Jeremy M. Hutton, «'Bethany beyond the Jordan' in Text, Tradition, and Historical Geography», Vol. 89 (2008) 305-328
Origen selected e0n Bhqabara|~ in John 1,28 as the superior reading in his Comm. Jo., an assessment challenged by modern critics. Although the text-critical data seem to indicate e0n Bhqani/a|~ as the preferable reading, this claim may be
questioned on literary and redactional grounds. Those same observations provide evidence for intentional literary commemoration of John’s ministry at the Jordan. Origen’s gloss of Bhqabara|~ as “House of Preparation” (oi]koj kataskeuh~j) leads to an examination of Mk 1,2-3, and its lexical divergence from LXX Mal 3,1.22-23 [=MT vv. 23-24]; Isa 40,3. Mark anomalously uses the verb kataskeua/zw, the nominal counterpart of which (kataskeuh~) renders Heb. hdfbo(j “work, preparation” (LXXAB Exod 35,24), which is graphically similar to hrb( tyb. When combined with historical-geographical study of the area surrounding Jericho,
these data allow us to trace the process of textual and traditional development whereby the toponym hbr( tyb (Josh 15,6.61; 18,22), preserved at the modern H}. ( E!n el-G.arabe, served as the toponymic antecedent of both Bhqabara|~ and Beth Barah (Judg 7,24). This process of development provides additional defense
for the traditional localization of John’s ministry in the southern Jordan River Valley near the el-Mag.tas and H9ag]la fords.
“Bethany beyond the Jordan†in Text, Tradition,
and Historical Geography (*)
I. The Readings Bhqaniva/ vs. Bhqabara/' in John 1,28
In the mid-3rd century CE, Origen elected to read the site of Jesus’
baptism preserved in John 1,28 not as Bethany (ejn Bhqaniva/), but as
Bethabara (ejn Bhqabara'/), despite the fact that the former reading
appeared “in nearly all†(scedo;n ejn pa'si) of the manuscripts that he
knew (Comm. Jo. 6.40.204 [PG 14, 269 §24]) (1). Origen predicated
this text-critical emendation on the complete absence in his day of any
site named Bethany east of the Jordan.
Indeed, in his consideration of the contemporary textual
exemplars, R. Riesner notes that a few major witnesses (e.g.,
Alexandrinus [A], Vaticanus [B], and Sinaiticus [a]), as well as a few
smaller manuscripts from the second and third centuries CE (P66 and P75,
respectively), read Bhqaniva/, suggesting that this should be considered
the “majority reading.†The “minority reading†Bhqabara/', as well as
the many divergent forms thereof (e.g., Biqabera, Bhqebara, etc.), is
attested by several manuscripts of more recent date (2). Riesner deduces
from the preservation of the more difficult Bhqaniva (3) in the more
(*) I owe my thanks to Shane Berg and George Parsenios, both good friends
and colleagues, who read a draft of this paper and commented on it productively.
It would, of course, be injudicious to blame them for any mistakes that remain.
(1) I use here the numbering system of the critical edition by C. BLANC,
Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean (SC 157; Paris 1970) II. A similar deci-
sion to read Bhqabara'/ here was made by both John Chrysostom (Hom. Jo. 17.1
[PG 59, 108]), and Jerome (Sit. [PL 23, 931]); see R. RIESNER, Bethanien jenseits
des Jordan. Topographie und Theologie im Johannes-Evangelium (Giessen –
Basel 2002) 13; R. SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel according to St. John (New
York 1982) I, 295-296.
(2) R. RIESNER, “Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28): Topography, The-
ology and History in the Fourth Gospelâ€, TynBul 38 (1987) 32-34; idem,
Bethanien, 13-18, 43. For a catalogue of the “minority textsâ€, see W. WIEFEL,
“Bethabara jenseits des Jordan (Joh. 1,28)â€, ZDPV 83 (1967) 72-73.
(3) That bhqaniva/ is the lectio dificilior is an assessment in congruence with
that of other New Testament critics; see, e.g., M. PICCIRILLO, “The Sanctuaries of
the Baptism on the East Bank of the Jordan Riverâ€, Jesus and Archaeology (ed.
J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (Grand Rapids, MI 2006) 435; B.M. METZGER, “ejn bhqa-
niva/ ejgevneto {C}â€, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New
FOLLOW US