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!
I also used to think it was the marriage of Jesus and Mary of Bethany, aka Mary Magdalene. But then I remembered that when Jesus was baptized he “began to be about thirty years of age.” When I thought it over I realized Jewish boys became men at about 14 years of age. If Jesus got married, it would have been when he was about 15. If he had a son when he was 16 his son, would be about 14 or 15 when Jesus was 30. So I think the bridegroom was Jesus the son of Jesus, or as we read in old copies of Matthew, Jesus Barabbas.
If John had thought that Jesus were married, he would have written the encounter with the Smartian woman differently. As John 4 stands, it’s a play on the Hebrew Scriptures’ type scene of a Jewish bachelor traveling to a foreign land and meeting a woman who will be his wife at a well (Isaac by proxy, Jacob, Moses, and, abortively, Saul).
The existence of a so-called Signs Source is hypothetical. We don’t actually have this (alleged) document. According to James Tabor, a lot of John’s Gospel is theological overlay that came much later. We can’t say that. Even if the Signs Source existed, it would not prove that the theological ideas which we find in the rest of John’s Gospel had not already developed or that Jesus did not say what the Gospel records him as saying. How could it? The Signs Source would not itself be a Gospel, much less an exhaustive account of everything that Jesus said or everything people believed about him at the time.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of “reasoning” that is all too common among liberal scholars. They draw the most widesweeping conclusions from the most tenuous of evidence. Furthermore, it is motivated by an obvious agenda. Tabor does believe what all the early sources tell us about Jesus. He rejects what Paul says and tries to peel away layers of the Gospels until he is left with something that he finds more agreeable. What this really amounts to is that Tabor has invented his own version of Jesus. There is not the slightest epistemological justification for this.
It would have been interesting to consider the Lebanon Cana. Which geographically and archaeologically gives a more fitting setting than both Canas that were mentioned. There is a very interesting study made by Antoine Khoury Harb in his book The Roots of Christianity in Lebanon.
This is interesting. Would the Lebanon Cana fit the same description of Cana in Galilee?
Could the presence of Jesus and his disciples at the wedding at Cana suggest a deeper connection between Jesus and the bride or groom, potentially hinting at a more personal relationship or even a familial tie that has been overlooked in biblical interpretations?
Was this wedding a strategic opportunity for Jesus to perform his first public miracle and reveal his divine nature, or was there a deeper connection between the hosts and Jesus’ family that prompted their attendance?
Tabor has some interesting ‘what ifs’ concerning the wedding being a family affair. That would have been a reason Mary got involved. It could also have been that Mary wanted Jesus to show off His powers. But that cannot be the case as this was His first miracle. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Mary knew Jesus had miraculous powers at this time. She only knew what the angel told her at her conception. Jesus would be anointed by God and become King of Israel. If it was one of Jesus brothers, the wedding would have been held in Nazareth the home of the groom. Since it was in Cana, it was perhaps a sister.
However, Tabor comes off the tracks saying that it was Jesus’ wedding. First, it would have been held in Nazareth. Second, the wine would have never run out. Third, Jesus would not have gently rebuked His mother that the shortage was not his business. Fifth, NONE of the gospels listed Jesus as married? If Jesus was married, it not have to be a secret as Rabbis were expected to be married in their late teens or early twenties. However, a Jewish male could not be recognized as a Rabbi until the age of thirty. So, Jesus is unmarried, now starting His ministry that He knew would end in His execution and He gets married. As they say in Jersey, “You kidding me?” That’s beyond unbelievable!
Tabor’s guess that Jesus was ever married is sadly something professors are forced to do all the time. They have to regularly publish as part if their tenure contract. So they are forced to come up with a novel idea to catch the publics attention then write a ‘what if’ concoction. A truth wrapped up in a lot of nonsense. This only confuses people. It is so very wrong to do it at the expense of Jesus and as a way to get notoriety and make some extra money.
So lets get this straight, Jesus, THE Jesus who said He was born to be a self sacrifice. Knowing He would be crucified, knowing Rome would, for a time, persecuted His followers. Knowing He would constantly be on the move during His ministry for forty months. This Jesus would add to His myriad of duties, to get married? Why! Would He ever be home? Would He ever be with His children. Would he knowingly put His wife and family into peril for their lives? What an insipid idea.
Oh! And there is that tiny issue of His being born without sin. Because the sin curse was on Adam a male, the sin curse is passed on to all children from their father. BUT, in Jesus’ case, He was born without sin as God cause His inception by way of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus did not carry the sin curse. Therefore, any children He created would be born without sin. And we know this was an impossibility because God proclaimed Jesus as HIs ‘only’ begotten biological sin free Son. No room for another.
For all these reasons and more, Jesus was definitely not married. Mary simply asked her first born son to help with a wine shortage. She assumed He would put together the money necessary to buy more wine. She told the servants to do what He told them. Meaning, He gives them the money and they go buy more wine. Jesus had been preaching before this time, people did donate money to help support His ministry, and He did have a treasury purse. So, Jesus had some money at His discretion. But He would not use it to but more wine for a party. Inappropriate.
However, it did not hurt that He performed a miracle. He did this for three reasons. First the Holy Spirt moved Him to do it. Second, if the wedding was a family affair, it lifted the pall of a wedding celebration that ran out of wine. And last but not least, the Pharisee would years later question Jesus’ birth legitimacy. His miracle lifted that social burden off of Mary.
Jesus as the Word of God, in a Christophany, performed the first marriage in the Garden of Eden. It seems only right that He would perform His first miracle at yet another wedding. Write a book on that James.