Charles Robert Leslie, Wikimedia Commons
Most of us have heard the proverb "blood is thicker than water" countless times. It's typically used to emphasize that family ties are stronger than other relationships. When someone chooses their family over friends or colleagues, this saying is often nodded at with solemn approval. It feels ancient and authoritative, as if this wisdom has been passed down through generations without question.
But what if everything we thought we knew about this common saying is wrong? What if the original proverb actually meant the opposite of how we use it today?
The history of this phrase reveals a fascinating journey of linguistic evolution, misinterpretation, and cultural adaptation that challenges our assumptions about family bonds and chosen relationships.
Modern Understanding Vs. Ancient Origins
The contemporary interpretation of "blood is thicker than water" is straightforward: family relationships (those connected by "blood") are inherently stronger and more important than non-family relationships (represented by "water"). This version of the proverb has been documented since at least the 12th century in German, appearing in the medieval German epic Reinhart Fuchs around 1180.
The 13th-century Heidelberg manuscript includes a line that translates to: “I also hear it said that kin-blood is not spoiled by water”. By the 17th century, the phrase had made its way into English. In 1652, English priest William Jenkyn used it in a sermon, and it later appeared frequently in 18th and 19th-century Scottish literature.
Sir Walter Scott helped popularize it through his works. Throughout these centuries, the meaning remained consistent with our modern understanding—family comes first. However, some scholars and historians have suggested a different origin story that completely inverts this meaning.
According to this alternative theory, the original, complete proverb was: “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”. In this interpretation, the "blood" refers not to family ties but to bloodshed in ritual or battle—specifically, blood covenants made between warriors who fought together.
The "water" refers to amniotic fluid, representing the family connections we don't choose.
Thomas Lawrence, Wikimedia Commons
The Blood Covenant Tradition
To understand this alternative interpretation, we need to explore the ancient practice of blood covenants. Throughout history, across many cultures, blood rituals have been used to create sacred bonds between individuals who aren't related by birth.
Henry Clay Trumbull, an American clergyman and scholar, extensively documented blood covenant practices in his 1885 book The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and Its Bearing on Scripture. Trumbull described various blood brotherhood rituals from the Middle East, Africa, and other regions where individuals would mix their blood to create a bond considered stronger than family ties.
These blood covenants involved participants cutting themselves and mingling their blood, drinking each other's blood, or standing in the blood of a sacrificial animal while swearing oaths of loyalty. The resulting bond was considered unbreakable and sacred, often more binding than ties to one's biological family.
Some proponents of the "covenant" interpretation point to biblical references that seem to elevate chosen relationships over family ties, such as Proverbs 18:24: "There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother”. This perspective suggests that the bonds we actively choose and commit to can be stronger than those we're born into.
Matthew Harris Jouett, Wikimedia Commons
The Linguistic Debate Continues
Despite the compelling nature of the "blood covenant" interpretation, scholarly evidence for it being the original form of the proverb remains inconclusive. Modern commentators, such as Albert Jack and Richard Pustelniak, have promoted this alternative meaning; however, linguistic historians have struggled to find concrete historical evidence of the longer "covenant" version predating the shorter "family first" version.
What's undeniable is that both interpretations reflect profound truths about human relationships. The conventional meaning acknowledges the power of family bonds and genetic connections that shape our identities from birth. The alternative meaning recognizes that chosen relationships—forged through shared experiences, mutual sacrifice, and deliberate commitment—can be equally or more meaningful than inherited family ties.
Perhaps the most valuable insight from this linguistic debate isn't determining which version came first, but recognizing that both family ties and chosen bonds have profound importance in human experience. Sometimes blood relatives form our strongest connections; other times, the people we choose to battle alongside become our true family.
