This may be too much "Inside Baseball" stuff:JoeWallack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:33 pm JW:
The combination of a minimum of quality External Manuscript support and The Difficult Reading Principle already makes omission of "river" likely original but further evidence:
Matthew 3
GMatthew's first mention of Jordan likewise lacks "river".5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan;
6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Lukewise:
Luke 3
and here there is no following mention of "river".3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;
The baptism here also has good parallels to The Jewish Bible:
2 Kings 2
No mention of "river".13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan.
14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is Jehovah, the God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they were divided hither and thither; and Elisha went over.
15 And when the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho over against him saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.
Joseph
Skeptical Textual Criticism
https://books.google.com/books?id=bsxkX ... 22&f=false
I believe that John is "of Bilgah". Bilgah had a Settlement attached to its name. Note that Ma'ariya is associated with Bilgah. Note also that "Gophna" is associated with Bilgah and Jakim. Gophna figures into Roman Mapping as a region and, as such would not necessarily be a Settlement ('N I do hope that I am reading this correctly...).
Perhaps more later on this but it still appears that the readings of whether "River" appears in the Texts are correct depending on Scope.
FWIW: http://www.aymennjawad.org/2020/01/the- ... mouk-basin
YMMV
CW
[Edit Note] See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jifna , "Iron Age and Classical period". A "Vespasian" and a "Titus" are mentioned. I wonder if that might be important?