John 1:28 Bethabara vs Bethany — Origen's Third-Century Scribal Corruption Exposed by All Critical Manuscripts

The Verse Under Study — the text of John 1:28 as it circulates among Christians today
The Problem Defined — how Origen changed “Bethany” to “Bethabara” in the third century and why
What the Scholars Said — fourteen scholars from Origen to the present unanimously confirming the Bethany reading
The Text in English Translations — all 27 English versions reading Bethany versus 10 reading Bethabara, listed in full
The Text in Arabic Translations — the seven Arabic translations compared
The Text in the Greek Critical Versions — all six critical Greek editions choosing Bethany
The Text in the Latin Vulgate — the Vulgate evidence with manuscript images
The Text in the Syriac Peshitta — Syriac witness with manuscript images
The Text in the Most Important Manuscripts — eight key manuscripts examined with images
First the Manuscripts Supporting Each Reading — four full critical apparatuses compared
Second Critical Comments — extended comments from Metzger, Willker, Comfort, NET Bible, and others
Responses and Comments — systematic refutation of Christian defenses of the Bethabara reading
The Following is Required of a Christian — five challenges for those who defend Bethabara

This took place in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Almost all manuscripts have “Bethany” written in them.

The “Bethany” reading is the oldest and has the widest attestation.

The most, best, and most diverse manuscripts support the Bethany reading. External and internal evidence is in its favor.

The Bethany reading chosen by the critical versions is the correct one.

In light of the very strong attestation in favor of the Bethany reading, it is the correct reading.

In Bethabara should be read ἐν βηθανίᾳ — in Bethania, or Bethany beyond Jordan. The change of name from the Bethany of the oldest MSS. seems to have been effected by Origen.

There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true reading in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his inability to identify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended.

Bethabara — Rather, “Bethany” (according to nearly all the best and most ancient manuscripts); not the Bethany of Lazarus, but another of the same name, and distinguished from it as lying “beyond Jordan,” on the east.

The name in most and most important manuscripts is “Bethany.”

Bethabara must be Bethany. Origen found the reading Bethany in almost all manuscripts, but he did not find its location, so he expected it to be Bethabara, which he had heard from widespread tradition as the place of John’s baptism, and the fathers followed him in that. We cannot justify Origen’s decision to reject the testimony of all manuscripts.

The correct reading is βηθανία, Bethany. Not the Bethany of John 11:18, but an unknown village.

Almost all the ancient manuscripts and versions, instead of “Bethabara” here, have “Bethany,” and this is doubtless the true reading. Bethany is the reading of the mass of authorities.

Bethany is the reading represented by most manuscripts.

It is very probable that the word Bethany should be inserted here, instead of Bethabara. This reading, in the judgment of the best critics, is the genuine one. The following are the authorities by which it is supported: A B C E G H L M S X, BV of Matthai, upwards of a hundred others, Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, and all the Itala, with some of the most eminent of the primitive fathers, before the time of Origen, who is supposed to have first changed the reading. There was a place called Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, at the foot of the mount of Olives. But there was another of the same name, beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben. It was probably of this that the evangelist speaks; and Origen, not knowing of this second Bethany, altered the reading to Bethabara.

The common reading, βηθαβαρᾷ, is owing to a conjecture of Origen. It will be seen that his testimony is decisive for the universality and authority of βηθανίᾳ, while for the other he only produces a tradition, and that only at second-hand; “they say that such a place is shewn.”

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things took place at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was giving baptism.

John 1:28 — This encounter took place across the Jordan in Bethany where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — All this took place in Beit-Anyah, east of the Yarden, where Yochanan was immersing.

John 1:28 — All this happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — All this happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things took place in Bethany, across the Jordan, where John was baptising.

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethania, at the passage of the Jurdan, where Juchanon was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This happened in Bethany on the east side of the Jordan River, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany at the crossing of the Jordan where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These events occurred at Bethany on the east bank of the Jordan River, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things occurred in Bethany, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising.

John 1:28 — This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan River. That was where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan, where John was baptising.

John 1:28 — This encounter took place in Bethany, an area east of the Jordan River, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — This took place in Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.

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

John 1:28 — This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

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

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

John 1:28 — These things he spake in Beth ‘Abara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These thinges were done in Bethabara beyonde Iordan where Iohn dyd baptyse.

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

John 1:28 — These things came to pass in Bethabara, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

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

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John baptized.

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things were done in Bethabara beyond Iordan, where Iohn did baptize.

Jn. 1:28 — This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Jn. 1:28 — All this took place in Bethany, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Jn. 1:28 — This was in the village of Bethany on the east bank of the Jordan River. John was baptizing there.

Jn. 1:28 — This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Jn. 1:28 — This took place in Bethany, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Jn. 1:28 — All this took place in Bethany, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Jn. 1:28 — This happened in the village of Bethany, which is on the east side of the Jordan River, where John was immersing people in water.

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

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:28 — These things happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

The Bethany reading is the oldest and has the widest attestation. If the original reading was Bethany, there would be no justification for the scribes to change it to Bethany. Origen, in his travels in the third century, was unable to determine its location, saying, “Its location today is unknown, and it should not be confused with Bethany mentioned in John 11:1 and 18.” Origen chose to read the Bethabara as found in the few manuscripts he knew, and because he believed that the meaning of “Bethabara” was “the house of preparation,” he says: “Where would the person who came before Christ to prepare the way for him be baptized except in the ‘house of preparation’?” John Chrysostom follows Origen and states that the more accurate manuscripts contain the reading “Bethabara,” saying: “Bethabara is not located in the Jordan desert, but near Jerusalem.” The majority of the Textual Criticism Committee chose the reading “Bethany” for the following reasons: (1) the time and distribution of evidence for this reading, and (2) if Bethabara was the oldest, then there is no justification for changing it to Bethany.

Origen (Jo Comm. book 6), who was under the probably mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem (he couldn’t find a Bethany near the Jordan in his travels), opted for Βηθαβαρᾷ, which he apparently found in some copies (Βηθανίᾳ is found in “nearly all the manuscripts”). He explained it (wrongly) allegorically as οἶκος κατασκευῆς (“house of the preparation”), but it actually means “house of passing over”. It has been suggested that Origen actually created this reading, but this is not clear. Note that Origen once writes the curious τὰ Βηθαβαρᾷ. He writes:

“These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” We are aware of the reading which is found in almost all the copies, “These things were done in Bethany.” This appears, moreover, to have been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read “Bethany.” We are convinced, however, that we should not read “Bethany,” but “Bethabara.” We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same evangelist tells us, was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, and the river Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor is there any other place of the same name in the neighborhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara (τὰ Βηθαβαρᾷ) is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there.

It is interesting though that nowhere in the early sources and also not in any of the pilgrims reports a Bethany “beyond the Jordan” is mentioned. On the other hand there is no reason to consider Bethany simply a corruption. It is explicitly labeled as the Bethany “beyond the Jordan”, to distinguish it from the Bethany near Jerusalem. John is quite exact regarding John the Baptist’s places, compare Jo 3:23 and 10:40.

External arguments: More, more better and more diverse manuscripts support Bethany. Bethabara also has some good and diverse support, but not as much as Bethany.

Internal arguments: Bethany is clearly the harder reading and was a stumbling block, not only for Origen, but also for other church fathers. If Βηθαβαρᾷ was original, there would have been no reason for a change. It is not clear if Origen made this reading up; it is possible. The “but they say” seems to point to a local tradition, which Origen ascertains.

It should be noted that Origen based his solution to the Bethany problem on hearsay only. It should also be noted that the Βηθαβαρᾷ on the Madaba map is west of the Jordan.

It is also interesting to note that Livias, the place of Herod Antipas’ summer residence, which is across the Jordan, has originally been called Βηθαραμαθα (Josephus, Bell II 59, Ant XVII 277, XVIII 27).

Weiss (Lk Com.) suggests Judges 7:24 (Baiqhra) as a possible reference, but marks it with a question-mark. Note that in the manuscripts of Origen’s commentary the spelling varies and Βηθαρᾷ and Βαθαρᾷ are also found.

Burkitt thinks that because both Sy-S and Origen have Βηθαβαρᾷ, this indicates a common source: “This source seems to have been not documentary evidence, but local identification. […] We cannot doubt that the author of the Fourth Gospel wrote ‘Bethany beyond Jordan.’ On the other hand we have the cult of ‘Bethabara’, developed before the time of Origen, perhaps at a pre-Christian holy place. The cult led to the identification of ‘Bethany’ with ‘Bethabara’ and finally it influenced some texts of the Gospels.” (Evangelion Intro, p. 308–9).

Pierson Parker suggests that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου does not refer to Βηθανίᾳ, but to ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων and gives the translation: “These things took place in Bethany, which is across from the point of the Jordan where John had been baptizing.” (This has already been suggested by E.G. Paulus in 1828.) It is quite unlikely that John would have described Bethany this way though.

R. Riesner suggests that the place “beyt abarah” originally indicated the crossing of the Jordan by the Israelites and also the crossing of the Jordan by Elijah and Elisha, so two crossings have been remembered here. This could explain Origen’s plural τὰ Βηθαβαρᾷ, a place of several fords.

Rainer Riesner argues for Βηθανίᾳ = Βαταναία (the region Batanaea). This identification is as early as J. Lightfoot (1658). There are two places that are relevant. One, called Βηθαβαρᾷ, is the place of Jesus’ baptism, which is at the traditional place. The other is the place where John is questioned by the Pharisees in Jo 1:19–28. This is the Batanaea in the north. Here John worked too. The problem arose (according to Riesner) due to the misunderstanding that in the following verses Jesus’ baptism is reported. This is not the case; John only gives an account of what happened at an unknown time earlier. The time table and circumstances in Jo 1 fit much better if everything happens in the north (compare Riesner, Bethanien, p. 73ff.). It also fits well with the time table of Jo 11 (p. 71ff.). Furthermore, the region of Batanaea is known in Arabic as el-Betheneyeh, which comes nearest to the Evangelist’s Bethania (compare Brownlee).

Against this view is the fact that representatives of the Pharisees and others from Jerusalem came to investigate John’s baptizing, apparently in great numbers. Although it would have been possible for them to find John in Batanaea in the north, a location closer to Jerusalem seems more likely.

S.G. Brown notes that the most common position today is Wadi Kharrar/Gharrar (Tell el-Kharrar), “a site in Jordan across from Jericho, where four springs merge into a stream that flows into the Jordan river.” […] “a site opposite (and just over 1 km south of) Jericho, 7.3 km north of the Dead Sea and 1.5 km east of the river. It is between the two fords across from Jericho, a little closer to the Makhadat Hajla ford. The ongoing excavation of the site has ‘uncovered a 1st CE settlement with plastered pools and water systems that were used almost certainly for baptism, and a 5th–6th CE late Byzantine settlement with churches, a monastery, and other structures probably catering to religious pilgrims.’ This site has been the traditional location of Jesus’ baptism since at least the early 4th CE (the pilgrim of Bordeaux, 333 CE).”

Starting 1997, excavations took place for several years in the region of the Jordan north of the Dead Sea. The Jordanian team has identified nearly 20 related sites within an area stretching some four kilometers east of the Jordan River, mostly along the south bank of Wadi el-Kharrar, including the above mentioned 1st CE settlement. More sites remain to be discovered through systematic surveying. The excavators believe that the village of Bethany beyond the Jordan was located at or around the natural hill at Tell el-Kharrar. The main complex, still being excavated and investigated, comprises structures on and around a small natural hill located two kilometers east of the Jordan River, adjacent to the spring and small oasis at the head of the Wadi Kharrar. The recent excavations have identified a settlement that was inhabited from the time of Christ and John the Baptist (early Roman era), throughout most of the Byzantine period, into the early Islamic era, and again in Ottoman centuries.

“Bethany/Bethabara may also have referred to a region, rather than only a specific settlement. Western travelers to the region at the turn of the century reported that the Greek Orthodox clerics and monks who lived in the south Jordan Valley, and the native valley residents themselves, referred to the whole area around the river and east along the Wadi el-Kharrar as Bethabara. Thus the original settlement was known as Bethany beyond the Jordan during and immediately following the days of Jesus and John the Baptist in the 1st Century AD; after the 3rd Century AD it was more commonly known as Bethabara, and by the 6th Century AD it had become known as Aenon and Safsafa. The general area from the river eastwards associated with the ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus is known as el-Maghtas today in Arabic.” (Jordanian Department of Antiquities)

In the end there are several good arguments, but none is so far completely convincing. A settlement and baptism site has been found beyond the Jordan, and it makes perfectly good sense that this was the main area where John was baptizing, but we don’t know (from external sources) if this site was named “Bethany.” Wherever Bethany was located, both external arguments and internal arguments favor the reading Bethany at Jo 1:28.

The WH NU reading is very likely original. It was the reading that Origen (Comm. Jo. 6.24,40) encountered in “nearly all the copies,” and it was the reading Heracleon acknowledged (according to Origen). But Origen could not locate any “Bethany” by the Jordan when he traveled to Palestine. However, there was a town called Bethabara in the vicinity, which, according to local tradition, was the site of John’s baptism. Origen, therefore, adopted the reading Βηθαβαρᾷ (see Barrett 1978, 175). He was followed by Eusebius and by Jerome, who, however, let “Bethany” stand in the Vulgate (Schnackenburg 1982, 1:296). The second variant probably points to the Beth-arabah mentioned in Josh 15:6, 61; 18:22, located near Jericho and therefore near the traditional site of John’s baptism of Jesus.

Because there is no village called Bethany on the borders of the Jordan, the word was changed to Bethabara because it is more appropriate from a linguistic derivation point of view — as Origen made a mistake in explaining the meaning of Bethabara, which is that it means the house of preparation. In light of the very strong evidence in favor of the Bethany reading, it is the correct reading.

In Bethabara should be read ἐν βηθανίᾳ — in Bethania, or Bethany beyond Jordan. The change of name from the Bethany of the oldest MSS. seems to have been effected by Origen. In his day the name had been obliterated from the region of the Jordan; but finding that tradition pointed to a place called Bethabara as that where John baptised, he inserted that name. But, according to Godet, “As to the Bethany near the Jordan, it is more probable that its name is derived from Beth-Onijah (אניה — navis), place of the ferry-boat.”

John 1:28. These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan. There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true reading in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his inability to identify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended.

Bethabara — Rather, “Bethany” (according to nearly all the best and most ancient manuscripts); not the Bethany of Lazarus, but another of the same name, and distinguished from it as lying “beyond Jordan,” on the east.

Bethabara must be Bethany. Origen found the reading Bethany in almost all manuscripts, but he did not find its location, so he expected it to be Bethabara, which he had heard from widespread tradition as the place of John’s baptism, and the fathers followed him in that. We cannot justify Origen’s decision to reject the testimony of all manuscripts.

The correct reading is βηθανία, Bethany. Not the Bethany of John 11:18, but an unknown village.

In Bethabara — Almost all the ancient manuscripts and versions, instead of “Bethabara” here, have “Bethany,” and this is doubtless the true reading. Bethany is the reading of the mass of authorities.

These things were done in Bethabara — It is very probable that the word Bethany should be inserted here, instead of Bethabara. This reading, in the judgment of the best critics, is the genuine one. The following are the authorities by which it is supported: A B C E G H L M S X, BV of Matthai, upwards of a hundred others, Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, and all the Itala, with some of the most eminent of the primitive fathers, before the time of Origen, who is supposed to have first changed the reading. There was a place called Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, at the foot of the mount of Olives. But there was another of the same name, beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben. It was probably of this that the evangelist speaks; and Origen, not knowing of this second Bethany, altered the reading to Bethabara.

The common reading, βηθαβαρᾷ, is owing to a conjecture of Origen. It will be seen that his testimony is decisive for the universality and authority of βηθανίᾳ, while for the other he only produces a tradition, and that only at second-hand; “they say that such a place is shewn.”

The reading “Bethabara” is present in the Ephraimite manuscript from the fifth century, and it is present in the margin of Sinaiticus as a correction by the original copyist.

“We don’t know how or whether early manuscripts were corrected. In a scriptorium, however, it was the practice that a manuscript be checked as soon as it was finished. This was the task of the straightener, literally ‘one who straightens,’ which we might loosely render as ‘guy supposed to make this thing right.’ The diorthotes was often a scribe specially trained to find and rectify mistakes, though we often find a scribe acting as his own diorthotes.” (The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 213)

Among the most important manuscripts that suffered from correctors are the Sinaiticus and the Ephraimite. The image below shows a list of the correctors, their dates, and their symbols from Kurt Aland’s book The Text of the New Testament:

The Sinaiticus correction that reads “Bethabara” dates back to the fourth century, making it an early witness.

This is incorrect. The corrector who introduced “Bethabara” into the Sinaiticus dates back to the seventh century and is symbolized X2 according to some scholars, or XCa according to others. A photograph with the names of the correctors and their dates from Kurt Aland’s Text of the New Testament has already been provided above. Below are five critical editions and critical commentaries that identify the corrector’s symbol:

The Upper Egyptian Coptic manuscript from the third century reads Bethabara.

“The ancient translations of the Greek New Testament. These are highly valuable in some ways — they are usually early (the oldest Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions date from the second to fourth centuries, and the Armenian probably to the fifth), and we know what part of the world they come from. But they also have drawbacks: No translation, even if precise and literal (and not all these translations are) can exactly render the wording of the Greek original. Also, the versions have a textual history of their own, which means we have to reconstruct their readings. Finally, it is worth remembering that, although a version may exist in thousands of copies, it is usually translated from no more than a handful of Greek originals. Thus the versions are very important for determining the history of a variant reading, but sometimes less useful for determining the original text. Hence the Fathers, like the versions, are best used to establish the history of the text.” (The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz, p. 9)

This is further confirmed by Benjamin Warfield in An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (p. 16): “THE first duty of the student who is seeking the true text of the New Testament is obviously to collect and examine the witnesses to that text. Whatever professes to be the Greek New Testament is a witness to its text. Thus we observe that copies of the Greek Testament are our primary witnesses to its text. The first duty of the textual critic is, therefore, to collect the copies of the Greek Testament, and, comparing them together, cull from them all their various readings.” This principle — priority to Greek manuscripts — is not disputed among scholars.

Armenian and Georgian manuscripts from the fifth century attest the Bethabara reading.

We do not have any Armenian or Georgian manuscripts from the fifth century. The available manuscripts from these traditions begin from the tenth century onward. Neither Armenian nor Georgian has significant value in reconstructing the earliest text of the New Testament, particularly when set against the unanimous Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Bohairic Coptic evidence for Bethany.

The Bethany reading spread because it is a copyist error that was reproduced across many manuscripts.

A copyist error that appears in all early manuscripts across six centuries — in all languages and across all textual families, Eastern and Western — is no error: it is the original text. There is no verbal or phonological similarity between “Bethany” and “Bethabara” that would produce a scribal slip in any language simultaneously. If this were a random copying error, one would expect it to appear in some manuscripts and not others, in one language and not another. Instead, it is the overwhelming majority reading from the third century through the fourteenth. Moreover, if this were an error, it would demolish any claim that the manuscript tradition protected the text from corruption — an error of this magnitude, universal across the most important and earliest manuscripts in all known languages for six centuries, would itself be the most devastating corruption imaginable.

The NET Bible, Wieland Willker, and Philip Comfort all testify to the correctness of the Bethabara reading.

The full words of all three scholars are quoted in detail above in this research, and their testimony is unambiguous: all three explicitly confirm that the Bethany reading is the correct one. There is no ambiguity in any of their statements.

The name Bethabara appears on the Madaba mosaic map, a sixth-century floor mosaic from a church in Jordan, confirming the Bethabara reading.

There is no need to abandon the overwhelming evidence of the first five centuries in favor of a reflection of later Byzantine readings. Moreover, this testimony actually works against the Bethabara argument: if the town of Bethabara genuinely existed at the Jordan crossing and was well-known enough to appear on maps, then there would have been no reason for any copyist to change “Bethabara” to “Bethany” — since “Bethabara” would have been a perfectly recognizable and geographically verifiable place name. It is precisely because “Bethany” did not appear on any Jordan-region map that Origen felt compelled to change it. The existence of a mapmaker’s label for Bethabara in the sixth century confirms that the Bethany reading is the harder and original reading — it explains why Bethabara arose, while Bethabara cannot explain why Bethany arose.

Eusebius and Jerome both attest to the Bethabara reading and are important ancient witnesses.

Neither Eusebius nor Jerome relied on manuscript evidence for their preference of Bethabara. Both followed Origen’s conjecture based on the absence of a town called Bethany near the Jordan — that is, on geographical reasoning and tradition, not on textual evidence. Jerome himself wrote “Bethany” in the Latin Vulgate, which means he explicitly acknowledged in his own translation that the manuscript evidence favored Bethany over Bethabara. His personal preference for Bethabara as a geographical identification did not override his faithfulness to the manuscript tradition when producing the authoritative Latin version.

The word “Bethabara” at John 1:28, as preserved in the King James Version and the Van Dyke Arabic translation, is not the original reading of the Gospel of John. It is a third-century conjecture introduced by Origen of Alexandria when he could not locate a village called Bethany near the Jordan River during his travels in Palestine. Origen himself admitted that “almost all manuscripts” in his possession read Bethany. Every subsequent textual critic, every critical edition of the Greek New Testament, every major English translation produced by modern scholarship, all seven Arabic critical translations, all ancient Latin versions, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and manuscript witnesses from every textual family — Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean — across thirteen centuries of manuscript tradition confirm that the original word written by the author of the Gospel of John was Βηθανίᾳ: Bethany. The case is closed by the testimony of the manuscripts themselves, and it is not challenged by any responsible scholar working within the discipline of New Testament textual criticism.