Yuri Kuchinsky

Where did John baptise: Bethany or Bethabara? (Jn 1:28)

***Bethany, Bethabara, and the Longer Mark***

Greetings, friends,

In the opening chapter of John's Gospel, we see the multitudes of people coming to John the Baptist to be baptised by him. But where was this exact location where John was baptising?

According to Jn 1:28, of course, it was in "Bethany beyond the Jordan",

(John 1:28 RSV) This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

And the same location is indicated in all modern translations of John (all based on Nestle/Aland Greek text).

So where exactly was this "Bethany beyond the Jordan"? Quite obviously, its location would have been different from that of the other Bethany, which is located close to Jerusalem, and is mentioned far more often in the canonical gospels.

Well, until recently, the exact location of this "Bethany beyond the Jordan" has been unknown.

Nevertheless, this is what we find here in the Majority text and KJV,

(John 1:28 KJV) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

So, according to KJV, it was Bethabara, rather than Bethany, where John baptised...

Modern textual scholars have rejected "Bethabara" as a late emendation, and have instead replaced it with "Bethany".

But was this decision really justified? I really wonder about it...

However it may be, the exact location of either Bethany or Bethabara has been disputed until recently. But there's now some new archaeological evidence in this area that has been emerging.

Because, starting in 1997, archaeologists have been very busy excavating the site at Wadi Kharrar, on the Jordanian side of the river Jordan, and there's been a plethora of recent findings there.

Excavations have uncovered the remains of a Byzantine monastery, as well as the evidence of at least 10 early churches -- some with mosaic floors bearing Greek inscriptions. The whole complex dates to the early Byzantine era (at least), and it was clearly a major pilgrimage site for many centuries.

Archaeologists have also uncovered there a major system of water pipes and ducts to carry water to four plaster-lined baptismal pools -- one of which is 400 square metres in size.

So, most likely, this site has been traditionally associated with John the Baptist and, by the early Byzantine times, it became a major pilgrimage centre... There are even some reports that this place became prominent after Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, herself, took some special notice of it, and perhaps ordered some construction there.

But was this site known as Bethany or Bethabara? Well, it seems to me that, all in all, the name "Bethabara" may be rather preferable to "Bethany"... We will examine this question in some detail further on.

This textual problem is also quite relevant to the analysis of Morton Smith's Longer Gospel of Mark (LGM) because, in this text, the resuscitation of the young man, and his subsequent nocturnal initiation by Jesus -- that most scholars connect with baptism -- also takes place in Bethany.

As Scott G. Brown argues in his new book, this Bethany is actually none other than the "Bethany beyond the Jordan"!

Scott G. Brown, MARK'S OTHER GOSPEL: RETHINKING MORTON SMITH'S CONTROVERSIAL DISCOVERY, Waterloo, ON.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2005.

He comes to this conclusion after a detailed analysis of Jesus' travel itinerary, as given in the canonical Mark, after the Longer Mark has been inserted in its proper location, as indicated by Clement.

And so, Brown points to the apparent connection between LGM and Jn 1:28, the connection that is indeed quite intriguing.

His findings have already appeared in the Revue Biblique, as well as in Biblical Archaeology Review (31:1, 2005).

Here's the Abstract of his article in the Revue Biblique,

=========quote=========

Scott G. Brown, _Bethany beyond the Jordan : John 1:28 and the Longer Gospel of Mark_, Revue Biblique 110 (2003): 497-516.

The Gospel of John is not the only gospel to refer to a place called Bethany east of the Jordan river [Jn 1:28]. The longer Gospel of Mark (better known as "Secret Mark") depicts Jesus raising a young man in "Bethany" while Jesus is travelling through Peraea. A study of the relevant topographical references in this expanded version of Mark supports the recent claim by Jordanian archaeologists to have rediscovered Bethany beyond the Jordan at Wadi Kharrar in Jordan.

=========unquote=========

Nevertheless, it is too bad that, in his book, Brown doesn't even mention the alternative reading "Bethabara" in Jn 1:28, and what it may indicate for us...

Unfortunately, it is all too typical for modern biblical scholars to completely disregard textual criticism. In general, I liked Brown's MARK'S OTHER GOSPEL -- it's a great book overall, and he obviously spent many years of hard work researching this whole subject area in depth. So his disregard of this particular textual problem remains an unfortunate oversight. (I haven't yet read Brown's Revue Biblique article; he may be dealing with this problem there.)

So let us begin by outlining the textual evidence for this verse. Very helpfully, it is available at the following webpage,

=========quote==========

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay09jhn.htm

John 1:28

TEXT: "These things happened in Bethany on
the other side"

EVIDENCE: p59vid p66 p75 S* A B C* L
W(supp) X Delta Theta Psi* 28 565 700 892*
1010 1241 some Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h) most
syr(pal) cop(north)

TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB
TEV

RANK: C
_________________

NOTES: "These things happened in Bethabarah
on the other side"

EVIDENCE: C2 K Pi Psic 083 0113 f1 f13 33
some Byz syr(c,s) one syr(pal) cop(south)

TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn
_________________

NOTES: "These things happened in Betharabah
on the other side"

EVIDENCE: Sb 892variant

TRANSLATIONS: ASVn
_________________

COMMENTS: The location of "Bethany on the
other side of the Jordan" is unknown; therefore
commentators such as Origen and John
Chrysostom favored "Bethabarah" to avoid
confusion with the Bethany near Jerusalem. The
location of Bethabarah is also unknown.
"Betharabah" is a misspelling of "Bethabarah."

=========unquote==========

As we can see, according to Dr. Bruce Terry, the author of this website, the location of Bethany/ Bethabara on the other side of the Jordan is "unknown". (Well, now it looks like it was found, after all!)

He also says that commentators such as Origen and John Chrysostom favored "Bethabara" in order "to avoid confusion with the Bethany near Jerusalem".

Well, this is actually not so, with apologies to Dr. Terry... What Origen actually said was that he simply couldn't find any place named "Bethany" anywhere close to Jordan -- and yet he _did_ find a place called Bethabara, that was associated with John the Baptist.

From my point of view, this testimony of Origen is very important. Here was a reputable Christian scholar, ca 230 CE, who made an effort to ascertain these things for himself, while travelling in the area.

If we don't trust him, who can we trust then?

So here's the relevant quote from Origen in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA,

=========quote=========

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm&e=9797

Origen, in his commentary on this place of St. John's Gospel, declares as follows: "We are not ignorant that in nearly all codices Bethany is the reading. But we were persuaded that not Bethany, but Bethabara should be read, when we came to the places that we might observe the footprints of the Lord, of His disciples, and of the prophets. For, as the Evangelist relates, Bethany the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, is distant from Jerusalem fifteen furlongs, while the Jordan is distant one hundred and eighty furlongs. Neither is there a place along the Jordan which has anything in common with the name Bethany. But some say that among the mounds by the Jordan Bethabara is pointed out, where history relates that John baptized".

=========unquote=========

So why are the modern textual scholars so eager to dismiss this testimony of Origen, I wonder?

Are not the gospels supposed to be based on some physical reality, after all? And if there wasn't any place named "Bethany" beyond the Jordan at the time of Origen, how could there have been such a place at the time of the writing of John? (And, by the same logic, in Jesus' own time?)

Of course, our modern textual critics based their decision to dismiss this Majority text reading because the manuscripts that _they favour_ have "Bethany" in this verse...

And it's true, as we can see above, a lot of old manuscripts do feature Bethany in this verse -- and, by his own account, obviously did so at the time of Origen! Yet, some other old manuscripts (such as the Old Syriac Aramaic MSS) still feature Bethabara...

Well, IMHO it's rather difficult, in this case, to make a firm determination as to the correct reading based on the textual evidence alone... Even the editors of Nestle/Aland are not so sure, and they only rate their degree of certainty here as "C", which is not very high.

But what about the physical evidence, based on Origen's specific statement that no such place was found ca 230 CE? Shouldn't this also count for something?

Now, frankly, speaking for myself, I'm actually quite prepared to accept that "Bethany" reading indeed may have preceded the "Bethabara" reading in this case. Yes, that much might be true...

But was this really the earliest reading in John? Somehow I doubt it.

In my view, it is rather likely that, originally, this whole Johannine passage lacked _any_ place name... Because both Bethany and Bethabara seem to me like late redactional intrusions.

Thus, the place name "Bethany" was probably added to this passage ca 150-170 CE, during a later expansion of John. And whoever added this name wasn't really concerned all that much, it seems, with the matters of geography. It's the symbolic/mythical geography that they primarily cared about, most likely.

(Also, it's possible that these late Johannine editors were working in a place far away from Israel, such as in Asia Minor, for example -- so, in such a case, they probably didn't even understand Israel's geography all that well.)

But only two or three generations later, Origen and his contemporaries already did care about the geography of the Holy Land quite a lot... They had to! The number of Christian pilgrims must have kept increasing by leaps and bounds and, quite naturally, the pilgrims would have flocked to the Holy River Jordan, and would have kept inquiring about the location of Lord's own Baptism.

So it sure seems to me that there was something of real significance behind this tradition about Bethabara that Origen reports for us... And it's quite likely that the pilgrims were already flocking to Bethabara at the time when this location first entered the Johannine textual tradition.

Some modern scholars believe that the reading "Bethabara" came to dominate the Johannine textual tradition (i.e. became part of the Majority text) primarily on the authority of Origen, and they are thus inclined to disregard it... And yet, it doesn't seem like Origen was the father of this reading, since, as his own words seem to indicate, at least some codices already had this reading in his time?

It is a widely held opinion in the academe that John the Baptist was quite a famous man in his own time, perhaps even more famous than Jesus -- seeing that, by all accounts, Jesus' own ministry didn't last all that long...

So if John's ministry was really based near the river Jordan, it would be rather surprising if the town where he based it would have vanished from local memory so quickly... Is it possible that, already by the time of Origen, nobody would have any longer remembered that place? I doubt it somehow...

Thus, in effect, what Origen reports for us is really the only hard evidence we have of any oral tradition still preserving the memory of John's ministry near Jordan. So then how can one disregard this testimony in such a cavalier fashion, as so many of our modern scholars seem to be doing?

It is entirely reasonable that the memory of John's ministry would persist for some generations in the villages around Jordan river... And since the local tradition indeed placed John's ministry near Bethabara, personally, I'll certainly not be so willing to dismiss such evidence so easily.

Thus, I conclude, it was probably Bethabara, rather than Bethany, that was the original name of this location where the Jordanian archaeologists are now excavating.

And what tradition do we have for any Bethany near Jordan, other that the lonely mention of this place in Jn 1:28?

Whoever included this name into John's gospel, the rationale for this inclusion may forever remain unknown (although it's tempting to speculate, seeing that there _is_ a bit of a connection there with LGM)... We really have no way of knowing why Bethany was included into Jn 1:28, but I suspect that the person responsible for this inclusion was not motivated by any serious concern for real physical geography, or for the oral tradition as preserved by the villagers around the Jordan river.

Still, in my view, it's not impossible that a late editor of John's gospel may have inserted "Bethany" into Jn 1:28 because he saw the mention of it in LGM in connection with baptism. Nevertheless, such an idea will remain speculative at this point.

All the best,

Yuri.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Yuri. Looks like yet another place where the TR and the King James Bible are accurate, and the modern versions blunder. Keep in mind that the modern textcrits actually use the reverse logic than you --

Yuri - other things being equal, 'Bethabara' would be preferred, as it is accurate and sensible and historically/geographically accurate

modern harder reading (lectio difficilior) approach -
the accurate reading would not be the original Gospel text

The modern versions are actually built on a philosophical base that forces errrancy in the Bible. Which is why the errantists of course insist on the modern version text, the Duckshoot Text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

S.C.Carlson

I've read Brown's Revue Biblique article. Here is all of what he has to say about the text-critical aspects of the problem (p. 498, n. 2):

More commonly, scholars who construe Bethany as a variation of some other name presume later scribal corruption. Origen (Comm. Jo. 6.40.204-206) restored to this solution after being unable to find a place called Bethany in the vicinity of the Jordan; his proposed emendation -- Bethabara -- has influenced the manuscript tradition, but as even he acknowledged, the evidence overwhelmingly supports Bethany (attested as early as the third and second centuries in p75 and p66).

The fact that the Bethabara reading appears in the Old Syriac, however, tends to contradict the idea that Bethabara was Origen's emendation: he got it from an earlier (probably non-Greek) witness.

offa

Unfortunately, biblical scholars are stuck on the river Jordan. They are duped by the fact that a little creek that ran past an abode, about ten miles west of the Dead Sea, and this creek was called "the Jordan" and this abode was called Damascus and/or Tyre. Also, there were several Jerusalems and more than one Jericho.

Offa

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

btw, not only Origen and Chrysostom but also Jerome and, Eusebius wrote about this, apparently in favor of Bethabara. By 400 AD Jerome was living in the region, (Bethlehem) although I haven't looked at the details of his writing or the dating.

For tourism familiarity purposes the Jordanians like to call the Wadi Kharrar 'Bethany beyond the Jordan' , however it seems that the area's name was much closer to Bethabara, based on the discussions of the way that the region was known, including the historic Arabic names. The archaelogists don't seem to discuss the precise name in the interviews.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Prax, 'Bethabara' is clearly far more in agreement with the oral tradition.

"Lectio difficilior" principle is one of the most abused concepts in the history of scholarship. It's really worthless.

Here's the ancient Madaba mosaic map, that shows Bethabara, but doesn't have any "Bethany",



http://www.mythfolklore.net/medieval...pp/jericho.htm

All the best,

Yuri

andrewcriddle

The majority text is split between Bethany and Bethabara.

FWIW the Hodges and Farstad reconstructed majority text reads Bethany with a critical note that the TR with a minority of the majority text reads Bethabara.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for the correction, Andrew.

Indeed, the Bethabara reading is quite unusual, in so far as it is represented in all sorts of manuscripts -- all across the usual textual family divisions.

In particular, it's interesting that Latin textual tradition goes solidly for "Bethany", including the Vulgate. (So this seems to cast some doubt on Jerome being the author of the Vulgate, since he, himself, apparently preferred the Bethabara reading.)

Thanks to Carlson for posting the quote from Brown's Revue Biblique article.

Brown wrote,

"... but as even he [Origen] acknowledged, the evidence overwhelmingly supports Bethany"

Well, perhaps the manuscript evidence does overwhelmingly support Bethany in this case, but what about the physical evidence? As far as we can determine, there was never any Bethany anywhere near Jordan river...

So in this case, an overwhelming manuscript support for something that didn't exist in real life isn't necessarily such a good thing.

I've checked the Dutch and the Persian Diatessarons, and they both have "Bethany" in this passage. The Magdalene Gospel lacks Jn 1:28 completely, so this makes me think that the earliest text of John also lacked this verse. I'm not aware of any other gospel manuscript that lacks Jn 1:28.

Regards,

Yuri.

Steven Avery

From a pure textcritical approach, the issue would be one of the most diverse, even the TR had two Stephanus editions with the Bethany error.
Wondering - is there any variation in any Old Latin, Tepll, Italic ? Or Vulgate ? Remember the first extant Vulgate we have is about 200 years post-Jerome, this type of issue (Jerome apparently not matching the Vulgate) also comes up with the Johannine Comma, dunno if it comes up elsewhere. It would be hard to not have Jerome as the actual Gospel translator/updater since he handed it to Damasus, Bishop of Rome in 384 AD.

However, Brown's terminology "his proposed emendation" is inaccurate, since Origen indicated that Bethabara was in some manuscripts.
It seems pretty clear with the Madaba mosaic, very early baptism pools (does the Madaba mosiac indicate that it itself is Bathabera, I'm still trying to sort some of this out), the Arabic names for the region, the total lack of any Bethany east of Jordan and the historical knowledge of the names in the second to fourth century that Bethany is simply errant. Not suprisingly, the King James Bible and the historic Bibles such as Tyndale and Geneva have it un-errant, following all the late edition TRs.

In addition, the normal lectio diff arguments again seem very strained, or at least one-dimensional. It is very easy to conjecture a scribe unfamiliar with Israel and the sparse regions by the Dead Sea tripping over Bethabara and simplifying it in copying to a known and simpler name. So those arguments are pretty much a wash.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY