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†319
Eusebius of Caesarea picked up Origen’s description, glossing
Bhqaabarav as “beyond the Jordan where John was baptizing†(o{pou
hn ΔIwavnnh" baptivzwn, pevran tou' ΔIordavnou; Onom. 58.18 nr. 290) (48).
\
Jerome (Sit. [PL 23, 931]) followed suit, adding relatively little to the
description (49), although he did preserve the reading “Bethany†in the
Vulgate. Unfortunately, none of these sources distinguishes the
location of the site any more specifically, although each attests to a
tradition of Bethabara as an actual locale somewhere near the Jordan
River, as a text-critical examination of John 1,28 and the related
traditions suggests (see above).
This dearth of evidence for a more precise localization of
Bethabara was alleviated with the discovery of the Madaba Mosaic
Map (ca. 560). In contradistinction to John 1,28, Origen, Eusebius, and
Jerome, all of whom apparently situated the locale on the eastern side
of the Jordan River, the Madaba Map identifies that site (“Bethabara of
Saint John of [?] the Baptismâ€; Beqabara/ to; tou' aJgivou ΔIwavnnou/ tou'
baptivsmato") on the river’s western bank (50). This location of
Bethabara west of the Jordan on the Madaba Mosaic Map preserves the
tradition of that site’s location first recorded by Theodosius (ca. 530;
De situ terrae sanctae 20) (51), but the tradition itself “must have been
Helias in caelum [598.1-3]. I use the translation here of J. WILKINSON, Egeria’s
Travels to the Holy Land (Warminster 1981) 161, §598. Since at least the Byzan-
ˇ
tine period, that site on the eastern bank has been known as Gebel MËr ElyËs
(“the Hill of Lord Elijahâ€); ibid., 161 n. 7. However, it is quite possible that the
pilgrim was citing a prechristian tradition, according to RIESNER, Bethanien, 21.
See recently R. KHOURI, “Where John Baptized: Bethany beyond the Jordan,â€
BARev 31 (2005) 34-43, esp. 41.
(48) Eusebius adds: kai; deivknutai oJ tovpo", ejn w/| kai; pleivou" tw'n ajdelfw'n eij"
eti nu'n to; loutro;n filotimou'ntai lambavnein, “The place is shown where even
[
today many of the brothers still endeavor to receive a bath.†Translation that of
NOTLEY – SAFRAI, Onomasticon, 59.
(49) Jerome: Bethabara trans Jordanem, ubi Joannes in poenitentiam baptiza-
bat, unde et usque hodie plurimi de fratribus, hoc est de numero credentium, ibi
renasci cupientes vitali gurgite baptizantur [PL 23, 931]. See also M. AVI-YO-
NAH, The Madaba Mosaic Map with Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem
1954) 38 nr. 7.
(50) Ibid., 38-39 nr. 7, pls. 1-2.
(51) In CCSL 175, 121-122. That Theodosius found Bethabara on the west
side of the river is the judgment of AVI-YONAH (Madaba Mosaic Map, 39), who
argues this datum based on the fact that Theodosius connects the site with El-
isha’s fountain. Cf., however, WIEFEL (“Bethabaraâ€, 76-77), who argues for the
site’s location on the eastern bank, as Theodosius had approached from Livias.