A discussion of the wedding at Cana
I always thought the Wedding at Cana a very odd miracle. The story of Jesus’ first miracle appears only in the Gospel of John and is apparently unknown to Mark, who was very keen on miracles. It recounts Jesus attending a wedding in Cana of Galilee with his mother and disciples. When the wine runs out Mary intercedes, Jesus has servants fill six large stone jars of the sort used for Jewish purification rites with water and it becomes superior wine. I mean Jesus was supposed to use his miraculous powers to heal the sick and drive out demons, not provide free booze for a party. I had this vision of the interaction between Mary and Jesus going something like this:
Mary: Jesus, the wine’s running out, get us some more.
Jesus: It’s not my job. I’m not a miracle worker.
Mary: Call yourself the son of God and you can’t do a simple thing like getting us some more wine.
Jesus: All right, all right, but I’m going to need some holy water.
So whose wedding is it, and why does Mary seem to be responsible for the wine? Mary’s role is important, even if the text does not explicitly say she held formal responsibility for the provisions. In a first-century Jewish wedding which often lasted several days, running out of wine would have been a serious social embarrassment for the hosts and their families. Mary notices the problem first and approaches Jesus. Her instruction to the servants (“Do whatever he tells you”) seems to indicate that she has some authority over the servants and has confidence that Jesus can and will act. Some commentators propose that it could have been the wedding of one of Jesus’ brothers such as James, or a sister, or another family member. Mary’s involvement in noticing the shortage and intervening is sometimes read as consistent with a family connection or responsibility for hospitality. Others have suggested a relative of Mary’s was being married, which would explain her concern about potential embarrassment for the hosts. These remain conjectures rather than established scholarly conclusions as the text itself does not specify
I
But in reality it wasn’t anybody’s wedding because the story is an invention. Most critical scholars today do not accept the traditional attribution of the Gospel of John to the Apostle John. Instead, they see it as the product of a later writer or circle within a Johannine tradition or community, dating to roughly 90–100 CE in Ephesus or modern day Turkey. So scholars now believe the wedding at Cana isn’t a description of a real event in the life of Jesus, rather it is essentially a creation of the the Johannine school/circle drawing on traditional themes. While a place called Cana existed and Jesus could have attended weddings, the miracle itself has no plausible historical basis. It may have originated in a pre-Johannine “Signs Source”, a collection of miracle stories emphasizing Jesus’ signs. The numbering of this as the “first” sign was long seen as evidence. However this source hypothesis is now doubted by most scholars.
So why did the writers of John create this as the first miracle of Jesus and the first sign of his divinity. The imagery of the wedding draws on God’s covenant with Israel and the messianic abundance of wine and feasting contrasts with purification rites or the Law (symbolised by the water jars) with the new era of grace. Similarities to Dionysus legends of wine miracles have been proposed, especially given Dionysiac cults in the region, most scholars nowadays reject or downplay direct dependence as unnecessary or improbable given the Jewish-Christian audience and setting. The story fits John’s theological programme of “signs” that reveal Jesus’ identity and fate, with distinctive language (e.g., “hour,” “Woman” address to Mary, manifestation of glory).
In John’s Gospel, this is explicitly “the first of his signs” by which Jesus “manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him”. It discloses Jesus as the divine Son who brings the messianic age The “hour” motif points forward to the cross and exaltation. The transformation of purification water into abundant, superior wine symbolizes the shift from the Law/ritual to grace and joy.
So in summary the changing of water into wine is the first sign that Jesus has come to replace the old order of the Mosaic law with its rituals and rules by a new order of messianic abundance.
Mary: Jesus, the wine’s running out, get us some more.
Jesus: It’s not my job. I’m not a miracle worker.
Mary: Call yourself the son of God and you can’t do a simple thing like getting us some more wine.
Jesus: All right, all right, but I’m going to need some holy water.
So whose wedding is it, and why does Mary seem to be responsible for the wine? Mary’s role is important, even if the text does not explicitly say she held formal responsibility for the provisions. In a first-century Jewish wedding which often lasted several days, running out of wine would have been a serious social embarrassment for the hosts and their families. Mary notices the problem first and approaches Jesus. Her instruction to the servants (“Do whatever he tells you”) seems to indicate that she has some authority over the servants and has confidence that Jesus can and will act. Some commentators propose that it could have been the wedding of one of Jesus’ brothers such as James, or a sister, or another family member. Mary’s involvement in noticing the shortage and intervening is sometimes read as consistent with a family connection or responsibility for hospitality. Others have suggested a relative of Mary’s was being married, which would explain her concern about potential embarrassment for the hosts. These remain conjectures rather than established scholarly conclusions as the text itself does not specify
I
But in reality it wasn’t anybody’s wedding because the story is an invention. Most critical scholars today do not accept the traditional attribution of the Gospel of John to the Apostle John. Instead, they see it as the product of a later writer or circle within a Johannine tradition or community, dating to roughly 90–100 CE in Ephesus or modern day Turkey. So scholars now believe the wedding at Cana isn’t a description of a real event in the life of Jesus, rather it is essentially a creation of the the Johannine school/circle drawing on traditional themes. While a place called Cana existed and Jesus could have attended weddings, the miracle itself has no plausible historical basis. It may have originated in a pre-Johannine “Signs Source”, a collection of miracle stories emphasizing Jesus’ signs. The numbering of this as the “first” sign was long seen as evidence. However this source hypothesis is now doubted by most scholars.
So why did the writers of John create this as the first miracle of Jesus and the first sign of his divinity. The imagery of the wedding draws on God’s covenant with Israel and the messianic abundance of wine and feasting contrasts with purification rites or the Law (symbolised by the water jars) with the new era of grace. Similarities to Dionysus legends of wine miracles have been proposed, especially given Dionysiac cults in the region, most scholars nowadays reject or downplay direct dependence as unnecessary or improbable given the Jewish-Christian audience and setting. The story fits John’s theological programme of “signs” that reveal Jesus’ identity and fate, with distinctive language (e.g., “hour,” “Woman” address to Mary, manifestation of glory).
In John’s Gospel, this is explicitly “the first of his signs” by which Jesus “manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him”. It discloses Jesus as the divine Son who brings the messianic age The “hour” motif points forward to the cross and exaltation. The transformation of purification water into abundant, superior wine symbolizes the shift from the Law/ritual to grace and joy.
So in summary the changing of water into wine is the first sign that Jesus has come to replace the old order of the Mosaic law with its rituals and rules by a new order of messianic abundance.
56-60, M
