The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-12-10
Birthplace Found
That of John the Baptist
Is Now Located.

LIT. Conrad Schick, director OF the Pal
estine Exploration Fund. writes that tn,
birthplace of John the Baptist has beer
found. He says:
Following Robinson's example, scholar:
have attached little value TO the tradi.
tons concerning Biblical sites in Pales-
tine. esteeming them mere monkist
tales. For a long time I held similar
views, and only after some thorough
studies Of both the places and their his
tory I have been surprised TO find that
tradition is generally correct Lately ]
have studied the tradition Of the birth
place Of John the Baptist, which scholars
have placed at Jutta. a town south OF
Hebron. for two hundred years. while
tradition assigned it to Ain Karin, a
town one and half hours journey from
Jerusalem, lying TO the west, and much
is to be said. I wish TO examine the
history and circumstances attaching TO
both places so as TO scide which of the
places is the real one.
L
The father Of John was a priest Of the
order Of Abijah duke /. 3, the eighth
order Of priests. The birth OF a son was
announced TO him in the Temple duke
j., ~, but this son was 10 Be born, not
in Jerusalem. but in the place in which
the priest lived luke l., 23-5O. What
place was this?
In Luke /, 90, we read: and Mary
(who lived in NAZARETH arose (after she
had receive the greeting and promise Of
the angel In these days and went into
the hill country with haste into city CT
Judah,and entered into the house Of
Zacharias and saluted Elizabeth Now,
Reland, the pioneer in the field Of Bibli-
cal geogra ply, expressed the thought
some one hundred and eighty years ago
that this city Of Jdah must be the mod
ern Jutta. which occurs among the names
Of the cities captured by Joshua and the
Israelites Josh xxi, 16) and was given
by Judah Josh. XIV, so first but later
to the priests. Many have accepted this
statement. although there are many facts
opposed 10 IL.
The names Jutta and Judah are not
alike and it is hardly possible that so
great a mistake as the substitution Of D
for T could have been made. But even
this would not be decisive, were it not for
the other and weightier reasons that have
been brought forward. The first ques-
ton that arises is: Can it be proven that
Jutta was possessed by the priests after
their return from Babylon? The proof is /
not forthcoming. but it seems probable /
that this place was inhabited by Edom- /
ties a this time. l. is well known that /
large part Of the people were taken into /
captivity by the Chaldeans. that others /
accompanied the prophet Jeremiah 10 |
Egypt der. xiii, -, so that the land 4
was almost empty and without inhabi- /
Jants. Then the Nabatesns forced the /
Edomites from their land and they took 1
possession Of the land OF judah in the I
south. and as far north as Hebron. We /
read in Nehemiah xxi, 2W that the re-
turning Jews took possession not only OF
the wasted Jerusalem, but also Of the
land around II and OF other cities Al
quite a distance away II is stated CSeh
vii. 49,. $50 the priests and the Levites
and the porters and the singers and the
Nethirim and some Of the people and all
Israel dwelt in their cities" Similarly
It is said CNeh. XII. 3O that the children
% Judah encamped from Beer-sheba unto
the valley Of Hinnom. Within these
limits lies Jutta. but IL IS not mentioned
as ono Of the places in which the Jews
had remained. Hence We may conclude
hat the Jews found JUtta in the posses
sion Of the Edomites and they could not
settle there Only two Of the nine priest
" cities in this district Josh. xxi. 1870
were occupied by the priests after the
return from Babylon. Hebron and Ain.
According 10 Joshua there were 112 cities
In this district. hut only seventeen, or
? bout one-seventh. wers occupied by the
Jews when they returned from exile.
al Of the others were and remained in
possession Of the Tdumaeans. with the
exception Of Hebron. The priests who re
turned and found their former homes IL
lahite5 by others had To seek new places
Z settlement. and naturally tried 70 get
- near Jerusalem as possible. No priests
lived in Jutta after the return from
That the larger part Of the priests liv
q near Jerusalem after the Babylonian
xiIe appears from Neh. xii . where
We read: And al the dedication Of the
vail Of Jerusalem they sought the Levi,es
.ut Of all their places. to bring them 10
srusalem 10 keep the dedication" That 5
hey did not have 70 seek the priests ]
r7ves that they lived near Jerusalem. {
7r in verse % # says: The priests and q
he Lavites purified themselves" The
ncestor Of the Baptist may have lived il z
Ain Karin; certainly he did not live in r
Gtta among the Idumaeans- Il was per I
litted 20 the priests as leaders Of The 2
a07le. in their search for new homes =
q select fruitful and weli-wate-ed places. d
History bars Jutta as the home OF zach T
rias. while ii at least permits Ain K
-a-im 10 remain possible
And. finally. the word in Luke f.. 50. Z
hay be rendered ''to a city IN Judah I
be name Of the city not being mentioned :
hen it may he any city in judah o.
erusalem. Bethlehem or Hebron Some
ave understood that Hebron was the =
ty referred %. Hebron was priestly "
~. and Zacharias might well have I,
we'd there. But there IS no proof for it. b
fact II is very improbable FOR this !.
y was inhabited partly hy Tdumaears. al
E5yrkan had conquered almost all the
nd Of I5umaea and forced The people b
become Jews or 80 into exile. He ala &
us on the ground that their land was p.
ally Jewish territory and ;ha. they ha5 &
ken possession n il w-ongful-y Who "a
-e- wanted 10 stav there had ~ become q
Jew. and whoever would NOT had n al
Migrate. In this way the south became r.
wish territory. bur the inl3hirants were a,
u frien5ly-only Jews by compul=ion. 5l
- Roman governor. Gabiuus. whom H
yrban confirmed as governor % tho ID
1d NJ Judah, divided the country into ri
!. Eis.rlets and set un q saras.r!a IN ..