BETHANY (Βηθανία).— 1. A village whose interest arises mainly from its having been the residence of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. As to this it is well to note the following points. (1) None of the three Synoptists mentions Lazarus. (2) St. Matthew and St. Mark maintain the same silence as to Martha and Mary. (3) St. Luke (Luke 10:38-42) records a sojourn of Jesus in ‘a village’ (κώμη τις), which he leaves unnamed. (4) St. John alone (John 11:1, John 11:8, John 12:1 ff.) names Bethany as the place where the brother and the two sisters lived. (5) St. Matthew and St. Mark state that Bethany afforded hospitality to Jesus during the days that preceded His death (Matthew 21:17 ff., Mark 11:11 ff.); but in connexion with His stay there they make mention only of the house of ‘Simon the leper’ (Matthew 26:6 ff., Mark 14:3 ff.), and give no name to the woman who anoints the feet of the Lord. (6) St. Luke does not speak of this sojourn at Bethany, but simply says in a more general way that Jesus passed the night ‘at the mount called the Mt. of Olives’ (Luke 21:37). (7) The data usually accepted regarding Bethany and the family that lived there and entertained Jesus in their house, are thus derived essentially from the Fourth Gospel.
Bethany is mentioned neither in the Canonical books nor in the Apocrypha of the OT; it makes its appearance for the first time in the NT, and is not named in Josephus. Its situation is relatively easy to determine. We know (Mark 10:46, Mark 11:1, Luke 19:1, Luke 19:29) that it was on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem, at a distance of 15 furlongs from the latter (John 11:18), lying thus on the E [Note: Elohist.] . or rather S.E. side of the Mt. of Olives. Origen asserts that in his time the position of Bethany was known. In the 4th cent. the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333) mentions a place where the ‘crypta’ of Lazarus was to be seen. Eusebius records that ‘the place of Lazarus’ was shown, and Jerome adds that it was 2 miles from Jerusalem (OS 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] 108. 3, 239. 10). According to Niceph. Callist. (Historia Ecclesiastica viii. 30 [ Patr. Gr. cxlvi. 113]), a church containing the tomb of Lazarus was built by the empress Helena. Another sanctuary marked the spot where Jesus met Mary (John 11:29 ff.). A number of ecclesiastical buildings have risen at Bethany; as many as three churches have been counted there. In its present condition it is a village without importance or interest, with a population of about 200. It bears the name el-ʽ?Azariyeh, derived from ‘Lazarus’ or from ‘Lazarium’ (Λαζαρίον), a form found as early as the Pilgrimage of Silvia (383); the initial L has been taken for the Arab . [Note: Arabic.] article.
According to the Talmud, Bethany is = Aram . [Note: Aramaic.] Beth-Aineh or Beth-Hini, ‘place of dates’ (?); but this etymology is uncertain. The same may be said of that which traces it to the root ענה, and would yield the sense of ‘place of affliction’ or ‘place of the afflicted one,’ which may be simply a popular etymology (cf. Nestle, Philologica Sacra, 1896, p. 20).
The buildings which are shown at the present day as possessing a historical interest are—1. The ‘castle’ of Lazarus, a tower which dates from the time of the Crusades, and was probably built in 1147 by Queen Melissenda for the Benedictine nuns; according to others, its construction is still earlier. The name ‘castle’ is explained by the fact that the Vulgate renders the NT κώμη by castcllum. 2. The tomb of Lazarus is shown to modern pilgrims, but its genuineness is so doubtful that it is questioned even by Roman Catholic writers, e.g. Mgr. Le Camus, bishop of La Rochelle (Notre Voyage aux pays bibliques, i. 245). 3. There are still shown—or there used to be shown—at el-‘Azariych the house of Martha, that of Mary, and that of Simon the leper.
In Luke 24:50 the scene of the Ascension is placed, if not at Bethany, at least in its immediate vicinity: ‘He led them ἕ?ως πρὸ?ς Βηθανίαν’ (Authorized Version ‘as far as to Bethany,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 less satisfactorily, ‘until they were over against Bethany’). On the other hand, Acts 1:12 relates that after the Ascension the Apostles ‘returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey off.’ the statement in Luke’s Gospel deserves the preference; it fixes the place of the Ascension itself near Bethany, while the text of Acts simply connects the return of the Apostles with the Mt. of Olives, on the slope of which Bethany lies, and does not speak necessarily of the summit of the mountain, as ecclesiastical tradition supposed (cf. Tobler, Die Siloahquelle und der Oclberg, p. 83).
Literature.—Robinson, BR P [Note: RP Biblical Researches in Palestine.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 431–433; Guérin, Palestine, ‘Samarie,’ i. 163–181; Buhl, GA P [Note: AP Geographic des alten Palästina.] 155; Tobler, Topogr. ii. 422–464; PE F [Note: EF Palestine Exploration Fund.] Mem. iii. 27 f.; Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 24, 49.
Lucien Gautier.