“Dematerializing” Religion: Reading John 2–4 as a Chiasm 537 (d) Despite the length of his introduction (over 300 pages!), Keener does not offer any significant discussion in his commentary about the structure of the Gospel, which seems to reflect a lack of interest in the narrative design of the text (53). Consequently, he contends with a minimalist outline that runs along temporal and geographical markers. He observes that “whereas the named feast dominating parts of 1,19–6,70 is Passover (2,13.23; 6,4) ... Tabernacles dominates 7,10–10,42” (54). The two feasts merely serve here as broad markers of chronology without further theological significance. The absence of the Passover from 1,19–2,12 only indicates that closer attention to the content might yield better results than suggested by Keener. c) The two miracles in Cana as an inclusio Obviously, each proposal is part of a larger view on the Gospel’s structure and narrative design and we cannot fully discuss any of these within the limits of this article. The different suggestions do show that most Johannine scholars are not content to simply view John 2–12 as the ‘book of signs’ without further discrimination of narrative development through distinct literary units (55). Yet the strong support for viewing both Cana-miracles as an inclusio rests on highly visible literary clues: (a) Verbal parallels: The changing of water to wine and the healing of the official’s son are happening both at the same location, namely in “Cana in Galilee” (2,1.11; 4,46). (b) When narrating the second miracle, the author additionally specifies the location as the place where Jesus “had made the water wine” (4,46), thus referring to the first miracle. (c) After calling the changing of water to wine the ajrchv of the signs (2,11), the healing of the official’s son is numbered the deuvteron sign (4,54), thus establishing a numerical link between both accounts. (d) Both stories describe a shmei'on, a ‘sign’ (2,11; 4,48.54). In distinction to that, the following miracle of healing in 5,1-9 is neither called a “sign” nor counted as the “third” miracle. While the healing of (53) The exception that proves the point is KEENER’S (The Gospel of John, II, 893-895) brief discussion of the “Unity of the Discourse” in John 13–17. (54) KEENER, The Gospel of John, I, 427. The heading “Tabernacles and Hanukkah (7,1–10,42)” in the outline on page xvi is more precise since it includes Hanukkah as another feast within the textual unit. (55) C.G. KRUSE, The Gospel According to John (TNTC; Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 51 is an exception since he finds John 1–12 simply marked by signs and public discourse.