Mushrooms and the Medical Manual

As a thought exercise, I decided to do what the anonymous author of "Wine and the Bible" did with wine, to mushrooms. I was only able to find 19th-century citations for the first two categories.

I found that all passages where mushrooms are mentioned, fall under three headings: a) where mushrooms are merely mentioned, b) where they are spoken of as a cause of misery and death, c) where they a blessing and source of ethereal enlightenment.

Examples:
a)"Konstantin was out wandering in the woods looking for mushrooms after the rain." The Small Rain by Diana Raymond, 1955
b) "Probably a single one of these is responsible for a vast majority of the fatal accidents resulting from mushroom poisoning. There are however some species in other genera that are capable of causing nausea vomiting and derangement of the digestive organs." The West American Scientist, 1895
c) "The taste of magic mushrooms are far from the best gourmet meals. However, once you get past the taste, they can open you up to sensations you’ve never had. Those who ate magic shrooms always talk of having an out-of-body experience, a feeling of time slowing down, and an openness to their imagination." www.trufflemagic.com, 2019

Now, how does one ensure that his mushrooms are of the heavenly kind and not the hellish kind? It isn't easy, but one can start by overturning cow patties:

"Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms usually grow on patties that have had a little time to soak themselves into the soil - I would guesstimate that 2 week-old patties would be ideal. The mushrooms may be growing either straight out of the patty or very near it. As for picking, cubensis mushrooms are fully mature when the veil has broken and the caps are relatively flat (depending on the strain). The ideal time to pick is 24-36 hours after a good rain (0.5" or more) in 65-85F weather. Be sure to identify them PROPERLY and THOROUGHLY before consuming any mushroom"  answers.yahoo.com, 2019

But don't just go grabbing fruiting bodies off any pile of dung, either:
"Psilocybe cubensis, commonly called the Golden Top, is a prolific dung-inhabiting mushroom found mostly in the spring to early summer. Its striking appearance, size, and fairly exclusive habitat makes identification relatively easy. This is not true of the Psilocybe genus as a whole, however; Many of the hallucinogenic species closely parallel the appearance of some of the most deadly poisonous mushrooms." www.potent.media/magic-mushroom-guide 2019

So, it looks like it boils down to this: Once you've eaten a mushroom and feel nothing, the mushroom being referred to is obviously from category (a). If, however, you begin to vomit and feel your internal organs shutting down, obviously this reference was to a mushroom of category (b). But if you begin to feel at one with the universe, you've connected with a reference of the last category, (c).

Enjoy your mushrooms! And please, consume them responsibly--unfermented and gluten-free.

Wine and the Bible

So goes the title of an undated and unattributed article I found online. There's not much of the Bible in it, though; it's mostly extracts of centuries-old anecdotes about wine being preserved without the benefit of fermentation. All this is well and good, but there's one problem: we live in the present, and if we are going to enjoy the biblical blessing of unfermented wine, somebody needs to show us how to make it; some of us, like the ancients, don't have refridgerators. There's not a shred of scientific rigour in this article: assertion after assertion is made without any attempts to repeat the experiment and see if it actually works. Here is the article:

Did Jesus turn water into intoxicating wine? Did He serve alcoholic wine at the last supper? What does the evidence tell us? The Bible speaks plainly on this subject. Historical records regarding the preparation, preservation and use of wine are also clear.

Consider this report (1820) by William Patton. The term “alcoholic” is not used. He uses the Bible term, “drunkard.” The Bible does not recognize drunkenness as a sickness, but as sin. The drunkard is listed in scripture with thieves, liars, extortioners, murderers, etc., as being in danger of God’s judgment in hell unless he repents. Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10. God will never consign a person to hell for being sick. Therefore the matter of drunkenness, and that which leads to drunkenness, becomes a very serious matter. Here is his report:

I found that all Bible passages where wine or drinking is mentioned, fall under three headings: a) where wine is merely mentioned, b) where it is spoken of as a cause of misery and the emblem of eternal wrath, c) where it is a blessing along with grain.

I began to wonder if the Bible makes reference to two kinds of wine. Such is indeed the case. I shared my findings with Professor Seixas, an eminent Hebrew teacher. He took my manuscript, and a few days later returned it with the statement, “Your discriminations are just. They denote that there indeed are two kinds of wine.” I have since learned much from others who have come to the same conclusion. I ran into much opposition from those who believe that all mention of wine in the Bible is to intoxicating wine, but here are a few counter-statements:

Dr. Ure, in his Dictionary of Arts, says: “Juice when newly pressed from grapes, and before it has begun to ferment is called must, and in common language new wine.”

Rees’ Cyclopedia: “Sweet wine is that which has not yet worked or fermented.”

Noah Webster: “Wine, the fermented juice of grapes…Must, wine, pressed from the grape, but not fermented.”

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible “The wine was sometimes preserved in its unfermented state and drunk as must…Very likely new wine was preserved in the state of must by placing it in jars or bottles, and then burying it in the earth.”

These authorities make it clear that there were, indeed, among the ancients, two kinds of wine, the fermented and the unfermented.

Fermentation

The laws of fermentation are fixed laws, always operating in the same way, and always and everywhere requiring the same conditions. Lardner’s Cyclopedia says:

“1. There must be saccharine (sugar) matter and gluten (yeast).

“2. The temperature should not be below 50 degrees nor above 70 or 75 degrees.

“3. The juice must be of a certain consistency. Thick syrup will not undergo vinous fermentation. Too much sugar is not favorable for the process, and on the other hand too little sugar, or, which is the same thing, too much water, will be deficient in the necessary quantity of saccharine matter to produce a liquor that will keep, and for want of more spirit the vinous fermentation will almost surely turn to vinegar.

“4. The quantity of yeast or ferment must also be well regulated. Too much or too little will impede and prevent fermentation.”

Others confirm these statements. The indispensable conditions for vinous fermentation are the right proportions of sugar, of yeast, and of water, with the temperature of the air ranging between 50 and 75 degrees.

We see therefore that the process of fermentation is not a natural one. Chaptal, the eminent French chemist, says, “Nature never forms spirituous liquors; she rots the grape upon the branch; but it is art which converts the juice into (alcoholic) wine.”

Fruits Preserved

[Before there was refrigeration]

As grapes and other fruits were such an important part of the food of the ancients, they would, by necessity, invent methods for preserving them fresh. Josephus, the first century historian, in his Jewish Wars, book VII, ch. VIII, s. 4, makes mention of Herod’s fortress in Israel, called Masada, “For here was laid up grain in large quantities, enough to enable an army to survive for a long time: here was also wine and oil in abundance, with all kinds of herbs, vegetables and dates heaped up together. These products were also fresh and full ripe, and in no way inferior to such fruits newly laid in, although they had been there almost 100 years.”

In a footnote William Whiston, the translator, says: “Pliny (AD 27-79) and others confirm this strange paradox, that provisions laid up against sieges will continue good for 104 years, as Spanheim also notes upon this place.” Such facts regarding long preservation of fruit and other food are confirmed by many other historians.

Swinburn says, “In Spain they also have the secret for preserving grapes sound and juicy from one season to another.”

E. C. Delevon states that when he was in Florence, Italy, “Signor Pippine, one of the largest wine manufacturers, told me that he at that time had in his lofts, for the use of his own table, until the next harvest, a quantity of grapes sufficient to make 100 gallons of wine; that grapes could always be had, at any time of the year, to make any desirable quantity; and that there was nothing in the way of obtaining the fruit of the vine free from fermentation in wine countries at any period. A large basket of grapes was sent to my lodgings, which were as delicious, and looked as fresh, as if recently taken from the vines, though they had been picked for months.”

Fermentation Prevented

Professor Donovan, in his writing on domestic economy, mentions three methods by which all fermentation can be prevented:

“1. Grape juice will not ferment when the air is completely excluded from it.

“2. The juice may be boiled, thereby evaporating the water. The substance thus becomes a syrup, which if very thick will not ferment.

“3. If the juice is filtered and deprived of its gluten; or yeast, the production of alcohol will be impossible.” —Anti-Bacchus, p. 162.

Also, if the juice is kept below 45 degrees (in water or underground) it will not ferment.

Four methods were used by the ancients to keep their new wine from fermenting:

Boiling and Thickening

By this process the water is evaporated, thus leaving so large a portion of sugar that fermentation is prevented. “By boiling, the juice of the richest grape loses all of its aptitude for fermentation, and may afterwards be preserved for years without undergoing any further change.” —Elements of Chemistry, Herman Boerhave.

Liebig says, “The natural law causing organic substances to pass into a state of decay is annihilated in all cases by heating to the boiling point.” The grape juice boils at 212 degrees; but alcohol evaporates at 170 degrees, which is 42 degrees below the boiling point. So then, if any possible portion of alcohol was in the juice, this process would expel it. All yeast, which would cause fermentation, is also destroyed by boiling. The obvious object of boiling the juice was to preserve it sweet and fit for use during the year. The boiling continued for several hours until ¼ to ½ of the water had boiled away. Water was later added to the syrup when the host desired to serve new wine.

Some of the celebrated Opimian wine, mentioned by Pliny had, two centuries after its production, the consistency of honey. Professor Donovan says, “In order to preserve their wines to these ages, the Romans concentrated the must or grape juice, of which they were made, by evaporation, either spontaneous in the air or over a fire, and so much so as to render them thick and syrupy.”

Horace, born 65 BC, says, “There is no wine sweeter to drink than Lesopian. It is like nectar, and resembles ambrosia more than wine. It is perfectly harmless, and will not produce intoxication.” —Anti-Bacchus p. 220.

“The Mishna states that the Jews were in the habit of using boiled wine.” —Kitto, Volume II, p. 477.

W. C. Brown, who traveled extensively in Africa, Egypt, and Syria from AD 1792 to 1798, states, “Most of the wines of Syria are prepared by boiling immediately after they are pressed from the grape, until they are considerably reduced in quantity, when they are put into jars or large bottles and preserved for use.” He adds, “There is reason to believe that this mode of boiling was a general practice among the ancients.”

“It is observable that when sweet juices are boiled down to a thick consistency, they not only do not ferment in that state, but are not easily brought into fermentation even when diluted with as much water as they had lost in the evaporation.” —Caspar Neuman, MD, professor of chemistry.

Filtration

By filtration, the gluten or yeast is separated from the juice of the grape. While the juice will pass through the filtering implements, the gluten will not, and, being thus separated, the necessary conditions of fermentation are destroyed. The ancient writers, when speaking of the removal of the vim, vi, vires, that is, the potency or fermentable power of the wine, use the following strong words: eunuchrum, castratum, effaeminatum–thus expressing the thoroughness of the process by which all fermentation was destroyed. Plutarch, born AD 60, in his Symposium, says: “Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink.”

Again, Pliny said, “Wines were rendered old and castrated or deprived of all their vigor by filtering.”

Captain Treat, in 1845, wrote, “When on the south coast of Italy, I inquired particularly about the wines in common use, and found that those esteemed the best were sweet and unintoxicating. The boiled juice of the grape is in common use in Sicily. The Calabrians keep their intoxicating and unintoxicating wines in separate compartments. From inquiries, I found that unfermented wines were esteemed the most. These wines were drunk mixed with water. Great pains were taken in the vintage season to have a good stock of them laid by. The grape juice was filtered two or three times, and then bottled, and some put in casks and buried in the earth–some kept in water (to prevent fermentation).” Dr. Lees’ Works, Vol. II, p. 144.

Subsidence

[Meaning, to sink or fall to the bottom; settle]

The gluten may be so effectually separated from the juice by subsidence as to prevent fermentation. The gluten, being heavier than the juice, will settle to the bottom by its own weight if the must can be kept from fermentation for a limited period. If the juice is kept at a temperature below 45 degrees, it will not ferment. The juice being kept cool, the gluten will settle to the bottom, and the juice when siphoned off, and thus deprived of the gluten, cannot ferment.

“They plunge the casks, immediately after they are filled from the vat, into water, until winter has passed away and the wine has acquired the habit of being cold.” Kitto, II, 955; A.-B. 217; Smith’s Antiquities. Being kept below 45 degrees, the gluten settled to the bottom, and thus fermentation was prevented.

Columella gives a recipe: “That your must may always be as sweet as when it is new, proceed in this way: Before you apply the press to the fruit, take the must that has already flowed from the grapes, put into a new amphora [jar], bung it up, and cover it very carefully with pitch, lest any water should enter; then immerse it in a cistern or pond of pure cold water, and allow no part of the amphora to remain above the surface. After 40 days, take it out, and it will remain sweet for a year.” He no doubt inferred that the pure wine was to be poured off from the gluten that had settled to the bottom. This wine would again be sealed airtight and kept cool in the ground or water until used. These ancients had underground cellars where their wines and other foods were preserved.

Fumigation

Dr. Ure states that fermentation may be stopped by the application or admixture of substances containing sulphur. Adams, in his Roman Antiquities, on the authority of Pliny and others, says, “The Romans fumigated their wines with the fumes of sulphur; they also mixed with the mustum (the newly pressed juice) yokes of eggs and other articles containing sulphur.”

In all these extracts, the writers call the grape juice wine, whether boiled, filtered, subsided or fumigated.

Wine With Water

There is abundance of evidence that the ancients mixed their wines with water. Not because they were so strong with alcohol as to require dilution, but because, being rich syrups, they needed water to prepare them for drinking.

According to Lightfoot, the Passover was celebrated with nonalcoholic wine mixed with water. Each person, man, woman and child drank four cups. After celebrating the Passover with His disciples, Christ took the bread and wine that remained and instituted the Lord’s supper. The wine was, we believe, the rich syrup diluted with water. This kind of wine met all the requirements of the law concerning leaven. The true rendering of matsah, according to Dr. F.R. Lees, means unfermented things. It therefore refers not only to bread.

Classification Of Wines

The careful reader of the Bible will notice that in a number of cases wine is simply mentioned without anything in the context to determine its character. He will notice another class, which unmistakably denotes the bad character of the beverage. There is also a third class, whose character is clearly designated as good.

Bad Wine

This class of texts refers to wine:

1. As the cause of intoxication. This is not disputed.

2. As the cause of violence and woe. Prov. 4:17; 23:29-30.

3. As the cause of self-security and irreligion. Isa. 28:7; 56:12; Hab. 2:5.

4. As poisonous and destructive. Prov. 23:31.

5. As condemning those who are devoted to drink. Isa. 5:22; 1 Cor. 6:10.

6. As the emblem of punishment and of eternal ruin. Psa. 60:3; 75:8; Is 51:17; Jer. 25:15; Rev. 14:10; 16:19.

Good Wine

I turn now to another class of texts which speak with approval of a wine whose character is good, and which is commended as a blessing.

1. To be presented at the altar as an offering to God. Num. 18:12; Neh. 10:37, 39; 13:5, 12.

2. Is classed among the blessings, the comforts, the necessities of life. Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:13; 11:14; Isa. 65:8; Joel 3:18.

3. Is the emblem of spiritual blessings. Isa. 55:1; Psa. 104:15.

4. Is the emblem of the blood of the atonement, by which we receive forgiveness of sins and eternal blessedness. Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 10:16.

In all the passages where good wine is named, there is no indication of warning, nor intimation of danger, no hint of disapproval, but always of decided approval.

How bold and strong is the contrast: The one the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes. The other the occasion of comfort and peace. The one the cause of irreligion and of self-destruction. The other the devout offering of piety on the altar of God. The one the symbol of the divine wrath. The other the symbol of spiritual blessings. The one the emblem of eternal damnation. The other the emblem of eternal salvation.

“The distinction in quality between the good and the bad wine is as clear as between good and bad men, or good and bad spirits; for one is the constant subject of warning, designated poison, both literally and figuratively, while the other is commended as refreshing and innocent, which no alcoholic wine is.” Lees’ Appendix, p. 232.

Can it be that these blessings and curses refer to the same beverage, and that an intoxicating liquor? Dr. Nott says: “Can the same thing, in the same state, be both good and bad; a symbol of wrath, and a symbol of mercy; a thing to be sought after, and a thing to be avoided? Certainly not. And is the Bible, then, inconsistent with itself? Again, certainly not!”

Professor M. Stuart says: “My final conclusion is this: Whenever the scriptures speak of wine as a comfort, a blessing, or a libation to God, and rank it with such articles as grain and oil, they mean, and they can only mean the wines that contained no alcohol that could have a harmful effect; that wherever they denounce it, and connect it with drunkenness and revelling, they can mean only alcoholic or intoxicating wine.”

Beer and the NIV

In an earlier post, I decried the TNIV for translating shekar as "other fermented drink" rather than "beer" in Numbers 6:3. In revisiting the issue today, I noticed that "beer" is actually found many places in the NNIV as a translation for shakar--just not, apparently, here. Well,  I give the CBT credit for a small improvement anyway.

Here is an article which addresses the necessary ingredients that would have been used for making beer in the Bible times.

"Themselves" in the KJV and TNIV

TNIV, Numbers 6
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. . .'"

Oh boy, here we go again. Gender-specific language has been replaced with gender-neutral language, right?

Wrong.

The KJV pre-empted by nearly four centuries the TNIV's use of 'themselves' as a generic singular (italics in the original):

"When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: Hee shall separate himselfe from wine, and strong drinke, and shal drinke no vinenger of wine, or vineger of strong drinke . . ."

The TNIV is a bit more blatant than the KJV, and even more so than the Hebrew, but clearly the use of some sort of generic 'themselves' goes back a long way.

But the TNIV is woefully behind the times in another point of translation. It's been clear for some time now that the other beverage in question here is much more specific than 'other fermented drink'. It's beer.

Now that's something that today's generation should be able to relate to.

The TNIV in Acts 1-2

I was recently invited to attend a "Bible Translation Symposium" in Winona Lake, IN. A look at the syllabus told me that this was clearly going to be a sell job for the TNIV, so I didn't bother going. But someone who did passed on the curriculum to me, and it is my intention to spend some time critiquing a key point in the TNIV's defense of its gender-sensitive translation policy.

First of all, some praise for the CBT, the producers of the NIV/RNIV/NIrV/TNIV. Bless their hearts, they really put out the effort to produce a translation that met the goals they set out for themselves. They really weren't prepared, I'm sure, for the backlash of opposition their work received, nor was it exactly fairly given when all major translations since 1983 have been guilty of some level of gender inclusivity. Here the detractors can point to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, in which the publishers of the NIV promised not to revise it in the direction of gender inclusivity. But in their defense, the CBT have always claimed that the Guidelines did not apply to the TNIV, which was then already in the works. And like they said, their translation isn't for everybody. It certainly isn't for my three teenagers, all of whom prefer an edition of the English Bible from several centuries earlier than the TNIV, and none of whom had any problem figuring out what the "gay clothing" in James chapter 2 refers to.

What bothers me about the CBT was not so much the way they went about accomplishing their goal (though I do believe that they did a rather poor job of it), but the goal they had in the first place. They attempted to make the Bible inoffensive, and in do doing they only set themselves up for failure. This was the original goal of the NIV: to remove the offense of archaic language from the Scriptures. Only a decade into the use of the NIV, it was found to still be just as offensive as ever, thus the solution: to remove gender-specific language. Alas, this is nothing but paying the dane-geld. "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (KJV)--or, "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." (TNIV) Putting that in the language of a 21st-century teenager doesn't change a thing!

Now to the specific critique of a claim made at this Symposium: that the use of gender-sensitive language doesn't change any of the Bible's teaching on biblical manhood and womanhood, or the role of women in the church. I'll grant the CBT the benefit of the doubt and agree that they didn't have to change their own views any as a result of doing this translation; but I must needs remind them that the 21st-century views on this topic are a recent innovation, and insofar as the TNIV reflects the translators' views on gender, it does represent a change to the historic orthodox position.

For this study, we turn to the opening chapters of the book of Acts. In the KJV, the word 'men' is found in Acts 1 & 2 thirteen times: nine as a translation of 'andr-' and twice in translating other words that can refer to adult males. The other two times it is used as a supplied human specifier. In the TNIV for the same passage, 'men' is found only three times translating 'andr-': twice translating the same way the KJV did, twice as a supplied gender specifier, and twice to depict a word that the KJV translated as something else! Let's break this down by chapter and verse to see how inconsistent the TNIV is in carrying out its agenda of gender sensitivity.

Acts 1: KJV and TNIV both translate three of four occurrences of 'andr-' as 'men'; TNIV replaces the other with 'sisters'! Each supplies 'men' once: KJV as gender-inclusive usage, and TNIV as a word implied by immediate context.
v. 10 Both have 'men' (referring to non-gender-specific angels!)
v. 11 Both have 'men' (although the context would seem to demand the presence of women!)
v. 16 KJV has 'men'; TNIV has 'sisters'! (if 'men and brothers' didn't exclude the women present, what could Peter have possibly said that would have?)
v. 21 KJV and TNIV have 'men' (reinforcing the exclusive role of men in church leadership, contrary to the implications of TNIV in Rom. 16:7!)
v. 23 KJV has '(two)'; TNIV inserts '(two) men' (whose masculine names are supplied in context).
v. 24 KJV inserts '(all) men'; TNIV has 'everyone' (as did the NIV, so what's the improvement?)

An important question in Acts 1 is whether the women who were named as present participated in:

1) The 10-day prayer session in the upper room where they were present;
2) Deliberation on the choosing of Judas' successor;
3) Nominations to the lot which appointed Judas' successor.

In the first part of this question, both the KJV and TNIV strongly imply that the women were involved, but the TNIV more blatantly so by adding the word 'along' (but then so did the NIV, so what's the improvement?).

In the second part, the KJV shows that although women were present, Peter was specifically addressing the men in setting up the deliberation. But the TNIV specifically inserts the women into Peter's audience, and thus by implication into the deliberation. This is a definite change from all English versions prior to 1983, and brings women into church leadership at the first point it was exercised.

In the third part, the TNIV oddly is just as male-oriented as the NIV and KJV, but this limitation of the apostleship to males is in stark contrast with the TNIV's decisive move to a textual reading (the NIV marginal note has been excised) identifying a female apostle in Romans 16:7! Ironically, the NIV had rejected the KJV's reading of "Junia;" in the case of the TNIV it was clearly a deliberate gender-sensitivity inspired reversion.

Conclusion: The TNIV presents a rather confusing picture of gender roles in the early church through its inconsistent use of gender-inclusive language in Acts 1.

Acts 2: Of the five occurrences of 'andr-', the TNIV does not translate any as 'men'; in two places it needlessly parrots the KJV's 'offensive' male-specific usage, and in two different places it translates as 'men' a word that the KJV doesn't!

v. 5: KJV has 'men'; TNIV deletes 'men' but inserts 'God' (now who's scoffing at the KJV's 'God forbid'?)!
v. 13: KJV supplies 'men', TNIV justifiably doesn't, but it loses all that it gains by deleting 'sweet' (which at least the NIV had in a marginal note)! [on this verse, see my blog of 2/20/06]
v. 14: KJV has 'men (of Judea)'; TNIV naturally has 'fellow (Jews)'--having already mixed the company of v. 5!
v. 17: KJV and TNIV both translate 'neaniskoi' as '(young) men', although daughters are specified in the context!
v. 17: KJV and TNIV both translate 'presbuteroi' as '(old) men', although the entire immediate context is specifically mixed-gender!
v. 18: KJV has '(servants and handmaidens)'; TNIV has '(servants both) men (and women)', which, I grant, better represents the parallelism of 'doulous' and 'doulas'; but one would think that for consistency's sake alone they would have translated v. 17 as 'youth' and 'elders', thus keeping up the mixed-gender parallelism.
v. 22 KJV has 'men'; TNIV has 'people'--an acceptable inclusion, especially in light of v. 36.
v. 23 KJV has '(by wicked) hands'; TNIV has '(with the help of wicked) men'--somewhat inconsistent with the inclusive language in which Peter's harangue has otherwise been couched.
v. 29 KJV has 'men'; TNIV has 'sisters'!
v. 37 KJV has 'men'; TNIV must needs delete it, even though the referent is explicitly male! Otherwise they would, of course, have 'sisters'!
v. 45 KJV supplies '(all) men'; TNIV has 'anybody', which, I grant once again, is the clearer translation (but then so did the NIV, so what's the improvement?).

The question here is the gender makeup of Peter's audience. In the KJV, they are identified as men who colluded in the death of Jesus many weeks earlier. In the TNIV, they are men and women who colluded with the men who caused the death of Jesus--thus removing the entire audience from the immediate guilt of the crucifixion, all in the name of gender sensitivity.

Conclusion: The TNIV makes a change to the history of the Passion narrative while going in opposite directions with changes to the gender makeup of Peter's audience in Acts 2.

It is this sort of gender-bending translation in the TNIV which rightly brings approbation upon the heads of the CBT members. If this is the best of which they are able, may God deliver us from it.

Acts 1-2 is a unique passage, in that the gender makeup of the cast of characters is mixed, yet explicit single-gender usage alternates with explicit dual-gender usage. Women are (at least implicitly) depicted as openly praying and proclaiming in mixed company, but as silent observers while the men are voting for and being appointed to church leadership.

Although in a few spots it clarifies the mixed nature of the people in question, the TNIV--despite using male-specific language where it is unwarranted in the original--muddles the biblical distinction of gender-based roles by using dual-gender language when the maleness of the subject is actually being emphasized in the original. Thus the TNIV cannot be rightly said to "[give no] assistance [to those who] want to ordain women into pastoral leadership," as John Kohlenberger asserts. At best, it presents a mixed message, which can only play into the hands of those who despise the patriarchy of scripture.

What is wine?

I got my first taste of wine as a teenager.
No, it wasn't some furtive assertion of adolescent independence. Actually, it was all a mistake. I was on a transoceanic flight and somehow got bumped up to first class, where the menu choices were awkward enough without my trying to figure out how to forgo the small bottle of complimentary wine. I poured the little shot glass full, but couldn't manage to drink it down. The stuff simply tasted awful.

I came closest to developing taste for wine while a sailor in the US Navy.
No, it wasn't at the Enlisted Club. Or in some seedy seaside dive while on liberty.
It was at an ecumenical Communion Service on board the USS J___, where the chaplain dipped each wafer in a cup of wine before administering it to the communicant. It was my first time to partake of alcohol liturgically, but it was not to be the last.
In 1991, the Central Command hosted a theater-wide Passover Seder service for all branches of the military. In preparation for participating in it, I attended Sabbath services at a neighboring ship the week before.

It was a rather odd service. There was myself, a gentile of the evangelical persuasion. My host, who up until that moment had successfully shielded his Jewish identity from me and everyone else on board the J___. A Black Jew with a taste for fine cappuccino, but totally at home with the ritual. A White Jew even more devoid of pigmentation then I, who showed only a casual familiarity with the proceedings. The chaplain's gentile guest, who was obviously just there for the cross-cultural experience. And the chaplain himself, who was a rather enigmatic character. At the beginning of the service, he produced the obligatory bottle of wine, commenting, "Oh good, we still have some of the Megen David left. I guess that means we won't have to break out the Blue Nun." It was my second liturgical taste of wine, this time without the accompanying cracker. I decided I could handle doing this at least once a year.

The following week I attended both nights of Seder with my newly-disclosed Jewish friend. We were the only ones there from the J___. At our table were three other men and a woman. One was a legal officer who normally worked at the White House but had been called up from the reserves. The others were all Army enlisted, just in from "the sandbox". One of these was very much looking forward to the portion of the ceremony that involved drinking one cup of wine after another. He made some comment that since this was Kosher wine, it was OK.

I wondered about that. There was even a notation on the Seder program that during the Passover season, only Kosher wine could be consumed, as all other was Chametz for Passover. What was it about a wine, I wondered, which could possibly render Kosher for Passover something that was obviously fermented? I didn't get an answer, but I determined then and there that if I was ever going to drink wine, it would be Kosher. But I still wondered what it was about Kosher wine that made it OK. Especially when the officer, who evidently was somewhat of a wine connoisseur, decided to imbibe from a different bottle on the table than that which he had been using, and just about choked on it. "That tasted like five miles of bad road! he gasped. I checked the label. Nothing about roads, but it did bear the seal of the Rabbinical Union. I tasted it. Like everything else I had been drinking that evening, it tasted basically like watered-down grape juice spiked with unflavored cough syrup. I was able to get it down all right, but I just couldn't get used to the stuff. It made me appreciate the nonalcoholic policy of the churches at which I partook of communion.

Well, what about communion wine--should it--or could it--contain alcohol? There were people who argued either way. Some arguments seemed rather specious, as those that allowed leaven in the bread but no alcohol in the cup. These made no more sense then those that forbade leaven in the bread but allowed it in the cup. It seemed to me that the symbolism required that both be equally free of corruption.

About five years ago I came across the idea that every positive mention of "wine" in the Bible refers to grape juice, while every negative mention is of an alcoholic beverage. That seemed a rather specious argument too, until I read Wine in the Bible by Samuel Bacchiocchi. In thoroughly scientific study of the Greek word oinos, Bacchiocchi minutely examines and gently demolishes "the arguments that are commonly used to prove that our Savior made, commended, used and commanded the use of alcoholic wine until the end of time. We have found these claims to rest on unfounded assumptions, devoid of textual, contextual and historical support."

While the reader may not agree with Dr. Bacchiocchi's conclusion that the Bible commands, Jesus practiced, and the apostles taught total abstinence, he will probably have to admit that Dr. Bacchiocchi presents a consistent hermeneutic of the five Biblical accounts (contained in nine passages) commonly cited to prove otherwise.

Interestingly enough, virtually all of these accounts (as is the case with the doctrine of prayer and fasting) are replete with textual problems. Just look at the variants for one passage in Luke--in an average of one place in each verse, the Westcott-Hort and/or Nestle-Aland text differs from the text found in an overwhelming majority of all Greek manuscripts. In all but one of these variants, it changes or diminishes the text.

Luke 5:33. Omit "Why do" after "said unto him" and render as a statement.
Luke 5:34. Add "Jesus" and render 'Jesus said'.
Luke 5:36. Read "No man rendeth a piece from a new garment and putteth it upon an old garment; else he will rend the new, and also the piece from the new will not agree with the old".
Luke 5:38. Omit "and both are preserved" at end of verse.
Luke 5:39. Omit "also" after "No man".
Luke 5:39. Omit "straightway" before "desireth new".
Luke 5:39. Read "The old is good" instead of "The old is better".

And look at all the changes in just a single verse of the parallel passage in Mark:

Mark 2:22. Omit "new" before "wine doth burst".
Mark 2:22. Read "will burst" instead of "doth burst".
Mark 2:22. Read "the wine perisheth, and [also] the bottles" instead of "the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred".
Mark 2:22. Omit "but new wine must be put into new bottles" at end of verse. [margin]
Mark 2:22. Omit "must be put" before "into new bottles".

As with The Effectiveness of Prayer & Fasting, it is impossible to develop a doctrine of Alcohol in the New Testament without making reference to any textually disputed passage. Take them all away, and you have no context for your doctrine.

Dr. Bacchiocchi also addresses most of the Old Testament passages that refer to wine, showing that in no case is an alcoholic beverage specified, except when its consumption is expressly discouraged. His otherwise excellent case is severely flawed by omitting any mention of Deuteronomy 14:26. Now if only he could do a scientific study of the Hebraism word shakar, he could complete his doctrine of Alcohol in the Bible.

Aside from the lack of a tidy wrap to his study, Dr. Bacchiocchi does provide the Bible Translator with some very useful information, without which any translation is going to be deficient. Just looking at a few of the modern versions of the English Bible, I see that they use "wine" and "(strong) drink" so interchangeably as to eliminate any possible linguistic distinction between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. To its credit, the 1977 NASB is slightly more consistent even than the KJV in translating sakar as 'strong drink' in Numbers 28:7--another verse that Dr. Bacchiocchi really needs to find room for in his doctrine. But those who are translating only the New Testament could, following his lead, legitimately translate all positive references to oinos with the meaning of 'grape juice' and virtually all negative ones with that of 'alcoholic beverage.'

The only exception is in Acts 2:13, where 'sweet wine' is specifically mentioned. This verse had served to really puzzle me until I read Dr. Bacchiocchi's explanation.
He says that it shows that the disciples had a reputation as tetotallers, drinking only wine that was freshly squeezed from the vine and thus had no chance of causing intoxication. Their unusual behavior caused adversaries to scoff that these disciples were crazy enough to even appear drunk on nothing but fresh grape juice.
I think that explanation is at least as plausible as any other I've seen, and fits well into his overall theory.

I see that although I'm done, I haven't really answered the question posed by the title. For that I refer you to relevant chapters of the book, which can be read at
his website.