Mark and John: A Wedding at Cana—Whose and Where?
A version of “Mark and John: A Wedding at Cana—Whose and Where?” originally appeared on Dr. James Tabor’s popular Taborblog, a site that discusses and reports on “‘All things biblical’ from the Hebrew Bible to Early Christianity in the Roman World and Beyond.” Bible History Daily republished this article with permission from the author.
There is a very intriguing story, unique to the Gospel of John, about a wedding attended by Jesus and his disciples at the Galilean village of Cana (John 2:1–11). Within the Gospel of John the story functions in a theological and even allegorical manner—it is the “first” of seven signs, the “water into wine” story, but that is not to say it lacks any historical foundation.
The story is part of an earlier written narrative that scholars call the “Signs Source,” now embedded in the Gospel of John much like the Q source is embedded in Matthew and Luke. Many scholars consider the Signs Source to be our most primitive gospel narrative, earlier than, and independent from, the Gospel of Mark.
Most readers of John’s gospel concentrate on the long “red letter” speeches and dialogues of Jesus with the lofty language about him as the “Son” sent from heaven, in cosmic struggle with “the Jews” who are cast in a pejorative light. Such elements are apparently a much later theological overlay, as they are absent from this primitive narrative source.
The work, at least according to this “Signs Source,” was originally written to promote the simple affirmation that Jesus was the Messiah, the anointed King of the line of David, and to explain how his death was part of the plan of God. This narrative source is written in a completely different style from the later material now in John’s gospel. It moves along from scene to scene with vivid details and in gripping narrative flow.
The elements of the Cana story are fascinating. Jesus and his disciples, who have been down in the Jordan valley with John the Baptist, return to the area to join the wedding celebration. Jesus’ mother Mary (though unnamed in John) and his brothers are already there (2:12), so it seems to be some kind of “family affair.”
Indeed, Mary seems to be at some level officially involved in the celebration as a kind of co-hostess since she takes charge of things when the wine planned for the occasion, unexpectedly runs out, indicating either that the crowd was larger than expected or that things became quite festive, or both. Mary turns to Jesus and the rest of the story is well known to everyone—he miraculously turns six stone vessels, filled initially with water, into the finest wine.
But beyond the “miracle” or the “sign,” a number of other quite interesting questions arise.
First, one has to ask: Why would the lack of wine be a concern of Mary, Jesus’ mother?
And what do we know about Cana?
And most importantly, whose wedding was this and why were Jesus and his family present in the first place?
What do we know about Cana?
Let’s begin with Cana itself. What do we know about it?
Most tourists are taken to the traditional site of Cana (Kefr Kenna) near Nazareth on the road to Tiberias that the Franciscans maintain. The problem is that this location has no Roman-period ruins and most certainly is not the place mentioned in the New Testament. Its veneration began sometime in the Middle Ages.
An alternative site, Khirbet Qana, is 8 miles northwest of Nazareth and 12 miles west of the Sea of Galilee. It is high on a hill overlooking the Bet Netofa valley. This location has much more evidence in its favor.
My colleague and friend, the late Professor Doug Edwards, began excavating there in 1998, and Tom McCollough has carried on his work as time has allowed. What they have found seems fairly decisive, including Second Temple period tombs, houses and possibly a beth midrash or synagogue. Evidence of Christian veneration at this site dates back to the sixth century C.E.
Khirbet Qana
Right after the wedding, according to John 2:12, Jesus goes to Capernaum and with him are his disciples, but also his mother and his brothers. I think that implies the whole family, including the brothers (and thus the sisters) were not only at the wedding but are now traveling with him. They go to Capernaum, where he sets up a kind “residence” or operational HQ, according to the tradition that Mark has received (see Mark 2:1; 3:19; 9:33 and the references to the house and being “at home”).
Mark knows nothing of Cana but John mentions it again when Jesus returns from a trip to Judea, where he stirred up a considerable amount of trouble and needs some place to “lay low.” He and his disciples go back to Cana (John 4:46). Why go back there if the first visit was just for a wedding and had no connection to him? I think this is important in that it seems to become for Jesus a kind of “safe house” or place of operations when he needs to retreat to Galilee, much like Capernaum.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
There is definitely a “Jesus connection” to Cana, parallel to the one that Mark reports regarding Capernaum.
Peter Richardson of the University of Toronto has written a significant academic article on this point titled “What Has Cana to Do with Capernaum?” (New Testament Studies 48 (2002), pp. 314–331) that I highly recommend. He argues that the significant differences on geographical matters between the Synoptics with their sources and John with its sources—especially the question of Jesus’ “place”—should not be resolved simply in favor of Mark. Cana as a place in John is as significant as Capernaum in Mark. In fact, Richardson argues that Cana served as an operational base for Jesus according to the tradition that John reflects.
It is interesting to note that during the Jewish Revolt, Josephus, commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee, made Cana his strategic headquarters for a time (Life 86). Its prime location, overlooking Sepphoris and the cities of the Bet Netofa Valley, made it an ideal location. Also, Jewish tradition locates the priestly family of Eliashib, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 24:19 as one of the 24 orders of Cohanim or priest, as from Cana.
John indicates the connection in the last chapter of his gospel, where he says that the disciple Nathanael, mentioned only in the Gospel of John is from Cana in Galilee (21:2). Nathanael is mentioned earlier in the Gospel of John as an early follower or disciple, associated with Andrew of Bethsaida (1:45). He is most often identified as one of the Twelve, under his father’s name, Bar-Tholomew or “Bar Tolmai” in Aramaic, in Mark’s list of the disciples (Mark 3:18). I find this identification likely.
Given this background all we can do is speculate. I think we can assume that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is somehow involved in the wedding, and since we know Jesus and his disciples—as well as his brothers—are there, it is not a passing event but some kind of family affair. And since he returns to the place when things get heated for him and his disciples in Judea, it is a safe place for him, and one to which he is connected. So whose was the wedding? Or can we even make a wild guess?
Whose Wedding is it?
Many have suggested that the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus. I find this unlikely. Even though the account is very “allegorical” as it comes to us in John, and it is accordingly hard to derive historical material therefrom, the way in which Jesus shows up with his disciples, when his mother and brothers are already there, indicates to me that the wedding is of someone else.
Why is Mary Involved in Preparations?
My own guess would be that it is the wedding of either one of his brothers or sisters, since Mary is involved—not, as I read it, as the hostess, but as one concerned with the provisions for the wedding. Since the wedding is held in Cana, my guess is that it could very well be the wedding of one of Jesus’ brothers, perhaps James, to a sister or daughter of Nathanael, thus accounting for it being held in that village. Cana then becomes a place to which Jesus can return, and as with Capernaum, it served as a kind of “home” for him.
Regardless, I do think, as Richardson has argued, that we should take John’s references to geographical locations as rooted in some of the earliest traditions we have related to the life of Jesus–even predating Mark.
I have of late become persuaded that Jesus well might have been married, and this represents a change of mind for me that I have detailed in our book The Jesus Discovery. If such be the case, it seems impossible to tell whether he would have been married long before this point in his life, perhaps in his 20s, or whether he chose not to be married into his adult life, and only subsequently did so closer to the end.
Dr. James Tabor is Professor of Christian Origins and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Since earning his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1981, Tabor has combined his work on ancient texts with extensive field work in archaeology in Israel and Jordan, including work at Qumran, Sepphoris, Masada, Wadi el-Yabis in Jordan. Over the past decade he has teamed up with with Shimon Gibson to excavate the “John the Baptist” cave at Suba, the “Tomb of the Shroud” discovered in 2000, Mt Zion and, along with Rami Arav, he has been involved in the re-exploration of two tombs in East Talpiot including the controversial “Jesus tomb.”
Tabor is the author of the popular Taborblog, and several of his recent posts have been featured in Bible History Daily as well as the Huffington Post. His latest book, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, has become immediately popular with specialists and non-specialists alike.
You can find links to all of Dr. Tabor’s web pages, books, and projects at jamestabor.com.
This Bible History Daily article was first republished in Bible History Daily from James Tabor’s blog on November 16, 2015.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
Was Mary Magdalene Wife of Jesus? Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute?
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Editor: You may wish to correct the text in paragraph 5 — Prof. Edwards was Dr. Tabor’s ‘colleague’, not his ‘college’. Also, the last paragraph can be deleted as it is unrelated to the Wedding in Cana episode and serves only as a teaser for Dr. Tabor’s controversial 2012 book which offers a provocative hypothesis not argued or in any way supported in this piece. The essay would be stronger without it.
I think that James Tabor has come to the end of his career and began looking around for something new to say about Jesus.
‘Of late I have become persuaded’ ???
Well mate I will never be persuaded, Jesus came to Earth with a special job to do and I am so grateful he accepted that mission, because I would not be writing this reply.
The town of Cana wasn’t mentioned in the other Gospels, only in John, but Tabor claimed that this account of the wedding pre-dates the other Gospels and I’m inclined to believe that there’s even more to this story. Rather than serving as a mere backdrop to the miracle performed by Jesus, the town of Cana has a history just as this was a scene set at a particular historical stage in Jesus’ ministry that was unique to the Galilee region.
In an essay by Mark T. Schuler entitled “Recent Archaeology of Galilee and the Interpretation of Texts from the Galilean Ministry of Jesus,” the author Mordecai Aviam is quoted from his book, “Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee,” (p.56):
“The Hasmonians repopulated Galilee with Jewish inhabitants, among them Judeans, who probably brought with them knowledge of oil cultivation and the new technology of the mechanized oil press.”
So here we have the foundation of a Judean community at Khirbet Cana during the mid-2nd century B.C.E., along with the lucrative olive oil industry that through archaeological evidence forms the backdrop to the setting at Cana.
The gospels are in agreement that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22) but it is the account in John 1:32-34 that John the Baptist recieved the command from God to watch for the one upon whom the Spirit descends upon and remains, kind of like the dove that Noah sends out that returns with an olive branch, then doesn’t return, having found dry land (Genesis 8:10-12). This completes the unity of the gospel of John with the prologue (John 1:1-3) at the beginning of the Creation in which Genesis 1:2 states that “that Spirit of God was hovering (like a bird) over the waters.”
Why is the idea that Jesus was married so appalling?
Because it is not mentioned with scripture and contrary to His mission.
Christ came to do His Father’s will. He was only about God’s business. He was single-minded about it. A married man will be concerned about the affairs of this world – how he can please his wife.
Mr. Tabor, why don’t you come right out and say it, that you don’t believe in anything…nothing at all, but you are gaining too much attention, publicity, and money to quit. You in the past have basically said that Jesus was either a big liar, or very deluded; nothing special, just a curiosity of the first century who happened to strike a chord with people. If Jesus was nothing more than some deluded Jew, why do you even bother theorizing, or considering any information about His life? If your purpose is to entertain, you would be of much more benefit juggling, doing stand up comedy, or playing lively tunes on the comb and tissue paper.
I agree with Derek. Hogwash to the He was married bit.
I love to read the comments to Mr. Tabor’s articles. They are almost as funny as the articles themselves!
Whatever people might think about the historian Flavius Josephus, the fact remains that he was among the last of the priests before the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and true to his calling, he had ultimately fulfilled his duty to “safeguard knowledge” (Malachi 2:7). The culture from which Jesus was familiar with was established in the Galilee region by the victors of a rebellion led by a family of priests against tyrannical rule by gentiles who were percieved as barbarians in their attempt to eradicate Jewish customs that were based on the laws of purity. Whether we think pork is ritually unclean is not the issue, but it forms the backdrop to this portion of the gospel of John where every sentence is loaded with information, some of which was lost for nearly two millennium.
I appreciate the efforts of Tabor and others to dig deeper into what what was known by the Jewish Christians at this early stage, since we tend to forget that Jesus was 100% Jewish, and that he also subscribed to the notion of a universal faith that arises from the Hashmonian era in which God “saved his whole people, confening on all the heritage, kingdom, priesthood and sanctification as he promised through the Law…” (2 Maccabees 2:17), and “made us a line of kings, priests to serve his God and Father…” (Revelation 1:6), which became available to through God’s son to the gentiles.
I don’t know if Jesus was married or not, but that was normal human behavior then as now. If he was fully human, and wanted people to listen to his message, he would have followed the customs of his time. The Christian scriptures don’t say he went to the bathroom either, but they say he ate, so do you deny that, also?
And the Gospels may have originally spoken of it, but were later scrubbed clean by a church that couldn’t accept that as part of its doctrine.