, 12 February 2013 66.109.165.162, 16:22, 19 October 2012

---

"Blood is thicker than water" is commonly understood to be that the family relationship is stronger than the bonds of unrelated people,, however, the blood it is talking about is the blood of covenant. In covenant relationship, two parties would cut their hand and shake hands, mingling the blood. The covenant was made and the unity of the two parties was said to be stronger than that of family (the water of the womb). In our modern marriage ceremony we exchange rings, the rings are symbolic of the cutting and the consequential scarring that would take place. The rings remind us of the marriage covenant.

Reference: Blood Covenant By H. Clay Trumbull 81.135.92.235, 06:04, 18 October 2011

---

The page had a list of pop culture references, but it got deleted on 20 April 2010. An attempted deletion of that section had failed on 10 September 2009. Seeing as how many people have contributed to that list, for one editor to decide to remove it seems weird.

---

That's it. --31.150.7.208 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Meaning

I've been trying to track down the old sources that the article cites, so as to confirm that they refer to the modern meaning. The difficulty lies in that I could only find scans of the originals (and the medieval language is tough going, both in German or English), and transcripts are excerpts. This means I was neither able to find the original quote from Reinhard Fuchs nor Troy Book, and the quote from the latter doesn't even mention water. I would also love to find a source that connects water with friendship, which even Wikipedia fails to do. --91.97.110.89 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Link the scans. Someone probably can read it eventually. While I'm not fluent in old english I have passing knowledge of it and am a native speaker of an Old dialect of German as well as American english, so I'd love to give it a shot and see if that could point us to secondary sources appropriate for Wikipedia. Grimsooth (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Scan: via de:Heinrich_der_Glîchezære Cod. Pal. germ. 341, Sammelhandschrift mit Reimpaardichtungen, 167v-181v Der Stricker, Die feisten Jagdvögel; Heinrich, Reinhart Fuchs (jüngere Bearbeitung): http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg341/0338?sid=dcd66c021d34467d6d70f910b36b430c
• partial transcript: http://www.stefanjacob.de/Geschichte/Unterseiten/Literatur.php?Text=46
• Scan: Archive.org eBook and Texts > Canadian Libraries > E.J. Pratt Library > Lydgate's Troy book. A.D. 1412-20 https://archive.org/details/lydgatestroybono9701lydguoft
• partial Transcript: Robbins Library Digital Projects › TEAMS Middle English Texts › Troy Book: Selections http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/publication/edwards-lydgate-troy-book-selections

Mind you, this was just what I found online after a short web search; a proper library search might turn up better sources. --85.16.208.161 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed a few parts about the meaning

After reading discussions here and reading the linked documents, I changed the article

• from this
• to this

Basically, there are only two named people who say the expression is about blood covenants (Jack and Pustelniak). Other web pages with this claim are of the "fun facts!" variety and don't even attribute their tidbits to any named person.

I read Pustelniak's page, and it contains no evidence, sources or other info that could confirm his claim.

I read the blog by the woman who bought Jack's book, and she says that his book similarly has no info about where this "blood covenant" might have come from. In fact, his book contains no sources for any of its contents.

So I've trimmed down the word count given to this alternative idea, and noted that it's the idea of two guys who don't give any evidence. Does anyone contradict this? Gronky (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on the source footnote are pretty unencyclopedic, and neither is the coment "However, neither author gives any evidence for this claim", which you should not (as an editor) write down as fact uncited. What we wrote is that they claim it, and we can back that up with citations, but if the claim is justified or not is not our job to evaluate.

I was aware of the bad scholarliness of Pustelniak et al., that's why I put Henry Clay Trumbull first, whom I would not feel qualified to doubt (and neither should a Wikipedia editor without an authoritative reference, this guy has a honorary degree from Yale and had travelled to the region to do research). The cites on Pustelniak et al simply serve to illustrate that this alternative interpretation still has traction today and hence deserves to be mentioned, because someone might come across it in that context, and then Wikipedia should explain the background for that. (Also, someone is sure to add it back in if it were removed from the article, see my post above). But given its dubious authority, I agree with you that it definitely does not belong in the intro paragraph.

I'm still pretty partial to my original wording of the "Other interpretations" section, and would ask you to re-read it, but I don't find yours to be that much worse that I would counter-edit you on that (except for that comment of yours judging the source).

I also want to commend you for taking the time to actually edit the article, as opposed to the various busy bees who do nothing but add tags instead of doing the work of actually fixing things, going as far as to undisputed information whose sources are but two mouse clicks away and sometimes can be found in the linked Wikipedia articles. --91.96.124.139 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to loyalty fallacy

This phrase is commonly used in persuasive settings as the Appeal to loyalty fallacy under a family context. It's worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnav7 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)