“Bethany beyond the Jordan” 313 (Jn 11,1.18), which was “opposite” the location on the Jordan at which John had formerly baptized (24); c) sites much further north than suggested by the topography assumed in John, such as the Abarah Ford (Ma˙˝d≥at ‘Ab˝ra) northeast of Beth Shean (25), the city of Bethsaida, and a site named et-Tell north of the Sea of Galilee (26); and d) the region to the east of the Sea of Galilee, Batanaea (27) (biblical Bashan). Although the first several suggestions are difficult and require strained logic to support their conclusions, Riesner presents detailed argumentation for this last solution to the problem, and concludes that “Bethany beyond the Jordan” refers to Batanaea on the basis of the geographical implications of the itinerary in John 11, the time-plan in John 1–2, and the various names of the Galileans whom Jesus meets in John 1 (28). The lynchpin of this argument is the implied itinerary of Jesus’ movement from “the place where John had been baptizing formerly” (to;n tovpon o{pou h\n ΔIwavnnh" to; prw'ton baptivzwn; John (24) P. PARKER, “‘Bethany Beyond Jordan’”, JBL 74 (1955) 260; see also BYRON, “Bethany”, 36-54 for a similar reading of the verse. RIESNER rejects PARKER’s suggestion because it fails to deal adequately with similar occurrences of pevran tou' ΔIordavnou in John 3,26 and 10,40, which clearly indicate a location on the eastern side of the Jordan (“Bethany”, 34-35); see also FORTNA, “Locale”, 67. Ultimately, PARKER’s analysis is unconvincing, and although BYRON’s asso- ciation of the baptism with the motif of Joshua crossing into the Promised Land is surely correct (see, e.g., J.M. HUTTON, “Topography, Biblical Traditions, and Reflections on John’s Baptism of Jesus”, Proceedings of the Second Princeton- Prague Symposium [ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH] [Grand Rapids, MI, forthco- ming]), it does not at all follow that the phrase “across the Jordan” (pevran tou' ΔIordanou) ought to be read from an easterly perspective, as BYRON argues. The v phrase seems most likely to be a literal translation of Heb. (ˆD´r“Y"l' /) ˆD´r“y"Ah' rb,[´m´ (“the other side of the Jordan”), the referent of which is ambivalent and entirely dependent on context. Clearly, the phrase designates the western bank in Num 32,32; Deut 3,20.25; etc., but the eastern side in Num 35,14; Deut 1,1.5; 3,8; 4,46, etc., and remains ambiguous without further qualification in Num 22,1; 32,19; 34,15; Deut 4,41.47.49. (25 ) Neither LAGRANGE (“Origène”, 510) nor H. RIX (“Notes Taken on a Tour in Palestine in the Spring of 1901”, PEFQS [1903] 159-162) was able to verify the existence of the name in the area; instead, RIX notes that the ford went by the name Hammud, or simply Ma˙˝d≥a (“ford”). Cf. also RIESNER, Bethanien, 50-51. (26) Cf. however, RIESNER (“Bethany”, 42; Bethanien, 52-53), who catalo- gues the constellation of typographical and logical errors that permitted these faulty identifications. (27) E.g., B. PIXNER, Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche (ed. R. RIE- SNER) (Giessen – Basel 1991) 173-174; RIESNER “Bethany”, 29-63; and idem, Bethanien, 54-82. (28) RIESNER, “Bethany”, 43-48; idem, Bethanien, 71-77.