| 107. The History of the Transfiguration Considered as a Myth | ||||
THUS here, as in every former instance, after having run through the circle of natural explanations, we are led back to the supernatural; in which however we are precluded from resting by difficulties equally decisive. Since then the text forbids a natural interpretation, while it is impossible to maintain as historical the supernatural interpretation which it sanctions, we must apply ourselves to a critical examination of its statements. These are indeed said to be especially trustworthy in the narrative before us, the fact being narrated by three evangelists, who strikingly agree even in the precise determination of the time, and being moreover attested by the apostle Peter (2 Pet. 1.17.). The agreement as to the time (the "eight days" of Luke meaning, according to the usual reckoning, the same as the "six days" of the other evangelists,) is certainly striking; and besides this, all the three narrators concur in placing immediately after the transfiguration the cure of the demonacal boy, which the disciples had failed to effect. But both these points of agreement may be accounted for, by the origin of the synoptic gos- {P.609} pels from a fixed fund of Gospel tradition, in relation to Avhich, we need not be more surprised that it has grouped together many anecdotes in a particular manner without any objective reason, than that it has often preserved expressions in which it might have varied, through all the three editions. The attestation of the story by the three Synoptics is, however, very much weakened, at least on the ordinary view of the relation -which the four Gospels bear to each other, by the silence of John; since it does not appear why this evangelist should not have included in his history an event which was so important, and which moreover accorded so well with his system, indeed, exactly realized the declaration in his prologue (v. 14): We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. The worn out reason, that he might suppose the event to be sufficiently known through his predecessors, is, over and above its general invalidity, particularly unavailable here, because no one of the synotists was in this instance an eye-witness, and consequently there must be many things in their narratives which one who, like John, had participated in the scene, might rectify and explain. Hence another reason has been sought for this and similar omissions in the fourth gospel; and such an one has been supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic, or, more strictly, the anti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel, in common with the epistles, bearing the name of John. It is, accordingly, maintained that in the story of the transfiguration, the splendour which illuminated Jesus, the transformation of his appearance into something more than earthly, might give countenance to the opinion that his human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil, through which at times his true, superhuman nature shone forth; that his converse with the spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture, that he was himself perhaps only a like spirit of some Old Testament saint revisiting the earth; and tat, rather than give nourishment to such erroneous notions, which began early to be formed among gnosticis-ing Christians, John chose to suppress this and similar histories, But besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of speech (parrhsia) to suppress important facts in the Gospel history, on account of their possible abuse by individuals, John, if he were guided by the above consideration, must at least have proceeded with some consistency, and have excluded from the circle of his accounts all narratives which, in an equal degree with the one in question, were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation. | ||||
Now, here, every one must at once be reminded of the story of the walking of Jesus on the sea, which is at least equally calculated with the story of the transfiguration, to produce the idea that the body of Jesus was a mere phantom, but which John nevertheless records. It is true that the relative importance of events might introduce a distinction: so that of two narraties with an equally strong docetic {P.610} aspect, John might include the one on account of its superior weight, while he omitted the less important. But no one will contend that the walking of Jesus on the sea surpasses, or even equals in importance, the story of the transfiguration. John, if he were intent on avoiding what wore a docetic appearance, must on every consideration have suppressed the first history before all others. As he has not done so, the above principle cannot have influenced him, and consequently can never be advanced as a reason for the designed omission of a history in the fourth gospel; rather it may be concluded, and particularly in relation to the event in question, that the author knew nothing, or at least nothing precise, of that history. It is true that this conclusion can form an objection to the historical character of the narrative of the transfiguration, to those only who suppose the fourth gospel to be the work of an apostle; so that from this silence we cannot argue against the truth of the narrative. n the other hand, the agreement of the Synoptics proves nothing in its favour, since we have already been obliged to pronounce unhis-torical more than one narrative in which three, indeed, all four Gospels agree. Lastly, as regards the alleged testimony of Peter, from the more than doubtful genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, the passage which certainly refers to our history of the transfiguration, is renounced as a proof of its historical truth even by orthodox theologians. On the other hand, besides the difficulties previously enumerated, lying in the miraculous contents of the narrative, wehave still a further ground for doubt in relation to the historical validity of the transfiguration: namely, the conversation which, according to the two first evangelists, the disciples held with Jesus immediately after. In descending from the mountain, the disciples ask Jesus: "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?" (Matt. v. 10). This sounds just as if something had happened, from which they necessarily inferred that Elijah would not appear; and not in the least as if they were coming directly from a scene in which he had actually appeared; for in the latter case they would not have asked a question, as if unsatisfied, but must rather have indicated their satisfaction by the remark, "Truly then do the scribes say, etc." Hence expositors interpret the question the disciples to refer, not to the absence of an appearance of Elijah in general, but to the absence of a certain concomitant in the scene which they had just witnessed. The doctrine of the scribes namely, had taught them to anticipate that Elijah on his second appearance would exert a reforming influence on the life of the nation; whereas in the appearance which they had just beheld he had presently vanished again {P.611} without further activity. This explanation would be admissible if the words "will restore all things" stood in the question of the disciples; instead of this, however, it stands in both narratives (Matt. v. 11; Mark v. 12) only in the answer of Jesus: so that the disciples, according to this supposition, must, in the most contradictory manner, have been silent as to what they really missed, the restoration of all things, and only have mentioned that which after the foregoing appearance they could not have missed, namely, the coining of Elijah. As, however, the question of the disciples presupposes no previous appearance of Elijah, but, on the contrary, expresses the feeling that such an appearance was wanting, so the answer which Jesus gives them has the same import. For when he replies: the scribes are right in saying that Elijah must come before the Messiah; but this is no argument against my Messiahship, since an Elijah has already preceded me in the person of the Baptist, whn he thus seeks to guard his disciples against the doubt which might arise from the expectation of the scribes, by pointing out to them the figurative Elijah who had preceded him, it is impossible that an appearance of the actual Elijah can have previously taken place; otherwise Jesus must in the first place have referred to this appearance, and only in the second place to the Baptist, Thus the immediate connection of this conversation with that appearance cannot be historical, but is rather owing solely to this point of similarity that in both mention is made of Elijah. But not even at an interval, and after the lapse of intermediate events, can such a conversation have been preceded by an appearance of Elijah; for however long afterwards, both Jesus and the three eye-witnesses among his disciples must have remembered it, and could never have spoken as if such an appearance had not taken place. Still further, an appearance of the real Elijah cannot have happened even after such a conversation, in acordance with the orthodox idea of Jesus. For he too explicitly declares his opinion that the literal Elijah was not to be expected, and that the Baptist was the promised Elijah: if therefore, nevertheless, an appearance of the real Elijah did subsequently take place, Jesus must have been mistaken; a consequence which precisely those Avho are most concerned for the historical reality of the transfiguration, are the least in a position to admit. If then the appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other, the question is, which of the two passages can better be renounced? Now the purport of the conversation is so confirmed by Matt. xi. 14. comp. Luke i. 17., while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds of difficulties, that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision. According to this, it appears here as in some former cases, that two narratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions, and having arisen also in different times, have been awkwardly enough combined: | ||||
{P.612} the passage containing the conversation proceeding from the probably earlier opinion, that the prophecy concerning Elijah had its fulfilment in John; whereas the narrative of the transfiguration doubtless originated at a later period, when it was not held sufficient that in the Messianic time of Jesus Elijah should only have appeared figuratively, in the person of the Baptist, when it was thought fitting that he should also have shown himself personally and literally, if in no more than a transient appearance before a few witnesses (a public and more influential one being well known not to have taken place). | ||||
In order next to understand how such a narrative could arise in a legendary manner, the first feature to be considered, on the examination of which that of all the rest will most easily follow, is the sun-like splendour of the countenance of Jesus, and the bright lustre of his clothes. To the oriental, and more particularly to the Hebrew imagination, the beautiful, the majestic, is the luminous; the poet of the Song of Songs compares his beloved to the hues of morning, to the moon, to the sun (vi. 9.); the holy man supported by the blessing of God, is compared to the sun going forth in his might (Judg. v. 31.); and above all the future lot of the righteous is likened to the splendour of the sun and the stars (Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xiii. 40.). Hence, not only does God appear clothed in light, and angels with resplendent countenances and shining garments (Ps. 1, 2, 3; Dan. vii. 9 f.; x. 5, 6; Luke xxiv. 4; Rev. i.13ff.), but also the pious of Hebrew antiquity, as Adam before the fall, and among subsequen instances, more particularly Moses and Joshua, are represented as being distinguished by such a splendour; and the later Jewish tradition ascribes celestial splendour even to eminent rabbis in exalted moments. But the most celebrated example of this kind is the luminous countenance of Moses, which is mentioned, Exod. xxxiv.29ff., and as in other points, so in this, a conclusion was drawn from him in relation to the Messiah, a minori ad majus. Such a mode of arguing is indicated by the apostle Paul, 2 Cor. iii.7ff., though he opposes to Moses, (the minister of the letter) not Jesus, but, in accordance with the occasion of his epistle, the apostles and Christian teachers, ministers of the spirit, and the glory, (56a, of the latter, which surpassed the glory of Moses, is an object of hope, to be attained only in the future life. But especially in the Messiah himself, it was expected that there would be a splendour which would correspod to that of Moses, indeed, outshine it; and a Jewish writing which takes no notice of our history of the transfiguration, argues quite in the spirit of the {P.613} Jews of the first Christian period, when it urges that Jesus cannot have been the Messiah, because his countenance had not the splendour of the countenance of Moses, to say nothing of a higher splendour. Such objections, doubtless heard by the early Christians from the Jews, and partly suggested by their own minds, could not but generate in the early Church a tendency to introduce into the life of Jesus an imitation of that trait in the life of Moses, indeed, in one respect to surpass it, and instead of a shining countenance that might be covered with a veil, to ascribe to him a radiance, though but transitory, which was diffused even over his garments. | ||||
That the illumination of the countenance of Moses served as a type for the transfiguration of Jesus, is besides proved by a series of particular features. Moses obtained his splendour on Mount Sinai: of the transfiguration of Jesus also the scene is a mountain; Moses, on an earlier ascent of the mountain, which might easily be confounded with the later one, after which his countenance became luminous, had taken with him, besides the seventy elders, three confidential friends, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, to participate in the vision of the Lord (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9-11); so Jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples, that, so far as their powers were adequate, they might be witnesses of the sublime spectacle, and their immediate object was, according to Luke, v. 28, to pray (proseucasqai) just as the Lord calls Moses with the three companions and the elders, to come on the mountain, that they might worship at a distance. As afterwards, when Moses ascended Sinai with Joshua, the glory of th Lord covered the mountain as a cloud, (v. 15 f. LXX.); as the Lord called to Moses out of the cloud, until at length the latter entered into the cloud (v. 16-18): so we have in our narrative a bright cloud which overshadows Jesus and the heavenly forms, a voice out of the cloud, and in Luke an entering of the three into the cloud. The first part of the address pronounced by the voice out of the eloud, consists of the Messianic declaration, composed out of Ps. ii. 7., and Is. 43.1., which had already sounded from heaven at the baptism of Jesus; the second part is taken from the words with which Moses, in the passage of Deuteronomy quoted earlier (xviii. 15), according to the usual interpretation, anounces to the people the future Messiah, and admonishes them to obedience towards him. | ||||
{P.614} By the transfiguration on the mountain Jesus was brought into contact with his type Moses, and as it had entered into the anticipation of the Jews that the Messianic time, according to Is. 42.6 ff,, would have not merely one, but several forerunners, and that among others the ancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the Messiah: so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance, than that in which the Messiah was being glorified on a mountain, as he had himself once been. With him was then naturally associated the prophet, who, on the strength of Mai. iii. 23., was the most decidedly expected to be a Messianic forerunner, and, indeed, according to the rabbis, to appear contemporaneously with Moses. If these two men appeared to the Messiah, it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with him; and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation, nothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus, which had been announced in te foregoing passage, and which besides, as constituting emphatically the Messianic mystery of the New Testament, were best adapted for the subject of sxich a conversation with beings of another world: from which one cannot but wonder how Olshausen can maintain that the myth would never have fallen upon this theme of conversation. According to this, we have here a myth, the tendency of which is twofold: first, to exhibit in the lite of Jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of Moses; and secondly, to bring Jesus as the Messiah into contact with his two forerunners, by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet, of the founder and the reformer of the theocracy, to represent Jesus as the perfecter of the kingdom of God, and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets; and besides this, to show a confirmation of his Messianic dignity by a heavenly voice. | ||||
Although the point of departure was a totally different one, this statement of time might be retained for the opening of the scene of transfiguration in the story of Jesus. | ||||
Before we part with our subject, this example may serve to show with peculiar clearness, how the natural system of interpretation, while it seeks to preserve the historical certainty of the narratives, loses their ideal truth-sacrifices the essence to the form: whereas the mythical interpretation, by renouncing the historical body of such narratives, rescues and preserves the idea which resides in them, and which alone constitutes their vitality and spirit. Thus if, as the natural explanation would have it, the splendour around Jesus was an accidental, optical phenomenon, and the two appearances either images of a dream or unknown men, where is the significance of the incident? where the motive for preserving in the memory of the Church an story so void of ideas, and so barren of inference, resting on a common delusion and superstition? On the contrary, while according to the mythical interpretation, I do not, it is true, see in the Gospel narrative any real event, I yet retain a sense, a urpose in the narrative, know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first Christian community it owes its origin, and why the authors of the Gospels included so important a passage in their memoirs. | ||||