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.
328 Jeremy M. Hutton
Although this article builds upon much of the foregoing literature,
its purpose is to provide a reassessment and critique of the latest
argument that would move the baptismal location of the Gospel of
John away from the traditionally recognized site of that event’s
remembrance. The argument presented here pertaining to the textual
and traditional confusion of Bhqabara/', hbr[h tyb, and hrb tyb has
been anticipated for decades (by, e.g., Lagrange, Clapp, and Wiefel), if
not for centuries (e.g., Lightfoot). The article’s original contribution,
therefore, lies in the recognition of the potential lexical confusion that
seems to be intimately intertwined in Origen’s allusion (kataskeuh') to
the verb kataskeuavzw of Mk 1,2 which, I have argued, proceeded
from a tradition in which a toponymic tradition concerning a hrb[ tyb
was somehow corrupted into hd:bo[} tyb, “House of Preparationâ€.
Princeton Theological Seminary Jeremy M. HUTTON
P.O. Box 821
Princeton, NJ, 08542 USA
SUMMARY
Origen selected ejn 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 ejn Bhqaniva/ 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\ko" kataskeuh'") 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 kataskeuavzw, the
nominal counterpart of which (kataskeuh') renders Heb. hd:bo[} “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[h tyb (Josh 15,6.61; 18,22), preserved at the modern
≠¯
H. ‘En 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-Magμtas and H˘aˇla fords.
g