Re: >Re: wine

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:00:57 -0500

Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>
> At 06:56 PM 8/30/70 -0600, you wrote:
> >I'm aware of the different meanings of "wine". At Cana's wedding party,
> >however, it is obvious from the text that the *good* wine was fermented.
>
> Obvious to whom? Possibly it may be obvious to one inculcated in western
> decadent thought about what is "good" in wine. Personally I would not
> choose fermented wine or reconstituted preserved wine over the fresh
> variety, in any circumstance, and I would suggent the wedding guests in
> Cana felt likewise.

You are reading your own tastes into the Bible. Note, e.g.,
that NRSV renders _methusosin_ in Jn.2:10 as "have become drunk". (It
is the same verb used in I Cor.11:21.) "Drunk" may be too strong if you
think of it as "falling down drunk" - "happily drunk" is perhaps the
sense. (If this concept is incomprehensible to anyone, see Ps.104:15.)
The steward's point is that one usually serves the poorer wine when the
guests are no longer as discriminating, an effect not achieved with
Welch's grape juice.
Of course wine can be abused. So can sex, food and everything
else in creation. But _abusus non tollit usus_.
George Murphy