“Bethany beyond the Jordan” 311 In either case, it is not Origen’s philological skills that should be blamed for the confusion, but rather the interpretive tradition preserved by Mark (18). That tradition connected a corrupted toponymic antecedent found in the general location of the baptism (i.e., hdb[ tyb instead of the proper hrb[ tyb) with the OT passages that were theologically significant for Mark’s presentation of that event (Isa 40,3; Mal 3,1.23-24). That tradition carried as part of its baggage a noun (kataskeuh') the verbal counterpart of which (kataskeuavzw) was not used in the OG rendering of any of those passages, but which Mark was able to use as a passable, albeit imperfect, rendering of the verb hnp used in Mal 3,1 and Isa 40,3. The interpretive contrivance, then, is Mark’s. Admittedly, this does not, of course, explain why Origen — who was in this model only the recipient of what might be considered an authentic toponymic tradition Bhqabara/', and not the originator of a local tradition — could etymologize the Greek form of that toponym, which clearly preserves the rho as an accurate rendering of Heb. resh, with a word (kataskeuh') that had been used to translate Heb. hdb[. This discrepancy may perhaps be chalked up to Origen’s own exegetical interpretation in an attempt to draw together the received traditions, or even simply to an injudicious use of sources. However, this faulty etymology does not immediately impugn the reading Bhqabara/' provided by Origen as inferior to the degree that proponents of the reading Bhqaniva/ in John 1,28 would claim. In short, reading Bhqaniva/ in John 1,28 as a historically accurate piece of information is problematic on a number of levels. First, the verse itself seems to be an addition by the gospel writer that rearranges the account received from his source, the Signs Source. If the gospel writer did indeed write Bhqaniva/ originally, it can under no circumstances be used as a historical datum without careful scrutiny. Second, there is some slim reconstructable textual support for the preservation of a tradition concerning the existence of a settlement (18) Among the major commentaries, there are few explicit attempts to ex- plain Mark’s use of the verb kataskeuavzw: e.g., A.Y. COLLINS, Mark. A Com- mentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2007) 133, 135-136; M.E. BORING, Mark. A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY 2006) 34-36; R.T. FRANCE, The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 60-64; J. MARCUS, Mark 1-8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York 1999) 142-143, 147-149; R.A. GUELICH, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas, TX 1989) 11; C.S. MANN, Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City 1986) 195; V. TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London 21966) 153.