Talk:Marriage at Cana
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marriage at Cana article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Christianity / Jesus||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Does the bible say the groom was a friend of Jesus's? 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
- 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)
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)
- 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
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.