THE RECEPTION OF THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE AND

THE WEDDING AT CANA OF GALILEE

BY THE ALEXANDRIAN FATHERS

______________

A paper

Presented to

Dr. Michael Glerup

Early African Christian Studies-Cairo

_________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

Module 2

______________

by

Christine Fawzy George

June 2014
THE RECEPTION OF THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE AND

THE WEDDING AT CANA OF GALILEE

BY THE ALEXANDRIAN FATHERS

Introduction

The wedding at Cana of Galilee and the miracle of changing water into wine is

from the important texts in the Scripture that attracted the attention of the early fathers

both Eastern and Western. Its importance comes from the uniqueness of the incident

in the whole scripture and its location in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John

fascinated the church fathers everywhere and most of them did serious interpretation

on it, as Origen described it as the first-fruit of the four Gospels1. More than that the

Gospel attracted the Gnostic movement, we have from the commentaries that dates

back to the second century on John for Heracleon the Valentinian. Moving to the

incident itself; the two main themes in the text are attendance Jesus a wedding; and

changing water into wine. The two themes were both used in several debates. The first

part mainly interpreted in order to refute the Gnostic teachings against marriage.

While the second interpreted to prove the divinity of Jesus, and in later Christological

debates, especially between Alexandria and Antioch, it was used in several texts to

support the Alexandrian view. Here in this paper I will focus only on the

interpretation of the text by the Alexandrian fathers and show the common lines in the

Alexandrian style through ages, also to show how the interpretation changed and

1
Maurice F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church
Cambridge University Press, 1960, p.1&2.
developed from age to age depending on the context and the environment the

interpreter was involved at.

Clement

In his book The Instructor, Clement of Alexandria aims to teach the audience

ethical manners in a practical way, it is not concerned with philosophical issues but

with practical ones. He sees that one may needs an instructor in his life for training for

the likeness to God, and at first we are children and need an instructor. Clement calls

in his book for moderation in behavior in everything including eating and drinking.

He gives a complete chapter talking about Drinking and how should it be2. Clement

mentioned the miracle of changing water into wine as follows:

Christ turned water into wine at the marriage feast, but He did not

encourage them to become drunk. He was infusing into the water of a

[Lukewarm] heart, pouring the blood of the vine into the whole world

that was expected to fulfill the aw born of Adam; that is, He was

supplying piety with a drink of truth, a mixture of the Old testament and

the New Word, until the fulfillment of the time already decided upon3

(Paed 2.2.29).

2
Eirc Osborn, Clement of Alexandria, Cambridge University Press 2005, p.242 - 253
3
This difficult passage has another translation as mentioned by Heine: For if He made water wine at
the marriage, He did not give permission to get drunk. He gave life to the watery element of the
meaning of the law, filling with His blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world;
supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of the old law and of the new word, in
order to the fulfilment of the predestined time. See:

Clement, Christ the Educator, Ronald E. Heine trans., 23, Washington, 1989, p.118-119.
The text here reflects two main things: the first, how Clement sees drinking wine and

what are his teachings regards this habit; the second is the wine as a symbol in

Clement’s teachings.

As mentioned before Clement calls for moderation in eating and drinking, considering

that we are masters and shouldn’t be slaves to them (paed 2.1.9). Although Clement

didn’t prohibit drinking wine, he sees that it should be in little amounts, and to be

mixed with much water. On the other hand he sees that it is better to flee as possible

from wine, especially the young, as it can add fire to fire, and be a spark for shameless

deeds (paed 2.2.20) . Within this context we can understand that Clement uses this

part to support his ideas about getting away from being drunk, by saying that Jesus

made the water wine doesn’t mean he gave permission to be drunk, and he continue

with illustrating the mystery behind the miracle.

Clement then makes an allegorical interpretation for the water and wine, he sees that

water is a type of Mosaic law, while wine is a type of Christ blood (The Scripture,

accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood).

Origen

Origen talked about the miracle in two main works, in his commentary on John

and in his major book on the first principle. Origen’s commentary on John was

written in about thirty two volumes and addressed to his friend Ambrose4. However

the commentary doesn't focus on arguing Heracleon's commentary on John, but that

doesn't mean Origen hadn't put this point in mind while composing his work5. Since

the Gospel of John was a Gospel of interest for the Valentinians from which Ambrose

4
Origen, Commentary on Gospel According to John books 1-10, Ronald E. Heine trans., 80,
Washington, 1989, p.4-7.
5
In some parts Origen mentions Heracleon by name for example 6.13, 6.116
was converted, and may be Ambrose and also the commentary of John by Heracleon

were the stimulus for Origen to write his commentary6.

In Fragment 287 Origen's comment on the attending of Jesus the wedding of Cana is

to defend for marriage, (Jesus being Maker of man and woman does not refuse to be

called to a marriage; it was he who after forming Eve brought her to Adam.). Here

Origen binds between Jesus as a creator and his attendance for the wedding. He sees

that it is impossible that the Word who created Eve and brought it to Adam refuse the

invitation to a wedding8. This point is somehow different from the other Alexandrian

commentaries which bind between Christ as a creator and the creation of wine as will

discussed later.

The second point here Origen confirms for the union of man and woman after

marriage. (Therefore in the Gospel he says about this union, What God has joined

together let no man put asunder.) This point was really a matter of argument in

Origen’s writings especially in his commentary on Matthew and 1 Corinthians, which

reflects Origen’s view on marriage as a gift from God as Celibacy9, and he insisted on

the unity between man and woman. In his commentary on Matthew Origen says:

If a man leave his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but

to his own wife, and they become, since man and woman are one in

flesh, one flesh. Then, describing what ought to be in the case of those

6
John A. McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, p.12
7
The English text from:
Joel C. Elowsky ed., John 1-10 (Thomas C .Oden, Gerald L. Bray, eds., Ancient Christian Texts) 1&2,
Intervarsity Press, 2007, p.89
8
Maurice F. Wiles, Op. Cit, p.42
9
David G. Hunter, “The Reception and Interpretation of Paul in Late Antiquity: 1 Corinthians 7 and
the Ascetic Debates”, in The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity, L. di
Tommaso and L. Turescu eds., Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill of Leiden, 2008, pp176-7.
 who are joined together by God, so that they may be joined together in a

manner worthy of God. (ComMt 14.16)

The same comes in 1 Corinthians, that the union between man and woman is the

same as the union of the Christ and the Church for in the two cases the both shall be

one flesh.

..and they two shall be one flesh, of Christ and the church …. and, for the

sake of the church, the Lord, the husband, left the Father whom He saw

when He was in the form of God left also His mother, as He was the very

son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had

fallen down here, and these two here became oneflesh. (ComMt 14.17)

The third part Origen uses the attendance of Jesus to the wedding of Cana to refute the

heresies which call against marriage (Let the heretics therefore to be put to shame

who reject marriage, since Jesus was called to a marriage and his mother was there).

Origen here was mainly refuting against the Marcionites who insisted on celibacy and

were abstaining from marriage.

In book 1310, in his interpretation for (Jn 4.46) about coming Jesus again into Cana of

Galilee, Origen allegorized the two sojourns of Jesus in Cana as a symbol of Jesus’s

visit to the soul. In Jesus first visit to Cana he gladdened who feasted with him, then

he, in his second visit, restored the son who was near death. The same in the Word

visit to the soul, the Word makes two visits; the first provides wine for gladness and

the second remove illness (13.391-392; 13.437-438; 13.441), which are both also

resembles the incarnation and the parousia11. In another part Origen interprets Wine

10
The English text from: Ronald E. Heine trans., op. cit., 2 vols.
11
John A. McGuckin, op.cit, p.151.
cheers the heart of man (Ps 104:15) in terms of Jesus as the true vine (1.30), also in

terms of discussing the need for a spiritual food, both bread and wine (13.213). Thus

one may assume that Origen is talking about gladness as a kind of heavenly joy.

Origen adds that Jesus visit to the soul is to give it some wine of his power (13.438),

then he makes a typological relation between the Scripture before Jesus and water,

and when he came converted it to wine (13.438).

In his major work “On the first principle”, Origen in the fourth chapter talks about

how to read the Scripture, and the danger of reading it according to letter. He says that

as the man has body, soul, and spirit, so does the Scripture (Princ. 4.2.4), and

sometimes there is only two meaning instead of three. Thus he gives a reason for why

the jars containing “two firkins” to prove that the Scripture has only two meaning,

according to soul and according to spirit, and “three firkins” just in case there is a

historical meaning for the Scripture. Origen also states that the six jars are a symbol of

the six days of creation, which is a perfect number, thus they were for purification in

the world. (Princ. 4.2.5)

Athanasius

However Athanasius didn’t give a direct, complete interpretation for the

wedding at Cana, but he quoted the miracle in several texts and letters for many

theological purposes. Athanasius uses the miracle in his books on The Incarnation of

The Word, Against the Arians, and in his letters, The first Letter to Virgins, The festal

letters, and The Letter to Serapion. In each one, he uses the miracle for a different

purpose. Here I am going to investigate each case, how Athanasius used it to support

his idea.
In the first letter to Virgins Athanasius was refuting the thoughts of Hieracas of

Leontopolis (d. 335-370) regards marriage. Hieracas was a famous ascetic in the

Egyptian desert but had a non-orthodox faith regarding marriage and asceticism.

Hieracas established ascetic communities for men and women away from married

people, as he saw marriage as evil12. Thus Athanasius insisted on how God blessed

marriage by saying that God who gave the Law is the same who commends marriage

by his presence at the wedding, and he didn’t hinder it. Also God doesn’t command

people to be virgins by law, but rather it is a free will (26).

In the same text, Athanasius refutes the Arian teachings, and teaches the virgins the

orthodox faith about the Logos. He was telling them that their bridegroom is God and

the only Son of God, and he was asking them not to be fear that he became human,

and then he gives some examples to prove the divinity of Jesus. One of these

examples is the miracle of turning water into wine (38; 39).

For the same purpose Athanasius uses the incident of turning water into wine with

some other miracles in his books On the Incarnation, and Against the Arians, and his

letter to Serapion to prove also the divinity of Jesus (18.4; 23.2).

Cyril

Cyril commentary on the miracle mentioned in his commentary on John, Book

2 Chapter 213. The commentary is supposed to be written in early times before his

episcopal career, as it doesn’t contain any arguments against Nestorian controversy.

12
David Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism , (Oxford Early Christian Studies) Oxford
University Press ,1995, 44-57
13
The text discussed from: Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, David R. Maxwell trans., Joel
C. Elowsky ed., (Thomas C .Oden, Gerald L. Bray, eds., Ancient Christian Texts) 1&2, Intervarsity
Press, 2013.
The goal of the exegesis is mainly a theological one; the work also is dedicated for

anti-Arianism and also contains arguments against pagans and Jews14.

Cyril interpretation for the miracle is a clear example on the two-fold exegesis:

Historical and spiritual, sometimes into allegorical interpretation. From his exegesis it

is clear also that he was aware with these methods, as the transition between the two

can be noticed easily15, for example in the interpretation of the miracle “The

discussion of the narrative will stop here. Still, I think we must also consider another

way of looking at the words and talk about what is hinted at in the narrative.”

In the first part, Cyril answered two questions: The first, why Jesus attended the

wedding party? The second, why Jesus didn’t rush to do the miracle, although he

knew that the win ran out?

Why Jesus attended the wedding

Cyril says that he didn’t attend to feast with them, but rather to perform a

salvanic deed. On other hand Cyril stated four purposes for Jesus attendance:

To do a miracle for those who need miracles as food for their faith, to sanctify and

renew the human nature, to abolish the curse of woman he blessed the wedding, and

finally to strength the faith of his disciples.

The main pivot of this part in Cyril interpretation is renewing the nature in Christ,

connecting between what Jesus did at Cana and what Paul says about the new

creation.

Why Jesus didn’t rush to do the miracle

14
Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria a New Testament Exegete His Commentary on His Gospel of
John, (Gorgias dissertations; 29) (Early Christian Studies; 7) Gorgias Press, 2007, 60-66
15
Ibid, 199-201
 Cyril says that Jesus didn’t perform the miracle immediately but he waited for

those who need to call him first. He gives the grace to those who need.

Cyril then moved to spiritual interpretation. His spiritual interpretation included four

parts: Jesus as the true bridegroom, meaning of the Third day, the old wine and new

wine, why the wedding held at Cana of Galilee.

Jesus as the true bridegroom

Cyril made a direct typological relation between the bridegroom and his bride

on one side and Jesus as the true bridegroom and his bride the human nature on other

side. This typological relation can be considered as a direct Origen’s exegesis

influence.

The Third day

Cyril interpreted the third day as the last time of the present age, and the number

three to represent the three stages of the age; the beginning, the middle, the end. To

prove his point, Cyril made a very brilliant connection between the Scripture verses to

draw a complete picture. He quoted (Hos 6:1-3) to talk about the smite at the

beginning due to the transgression of Adam (Gen 3:19), then on the third day, the

marriage was done to signify that at the final ages the Christ became a man for us and

made our nature healthy by raising it from the dead in himself. Again Cyril here

refers to marriage of the Christ from the human nature, and the renewal of this nature.

Why the wedding held at Cana of Galilee

Cyril points that the wedding held at Galilee which was a place for gentiles, to

show that the bridegroom who was refused from Jews is accepted from the gentiles.
 The old and new wine

Here also he makes a typological relation between the old wine and the Mosaic

letter, justifying why the old wine ran out because the law perfected nothing, while

the new one represents the spirit which gives life.

In Book 5 Chapter 1 Cyril interpretation for the verse my hour has yet not come, has

some theological reflections. This chapter is mainly presented to refute the Greeks

who say that Jesus was subjected to fate. Cyril says that Jesus’s words don’t mean he

doesn’t have a free will nor he doesn’t know the proper time for each matter. He

points his words to the Greeks and says: (how, tell me…, does he grant her request

when he does not yet have the activity of the hours on the side of his will? He

obviously changes water into wine immediately, after all….. The power of the hour,

then, was no hindrance, but Christ says this because the time has not yet come for his

proclamation by miracles.

Benjamin I

His homily about the wedding at Cana of Galilee16 represents a noticeable

change in the homiletic style of the Alexandrian fathers. The homily assumed to be

preached while celebrating the feast of wedding at Cana of Galilee on the 13th of Tobi

between 643 A.D and 646 A.D after his returning back from his flight from Cyrus the

Chalcedoinan patriarch17.

16
The text of homily is in Coptic Bohairic and it is dated to the 10 century. The text is published by:
C. Delef Müller, Die Homilie uber die Hochzeit zu Kana und weitere Schriften des Patriarchen
Benjamin I. von Alexandrien (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1968).
The English Translation: M. Mikhail, “On Cana of Galilee; A Sermon by the Coptic Patriarch
Benjamin I”, in Coptic Church Review, 23(2002), p.66-93.
17
Benjamin the patriarch spent about 10 years fleeing from the persecution of Cyrus the Chalcedonian
patriarch and after the Arab conquest about 641 A.D, the Coptic patriarch spent more three years in the
The part of the homily that contains Benjamin’s interpretation on the miracle doesn’t

follow a systematic method for interpretation i.e it doesn’t start with historical

narration then moves to allegorical or spiritual then moves to practical, but Benjamin

jumps between the three methods without following a certain order or definite

borders. Actually Benjamin didn’t follow a systematic method in his interpretation

and he seems not to be aware of these methods of exegesis. The parts that contain

allegorical interpretation may be mentioned from his memory due to his previous

knowledge with some previous patristic exegesis, not because of his awareness with

the common methods of exegesis. The historical narration was the style that

dominates most of the homily, and it seems that the style of preaching is influenced

by Chrysostom’s style18. The homily full of many Coptic traditions and apocryphal

stories regards Mary and the disciples. Some examples for these traditions: Mary was

a relative of the bride19 , Bartholomew was a gardener or a vegetable-seller20, and

Judas wife was the one who motivated him to sell out his master21.On the other hand

it contains also some important theological reflections about the human nature of

Jesus and his divinity.

Benjamin gave an interactive preaching style by asking questions and giving answers

among the whole homily. First Benjamin started the homily with historical narration

Egyptian deserts before returning back to Alexandria. Benjamin the patriarch was considered a hero of
orthodoxy, like Athanasius, and he was called as “the second Dioscourus”.
18
This point needs a further and deeper research to prove it from linguistic and style point of view;
here it is just an argument.
19
This tradition is mentioned in fragments from the apocryphal Gospels, see:
F.Robinson , Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, Cambridge, 1896, p.165-7; J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal
New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford,
1993, p.161.
20
The Coptic word mentioned is ⲕⲱⲙⲁⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ while in other Greek text about the twelve apostles; the
word mentioned about Bartholomew is πωμαριτης. See:
Roelof van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalim on the life and the Passion of Christ a Coptic
Apocryphon, Brill, 2013, p.21-7 & 183-5.
21
Also see:
J. K. Elliott, op. cit., p.163; Pierluigi Piovanelli, Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cook, An
Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity, in The Harvard Theological Review, 96, 4(Oct.
2003). P.427-54.
mixed with Coptic traditions about the mother of Jesus who was there with the rest of

women to prepare for the wedding before the men arrive, then he makes a comparison

between the preparation of Mary and the women for the wedding and between the

leading of Mary the sister of Moses the women with her cymbals (10v) 22.

Benjamin then asks why the disciples were invited (11r-12v). In this part Benjamin

makes an indirect typological and allegorical interpretation relation between the

wedding at Cana of Galilee and the heavenly wedding. Thus he didn’t care about

whom really from the disciples attended the wedding. He gives a spiritual reason for

why each one was invited for example he says “Andrew was invited to teach the youth

about the true wedding feast of the church, and that they should not be defiled but

pure in their bodies”. From this part we can extract some important notices:

 Jesus is the true bridegroom, and this wedding represents that between Jesus

and the Church. “Peter would succeed the True Groom” “Philip … he would

invite (11v) the whole world to the true wedding feast of the Church.”

“Thomas was invited and told the whole world….a wedding feast will take

place for the whole world--that is the Church.”

 Jesus made the miracle as he is the Word of God. “James was invited to tell …

the whole world, I saw the face of my Savior shining like the sun” “John was

invited to tell … the whole world, this is the Word that became flesh”

 The invitation of the disciples to the wedding was to allow them to be

witnesses for what will happen and to be ready for their invitation to their

missionary to the whole word. “John was invited to tell all the guests, or

rather the whole world” “James was invited to tell the guests, and not only

them, but also the whole world”

22
The text is divided according to the folios.
Benjamin closed this spiritual interpretation by telling that Judas and those who

resemble him hadn’t been invited because of their deeds. Here Judas is presented

as a type for anyone who follows devil. Benjamin gives many examples as Arius,

Theodorite, Cyrus….and many others.

After that Benjamin moves again to a long historical interpretation, and through a

rhetorical contemplation (13r) he wonders how the Word who created the man

accepted the invitation to the wedding, eating and drinking with the guests as a

man. Here Benjamin focused on how the Christ feasted as a man with the guests.

The historical narration goes further to the point of running out the wine.

Benjamin here, with an interesting dramatic scene, brings out the contrast between

the worry and trouble that rose between the guests and the disciples and between

the trust and calmness of the Virgin Mary. Because of her trust and desire, Jesus

performed the miracle to please her (13v). From Jesus answer to Mary we can

conclude the following:

 One of the reasons that Jesus attended is to bless the wedding “I will bless the

wedding”

 Jesus performed the miracle to reveal the power and glory of his divinity “I

will show everyone the power of my divinity” “This miracle that took place is

mine and my father’s, for my father and I are one”

 Jesus performed the miracle to let his disciples believe and to preach with

what they have seen.

Benjamin then asks; what is the need for filling the jars with water. Why Jesus

didn’t perform the miracle directly (15r-16v). He gives four reasons:

1- There should be truthful testimonies for the miracle, and who will be other

than those who filled the water with their hands?

 2- Water is used for cleanness, and Jesus saw a lot of sinners need to be purified.

Here there may be an unclear typological relation between the wine and

Eucharist as Benjamin says “(Jesus) waned to change water into wine so that

whoever drank from it would be cleansed from their sins”

3- Benjamin makes another typological relation between the water and the

baptism. He says that Jesus used water because without the water of baptism

no one can be counted with the Christians.

4- Water is the source of life for everything and everyone.

The next paragraph contains two important theological reflections:

1- It confirms the complete humanity of Christ and refuting anyone who teaches

against this.

2- When Jesus has turned water into wine, the wine was a true wine, not just has

the appearance of wine.

The final part in the homily carries a moral interpretation about drinking wine.

Benjamin, as Clement, says that one has to be away from being drunk, as

drunkenness is the source of all evil deeds.

Conclusion

It is clear that the reception of this miracle was different from a father to another

and from time to another according to the heresies and culture that were at their time.

That means that the text was very important and full with mysteries revealed each

time one of the fathers tries to investigate it more. In the same time there is a common

line between all of the fathers in the interpretation of the miracle. Here is a restructure

for the paper according to subject not according to father to show what was common

and what varied.

 Refuting some heresies, and showing theological aspects

 All the Alexandrian fathers mentioned agreed that the miracle was to show the

divinity of Jesus Christ. Some of them as Benjamin and some Coptic texts

after the council of Chalcedon used it to prove also the humanity of Christ and

more than that to defend their non-Chalcedonian view regards the one nature

of Christ23.

 Jesus attended the wedding for a Salvanic purpose: Cyril and Benjamin focus

on this point and Benjamin added that Jesus made the miracle so that he could

prepare his disciples to be truthful testimonies.

 Blessing the marriage: Origen and Athanasius refuted the gnostic thoughts

about marriage by insisting on Jesus blessing for the marriage. Cyril and

Benjamin also talked about this point but without mentioning a heresy.

 The Christ is not under fate

Moral teachings

Both Benjamin and Clement differentiated between, the miracle of turning water into

wine and between getting drunk. The miracle that Jesus made doesn’t give permission

to get drunk, because drinking is the source of many evil behaviors.

23
The miracle of changing water to wine played a role within and after the Chalcedonian controversy.
The Coptic Church used it to prove the unity of Christ, and his divinity not separated from his
humanity. One of the common examples in the Coptic tradition is a panegyric on Macarius bishop of
Tkôw attributed to Dioscorus of Alexandria (d. 454). It is mentioned in the panegyric that while the
debate on agreeing on the decrees of Council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus says "When our Lord was
summoned to the wedding, was he summoned as God or as man'? They said: 'As man'. I said: 'Correct.
When he caused the water to become wine, did this miracle happen because he was man or God'? They
said: 'The matter is obvious. This miracle happened because he was God'. I said: 'So then, the divinity
was not separated from the humanity for a single moment. Behold, I have taken you at your (very) own
word'." (XI.9)
For further details see: David W. Johnson, Panegyric on Macarius Bishop of Tkôw attributed to
Dioscorus of Alexandria, 2vols. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientallium 415-416, Scriptores
Coptici 41-42), Leuven, 1980
 The allegorical interpretation

 Christ fulfilled the Law: Both Clement and Origen see in the miracle a symbol

of fulfillment the Law. While Clement see Water as a symbol of Mosaic Law,

Origen in a part agrees with Clement and in another part he and Cyril find the

Law in the Old Wine.24

 The importance of using water: Benjamin sees it as a symbol of water of

baptism and its necessity comes from the need for it as a source for life. Also

Origen added that the water in the six jars were for the purification of the

whole world.

 Jesus as the true bridegroom: Origen, Cyril, and Benjamin make a direct link

between, the wedding, and between Jesus as the true bridegroom and the

Church is his bride.

 The wine is a sign for blood (Eucharist): Clement, and Benjamin both give an

indirect interpretation for this point, while Origen and Cyril see that the new

wine is a symbol for the fulfillment of the Law.

94 A

24
Origen, Fragment 74. I couldn’t get the text of the fragment but it was mentioned in:
Maurice F. Wiles, op. cit., p.43.
Bibliography:

Maurice F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in
the Early Church, Cambridge University Press, 1960

Eirc Osborn, Clement of Alexandria, Cambridge University Press 2005

John A. McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Westminster John Knox

Press, 2004

David G. Hunter, “The Reception and Interpretation of Paul in Late Antiquity: 1

Corinthians 7 and the Ascetic Debates”, in The Reception and Interpretation of the
Bible in Late Antiquity, L. di Tommaso and L. Turescu eds., Leiden and Boston: E. J.
Brill of Leiden, 2008

David Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, (Oxford Early Christian
Studies) Oxford University Press, 1995

Lois M. Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria a New Testament Exegete His Commentary on
His Gospel of John, (Gorgias dissertations; 29) (Early Christian Studies; 7) Gorgias
Press, 2007
C. Delef Müller, Die Homilie uber die Hochzeit zu Kana und weitere Schriften des
Patriarchen Benjamin I. von Alexandrien (Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitatsverlag, 1968).

M. Mikhail, “On Cana of Galilee; A Sermon by the Coptic Patriarch Benjamin I”, in
Coptic Church Review, 23(2002)
David W. Johnson, Panegyric on Macarius Bishop of Tkôw attributed to Dioscorus
of Alexandria, 2vols. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientallium 415-416,
Scriptores Coptici 41-42), Leuven, 1980