This is not a religious discussion. It is a discussion about a chemical/biological process and culture.
In my studies of the Bible, I have often wondered about the wine mention in that book.
What was it? How strong was it? Was it consumed straight or diluted?
This guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FVh-etEtw&ab_channel=ReligionForBreakfast addresses some of these questions, but not all.
On the first question, it pretty clearly was fermented juice. Grapes probably, but could be other fruits as well. As the gent in the video notes, the ancient Jews probably added other fruits to change the taste of whatever they were drinking.
It had to be fermented. Don't believe me? Buy a bottle of your favorite juice. Open it. Leave it on a counter for a day. Close it the next day. Fermentation IS gonna happen.
POTENT
How strong was it? Ahhh, now here's where we get into something.
Most Bibles I have use the word "strong drink" to refer to potent brews. The Holman Christian Standard Bible puts the word "beer" in that place. To date, I have not been able to learn why the translators chose beer. As the HCSB is mostly developed by Baptists, I have some strong suspicions about that translation.
I seriously doubt the translators are aware of something called ice distilling. More below. I reason this because academics, such as those translating the Bible, are highly specialized and not very conversant with matters outside their speciality. I can provide plenty of examples where extremely respected intellectuals are just flat wrong about things outside their area of concentration.
Is beer stronger than wine? Smoke this'n. http://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/dining/15-beer-and-wine-facts-that-may-surprise-you-b99117052z1-227119841.html
I hear the arguments now. "But they had different yeast than we do now."
Yeah. The same yeast was used to make wine and beer. Stands to reason that the wine back then would still be stronger than the beer back then, given the same yeast. Grape juice has more sugars to ferment than the grains going into beer, despite the fact that part of the grains had to convert to sugars to ferment.
Arguments about the sugar content of grapes v. now are equally applied to the starch (which converts to sugar) content of grains back then v. now. Let's compare apple home brew to apple home brew here, please.
If you bothered to watch the video, you'll see a test run doing wine the same way (we think) it was done back then delivered a brew of 12 percent alcohol, or 24 proof. More than enough to get you knackered. By way of comparison, today's "fortified wines" like Mad Dog 20/20 and some others kick it at 26-34 proof.
I've made home brew using bread yeast, not the high potency stuff used by brewers today. I made some undistilled brew that would flatten you if you drank enough.
At the same time, as the video guys notes, one of the ancient historians BEFORE the time of Christ references a wine that would catch fire. Anything 40 percent or 80 proof will ignite. https://www.askmen.com/fine_living/wine_dine_archive_300/303_how-and-why-to-set-drinks-on-fire.html
ICE BREW
As best we know the ancients didn't have access to Grandpa's still. Also, alcohol above a certain percent kills the yeast that make it. How'd they manage to crank the proof?
Ice distilling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UbnHw0qIzo&ab_channel=Whats4Chow
Northern Italy has mountains where the temps drop low enough to make me want to move to the equator. Ice distilling is certainly possible there. While the temps in the region Jesus hung out are not generally low enough to ice distill, traders could certainly bring the high proof stuff south.
Generally is not specific. Getting specific, they didn't have to go to northern Italy. https://www.timesofisrael.com/golan-sees-record-low-temperatures-during-storm/ That's plenty cold enough for ice distilling.
DILUTED OR NOT
So was the brew diluted?
We. Don't. Know.
A couple of Bibical sources mention diluting wine.
Parts of the non-Protestant Bible (a whole 'nother discussion) mention mixing wine to dilute it.
Isaiah 1:22 says, "Your silver has become dross. Your best wine mixed with water." The reference to Jews who degraded their culture and religion is clear in context. If Isaiah says degrading the culture is bad, why would he use a wine reference to make clear, if diluting wine was not a bad thing.
More in the video.
At the wedding, when Jesus DID NOT turn the water into Tang, the wedding party said the host saved the best for last. Hrm.
An argument surely presented is: the historical documentation on hand says the Romans diluted their wine.
The Jews were Roman citizens, but were not Romans. As much as they were allowed to, the Jews of the time (at least the observant ones) did not follow Roman custom. Jewish writings well after the time of the Christ, almost certainly written by Hellenized Jews, speak to diluting wine.
Two verses in Proverbs specifically say, "You need to get that dude so drunk he passes out." Other Proverbs discuss the problem with drinking alcohol to access.
Diluted wine? Certainly in some cases. Straight wine? Equally certain in other cases. How do we know which is which? Gotta judge that by the when that section of the Bible was written.
Me? I'm on the side of a brew strong enough to make the average person wobbly after a cup or three.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.