OK, I get that, but that alone is insufficient to discredit the text.
Can you give me the references for this, because I have references that speak to the contrary.
Dr of Theology Carsten Claussen writes on his
commentary on the Wedding at Cana:
"... it has been frequently observed that the author of John contributes a number of accurate details about the geography of first century Palestine, about Jewish customs, and about certain historical personalities. Archaeological findings support John's knowledge of Palestine and Jerusalem, such as the Pools of Siloam and of Bethesda (or Bethzatha), stone vessels (which disappeared from use altogether after 70AD), and the outdoor paving stones near the Antonia Fortress which may have been part of the Roman Praetorium in Jerusalem. His itinerary and chronology of Jesus' ministry and death are taken by some interpreters to be more reliable than those of the Synoptics. The debates and trials on the way to Jesus' execution seem to provide a better representation of what happened. Thus ... John's Gospel appears to provide historical data complementing our knowledge of the historical Jesus and even proving more accurate."
He cites Paula Fredriksen, a renown scholar, author of
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews remarking: "Given what we know about Jesus, the sort of itinerary that John presents makes much more sense than the one-year, one-way itinery in Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) that itself so much obliges Mark's distinctive theology. I do not defend the historicity of particular words, phrases, or the exact details of John's itinerary
per se. As all the conflicting erudition shows, the evidence is simply too problematic to yield any unarguable conclusions."
But it seems to me you display no such caution in proposing your 'solutions'.
And yet there is no further mention of it at all in Scripture, is there? So perhaps not such the big deal you suppose it to be.
(And, to my reading, John's makes more sense. John places the event early, and then later says the authorities began to regard Jesus as a dangerous threat to be dealt with even before His final trip to Jerusalem.)
Mark is hardly authoritative. We know he wasn't there, that he's relating Peter. He utilises Peter's homilies to build his story, and arranges the materials accordingly.
Actually there's a lot you don't trust ... Remember that Jesus' ministry missions were funded.
My technique is to read the text with caution, and be doubly cautious about leaping to unfounded conclusions because they fit my picture.
OK. Bultmann regards the miracle at Cana as a myth. Many exegetes do, and many have pointed out the correspondences with the miraculous occurrences attributed to the Greek god Dionysus.
Space here does not allow for a critique of a 700-page thesis (Bultmann's
The Gospel of John: A Commentary). I haven't read it. But I did study the basic premise, and its counter-arguments. Bultmann regards the Cana story was a pagan legend applied to Jesus (p118-119), and it can be loosely presented as:
A The wine stories of the Greek god Dionysus are myths
B The wine story in John 2 reads like the above, therefore
C The wine story in John 2 is a myth.
Logicians, atheist or otherwise, have pointed out the flaw: Because B reads like A, does not mean B is the same genre as A. It does not logically follow, therefore it is neither a sufficient argument, nor a proof.
Later, and especially informed Jewish, scholars have argued otherwise. John was preaching to an essentially Jewish audience, probably Christian converts who had been forbidden to attend the synagogue. Read in the light of its historical context, the Wedding at Cana points to failure of the authorities to meet the spiritual needs of the people. Read Causten's conclusion.
