Talk:Wedding at Cana

Question

Does the bible say the groom was a friend of Jesus's? 132.241.246.111 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. I recommend everyone interested reading Johns Gospels. They are most revealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.153.138 (talk • contribs)

"Most revealing"? In the sense that they are the only canonical source for this event, that is correct, but they are still rather laconic and concerned primarily with presenting Jesus as sign-giver, not all the historical details we might wonder about. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History says the bride was Jesus sister(daughter of Mary) is it correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.91.205 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many traditions, but absolutely no evidence, as to who the parties might have been. The most frequent suggestion is that the bride was Mary Magdalene, with the bridegroom being variously proposed as Simon Zelotes, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself. The simplest Google search will find an infinite amount of speculation on this on the internet, but there is absolutely no warrant for any of it in the text of John, and absolutely no independent source that says anything about this event; so it is all basically idle. All we know is that (i) John asserts there was a wedding, (ii) events reported in John are frequently not reported anywhere else, and (iii) John reports events which support the literary and theological structure of his gospel as a book of signs. Everything else is interpretation, some of it sensible, some of it not. seglea (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Lost jars of Cana

A link to Lost jars of Cana was just removed from this article with the comment "pov fork." I'm no expert, but don't see a POV problem (would appreciate a discussion of that). In fact, the two articles seem to overlap to a considerable extent and should probably be one. Thoughts? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not even know the lost article existed. Some material seems to need to get merged into here, but who invented the term "lost jars"? No reference for it. I say merge. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a fork without a pov. But definitely a fork - the Jars material could easily be covered in this article. PiCo (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes by all means combine them. The first thing that I thought when I looked at the Lost Jars article was, "Why is this a separate article"? Apollo (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus' mother?

Her name is Mary. Why are we not calling her by her name in this article? He didn't have more than one mother and though the bible might not call her by her name in this section we sure as heck can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it as is. It's slightly less ambiguous (since there are several Mary's but only one mother of Jesus), it's how John wrote it, and there's no reason to change it.Apollo (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 9 people called Mary in the New Testament. This is less ambiguous. 1.126.106.119 (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Time, Wine and the Universe

Within a period of a few minutes or less, Jesus Christ was able to create wine with the attributes of the best wines that are aged for many years. The Wikipedia article on wine asserts that the most collectible or most valuable wines have a "drinking window plateau (i.e., the period for maturity and approachability) that is many years long" - retrieved 2011.02.03. In other words, the best wines require years to mature and become the best that they can be. In a very brief time during the wedding at Cana, Jesus Christ was able to produce wine that had the attributes of the best wines and that appeared to the senses to be many years old. On a grander scale, one may assert that in a very brief period of time (such as the Six Days of Creation of Genesis 1), Almighty God was able to create a universe that appeared to be much older (13+ billion years) than it was. Light from the most distant objects in the universe appear to be 13+ billion light-years away. Visible light from those most distant objects appears to be 13+ billion years old. See Age of the universe. See also Hebrews 11:3. 67.91.50.108 (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

^ why drinking copious amounts of wine dosed with LSD might not be the wisest of plans. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe?

There is a long mention of Don Joyce now, but I see it as pure WP:Fringe, given that Joyce's work was called a "preposterous pseudo-study" by time Mag. I suggest it should be removed.

And I also see Cresswell as a tangential writer, and far less than notable or mainstream on this topic, given that he is not a biblical scholar, etc. History2007 (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious articles often do not deal with verifiable facts but with critical analysis of texts; this one is no exception. So the question is whether any published analysis deserves to be included. I would argue that the criteria should exclusively be merit. Going with the majority view can be a problem given that the vast majority of stuff, not just articles in wikipedia, in this field has been written by Christian academics/apologists/evangelists. Not suprising. But it does mean that much material may be written from a faith-based as opposed to a logic-based perspective. And there is likely very often to be a lack of balance.

Non-believers are likely not to have been so motivated to do and publish the research. So there is likely to be relatively less of it. And it is not going to be quoted by the faith-based community, so there will be fewer quotes of it. As I say, the only safe way to examine any particular contribution and reference is on merit.

As far as Donovan Joyce is concerned, it can be agreed that his is a popular work and sensational "and" that he almost certainly invented the whole saga of the "fifteenth" scroll as a hook by which to publicise his book. And that other elements, such as the suggested link between the Jesus movement and the Hasmoneans, do not stand up.

However, the argument that the marriage at cana was Jesus' own wedding is backed by a lot of direct and indirect evidence in and out of the texts. It has as much merit as the case that the marriage that Jesus "came out" from his seclusion to engage in was just a random event in Galilee, key elements of which - eg the names of the bride and bridegroom - happen to have been lost, with the associations with Jesus and his family as major players coincidental. Therefore it needs to be included for balance.

As to Cresswell's explanation for the "O woman, what have you to do with me" phrase, I agree it is not central to the article. But it does offer a resolution for what is otherwise a very discordant comment. If there is a better explanation, perhaps someone can help out by locating it and adding a reference to it.

If anyone can make a reasoned case here that (a) the article had balance as it was and that (b) the added explanation has substantially less merit, then I will of course agree to withdraw or modify my additions.

Until that is done, however, I will restore the changes. That is because they do give additional information, do provide an alternative supported case and do thus provide balance. Appeals to a presumed majority view (see comment above) will not be sufficient.

Apologies by the way for any inadvertent mistakes I make in using this technology.

Amanata caesarea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanita caesarea (talk • contribs) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of mistakes in technology, you edits are simply against "Wikipedia policy". Take it from me, running against policy will only buy you ONE THING: wasted time. In the end, after all the talk, policy will win against whatever logic you assemble in your own mind. The facts are:

• Your references are NOT WP:RS. Hence can not be used. Your statement that the book is sensational and non-shcolarly, indicates that.

• Another editor (a 3rd editor) already stated that your references are not WP:RS when he deleted your text. So the non-WP:RS issue is clear and is not even being discussed here.

• When multiple editors object to your edit you MUST NOT revert, but must discuss or follow other dispute resolution paths.

You can state your opinion again and again, but policy wins. I have also noticed that you are adding the same unreliable references elsewhere on Wikipedia and are getting reverted. Does that say something? Stop adding unreliable facts now. You are editing against policy and I will issue warning on your talk page now. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanata, I've also reverted you. Please don't replace it unless you can get a consensus to replace it, see WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I agree not to restore Joyce, or the reference to 'O Woman' comment which, though interesting, is not at all central.

The article on Mary Magdalene makes reference to the argument (under 'Relationship with Jesus') and there are many authors quoted including Joyce, Dan Brown and Starbird, some of whom in turn refer to the Marriage at Cana, for evidence to support their arguments. It would therefore be odd to have nothing in the article on Marriage at Cana itself; the article is a bit thin without it.

I therefore suggest a very limited addition, as follows:

Several writers have pointed out that, in being responsible for the wine, Jesus’ mother was acting as parent of the bridegroom and that, in resolving the issue, Jesus appeared to have been the bridegroom (ref).

I think the ref should be to Cresswell pp 173-77 but am open to suggestions. He at least avoids all the unsubstantiated stuff about royal blood lines, exile in France and so forth.

It might also be useful (next par but one) to have a reference across to the article on Dionysos:

One point of the story may have been to assert Jesus’ superiority over Dionysos, god of wine making and wine.(ref)

Suggested reference Peter Wick (2004) Amanita caesarea (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you have not provided any solid WP:RS sources, or general scholarly agreement, and the material seems like a rehash of the same as before, in a different package. History2007 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the the purpose of the Miracle

What is the significance of this story about a wedding and wine? The purpose may be to learn that Jesus will obey his mother (the fourth commandment to respect one's parents) and that one may gain the ear of Jesus by addressing his mother (the Blessed Virgin). Thus, prayers to the mother of Jesus are a valid path towards intervention by the divine powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.239.32 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is also that Jesus answers/ responds to man. Ask/receive. I ask here for forgiveness upon the story. To fill me and soften my heart. Jesus starts his work? 2600:8804:4E09:2A00:34DC:603C:1EDE:6CDA (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Mormon Doctrine

I find it curious that almost half the first section of this article (and the majority of the sources attached to it) is dedicated towards promulgating a false claim about Mormon doctrine. Clearly this is a violation of standards for POV, since it provides only a partial truth that is obviously designed to make readers believe something that is contrary to fact. I have added another source and additional information to hopefully remedy this; I will try to find more to continue fix the problem.--Antodav2007 (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The way it happened is in the edit-history: some editor added that and hence the rebuttal had to go in to balance it. It is probably too long - or maybe the rest of the article is too short? But overall it all needs to be there, including your addition, else someone will add the whole thing again in 9 months. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Early Latter Day Saint (Mormon) views

How notable is this information/section? Not only does it seem somewhat out of the place to the rest of the page, but it reads like "Some voice in the wilderness proposed this and NO ONE agrees with it" so I'm wondering how notable or important the whole issue is. Obviously someone spent alot of time on it since there are mult ref's, but I propose deleting the entire section as WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wedding vs Marriage

A wedding is an event where two people get married; marriage is the union that results from a wedding.

One cannot attend a marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.176.103.110 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wedding at Cana" seems definitely much more common than "Marriage at Cana", but surprisingly enough there are cases where 'marriage' is also used by serious institutions (see for instance one "The Marriage at Cana" each for the US and UK National Galleries of Art). There are several cases where it's called "marriage feast at Cana". I would still prefer the article to be called "Wedding at Cana", like most people (and reliable sources) would and do call it. The Wiki rules clearly are in favour of the most common name, and there is no doubt that 'wedding' beats 'marriage' and 'marriage feast' by a huge margin. So, move it? The Veronese painting has a "The" to differentiate it from this article, that's not a problem. Arminden (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Came here to say this. It's very odd that the article title is "Marriage at Cana" when in the very first sentence we say that "Wedding at Cana" is the more common description of the event. --Jfruh (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ain Qana: unsourced and outside Galilee - who brought it up?

I have removed the unsourced and geographically unsuitable village of Ain Qana. While it is indeed in "Southern Lebanon", it lays north of the Litani River, which puts it outside historical Galilee. Hardly a candidate for "Cana in Galilee".

I removed it from the list, but not (yet) from the highlighted places on the map, as it still helps to illustrate how common the name is, i.e. the "dozen towns" by the name of Kanna/Qana mentioned by J. Murphy O'Connor.

Who even brought it up? A local patriot? Please, not without a source. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand the answer is: VanishedUserABC! Who really did vanish in 2013. He wrote much of the initial material, and this "Spring of Qana" came up here, in 2011. He mentioned it as "Ain Kana, Israel", right before "Qana, Lebanon", showing that he clearly knew the distinction between K and Q. I think Doug Weller corrected the spelling to Ain Qana, then somebody corrected the location to Lebanon, then came the specification Southern Lebanon, and so "Ain Kana, Israel" became "Ain Qana, Southern Lebanon", with two clear wikilinks, both wrong. Because this really is another Cana from the dozen mentioned by Murphy-O'Connor, which indeed is in Israeli Galilee, not in the Lebanese Galilee, and certainly not even further north of that. As our vanished colleague wrote, "Ain Kana, which is closer to Nazareth and considered by some to be a better candidate on etymological grounds" fits perfectly with a spring mentioned by Conder, at Reineh. Still, I won't put this 'Ain Kana back in, since it seems to have been dropped from the list of candidates since Conder's time - see the comments by Laney (1977), a source offered by Vanished and certainly where he got it from in the first place.

I'll now remove the far-too-northern Ain Qana also from the map. Arminden (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Stone jars

Somebody has taken out the entire paragraph about the stone jars sometime between 2011 and 2021. I've rewritten it a bit and put it back in, using the original material. If "Wine or beer" is a topic, then the jars, which come up every time smb. supports a particular site as the authentic one, is definitely a relevant topic. In Kafr Kanna, both the Greek Orthodox church and the Catholic one have one or more, both letting to some degree the worshippers believe that theirs are the authentic ones, although they should know better. The same happens in the Greek Catholic church in Qana. Khirbet Kana isn't inhabited, nor has it a church, but archaeologists have also presented stone vessel sherds as proof for... whatever, since they're not supposed to work for the Church. The jars are a great magnet for pilgrims, with spiritual as well as major commercial implications at each one of the sites. Shimon Gibson, a major pursuer on the quest for "authentic" biblical sites (I'm sure that he'll be the one to discover Jesus' own shampoo bottle and John's moth-proof bag for fur garments, no doubt about it), but a real expert too, put them nicely in their right place: chalk stone vessels have become a banal and ubiquitous marker for Jewish settlements in the halakhically defined Land of Israel between the 1st c. BCE and the 1st c. CE. Only there, never before and hardly ever after that. Within those geographical and time limits, finding sites go into their thousands - see for instance Jodi Magness's 2017 article for more detail and analysis. But Cana and the jars go together like, well, love and marriage, for academic & theological reference see Al & Peg Bundy. So we do need the topic in the article. Humming along, yours Arminden (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

2600:1702:528B:3310:83C:66FF:FE04:42F4 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 19 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per original request. Regarding the painting, it should be a separate discussion. Two possible targets have been proposed, and the renaming has not been properly advertised. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Marriage at Cana → Wedding at Cana – The most common name for this episode/miracle is "the Wedding at Cana". Wedding at Cana redirects here but it would require a technical move. The similar The Wedding at Cana might be moved to The Wedding Feast at Cana which appears to be the name it is referred to in most sources cited in the article. Hazhk (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support re: my comments above. We say in the very first sentence that "Wedding at Cana" is the more common phrase, and that should be the title of the article. --Jfruh (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I'd also vote to move The Wedding at Cana to The Wedding at Cana (Veronese), I don't see it as unambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support WP:COMMONNAME Signed, IAmChaos 01:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title is the common name. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name. And move the painting as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wedding at canna short answers

Lucy voice 2407:C00:6006:56AD:1:0:1D7C:50FE (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

When is the feast day?

• Catholic feast day
• Orthodox feast day (Gregorian calendar)
• Orthodox feast day (Julian calendar)

The Orthodox feast day might be on the 3rd Sunday after Epiphany. Must be found out. Arminden (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A section has been added for the feast date. You can now add your information to it. 1.126.106.119 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)