306 Jeremy M. Hutton important witnesses that “in many instances there has been a conscious later alteration of the name of the place” from the original Bhqaniva/ to the later Bhqabara'/ (4). There is a general consensus among scholars that there is very little data that would speak in opposition to the primacy of Bhqaniva/, and although Riesner recognizes the value of the toponymic evidence provided by the Old Syriac and the other “minority” manuscripts, he ultimately concludes that this information points only to the existence of a “local tradition” in which the site of Jesus’ baptism was named Bethabara (5). Although it thus seems that Bhqaniva/ is the original reading, two considerations mitigate the force of taking that reading as a historically accurate notice of the location of the Baptist’s ministry. First, Riesner cites a literary topos in John that would purportedly confirm this text- critical judgment of the priority of Bhqaniva/: namely, the fact that “in John’s Gospel Jesus’ way leads from Bethany [1,28; 10,40] to Bethany [11,1]” (6). R. Fortna concurs implicitly with this literary judgment and is, I would argue, correct when he states that “if the reading of Bethany is correct, it is perhaps designed by John to provide a balance at the start of the ministry with the other Bethany where it ends…” (7). In fact, Fortna’s recognition of the importance of locale in the fourth gospel, particularly with regard to the literary correspondence between the presumed Bethany of John 10,40 (based on the apparent reference to 1,28) and the Bethany of John 11, provides a serious caveat to claims that Bhqaniva/ is actually the lectio dificilior in John 1,28. Although it is difficult to build a strong case for the textual priority of Bhqabara'/ in John 1,28, the redactional nature of that verse mitigates the claim to York 31994) 199-200; C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St John (London 1965) 146. (4) RIESNER, “Bethany”, 33. (5) Ibid., 33-34; and idem, Bethanien, 15, 36 (and bibliography in n. 79). RIESNER (Bethanien, 15) and R.G. CLAPP (“A Study of the Place-names Gergesa and Bethabara”, JBL 26 [1907] 62-83, esp. 76) point to the plurality of ortho- graphic variants of Bhqabara/' — as opposed to the relative paucity of variants of bhqania — to argue that the former name was inserted late and independently by a v number of different copyists. RIESNER traces the confusion to the late insertion of a local tradition, while CLAPP credits Origen with the origination of the discrepancy. (6) RIESNER, “Bethany”, 33-34; and idem, Bethanien, 14, a judgment fol- lowed by PICCIRILLO, “Sanctuaries”, 438. (7) R.T. FORTNA, “Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel”, Gospel Studies in Honor of Sherman Elbridge Johnson (eds. M.H. SHEPHERD – E.C. HOBBS) (AThRSupp 3; London 1974) 68.