0

Biblehub contains various translations of John 2:10. For example, in https://biblehub.com/john/2-10.htm. Some translations use phrases like:

  • too much to drink
  • a lot to drink
  • drunk freely
  • are drunk
  • have drunk freely
  • have well drunk
  • had plenty
  • have well drunk

Do all those phrases mean the same thing? If not, what are the differences? And which of those phrases mean inebriated?

In English the past participle of "drink" is the same word that means intoxicated by alcohol i.e. "drunk"

Do phrases such as "too much to drink", "a lot to drink", "drunk freely" share the same meaning?

I am not the only one that's confused, see the usage notes at Merriam-Webster: “The Unsteadiness of 'Drank' and 'Drunk'”

Background

I've been told that the translation part from Koine Greek may not be on topic of this site. So this is just background info. And if you can answer that too it'd be great.

The original Koine Greek verse contains the Greek verb μεθυσθῶσιν, which means "to get intoxicated by alcohol." I am not 100% sure. However, users on our sister site for Biblical Hermeneutics say that this most likely meant being inebriated. See for example here.

It has root words of methio which means inebriated. This dictionary translation appears to confirm it.

μεθύω - I am intoxicated with wine, am drunk

Most of the English translations appear to disagree.

So whether the translations are good translations, or biased ones, is the motive of this question. However, the question itself is just whether the phrases mean the same thing and whether the meaning is inebriated.

1
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – tchrist
    Jul 21 at 0:34
3

too much to drink
a lot to drink
drunk freely
are drunk
have drunk freely
have well drunk
had plenty
have well drunk

Do all those phrases mean the same thing? If not, what are the differences? And which of those phrases mean inebriated?

Are drunk is certainly direct. While the other phrases don't say "they're drunk" quite so directly, they are euphemisms which can be taken to mean much the same thing.

1
  • While it is true that all these phrases can function as euphemisms for being drunk, not all of them have to be interpreted that way. Scenarios are possible in which somebody who can 'hold his liquor' can be said to have drunk freely and yet not be drunk.
    – jsw29
    Jun 14 at 15:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.