“Dematerializing” Religion: Reading John 2–4 as a Chiasm 529 response in 2,5 the key to the narrative. Such a choice clearly overrides explicit efforts in the text to guide the reader. Moloney also wrongly prioritizes belief in the word (Mary) over faith through signs (disciples) (13). The purpose statement in 20,30-31 affirms and advocates belief based on the selected signs reported in the written account. The mention of the shmei'a, dovxa and the disciples’ faith in 2,11 form an inclusio with 20,30-31 and thus leave no doubt that Jesus’ miracle in John 2 is the legitimate visible cause of sound Christian faith. This is not the least indicated by the phrase ejpivsteusan eij" aujtovn in 2,11 which launches a typical Johannine idiom (14). (c) An additional methodological weakness seems to me that Moloney emphasizes Mary’s words in 2,5 over Jesus’ comment in 2,4. If it can be agreed that among the many vivid details of a story it is the hero’s and the narrator’s voices which express the interpretive keys to a story, then Jesus’ tiv ejmoi; kai; soiv has more theological significance than Mary’s response. Together with the absence of Jesus’ genealogy and birth stories with their elaborate focus on Mary’s role as the blessed mother and servant of the Lord (e.g., Luke 1,38.42), we might even say that 2,4 aims at opposing an incipient mariological trend (see also Luke 11,27) (15). Christologically, the rejection of the human mother underlines the Son’s divine origin from (1,14; 3,31; 5,36) and exclusive submission under (4,34; 6,38. 39) the heavenly father (16). Within the Gospel’s soteriological context, the explicit rejection of physical lineage as a condition for salvation (1,12-13; 4,9.42; 8,33-34) and the emphasis on birth anwqen (3,3) negate kinship relations of any kind (familial, ethnic) as [ (13) J.M. LIEU, “The Mother of the Son in the Fourth Gospel”, JBL 117 (1998) 64, n. 12 recently criticized Moloney at this point, saying that it is “inappropriate to ask whether she believed in him, whether her faith was adequate, or whether her mere request was proof of prior trust ... This is to introduce our priorities. For this narrative faith is the response to Jesus’ act, not that which prompts the request”. (14) For pisteuvein eij" aujtovn see 2,11; 3,16.18; 4,39; 6,40; 7,5.31.39.48; 8,30; 9,36; 10,42; 11,45.48; 12,37.42. (15) J. HARTENSTEIN, Charakterisierung im Dialog. Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und die Mutter Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTOA 64; Göttingen 2007) 280, 282-284 connects John 2,1-12 and Luke 11,27-28 because of a common tension between motherhood and discipleship. J. HARTENSTEIN, Charakterisierung im Dialog. Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und die Mutter Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTOA 64; Göttingen 2007) 280, 282-284. (16) See B.F. WESTCOTT, The Gospel According to St. John (London 1908) I, 82.