In his last encyclical letter entitled "Redemptoris Mater" number 21, Pope John Paul II has given us a rich explanation of the significance of Mary's presence at the wedding feast of Cana as related in Jn 2:1-12. In the middle of his meditation on this intriguing episode, the Pope asks himself: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?". The Pope answers these questions saying: "The fact speaks for itself", and then in a very articulate manner he goes on to show that the Cana event reveals the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood once Jesus begins his public ministry. This new kind of motherhood is concretely manifested in a. Mary's bringing man's needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power; b. Mary's wishing the messianic power of her Son to be manifested; c. Mary's presenting herself as the spokeswoman of her Son's will. Finally, the Pope concludes saying: "At Cana Mary appears as believing in Jesus. Her faith evokes his first 'sign' and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples."

It is said of St. Thomas Aquinas that in writing the Summa Theologiae, in the body of the article he usually presents first the reasons of other thinkers with whom he feels he can agree and only at the end does he present his own position, the one which he thinks is decisive for the resolution of the problem in hand. I don't know whether Pope John Paul followed the same method in writing his encyclical. Anyhow, it seems to me that the two sentences with which he concludes article 21 are decisive for the understanding of Mary's person and role as envisaged by Jn 2:1-12.

Michel Gourgues's article "Mary. the 'woman' and the 'mother' in John", which I have just translated, in my opinion is an excellent exegetical demonstration of the validity of John Paul's concluding analysis of Mary's role in the Cana event. The original article having been written in French, and so being only relatively accessible to interested readers here in the Far East, I think I have done a useful thing in translating it into English and having it translated into Chinese. It seems to me that the strength of this article lies in the way the author uses the total context of John's Gospel to throw light on the meaning of particular passages. This is an exegetical method which is highly recommendable and easy to use. It only requires a deep familiarity with the text of the whole Gospel. This familiarity is available to anyone who finds it worthwhile to spend some time in reading and re-reading the Gospel.

In this article, however, there are a few points which. I believe, could be improved upon. One point has to do with the structure of the Cana narrative. Another point has to do with the analysis of Mary's expectation as expressed in her sober observation: "They have no wine". After reading the encyclical letter "Redemptoris Mater" I feel that the latter point calls for further consideration. It is especially these insights inspired by the encyclical that I would like to share with the readers.

I. THE STRUCTURE OF JOHN 2:1-12

Michel Gourgues has made a valuable contribution to the study of the structure of the Cana pericope by detecting the thematic correspondence between w.3-5 and 6-11. However, in his article this correspondence is based mainly on considerations of thematic content, without the support of the more decisive linguistic indications. While making an effort to provide support for Gourgues' interesting suggestion, I think I have found a better way to account for the structure of Jn 2:1-12, which at the same time strengthens Gourgues' basic contention that v. 11 is crucial for the interpretation of w.3-5. I shall present the structure that I have found, proceeding in steps:

1. The inclusion formed by vv.l-2 and 12

Gourgues' structure omits v.12. However, there are dense correspondences between vv.l-2 and 12: "the mother of Jesus" (v.1) = "his mother" (v.12): "his disciples" (v.2) = "his disciples" (v.12): "on the third day" (v.1) = "for a few days" (v.12); cf. also the geographical data in v.1 ("at Cana in Galilee") and in v.12 ("down to Capernaum"), which correspond to each other by a relationship of opposition.

These vocabulary correspondences require that v.12 be included in the structure of the Cana pericope as its proper conclusion. Together with vv.l-2 it constitutes a fine spatio-temporal inclusion. We know that the phenomenon of "inclusion" is typical of chiastic structures. These structures, in turn, are typical of narratives that have had a pre-history of oral transmission. Many, if not most. biblical narratives are structured chiastically.

2. Also a theological introduction-conclusion

Vv. 1-2 and 12 fulfil the function of introduction and conclusion of the Cana pericope. However, they are not the only introduction and conclusion. V.11 has also a strong conclusive character. So much so that Gourgues takes it to be the only conclusion of the Cana narrative. The fact is that vv.l-2 and 12 act as spatio-temporal introduction-conclusion, as we have seen. V.11, instead, is clearly a theological conclusion. We are led to ask, then, whether, besides a theological conclusion, there is not also a theological introduction. I think we should answer this question in the affirmative: vv.3-5 are such a theological introduction.

Are there any vocabulary indications of such a theological introduction-conclusion? I think there are. For example, notice how in vv-3-5 the mother of Jesus is mentioned twice. This double mention sets vv.3-5 closer to the spatio-temporal introduction (vv.1-2) and conclusion (v.12), where she is also mentioned, than to the body of the narrative, where Mary does not appear. Similarly, the mention of "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" in v.11 places this verse also closer to the spatio-temporal introduction, where "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" are also mentioned, as well as to the spatio-temporal conclusion where "his disciples" are mentioned again.

One more thing to be noticed, however, is that there is not any verbal correspondence between vv.3-5 and v.11 themselves, i.e. between the theological introduction and the theological conclusion. This is a curious phenomenon, which nevertheless is not uncommon in chiastic structures. It is the phenomenon I like to call "a chiasm within a chiasm."

This needs a few words of explanation. Perhaps the best way to explain is to diagram the relationship between vv.1-2, 3-5. 11 and 12. First, let us draw these relationships as they result for the order of succession of these verses in the narrative, thus:　

The resulting "X" figure is the reason why this kind of relationship between parts of a narrative is called "chiasm" (i.e. crosswise effect). If, instead, we draw the relationships holding among these verses on the basis of the vocabulary correspondences, we obtain a diagram which reveals a non-chiastic, non-inverted effect:

Now. this change from chiasmic to non-chiasmic in the vocabulary correspondences produces the effect of a "chiasm within a chiasm" This will be evident if we combine the two diagrams above, thus:

This doubly chiasmic phenomenon locks these introductory and concluding verses in an indissoluble whole. Together they provide the Cana narrative with a spatio-temporal-theological introduction and conclusion.

Are there other examples of this phenomenon in the NT? Of two examples I know, one occurs in John's Gospel chapter 5. It is now recognized that the first part of Jesus' speech (Jn 5:19-30) is chiastically structured.(1) In this chiastic structure, vv.21 and 26 (parallel vocabulary and theme: Judgment) appear in an inverted order, thus constituting a chiasm within a chiasm. The second example is found in the Letter to the Hebrews, which is increasingly recognized as having been written according to a wonderfully consistent chiasmic structure. Within this structure, the corresponding sections 3:1-4: 14 and 11:1-40 (theme: Jesus the trustworthy high priest demands our trust), and 4:15-5:10 and 12:1-13 (theme: Jesus the high priest who shares our sufferings demands our endurance in suffering) appear in inverted order, thus, again, constituting a chiasm within a chiasm.

These other examples strengthen our conclusion that in the Cana pericope vv.3-5 and 11 are strictly connected with the introduction in vv.1-2 and the conclusion in v.12. This connection is not one of repetition, but rather one of theological reflection and explicitation. In vv.1-2 and 12 the time. the place and the "dramatis personae" of the event are presented. In vv.3-5 and 11 the deep significance of the mutual interaction of these persons at this time and in this place in highlighted. At the centre of this mutual interaction stand Jesus, his mother and the disciples.

3. The correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11

Now we have to look more closely at the relationship between vv.3-5 and v.11. In both cases there are three affirmations being made. This fact is obscured in Gourgues's structure, since he lumps together the first two parts of v.11 under one single heading: "Christological Revelation". He thus distinguishes only two parts in v.11, namely 11a and 11b. In reality v.11 contains three parts, to be thus labelled:

11a (= Gourgues' 11a, first part)

11b (= Gourgues' 11a second part)

11c (= Gourgues' 11b)

My contention is that v.11a should be dealt with on its own, and not together with the following, even if it is true that v.11b explicitates the meaning of the term "sign" used in 11a. In fact, 11a, the first part of v.11, acts as a short recapitulation of the preceding narrative in vv.6-10. As such. it represents everything that has been said in vv.6-10. Hence, it should belong to the first section of Gourgues' structure ("Transformed Situation") and not to the second ("Christological Revelation"). It is clear that, even though I take issue with Gourgues on his division of v.11, I am not shaking the validity of his analysis but only sharpening it. The threefold structure of vv.3-5 and v.11 stands. The three affirmations in vv.3-5 correspond to the three affirmations in v.11. The correspondence is excellently expressed by the titles given by Gourgues to each of the three sections: "Initial Situation" (Need expressed) －"Transformed Situation" (Need Satisfied); "Christological Revelation"－"Christological Revelation"; "Faith Reaction of the mother of Jesus"－"Faith reaction of Jesus' disciples".

4. The central position of vv.6-10 in the structure

Unlike Gourgues, I leave vv.6-10 out of the threefold structural correspondrnce. They enter the correspondence only through v.11a which recapitulates vv.6-10. Withdrawing these verses from the threefold correspondence allows us to see the fine balance existing between vv.6-8 and vv.9-10.

vv.6-8 could be entitled: "Jesus, the servants, the water", while the title of vv.9-10 could be: "The steward, the bridegroom, the wine". Vv.6-8 narrate in the plainest terms the acts leading up to the working of the "sign" at the hands of Jesus. Vv.9-10 relate the bewildered reaction of the steward of the feast.

Interestingly, the miracle itself is not related, but only its preparation and the reaction to it. The miracle happens between 6-8 and 9-10. It is passed over in silence with a genius-like stroke of narrative economy.

In these verses no mention is made either of the mother of Jesus or of his disciples. Their presence belongs to the salvific preconditions and to the salvific aftermath of the event. They are the "faith actors" of the event. That is, the significance of their presence is totally relative to their attitude towards Jesus. In this perspective, their presence is decisive. Instead, regarding the actual working of the sign, the only presence that is decisive is that of Jesus.

This is the meaning of the absence of Mary and the disciples in 6-10. On the other hand, the important hermeneutical contribution of the threefold correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11 is to show that the "faith actors" (the mother of Jesus and the disciples) are essentially related not only to Jesus, but also between themselves. The faith of the disciples is essentially related to the preceding faith of the mother of Jesus!

To conclude this part. here is the text of the Cana pericope, disposed insuch a way as to reveal the neat, chiastic structure:　

It will be noticed that the words underlined are the linguistic indicators of the phenomenon of "inclusion" which is characteristic of chiastic structures. The process of inclusion at the end starts in B', but is completed only in A' with the mention of " his mother" and the indications of time and place corresponding to those given in A. Hence, verse 12 should be included as an integral part of the Cana story. Parts B and B' deal with the initial situation and the aftermath of the event. Parts C and C' are the account of the actual event: Jesus' interaction with the servants in C, leading up to the steward's reaction in C' to the miracle, already a fait accompli.

The Cana story is a strikingly sober and neatly structured narrative.

1.The chiastic structure of this passage was first discovered by J. Forbes in his The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture (T.&T. Clark: Edinburgh 1854) 69. I found this reference in K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant (Eeardmans; Grand Rapids 1976) 62 note 44. This chiastic structure has been confirmed by the study of A. Vanhoye, "La composition de Jean 5:19-30" in Melanges B. Rigaux (Gembloux 1970) 259-274.