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†317
gospel writer has, then, artificially shifted the geographic location of
the episode, presumably so that it is in conformity with the Synoptic
Gospels’ location of the baptism in the wilderness of Judea. Fortna then
hypothesizes that the following episode (i.e., John 1,35-49) was, in
fact, introduced by what is now John 3,23-24: “John was also baptizing
at Aenon near Salem…†(h\n de; kai; oJ ΔIwavnnh" baptivzwn ejn Aijnw;n
ejggu;" tou' Saleivm…) (41). If Fortna’s hypothesis is correct — and I
believe it is — that short statement of the Baptist’s ministry can be
taken as a localization of Jesus’ baptism (according to the Signs
Source) not at the Jordan River, but rather at Aenon (42). This locale, to
which I return briefly below, corresponds quite well with the itinerary
in John 11, if we assume that the movement from “the place where
John had been baptizing formerly†to Bethany took two days.
Once the author of the Gospel of John had shifted the “Aenonâ€
notice to its current position (3,23), and inserted the “Bethany†notice
(1,28), it would have been very easy to add the phrase pevran tou'
ΔIordanou in both 3,26 and 10,40 in order to tie together all three verses
v
locating the baptismal site on the eastern side of the Jordan. Indeed,
excising the phrase from each of the latter two verses (3,26; 10,40)
yields a completely reasonable remaining syntactical structure:
“rJabbiv, o}" h\n meta; sou', w| su; memartuvrhka"…â€
(John 3,26)
Kai; ajph'lqen pavlin eij" to;n tovpon o{pou h\n ΔIwavnnh" to; prw'ton
baptizwn…
v
(John 10,40)
Had Riesner been looking for a locale named Aijnw;n located about
two days’ travel from Jerusalem instead of a locale named Bhqaniva
four days’ travel from the same city, he would have found it quite
easily. The placement of the baptismal site at the more northerly Aijnw;n
also alleviates the tensions that Riesner adduced in John 1 (43).
Because Riesner’s identification of Bhqaniva fails, the only serious
contender for the baptismal site is the traditional placement of Jesus’
ˇ
baptism at the el-Magμtas/H˘agla series of fords over the Jordan River,
(41) Ibid., 68; idem, Gospel of Signs, 179-180.
(42) Cf. recently H. THYEN, “Ainon bei Salim als Taufort des Johannes (Joh
3,23)â€, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT 214; Tübingen 2007) 467-478.
(43) RIESNER, Bethanien, 73-77.