As to the place, the text answers these [things] at verse 17: “But the people was advancing over against Jericho” — that is, in sight, and in the region opposite the city of Jericho itself; and this the Lord willed to be done. First: that he might show, at the very first entry into this land, [that] he was to them a Leader and helper — [he] who at that place, where [there was] a very small city, [and] also a mighty King and a strong nation of the Canaanites, led them across without any disaster, danger, or fear. Secondly: that, on the contrary, great dread and terror might be cast upon the enemies, while they saw the Israelites coming into their own borders, almost before their eyes, by so direct a march and with open front. Thirdly: that we might understand [that], although the people had such great confidence and eagerness, yet all rashness and audacity was absent from it, by the prudence and care of the Leader. For although, from this very place as far as the Asphaltite [Lake], all the shallows [were] laid bare, and the whole channel emptied, and although the very great desire held men of setting foot first upon that most-desired land — yet they did not desert order: nor did they carry themselves in every direction, nor spread and scatter themselves, palating [wandering] over the whole channel; but joined together, under the standards, by tribes, in good order, [and] by a certain and definite space [interval], they advanced. Fourthly: that the very first face [aspect] of this land might at once revive the spirits of all, satisfy [their] prayers, [and] confirm [their] hope. For this was the most fruitful and most delightful part of Canaan, as [was] set forth [in] ch. 2 part 1 quest. 4.
(col. 441)
—[as was] set forth. But for “the people was advancing,” in the Hebrew [it] is “the people crossed” [עָבְרוּ]; in the Greek, ὁ λαὸς εἱστήκει [ho laos heistēkei], “the people stood.” But this seems to conflict with the crossing itself. For if they were crossing and advancing, how did they stand? Masius answers two [things]. 1. Perhaps [that the LXX] read in the Hebrew amdu [עָמְדוּ, “they stood”] for avru [עָבְרוּ, “they crossed”]. For sometimes [a] mem [is put] for [a] bet, and vice versa — [as] appears from 1 Kings [Reg.] 14 v. 4, where for Boses is read in the Greek Moses; and above (quest. 9 & 12), for meadam is read in the Hebrew of today beadam. And [it is] frequent, too, [that a] resh [ר] be read for [a] dalet [ד] and vice versa — as St. Jerome notes (on Isaiah ch. 8, 38 & 44), where [he says] the likeness of those letters is distinguished “by a tiny apex, and through this [they are] often confounded.” 2. [Or] that the 70 wished by this word to signify the intent meditation [directed] toward crossing — especially since, in the words immediately following, the Israelites are again said to have crossed.
But [that] this place, where the crossing was, was Bethabara — as if you should say, “the house of crossing” — some teach. But about it [there] is inquiry. First: was it a city, or something else? Masius reckons [that] that very part of the Jordan was so called. Others (in Toletus, on John 1, note 66) say [it] is a city, as [does] Chrysostom (homily 16 on John), [and] St. Jerome (On the Hebrew Places). Second: is it to be read [thus] in John 1 v. 28? Origen answers (in the second volume) [that], in all the ancient copies, [it] is not “Bethabara,” but “Bethania”; and so read all the Latin books, and the Syriac, and some of the Greek — also the Vatican Codex, and Cyril. Yet “Bethabara” St. Chrysostom will [have] (in the cited place), [and] Epiphanius (heresy 51), Theophylact, [and] Oecumenius; and [it] can be confirmed. First: because Bethania was far from the Jordan — distant, namely, only 15 stadia from Jerusalem (John 11). Second: the place of which St. John speaks (ch. 1) was beyond the Jordan, as [is] there expressly asserted. But Bethania [is] on this side, as [has] now [been] said; Bethabara, however, beyond. For thus [says] St. Jerome (in the book On Places): “Bethabara (so [it is] rather to be read, than Bethbara) beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing unto repentance. Whence even to this day very many of the brethren — that is, of the number of believers — desiring to be reborn there, are baptized in the life-giving stream.” Certain more recent [scholars] today correct the Latin text, and put back “Bethabara”; others retain “Bethania,” and say [it] is [a place] different from that other, not indeed in name, but in fact; or [that it] is the region which by Josephus (bk. 17 ch. 10) is called Batanea. Others approve either reading, because either the same city on the Jordan is called both Bethania and Bethabara, or at least [that] between Bethabara and the Jordan [there] is a certain nearest house, where boats were [kept] for crossing, [and this] is “Bethania” — but so that, although in the Latin and Greek [it] seems the same, “Bethania,” yet [it is] different — both in fact and in the name itself — from that other, in its native idiom, namely the Hebrew. For that [Bethania] which is called the town of Lazarus and Martha (John 11) is written, in the middle, with an ayin [ע], as if Bethaniah [בֵּית־עַנְיָה]; but this other with an aleph [א], Bethaniah [בֵּית־אֳנִיָּה]. And the derivation and interpretation of the former is “the house of affliction or of lowliness”; but of this [latter], “the house of the boat.” For oniyah [אֳנִיָּה] and oni [אֳנִי] is “a boat” (1 Kings [Reg.] 10 v. 22; Prov. 30 v. 19; Isa. 33). But this distinction the softer letters of the Greeks and Latins could not sufficiently express. This [observation] is indeed ingenious, and — in Toletus, in whom I find it noted by one annotator—
(col. 442)
—[noted, I find it] most worthy. But by this [very thing it] is almost wholly overthrown: [namely] that in the Syriac text — which has the same sounds of the letters as the Hebrew tongue — this our Bethaniah too is written with an ayin [ע]; and likewise in the Arabic; and therefore [one] must return to the double [interpretation of] “Bethania.” Third: is Bethabara beyond, or on this side of, the Jordan? Our Maldonatus (on John 1) puts [it] on this side, in Canaan itself; St. John [places it] beyond. But he answers [that] in the scriptures [it] is sometimes put for “beside” [iuxta], as I also said [on] Isa. 9. But [he] who spoke properly, and dwelt there — St. Jerome — I have said [places] it beyond the Jordan, as we heard a little before. Fourth: is it the same with the Bethbera [Beth-barah] of which [is spoken in] Judg. 7 v. 24? Scaliger affirms [it] (bk. 5 of the Emendations fol. 518). St. Jerome distinguishes [them] (in the book On Places). But faultily is [it] there read “Bethara” for “Bethbera” or “Bethbara.” Fifth: is the Bethabara of which [is spoken] below (Josh 18 v. 22) the same with that Bethbera? [It] seems [so] to Maldonatus (in the cited place); but not to St. Jerome (in On Places), where he distinguishes these three places. But about this [more] below, ch. 18. Borchard says: “From Jericho, two leagues toward the Jordan, [there] is a chapel built in honour of St. John the Baptist, where the Lord is thought to have been baptized by him.” But others think this was done at Salim. And Bede (in the book On the Sacred Places ch. 13) [says] a cross was of old erected there. But [Gregory] of Tours (bk. 1 of the Glory [of the Martyrs] ch. 17) attests [that] lepers were wont to be cleansed there. The words of both our [authors] Gretser cites (bk. 2 On the Cross ch. 32).