Life and Times
of Jesus
Alfred Edersheim (1825-89)
CHAPTER I.
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
(St Matt. xvii. 1-8; St. Mark
ix. 2-8; St. Luke ix. 28-36.)
THE great confession of Peter, as
the representative Apostle, had laid the foundations of the Church as such.
In contradistinction to the varying opinions of even those best disposed
towards Christ, it openly declared that Jesus was the Very Christ of God,
the fulfilment of all Old Testament prophecy, the heir of Old Testament
promise, the realisation of the Old Testament hope for Israel, and, in
Israel, for all mankind. Without this confession, Christians might have been
a Jewish sect, a religious party, or a school of thought, and Jesus a
Teacher, Rabbi, Reformer, or Leader of men. But the confession which marked
Jesus as the Christ, also constituted His followers the Church. It separated
them, as it separated Him, from all around; it gathered them into one, even
Christ; and it marked out the foundation on which the building made without
hands was to rise. Never was illustrative answer so exact as this: ‘On this
Rock’ - bold, outstanding, well-defined, immovable - ‘will I build My
Church.’
Without doubt this confession also
marked the high-point of the Apostles’ faith. Never afterwards, till His
Resurrection, did it reach so high. Nay, what followed seems rather a
retrogression from it: beginning with their unwillingness to receive the
announcement of His decease, and ending with their unreadiness to share His
sufferings or to believe in His Resurrection. And if we realise the
circumstances, we shall understand at least, their initial difficulties.
Their highest faith had been followed by the most crushing disappointment;
the confession that He was the Christ, by the announcement of His
approaching Sufferings and Death at Jerusalem. The proclamation that He was
the Divine Messiah had not been met by promises of the near glory of the
Messianic Kingdom, but by announcements of certain, public rejection and
seeming terrible defeat. Such possibilities had never seriously entered into
their thoughts of the Messiah; and the declaration of the very worst, and
that in the near future, made at such a moment, must have been a staggering
blow to all their hopes. It was as if they had reached the topmost height,
only to be cast thence into the lowest depth.
On the other hand, it was necessary
that at this stage in the History of the Christ, and immediately after His
proclamation, the sufferings and the rejection of the Messiah should be
prominently brought forward. It was needful for the Apostles, as the
remonstrance of Peter showed; and, with reverence be it added, it was
needful for the Lord Himself, as even His words to Peter seem to imply: ‘Get
thee behind Me; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.’ For - as we have said -
was not the remonstrance of the disciple in measure a re-enactment of the
great initial Temptation by Satan after the forty days’ fast in the
wilderness? And, in view of all this, and of what immediately afterwards
followed, we venture to say, it was fitting that an interval of ‘six’ days
should intervene, or, as St. Luke puts it, including the day of Peter’s
confession and the night of Christ’s Transfiguration, ‘about eight days.’
The Chronicle of these days is significantly left blank in the Gospels, but
we cannot doubt, that it was filled up with thoughts and teaching concerning
that Decease, leading up to the revelation on the Mount of Transfiguration.
There are other blanks in the
narrative besides that just referred to. We shall try to fill them up, as
best we can. Perhaps it was the Sabbath when Peter’s great confession was
made; and the ‘six days’ of St. Matthew and St. Mark become the ‘about eight
days’ of St. Luke, when we reckon from that Sabbath to the close of another,
and suppose that at even the Saviour ascended the Mount of Transfiguration
with the three Apostles: Peter, James, and John. There can scarcely be a
reasonable doubt that Christ and His disciples had not left the neighborhood
of Cæsarea,3680
and hence, that ‘the mountain’ must have been one of the slopes of gigantic,
snowy Hermon. In that quiet semi-Gentile retreat of Cæsarea Philippi could
He best teach them, and they best learn, without interruption or temptation
from Pharisees and Scribes, that terrible mystery of His Suffering. And on
that gigantic mountain barrier which divided Jewish and Gentile lands, and
while surveying, as Moses of old, the land to be occupied in all its extent,
amidst the solemn solitude and majestic grandeur of Hermon, did it seem most
fitting that, both by anticipatory fact and declamatory word, the Divine
attestation should be given to the proclamation that He was the Messiah, and
to this also, that, in a world that is in the power of sin and Satan, God’s
Elect must suffer, in order that, by ransoming, He may conquer it to God.
But what a background, here, for the Transfiguration; what surroundings for
the Vision, what echoes for the Voice from heaven!
It was evening,3681
and, as we have suggested, the evening after the Sabbath, when the Master
and those three of His disciples, who were most closely linked to Him in
heart and thought, climbed the path that led up to one of the heights of
Hermon. In all the most solemn transactions of earth’s history, there has
been this selection and separation of the few to witness God’s great doings.
Alone with his son, as the destined sacrifice, did Abraham climb Moriah;
alone did Moses behold, amid the awful loneliness of the wilderness, the
burning bush, and alone on Sinai’s height did he commune with God; alone was
Elijah at Horeb, and with no other companion to view it than Elisha did he
ascend into heaven. But Jesus, the Saviour of His people, could not be quite
alone, save in those innermost transactions of His soul: in the great
contest of His first Temptation, and in the solitary communings of His heart
with God. These are mysteries which the outspread wings of Angels, as
reverently they hide their faces, conceal from earth’s, and even heaven’s
vision. But otherwise, in the most solemn turning-points of this history,
Jesus could not be alone, and yet was alone with those three chosen ones,
most receptive of Him, and most representative of the Church. It was so in
the house of Jairus, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and in the Garden of
Gethsemane.
As St. Luke alone informs us, it
was ‘to pray’ that Jesus took them apart up into that mountain. ‘To pray,’
no doubt in connection with ‘those sayings;’ since their reception required
quite as much the direct teaching of the Heavenly Father, as had the
previous confession of Peter, of which it was, indeed, the complement, the
other aspect, the twin height. And the Transfiguration, with its attendant
glorified Ministry and Voice from heaven, was God’s answer to that prayer.
What has already been stated, has
convinced us that it could not have been to one of the highest peaks of
Hermon, as most modern writers suppose, that Jesus led His companions. There
are three such peaks: those north and south, of about equal height (9,400
feet above the sea, and nearly 11,000 above the Jordan valley), are only 500
paces distant from each other, while the third, to the west (about 100 feet
lower), is separated from the others by a narrow valley. Now, to climb the
top of Hermon is, even from the nearest point, an Alpine ascent, trying and
fatiguing, which would occupy a whole day (six hours in the ascent and four
in the descent), and require provisions of food and water; while, from the
keenness of the air, it would be impossible to spend the night on the top.3682
To all this there is no allusion in the text, nor slightest hint of either
difficulties or preparations, such as otherwise would have been required.
Indeed, a contrary impression is left on the mind.
‘Up into an high mountain apart,’
‘to pray.’ The Sabbath-sun had set, and a delicious cool hung in the summer
air, as Jesus an the three commenced their ascent. From all parts of the
land, far as Jerusalem or Tyre, the one great object in view must always
have been snow-clad Hermon. And now it stood out before them - as, to the
memory of the traveller in the West, Monte Rosa or Mont Blanc3683
- in all the wondrous glory of a sunset: first rose-colored, then deepening
red, next ‘the death-like pallor, and the darkness relieved by the snow, in
quick succession.’3684
From high up there, as one describes it,3685
‘a deep ruby flush came over all the scene, and warm purple shadows crept
slowly on. The sea of Galilee was lit up with a delicate greenish-yellow
hue, between its dim walls of hill. The flush died out in a few minutes, and
a pale, steel-coloured shade succeeded. . . . A long pyramidal shadow slid
down to the eastern foot of Hermon, and crept across the great plain;
Damascus was swallowed up by it; and finally the pointed end of the shadow
stood out distinctly against the sky - a dusky cone of dull colour against
the flush of the afterglow. It was the shadow of the mountain itself,
stretching away for seventy miles across the plain - the most marvellous
shadow perhaps to be seen anywhere. The sun underwent strange changes of
shape in the thick vapours - now almost square, now like a domed Temple -
until at length it slid into the sea, and went out like a blue spark.’ And
overhead shone out in the blue summer-sky, one by one, the stars in Eastern
brilliancy. We know not the exact direction which the climbers took, nor how
far their journey went. But there is only one road that leads from Cæsarea
Philippi to Hermon, and we cannot be mistaken in following it. First, among
vine-clad hills stocked with mulberry, apricot and fig-trees; then, through
corn-fields where the pear tree supplants the fig; next, through oak
coppice, and up rocky ravines to where the soil is dotted with dwarf shrubs.
And if we pursue the ascent, it still becomes steeper, till the first ridge
of snow is crossed, after which turfy banks, gravelly slopes, and broad
snow-patches alternate. The top of Hermon in summer - and it can only be
ascended in summer or autumn - is free from snow, but broad patches run down
the sides expanding as they descend. To the very summit it is well earthed;
to 500 feet below it, studded with countless plants, higher up with dwarf
clumps.3686
As they ascend in the cool of that
Sabbath evening, the keen mountain air must have breathed strength into the
climbers, and the scent of snow - for which the parched tongue would long in
summer’s heat3687
- have refreshed them. We know not what part may have been open to them of
the glorious panorama from Hermon embracing as it does a great part of Syria
from the sea to Damascus, from the Lebanon and the gorge of the Litany to
the mountains of Moab; or down the Jordan valley to the Dead Sea; or over
Galilee, Samaria, and on to Jerusalem and beyond it. But such darkness as
that of a summer’s night would creep on. And now the moon shone out in
dazzling splendour, cast long shadows over the mountain, and lit up the
broad patches of snow, reflecting their brilliancy on the objects around.
On that mountain-top ‘He prayed.’
Although the text does not expressly state it, we can scarcely doubt, that
He prayed with them, and still less, that He prayed for them, as did the
Prophet for his servant, when the city was surrounded by Syrian horsemen:
that his eyes might be opened to behold heaven’s host - the far ‘more that
are with us than they that are with them.’3688
And, with deep reverence be it said, for Himself also did Jesus pray. For,
as the pale moonlight shone on the fields of snow in the deep passes of
Hermon, so did the light of the coming night shine on the cold glitter of
Death in the near future. He needed prayer, that in it His Soul might lie
calm and still - perfect, in the unruffled quiet of His Self-surrender, the
absolute rest of His Faith, and the victory of His Sacrificial Obedience.
And He needed prayer also, as the introduction to, and preparation for, His
Transfiguration. Truly, He stood on Hermon. It was the highest ascent, the
widest prospect into the past, present, and future, in His Earthly Life. Yet
was it but Hermon at night. And this is the human, or rather the
Theanthropic view of this prayer, and of its consequence.
As we understand it, the prayer
with them had ceased, or it had merged into silent prayer of each, or Jesus
now prayed alone and apart, when what gives this scene such a truly human
and truthful aspect ensued. It was but natural for these men of simple
habits, at night, and after the long ascent, and in the strong mountain-air,
to be heavy with sleep. And we also know it as a psychological fact, that,
in quick reaction after the overpowering influence of the strongest
emotions, drowsiness would creep over their limbs and senses. ‘They were
heavy - weighted - with sleep,’ as afterwards at Gethsemane their eyes were
weighted.36893690
Yet they struggled with it, and it is quite consistent with experience, that
they should continue in that state of semi-stupor, during what passed
between Moses and Elijah and Christ, and also be ‘fully awake,’3691
‘to see His Glory, and the two men who stood with Him.’ In any case this
descriptive trait, so far from being (as negative critics would have it), a
‘later embellishment,’ could only have formed part of a primitive account,
since it is impossible to conceive any rational motive for its later
addition.3692
What they saw was their Master,
while praying, ‘transformed.’3693
The ‘form of God’ shone through the ‘form of a servant;’ ‘the appearance of
His Face became other,’36943695
it ‘did shine as the sun.’36963697
Nay, the whole Figure seemed bathed in light, the very garments whiter far
than the snow on which the moon shone3698
- ‘so as no fuller on earth can white them,’3699
‘glittering,’3700
‘white as the light.’ And more than this they saw and heard. They saw ‘with
Him two men,’3701
whom, in their heightened sensitiveness to spiritual phenomena, they could
have no difficulty in recognising, by such of their conversation as they
heard, as Moses and Elijah.3702
The column was now complete: the base in the Law; the shaft in that
Prophetism of which Elijah was the great Representative - in his first
Mission, as fulfilling the primary object of the Prophets: to call Israel
back to God; and, in his second Mission, this other aspect of the Prophets’
work, to prepare the way for the Kingdom of God; and the apex in Christ
Himself - a unity completely fitting together in all its parts. And they
heard also, that they spake of ‘His Exodus - outgoing - which He was about
to fulfil at Jerusalem.’3703
Although the term ‘Exodus,’ ‘outgoing,’ occurs otherwise for ‘death,’3704
we must bear in mind its meaning as contrasted with that in which the same
Evangelic writer designates the Birth of Christ, as His ‘incoming.’3705
In truth, it implies not only His Decease, but its manner, and even His
Resurrection and Ascension. In that sense we can understand the better, as
on the lips of Moses and Elijah, this about His fulfilling that
Exodus: accomplishing it in all its fulness, and so completing Law and
Prophecy, type and prediction.
And still that night of glory had
not ended. A strange peculiarity has been noticed about Hermon in ‘the
extreme rapidity of the formation of cloud on the summit. In a few minutes a
thick cap forms over the top of the mountain, and as quickly disperses and
entirely disappears.’3706
It almost seems as if this, like the natural position of Hermon itself, was,
if not to be connected with, yet, so to speak, to form the background to
what was to be enacted. Suddenly a cloud passed over the clear brow of the
mountain - not an ordinary, but ‘a luminous cloud,’ a cloud uplit, filled
with light. As it laid itself between Jesus and the two Old Testament
Representatives, it parted, and presently enwrapped them. Most significant
is it, suggestive of the Presence of God, revealing, yet concealing - a
cloud, yet luminous. And this cloud overshadowed the disciples: the shadow
of its light fell upon them. A nameless terror seized them. Fain would they
have held what seemed for ever to escape their grasp. Such vision had never
before been vouchsafed to mortal man as had fallen on their sight; they had
already heard Heaven’s converse; they had tasted Angels’ Food, the Bread of
His Presence. Could the vision not be perpetuated - at least prolonged? In
the confusion of their terror they knew not how otherwise to word it, than
by an expression of ecstatic longing for the continuance of what they had,
of their earnest readiness to do their little best, if they could but secure
it - make booths for the heavenly Visitants3707
- and themselves wait in humble service and reverent attention on what their
dull heaviness had prevented their enjoying and profiting by, to the full.
They knew and felt it: ‘Lord’ - ‘Rabbi’ - ‘Master’ - ‘it is good for us to
be here’ - and they longed to have it; yet how to secure it, their terror
could not suggest, save in the language of ignorance and semi-conscious
confusion. ‘They wist not what they said.’ In presence of the luminous cloud
that enwrapt those glorified Saints, they spake from out that darkness which
compassed them about.
And now the light-cloud was
spreading; presently its fringe fell upon them.3708
Heaven’s awe was upon them: for the touch of the heavenly strains, almost to
breaking, the bond betwixt body and soul. ‘And a Voice came out of the
cloud, saying, This is My Beloved3709
Son: hear Him.’ It had needed only One other Testimony to seal it all; One
other Voice, to give both meaning and music to what had been the subject of
Moses’ and Elijah’s speaking. That Voice had now come - not in testimony to
any fact, but to a Person - that of Jesus as His ‘Beloved Son,’3710
and in gracious direction to them. They heard it, falling on their faces in
awestruck worship.
How long the silence had lasted,
and the last rays of the cloud had passed, we know not. Presently, it was a
gentle touch that roused them. It was the Hand of Jesus, as with words of
comfort He reassured them: ‘Arise, and be not afraid.’ And as, startled,3711
they looked round about them, they saw no man save Jesus only. The Heavenly
Visitants had gone, the last glow of the light-cloud had faded away, the
echoes of Heaven’s Voice had died out. It was night, and they were on the
Mount with Jesus, and with Jesus only.
Is it truth or falsehood; was it
reality or vision, or part of both, this Transfiguration-scene on Hermon?
One thing, at least, must be evident: if it be a true narrative, it cannot
possibly describe a merely subjective vision without objective reality. But,
in that case, it would be not only difficult, but impossible, to separate
one part of the narrative - the appearance of Moses and Elijah - from the
other, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and to assign to the latter
objective reality,3712
while regarding the former as merely a vision. But is the account true? It
certainly represents primitive tradition, since it is not only told by all
the three Evangelists, but referred to in
2 Peter i. 16-18,3713
and evidently implied in the words of St. John, both in his Gospel,3714
and in the opening of his First Epistle. Few, if any would be so bold as to
assert that the whole of this history had been invented by the three
Apostles, who professed to have been its witnesses. Nor can any adequate
motive be imagined for its invention. It could not have been intended to
prepare the Jews for the Crucifixion of the Messiah, since it was to be kept
a secret till after His Resurrection; and, after the event, it could not
have been necessary for the assurance of those who believed in the
Resurrection, while to others it would carry no weight. Again, the special
traits of this history are inconsistent with the theory of its invention. In
a legend, the witnesses of such an event would not have been represented as
scarcely awake, and not knowing what they said. Manifestly, the object would
have been to convey the opposite impression. Lastly, it cannot be too often
repeated, that, in view of the manifold witness of the Evangelists, amply
confirmed in all essentials by the Epistles - preached, lived, and
bloodsealed by the primitive Church, and handed down as primitive tradition
- the most untenable theory seems that which imputes intentional fraud to
their narratives, or, to put it otherwise, non-belief on the part of the
narrators of what they related.
But can we suppose, if not fraud,
yet mistake on the part of these witnesses, so that an event, otherwise
naturally explicable, may, through their ignorance or imaginativeness, have
assumed the proportions of this narrative? The investigation will be the
more easy, that, as regards all the main features of the narrative, the
three Evangelists are entirely agreed. Instead of examining in detail the
various rationalistic attempts made to explain this history on natural
grounds, it seems sufficient for refutation to ask the intelligent reader to
attempt imagining any natural event, which by any possibility could have
been mistaken for what the eyewitnesses related, and the Evangelists
recorded.
There still remains the mythical
theory of explanation, which, if it could be supported, would be the most
attractive among those of a negative character. But we cannot imagine a
legend without some historical motive or basis for its origination. The
legend must be in character - that is, congruous to the ideas and
expectancies entertained. Such a history as that of the Transfiguration
could not have been a pure invention; but if such or similar expectancies
had existed about the Messiah, then such a legend might, without intentional
fraud, have, by gradual accretion, gathered around the Person of Him Who was
regarded as the Christ. And this is the rationale of the so-called
mythical theory. But all such ideas vanish at the touch of history.
There was absolutely no Jewish expectancy that could have bodied itself
forth in a narrative like that of the Transfiguration. To begin with the
accessories, the idea, that the coming of Moses was to be connected with
that of the Messiah, rests not only on an exaggeration, but on a dubious and
difficult passage in the Jerusalem Targum.37153716
It is quite true, that the face of Moses shone when he came down from the
Mount; but, if this is to be regarded as the basis of the Transfiguration of
Jesus, the presence of Elijah would not be in point. On the other hand - to
pass over other inconsistencies - anything more un-Jewish could scarcely be
imagined than a Messiah crucified, or that Moses and Elijah should appear to
converse with Him on such a Death! If it be suggested, that the purpose was
to represent the Law and the Prophets as bearing testimony to the Dying of
the Messiah, we fully admit it. Certainly, this is the New Testament and the
true idea concerning the Christ; but equally certainly, it was not and is
not, that of the Jews concerning the Messiah.3717
If it is impossible to regard this
narrative as a fraud; hopeless, to attempt explaining it as a natural event;
and utterly unaccountable, when viewed in connection with contemporary
thought or expectancy - in short, if all negative theories fail, let us see
whether, and how on the supposition of its reality, it will fit into the
general narrative. To begin with: if our previous investigations have
rightly led us up to this result, that Jesus was the Very Christ of God,
then this event can scarcely be described as miraculous - at least in such a
history. If we would not expect it, it is certainly that which might have
been expected. For, first, it was (and at that particular period) a
necessary stage in the Lord’s History, viewed in the light in which the
Gospels present Him. Secondly, it was needful for His own strengthening,
even as the Ministry of the Angels after the Temptation. Thirdly, it was
‘good’ for these three disciples to be there: not only for future witness,
but for present help, and also with special reference to Peter’s
remonstrance against Christ’s death-message. Lastly, the Voice from heaven,
in hearing of His disciples, was of the deepest importance. Coming after the
announcement of His Death and Passion, it sealed that testimony, and, in
view of it, proclaimed Him as the Prophet to Whom Moses had bidden Israel
hearken,
3718 while it repeated the heavenly utterance
concerning Him made at His Baptism.3719
But, for us all, the interest of
this history lies not only in the past; it is in the present also, and in
the future. To all ages it is like the vision of the bush burning, in which
was the Presence of God. And it points us forward to that transformation, of
which that of Christ was the pledge, when ‘this corruptible shall put on
incorruption.’ As of old the beacon-fires, lighted from hill to hill,
announced to them far away from Jerusalem the advent of solemn feast, so
does the glory kindled on the Mount of Transfiguration shine through the
darkness of the world, and tell of the Resurrection-Day.
On Hermon the Lord and His
disciples had reached the highest point in this history. Henceforth it is a
descent into the Valley of Humiliation and Death!
3680
According to an old tradition, Christ had left Cæsarea Philippi, and the
scene of the Transfiguration was Mount Tabor. But (1) there is no notice
of His departure, such as in generally made by St. Mark; (2) on the
contrary, it is mentioned by St. Mark as after the Transfiguration (ix.
30); (3) Mount Tabor was at that time crowned by a fortified city, which
would render it unsuitable for the scene of the Transfiguration.
3681
This is implied not only in the disciples being heavy with sleep, but in
the morning scene (St.
Luke ix. 37) which followed.
3682
Canon Tristram writes: ‘We were before long painfully affected by
the rarity of the atmosphere.’ In general, our description is derived
from Canon Tristram (‘Land of Israel’), Captain Conder
(‘Tent-Work in Palestine’), and Bädeker-Socin’s Palästina, p.
354.
3683
3684
3685
Conder, u.s., vol. i. p. 264.
3686
Our description is based on the graphic account of the ascent by Canon
Tristram (u.s. pp. 609-613).
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
Meyer strongly advocates the
rendering: ‘but having kept awake.’ See, however, Godet’s remarks
ad loc.
3692
Meyer is in error in supposing
that the tradition, on which St. Luke’s account is founded, amplifies
the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark. With Canon Cook I
incline to the view of Resch, that, judging from the style, &c.,
St. Luke derived this notice from the same source as the materials for
the large portion from ch. ix. 51 to xviii. 17.
3693
On the peculiar meaning of the word
μορφͺ comp.
Bishop Lightfoot on Philip. pp. 127-133.
3694
3695
This expression of St. Luke, so far from indicating embellishment of the
other accounts, marks, if anything, rather retrogression.
3696
3697
It is scarcely a Rabbinic parallel - hardly an illustration - that in
Rabbinic writings also Moses’ face before his death is said to have
shone as the sun, for the comparison is a Biblical one. Such language
would, of course, be familiar to St. Matthew.
3698
The words ‘as snow,’ in St.
Mark ix. 3, are, however, spurious - an early gloss.
3699
3700
3701
3702
Godet points out the emphatic
meaning of
οͺτινες in
St.
Luke ix. 30=quippe qui: they were none other than.
3703
3704
In some of the Apocrypha and Josephus, as well as in
2 Pet. i. 15.
3705
3706
Conder, u.s. vol. i. p 265.
3707
Wünsche (ad loc.) quotes as it
seems to me, very inaptly, the Rabbinic realistic idea of the fulfilment
of
Is. iv. 5, 6, that God would make for each of the righteous seven
booths, varying according to their merits (Baba B. 75 a) or else
one booth for each (Bemid. R. 21, ed. Warsh. p. 85 a). Surely,
there can be no similarity between this and the words of Peter.
3708
A comparison of the narratives leaves on us the impression that the
disciples also were touched by the cloud. I cannot agree with Godet,
that the question depends on whether we adopt in St.
Luke ix. 34 the reading of the T.R.
ͺκεͺνους, or
that of the Alex.
αͺτοͺς.
3709
The more correct reading in St. Luke seems to be ‘Elect Son.’
3710
St. Matthew adds, ‘in Whom I am well pleased.’ The reason of this fuller
account is not difficult to understand.
3711
St. Mark indicates this by the words: ‘And suddenly, when they looked
round about.’
3712
This part of the argument is well worked out by Meyer, but his
arguments for regarding the appearance of Moses and Elijah as merely a
vision, because the former at least had no resurrection-body, are very
weak. Are we sure, that disembodied spirits have no kind of corporeity,
or that they cannot assume a visible appearance?
3713
Even if that Epistle were not St. Peter’s, it would still represent the
most ancient tradition.
3714
3715
3716
Moses and the Messiah are placed side by side, the one as coming from
the desert, the other from Rome. ‘This one shall lead at the head of a
cloud, and that one shall lead at the head of a cloud, the Memra of
Jehovah leading between them twain, and they going’ - as I would render
it - ‘as one’ (Ve-innun mehalkhin kachada), or, as some render
it, ‘they shall walk together.’ The question here arises, whether this
is to be understood as merely figurative language, or to be taken
literally. If literally, does the Targum refer to a kind of heavenly
vision, or to something that was actually to take place, a kind of
realism of what Philo had anticipated (see vol. i. p. 82)? It may have
been in this sense that Fr. Tayler renders the words by ‘in culmine
nubis equitabit.’ But on careful consideration the many and obvious
incongruities involved in it seem to render a literal interpretation
well nigh impossible. But all seems not only plain but accordant with
other Rabbinic teaching (see vol. i. p. 176), if we regard the passage
as only indicating a parallelism between the first and the second
Deliverer and the deliverances wrought by them. Again, although the
parallel is often drawn in Rabbinic writings between Moses and Elijah, I
know only one passage, and that a dubious one, in which they are
conjoined in the days of the Messiah. It occurs in Deb. R. 3 (seven
lines before the close of it), and is to this effect, that, because
Moses had in this world given his life for Israel, therefore in the Æon
to come, when God would send Elijah the prophet, they two should come,
keachath, either ‘together’ or ‘as one,’ the proof passage being
Nah. i. 3, ‘the whirlwind’ there referring to Moses, and ‘the storm’
to Elijah. Surely, no one would found on such a basis a Jewish mythical
origin of the Transfiguration.
3717
Godet has also aptly pointed
out, that the injunction of silence on the disciples as to this event is
incompatible with the mythical theory. It could only point to a real
event, not to a myth.
3718
3719
