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†327
*
**
The foregoing discussion of the topographic notices concerning
Bethabara/Bethany in the Gospel of John in the light of the gospel
writer ’s redactional choices, combined with the recognition that the
toponym Bethabara referred to the set of fords itself, and not
necessarily to a particular location of settlement, alleviates the problem
adduced by Rudolf Bultmann (77) — which became the foundational
problem underlying Riesner’s search for the locale (78) — namely, that
the large number of the Baptist’s followers who joined Jesus at “the
place where John had been baptizing formerly†(John 10,40-42) should
have left some sort of trace in the archaeological record, an assumption
complicated by the absence of contemporaneous remains at the el-
Magμtas and H˘aˇla fords (79). Through redactional means the writer of
g
the fourth gospel accomplished a transferal of the location of John’s
ministry to the region surrounding the southern Bethabara ford in order
to bring his source — which originally located the Baptist’s ministry at
Aenon — into conformity with the Synoptic Gospels. The lack of
archaeological evidence for a pre-Byzantine settlement at the
lowermost fords of the Jordan should be neither surprising nor
especially problematic, at least on the basis of any standpoint reached
from critical engagement with the composition history of the Gospel of
John, and with historical geography.
(77) R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK; Göttingen 1941)
64-65 n. 5. The work of K. KUNDSIN (Topologische Ãœberlieferungsstoffe im
Johannes-Evangelium [FRLANT 22; Göttingen 1925] 20-21) is also often cited
in this context, but I see no real evidence in these pages that he had problemati-
zed this issue to the extent that BULTMANN did.
(78) RIESNER, Bethanien, 10-12.
(79) For recent summaries of the excavation projects of the Jordanian side of
the river, see R. MKHIJIAN, “John the Baptist Church Area: New Evidence Re-
garding the Basilica and Four Piersâ€, ADAJ 48 (2004) 239-241; R. MKHIJIAN –
C. KANELLOPOULOS, “John the Baptist Church Area: Architectural Evidenceâ€,
ADAJ 47 (2003) 9-18; M. WAHEEB, “Mosaic Floors in the Baptism Site (Bethany
Beyond the Jordan)â€, ADAJ 49 (2005) 345-349; idem, “Recent Discoveries in
Bethany Beyond the Jordanâ€, ADAJ 48 (2004) 243-248; idem, “Recent Discov-
eries in Bethany Beyond the Jordan in Jordan Valleyâ€, ADAJ 47 (2003) 243-246,
and the sources listed in those articles; see also the bibliography in RIESNER,
Bethanien, 29 n. 66. It appears that the earliest structures found at the site are
likely to be identified with the Byzantine pilgrimage site centered on the church
built by Anastasius and described by Theodosius in the early 6th century (see n.
51 above).