There are three references to the Jordan in John's gospel,Footnote ¹ all occurring in the identical phrase πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (across the Jordan) (1.28; 3.26; and 10.40). The first of these, to which the later two refer, refers to the place where John the Baptist was baptizing. Following the major textual witnesses, the location is generally taken to be a place called Bethany. This location has occasioned considerable debate as there is no known Bethany ‘across the Jordan’ (if one takes the perspective of being located in Israel), and because there are textual witnesses that identify the location as Bethabara; of the major textual witnesses ⁶⁶, ⁷⁵, א*, A, B, C*, L, W^supp, Δ, Θ, Ψ* read Βηθανίᾳ while א² reads Bηθαραβᾷ and C², T^vid, Ψ^c read Βηθαβαρᾷ.Footnote ² Both textual variants appear to be known by Origen, who prefers Bethabara,Footnote ³ since ‘the meaning of the name Bethabara is appropriate for the baptism of the one who prepares for the Lord a prepared table, for it is translated, “house of preparation.”’Footnote ⁴ Origen does, however, suggest that Bethany is also appropriate for it means ‘house of obedience’, although he notes that there is ‘no place in the vicinity of Jordan with the same name as Bethania’.Footnote ⁵

Brian Byron summarizes various attempts to solve the difficulty regarding the location before offering his own solution, in which he argues that one should adopt an ‘eastern’ rather than ‘western’ perspective for interpreting the comment of being ‘across the Jordan’ in 1.28, based on the symbolism of crossing the Jordan in the OT, thus reading 1.28, ‘These things happened at Bethany across the Jordan—it was at the Jordan that John used to baptize’Footnote ⁶ to allow Bethany here to refer to the Bethany close to Jerusalem mentioned in John 1.11. If correct, this symbolism would reflect Jesus as the new Joshua crossing into the land in a new stage of salvation history.Footnote ⁷ Byron's solution is motivated by dissatisfaction with other theories:

1. 1. The ‘Two Bethany’ theory, which he is dissatisfied with owing to the lack of evidence for the existence of a suitable ‘second Bethany’, even though the theory has ‘virtually total support from today's scholars’;Footnote ⁸

2. 2. Pierson Parker's theory, based on Classical Greek usage, in which he argues that John 1.28 has the sense of ‘These things took place in Bethany, which is across from the point of the Jordan where John had been baptizing’,Footnote ⁹ a reading that Byron notes has been described as ‘grammatically impossible’, and has failed to gain support;Footnote ¹⁰

3. 3. The minority textual witness to Bethabara;

4. 4. The theory that John made a mistake;

5. 5. Bethany understood as a corruption for another location, with Batanaea being the strongest candidate, a theory that he does not discuss in detail but rejects on the grounds that there is no manuscript evidence for it, and thus that it is a ‘gratuitous suggestion’ that ‘would hardly be acceptable’.Footnote ¹¹

Byron's hypothesis is ingenious—the gospel does not indicate what geographical perspective should be adopted—and has the merit of developing the symbolism of the OT in a text, John's gospel, that is widely recognized as highly symbolic. But a difficulty with Byron's hypothesis is that it does not account for John 3.26 and 10.40–42, which refer back to 1.28.

However, it is, perhaps, surprising that there have been few attempts to consider or to develop a symbolic account of the phrase πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in John's gospel, and of the location referred to in 1.28. One exception is the commentary of Raymond Brown, where in a reading not unlike Origen's, he suggests,

While Brown raises the right sorts of issues, I think that there is a better solution available.

1. The Location of John 1.28 as Batanaea, or Bashan

While Byron, and previously Brown, helpfully raise the possible significance of the symbolism in 1.28, I think that there is a different solution available that is deeply and perhaps disturbingly symbolic, based partly on the suggestion that the location in John 1.28 is in fact Batanaea, outside the land of Israel, as argued in detail by William Brownlee and by Rainer Riesner, a suggestion followed by A. Köstenberger, and D. A. Carson.Footnote ¹³ C. K. Barrett rejects Brownlee's case for Batanaea as unconvincing, but suggests that ‘11.1, 18 seem carefully worded so as to distinguish Bethany near Jerusalem from the other Bethany’.Footnote ¹⁴ Indeed, the majority of recent commentators, both in English and German scholarship, appear to favour (sometimes cautiously) the view that the Bethany referred to in 1.28 is an unknown location that is to be differentiated from the Bethany of 11.1 without further discussion,Footnote ¹⁵ although Siegfried Schulz suggests that ‘An diesen Versen wird deutlich, wie problematisch das Verhältnis von Verkündigung und Historie bei Johannes ist’.Footnote ¹⁶ But while Brownlee considers the symbolic nature of Batanaea in detail, he does not consider the significance of being ‘across the Jordan’ in John, although he does consider the significance of crossing the Jordan in 1QS in another essay.Footnote ¹⁷

Crucially, however, Brownlee observes that ‘Batanaea is a Hellenized form of the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew name Bashan’.Footnote ¹⁸ Indeed, Marcus Jastrow lists בּׂותְנׇיִיׅם,בּׂותְנְיִין,בּוּתְנַן,בׇּתְנַיׇּיא and בּׂותְנַיֵּי as various Aramaic equivalents of בׇּשׇׁן,Footnote ¹⁹ and A. Schalit lists Bαταναία and Bατανα as equivalents to LXX Bασαν and OT בׇּשׇׁן in Josephus.Footnote ²⁰ Furthermore, Brownlee notes that the region of Batanaea is known in Arabic as el-Betheneyeh, which ‘comes the nearest to the Evangelist's Bēthania’,Footnote ²¹ and suggests that while the original names of Bethany and Batanaea ‘were probably etymologically different…they were still close enough to each other in orthography for the Evangelist to assimilate them one to the other in his spelling’.Footnote ²²

Riesner develops his argument that Bethany (John 1.28) is Batanaea by considering topography and timing in the narrative, and concludes that the apparent equation of the two places named Bethany in John (1.28 and 11.1) has ‘deep theological significance’ since what ‘began in the region specially marked out by the Jewish messianic hope (Batanaea) through the proclamation of John the Baptist…finds its completion through the cross and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, which events are already typified in the raising of Lazarus (at Bethany)’.Footnote ²³

However, Brownlee pursues a different sort of argument, considering the symbolic significance of Batanaea as Bashan in relation to three OT texts and their resonances with John 1. First, he discusses the significance of the imagery of shepherding in Micah 7.14–15,

and seeks to associate this concept with ‘shepherd terminology as the disciples “follow” Jesus (1:36, 43)’.Footnote ²⁵ Secondly, he considers Jer 50.19–20,

linking the idea of the removal of sin here with the work of the ‘Lamb of God’ in John 1.29. Finally he notes that Ps 68.15–16 (Eng.),

is ‘suggestive’,Footnote ²⁶ but does not develop this further. He concludes that

However, while pointing us in the right direction, I think that there is more that lies behind the significance of Batanaea (Bashan), and indeed of ‘crossing the Jordan’ in John. I would like to develop their significance in several stages. First, I would like to reflect further on the symbolic significance of Bashan in the OT. Secondly, I shall consider the significance of crossing the Jordan in the OT and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thirdly, I shall consider the significance of the references to crossing (or being across) the Jordan in John in their narrative contexts before finally tying the various threads together to develop the significance of the symbolism of πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου and Bethany = Bashan in John, with the symbolism indeed suggesting that the location of 1.28 is OT Bashan.

2. The Symbolic Significance of Bashan Developed

It might be possible to go further than Brownlee regarding the significance of Bashan, even if there are some difficulties with the three OT texts that he cites, as we shall see. D. J. Simundson notes on Micah 7.14–15 that,

Likewise, D. R. Hillers notes that Bashan and Gilead have symbolic significance, with Bashan understood as ‘traditionally luxuriant’.Footnote ²⁹

However, the reference to Bashan in the second colon of Jer 50.19 is awkward, being absent in the LXX—a capricious abridgement perhaps.Footnote ³⁰ But W. L. Holladay argues that its omission from the LXX should be the preferred witness to the original text since the observation that ‘the fourth colon of the verse has two words suggests that only two words are original here’.Footnote ³¹ But questions relating to the ‘authenticity’ and to the history of the text here are notoriously difficult.Footnote ³² However, the reference to Bashan may well be absent in the earliest form of the poem, a poem which may or may not have been authentic to Jeremiah the prophet, but added at a sufficiently early stage in the development of the text to have been known to John.Footnote ³³Targum Jeremiah, although notoriously difficult to date, but having early roots,Footnote ³⁴ reads מתנן for בשׁן, which Jastrow takes as an Aramaic equivalent name.Footnote ³⁵ However, Robert Hayward renders מתנן as ‘fatness’, understanding the text to be drawing on the metaphoric connotations of Bashan.Footnote ³⁶ But however מתנן is to be construed, it indicates the existence of a reading associated with Bashan. Jeremiah 50.19 is not extant at Qumran, although Emmanuel Tov notes that in the extant witnesses to Jeremiah at Qumran, some are close to the LXX while others are close to the MT.Footnote ³⁷

Thus it is difficult, and probably impossible, to determine what version of Jer 50.19 was available to John, or at least whether the sort of significance that Bashan had in the MT here was circulating in the context of the composition of the gospel. But given Micah 7.14–15 and the Targumic reading, it is quite possible that the MT reading of Jer 50.19, if not original, was established by the time the gospel was composed. But even if the reading ‘Bashan’ was not known to John, the addition of Bashan to the text itself witnesses to the developing significance of the site, and thus the plausibility of John's development of it. I shall assume that the reading with ‘Bashan’ was known to John.

Bashan appears to develop an eschatological significance within the prophetic literature, being the place where Israel will live in abundance with their hunger satisfied and their sin pardoned (Jer 50.19–20), and the place where God will shepherd his people, accompanied by wonders (נפלאות) as when he led Israel out of Egypt (Micah 7.14–15). These themes all find development in John, even if they also find some qualification—Jesus ‘feeds’ his followers, but primarily with his body (6.53–56), bringing abundant life as the good shepherd (10.10) who takes away sin (1.29), and performs miraculous signs (σημϵῖα), the importance of which finds development or reinterpretation and qualification (e.g. 2.18–24; 6.26).Footnote ³⁸ Even if the MT reading of Jer 50.19 was not known to John, most of these aspects of the Bashan symbolism were available at the time of the composition of the gospel via Micah 7.14–15, with the possible exception of the forgiveness of sin that is made explicit in Jer 50.19–20.

Turning to Psalm 68, Ps 68.21–4 (Heb.) reads,

However, there is a problem with v. 23 (Heb.), which the MT reads,

and the LXX reads,

in that there is no object for the verb. Is it Israel that will be brought back or the enemies of YHWH? Moreover, as James Charlesworth has argued recently, it is probable that originally בשׁן referred to a ‘dragon-snake’ rather than the place Bashan, with the text now being defective.Footnote ³⁹ But the issue here is again of course how John, and his contemporaries, might have read and used the psalm. Unfortunately there is little to go on from Qumran regarding the interpretation of this verse,Footnote ⁴⁰ but the Midrash on the Psalms indicates that 68.23 was indeed read with Israel as the object of the verb:

Thus Ps 68.23 (Heb.) may well have been read by John as a reference to YHWH bringing Israel back from Bashan. In other words, it was possible to read Bashan as being the site for God's eschatological redemptive activity, the place where he will lead his people from, as may be inferred from the reception of Psalm 68, and as developed in John 1.28 and 10.40–42, as we shall see.

In summary, then, there are a number of important eschatological themes associated with Bashan symbolically in Ps 68, Micah 7.14–15 and Jer 50.19, themes that find important resonances with John. Now, to consider John's development of the symbolic significance of Bashan further, it is noteworthy that John emphasizes the location of Bashan as πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ‘across the Jordan’, being a comment that may be a clue to an extension to the significance for Bashan for John. Indeed, it is this feature of the place, that it is ‘across the Jordan’, that is emphasized in the two other references to 1.28 in John, namely, 3.26 and 10.40. Does this introduce a new dimension to the symbol for John, particularly as ‘crossing the Jordan’ was important in the OT? We shall now consider the significance of ‘crossing the Jordan’.

3. Crossing the Jordan in the Old Testament

I would like to begin by considering the significance of ‘crossing the Jordan’ in the book of Joshua, being the paradigmatic instance of crossing the Jordan in the OT. A Leitwort in Joshua is the root עבר, used repeatedly (but far from exclusively) with reference to crossing the Jordan,Footnote ⁴² leading Daniel Hawk to observe that the ‘Jordan valley not only constitutes a boundary but also a defining symbol and a point of reference. Traversing it signifies Israel's entry into the measure of life YHWH gives’.Footnote ⁴³ Indeed, it is significant that elsewhere in the OT the Jordan is not presented as a barrier to crossing into the land (cf. Gen 32.11; Josh 2.7; 22.19, 24–25; Judg 3.28; 8.4; 10.9; 12.5; 2 Sam 17.22),Footnote ⁴⁴ which accentuates the symbolic nature of its crossing, especially in Joshua. Indeed, Richard Nelson suggests that the miraculous Jordan crossing in Joshua is symbolic, ideological and confessional in significance (Josh 24.11; Ps 66.6; Micah 6.4–5),Footnote ⁴⁵ reflecting Israel's entry into the full measure of life with YHWH. This is confirmed by Josh 22, the story of the Transjordanians and their altar, for attention is drawn to the symbolic importance of crossing the Jordan through the use of the verb עבר, or rather its surprising lack of use here. For example, Robert Polzin notes that when the Israelite delegation left the Transjordan to report back to the Israelites in Canaan (22.32), although the crossing of the Jordan is indicated, in no case is the verb עבר ever used; ‘The reason for this is that “the crossing over” had already taken place’. The only place where עבר is used is where one might expect it in 22.19 in the speech of the Cisjordan delegation, where its use demonstrates that the delegation believes that the two and a half tribes must ‘cross’ into Israel.Footnote ⁴⁶ In other words, the use of the crossing language refers to the crossing into or out of life in the community of Israel, understood as crossing into or out of life with YHWH.

Indeed, the significance of עבר in terms of ‘crossing’ into the covenant with YHWH is illustrated in Deut 29.11 (Heb.) (לעברך בברית יהוה אלהיך) and 30:18, in which crossing the Jordan into the land is juxtaposed with crossing into life.

4. Crossing the Jordan in 1QS

This ‘crossing’ imagery is developed in the Community Rule, 1QS, which uses עבר to describe ‘crossing into’ the covenant, which is identified with ‘crossing’ into the community. 1QS 1.16–17 reads, ‘All who enter the order of the community shall cross (עבר) into the covenant in God's presence and do all that he commanded’ and Brownlee observes that 1QS contains a ‘liturgy’ that enacts this crossing, a ‘crossing ceremony’ that is associated with lustration (1QS 2.25–3.12).Footnote ⁴⁷ Noting the repeated use of עבר in the liturgical section of the text,Footnote ⁴⁸ he suggests that

Moreover, he notes that the instructions for the order of the procession in the ceremony (1QS 2.19–25) evoke the instructions for the procession of Israel across the Jordan in Joshua, adding weight to the view that this ‘crossing’ ceremony in the community is, in some sense, a ‘re-enactment’ of the Jordan crossing in a new context that uses Joshua as its inspiration. These observations led Brownlee to conclude that

Thus the symbolic significance of the crossing of the Jordan existed in the era in which the gospel was composed. But if crossing the Jordan into Canaan symbolizes crossing into life with God, a symbolism reflected in baptism in the Jordan, with life in the land symbolizing life with God, how is it that in John (and only John), John the Baptist and Jesus are said to minister across the Jordan, that is, on ‘the wrong side’? I shall now consider the three references to πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in John.

5. Crossing the Jordan in John

In the first episode in which πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου occurs (1.19–28) the reference concludes the account in which John the Baptist is questioned about his baptisms by the priests and Levites sent by the Jews from Jerusalem (1.19), an account in which the tension between ‘the Jews’ and Jesus is introduced, and an account that also serves to prepare for the introduction to Jesus' public ministry.Footnote ⁵¹ Here, the reference to Bethany/Batanaea as πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου identifies the site of the dialogue between John the Baptist and the priests and Levites, making it explicit that John the Baptist's ministry is taking place ‘across the Jordan’ with respect to Jerusalem, outside the land of Israel where YHWH dwells. People are coming to John here for baptism, crossing the Jordan in order to do so.

In the second episode (3.22–36) the phrase occurs in the middle of a dialogue that results from a question posed by some of John the Baptist's disciples regarding ceremonial washing (καθαρισμός, 3.25), being the third of three contrasting responses to Jesus from ‘within the world of Judaism’ in 2.13–3.36, reflecting the responses of ‘the Jews’, Nicodemus and John the Baptist.Footnote ⁵² Here, Jesus is said to have been with John πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (3.26), establishing Jesus' ministry ‘across the Jordan’ (i.e. outside the land), even if here he is said to be ministering in the Judean countryside (3.22). As in 1.28, the phrase is used in the context of baptism.

In the third episode (10.40–42) the phrase occurs after a lengthy dispute between ‘the Jews’ and Jesus, and here Jesus is said to go back across the Jordan (i.e. outside the land) to the place where John had been baptizing (10.40), a note that is followed by the comment that many came to Jesus and believed in him at that place (10.42).Footnote ⁵³ The reference here forms an inclusio with 1.28, thus marking the conclusion of a major stage of Jesus' public ministry.Footnote ⁵⁴ Here Jesus leaves the scene of violence at the temple in Jerusalem to cross the Jordan to the place where he and John had baptized, and he stays there.Footnote ⁵⁵ The context from which Jesus departed is important, being the Feast of Dedication, in which the re-consecration of the temple was celebrated. But what is portrayed here is, in fact, ironically, a desecration of ‘the true temple’ (i.e. Jesus) for John, for 10.30 indicates that there is no need to look to the Jerusalem temple (Zion) any more since Jesus replaces the temple (cf. 1.14), yet Jesus is violently rejected by ‘the Jews’ (10.31–39), even though he has been portrayed as giving life (5.19–30) owing to his oneness with the Father, whose works he reflects here.Footnote ⁵⁶ As Moloney puts it, ‘the Jews’ ‘celebrate their allegiance to the God of Israel present in the Temple, but they are not prepared to accept that same God, visible in the works of Jesus’. But despite ‘the rejection of Jesus in vv.31–39, vv.40–42 keep alive the story of a response to Jesus as many come to believe in him in a different place (v.42)’.Footnote ⁵⁷

And this, it seems, is the crucial point. The different place is ‘across the Jordan’, outside the land, outside the place where God was traditionally encountered. While for John ‘the Jews’ reject Jesus the ‘true temple’ as the locus of God's presence, so for John to follow Jesus one rejects the Jerusalem temple and the land of Israel and its symbolic connotations, the sites traditionally associated with God's presence. Such rejection is symbolized by crossing the Jordan ‘in the wrong direction’ to the symbolic location of Bethany = Bashan. Coupled with the commonly perceived antagonism towards ‘the Jews’ in John,Footnote ⁵⁸ what this indicates is that for John a rejection of a number of central assumptions of the construction of identity in first-century Jewish society is required to follow Jesus, and thus truly to know and worship God.Footnote ⁵⁹ That society is, moreover, portrayed as corrupt, violent and blind in the world of the text, perhaps to legitimate such a shift in identity construction, something that accentuates the symbolic nature of the text perhaps.Footnote ⁶⁰

The true dwelling place of God is now in Jesus on the other side of the Jordan, to whom people come crossing the Jordan but in the ‘wrong’ direction, a place where Jesus ‘remains’, with the result that many believe.Footnote ⁶¹ In other words, the symbol of crossing the Jordan into the land of Canaan as symbolizing entry into life in its fullness with God is inverted by John—now, to enter into such life (cf. 10.10) one must cross ‘out of’ Israel and into new life with Jesus outside the land and Jewish society. These are shocking reinterpretations of a cherished and established motif, comparable perhaps with Paul's reinterpretation of Gen 15.6 in Romans 4.Footnote ⁶² Crossing the waters of the Jordan, and baptism, remains the symbol for entry into new life, but it is a symbol that has been inverted—one must cross ‘the other way’, to what was taken to be ‘outside’ the land.Footnote ⁶³

This kind of reading, while perhaps somewhat novel, is, in fact, fairly close to Cyril of Alexandria's, in which he commented on 10.40,

Thus the symbolic account that I wish to develop exists, in a latent form, in traditional Christian interpretation of John.

Finally, the references to being ‘across the Jordan’ appear to form an inclusio for a significant narrative in John (1.28 and 10.40),Footnote ⁶⁵ but the references also demonstrate movement and progression—for only John the Baptist is present in 1.28, Jesus and John are both reported as ministering here in 3.26, yet it is Jesus alone ministering in 10.40. So the phrase also functions as a literary motif or, perhaps, structural marker that highlights the progression of Jesus' ministry; John indeed becomes lesser as Jesus becomes greater, as per 3.22–36, and as the locus of God's action and presence is revealed.

6. The Significance of ν Βηθανίᾳ πραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου

Given the significance of Bashan that we saw earlier in Micah 7.14–15, Jer 50.19 and Ps 68.23 [Heb.], and the significance of ‘crossing the Jordan’ developed above, the location of John 1.28 as Bethany = Batanaea = Bashan makes good sense, with Jesus later ‘remaining’ across the Jordan where people come to him to find life in God (10.40–42). For it is on the luxuriant pastures of Bashan that God will shepherd his people as ‘the good shepherd’ (John 10.1–21), feeding his people—ultimately with Christ himself (6.35–59), forgiving their sin (1.29), bringing life in fullness and abundance (10.10), and it is from Bashan that God will lead his people out (10.3) and back to himself with ‘wonders’ comparable with the Exodus—through Jesus' death and resurrection (2.18–19).Footnote ⁶⁶

This symbolic significance is accentuated when John is compared with the synoptics, for there is no indication in the synoptics that Jesus and John the Baptist ministered ‘across the Jordan’. What one does find, however, is a note that Jesus did cross the Jordan to minister later on in his life (Matt 19.1; Mark 10.1), where the reference to Jesus crossing the Jordan introduces a debate with the Pharisees concerning divorce. What this suggests is that John's gospel is keener to portray Jesus (and John the Baptist) as ministering across the Jordan, at a specific location outside the land. This might well be taken as an indication of the symbolic (rather than historical) significance of these references in John in the way developed above.

However, what this report of Jesus ministering across the Jordan in Matthew, Mark and John necessitates is his re-crossing of the Jordan, in the ‘correct’ direction, to go to Jerusalem for the crucifixion. Should this be taken to indicate that the traditional symbolism of the Jordan crossing is in fact adopted in the gospels? Possibly in Matthew and Mark it is. But what then of John? It seems that John is happy to exploit the full potential of the symbolic resources at his disposal, perhaps using the plenitude of the same symbol in different ways. While John's gospel is highly symbolic and probably not a ‘historical’ witness as such, nonetheless it is still broadly constrained by actual events of Jesus' life, and in particular his journey to Jerusalem leading to his crucifixion, resurrection and appearances to his disciples, events that were interpreted by early Christians as being the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel, and of her hope of a saviour. But for John it seems that this desire to understand Jesus as the fulfiller of Israel's history and hopes (e.g. 1.23; 6.1–59) stands in some tension with his desire to portray certain central aspects of first-century ‘Jewish’ identity—here, the temple and the land—as needing to be abandoned to find life with God, legitimated via the portrayal of a systemically corrupt and violent society that rejects Jesus, at least in the world of the text. Thus perhaps, as Hakola suggests, the notion of ‘Jewishness’ is for John rather more ambivalent than is often suggested.Footnote ⁶⁷