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.
314 Jeremy M. Hutton
10,40) to Bethany near Jerusalem (Jn 11,1.17-18). Riesner adduces
several pieces of data that, when viewed in light of each other, seem to
narrow the possibilities of Bethany beyond the Jordan’s location:
• The traditional location of Bethany beyond the Jordan in the WËdi
ˇ
el-HarrËr just east of the MaË™Ëd≥at H˘agla (see below) lies only a
â‰
day’s travel away from Jerusalem.
• When the messengers arrive, Jesus addresses Lazarus’ “illnessâ€
(ajsqevneia; John 11,4), already anticipating Lazarus’ death. Yet, it
is only two days later, immediately before leaving that Jesus seems
to have knowledge of Lazarus’ death (vv. 6.11.13). Accordingly,
the death of Lazarus “must…be reckoned from the departure of
Jesus from Bethany beyond the Jordan,†argues Riesner(29).
• Riesner concludes that the notice that “Lazarus had already been in
the tomb four days†(tevssara" h[dh hJmevrav e[conta ejn tw'/ mnhmeivw/;
v. 17) upon Jesus’ arrival in Bethany means that the movement
from Bethany beyond Jordan to Bethany near Jerusalem entailed
four complete days of travel. Since a day’s march was
approximately 30-40 km (30), Bethany beyond Jordan must lie ca.
150 km from Jerusalem (31).
Although painstakingly argued, Riesner’s solution suffers from a
multitude of logical errors.
First, the assumption that Jesus’ statement of Lazarus’ death and
his departure for Bethany are necessarily coincident is negated by the
theology of John’s Gospel. As W.H. Cadman has pointed out (and as
Riesner himself quoted), “In allowing Lazarus to die, [Jesus] was
providing occasion for the revelation of himself as hJ ajnavstasiv kai; hJ
zwhv (11:25)†(32). The tarrying of two days is intended by Jesus as a
guarantee that there will be work to be done upon his arrival in
Bethany. Therefore, Lazarus may have died immediately after Jesus’
receipt of the message (or, even before, if we may presume human
limitations to Jesus’ knowledge), and the journey’s duration need not
(29) PIXNER, Wege, 170-171; RIESNER, “Bethanyâ€, 44; idem, Bethanien, 72.
(30) See RIESNER, “Bethanyâ€, 44 n. 84; idem, Bethanien, 73 and sources cited
there, including Mishnah (Ta`an 1.3), Talmud (bPes 93b).
(31) RIESNER, “Bethanyâ€, 44-45.
(32) W.H. CADMAN, “The Raising of Lazarus (John 10,40-11,53)â€, TU 73
(1959) 423-434, esp. 426, cited by RIESNER, “Bethanyâ€, 44; idem, Bethanien, 72.
For a more complete discussion of the complexity of John 11, see F.J. MOLONEY,
“Can Everyone Be Wrong? A Reading of John 11:1–12:18â€, ID., The Gospel of
John. Text and Context (Boston – Leiden 2005) 214-240, esp. 219-222.
FOLLOW US