“Listen to Him!”: Angelic and Divine Typology in Mark’s Transfiguration Account

In this study I will argue tha t, while Matthew and Luke’s redaction of the Markan Transfiguration present Jesus as the antitype of Moses, Mark’s own account does no t. Rathe r, Mark uses typology to narrate Jesus into the stories of Elijah and Mose s, both of whom are described in the Jewish scriptures as ascending a mountain to talk with God in narratives in which the Angel of YHWH also feature s. Distinctive features of Mark’s account suggest that Mark wishes to associate Jesu s, not with Mose s, but with YHWH and his ange l, using the scriptural ambiguity between the Angel of YHWH and Israel’s God to generate a similar ambiguity around the divine identity of Jesu s. Consequentl y, Mark’s Transfiguration presents a “higher” Christology than that of the Transfigurations in the other Synoptic Gospels. In Mark’s Transfiguration, Jesus is com - pare d, not to human prophet s, but to the anthropomorphic manifestations of Israel’s God at Sinai and Horeb.


Introduction
In his classic study of the Transfiguration, Arthur Ramsey writes, "Implicit in Saint Mark's narrative are the special themes of the other two synoptic narratives: in Saint Matthew, the comparison and contrast between Christ and Moses; in Saint Luke, the connection between the Transfiguration and the Cross."1 Given that Matthew and Luke emphasise different aspects in their use of Mark's Transfiguration account, it is possible that there are other aspects of Mark's account that have not been fully appreciated. As Samuel Sandmel opined 50 years ago, "Mark in many treatments is explained incorrectly because Matthew and Luke (and John) are read with him."2 Two examples should suffice to demonstrate this effect at work. In David Litwa's excellent book IESUS DEUS he gives extensive discussion to Mark's Transfiguration account. But at two points he assimilates the Markan account to one of the other synoptics. He writes, "On the mount of Transfiguration, Peter assumes that the three luminous beings are divine and should receive some sort of cult … (only one of the luminous beings, we soon find out, is God's beloved son)."3 However, Elijah and Moses are only described as being in some sense luminous in Luke (οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ, Luke 9:31), not in Mark where their appearance is not described. This is presumably an unconscious error. Later in the discussion, Litwa writes, "The second evangelist fuses the light emerging from Jesus' clothing (Mark 9:3) to the light from the luminous cloud representing the Father's divine presence, or kabod (v. 7)."4 This is not unconscious, but a deliberate assimilation as he acknowledges, "Matthew alone writes what the other synoptic writers seem to assume, namely that the cloud was φωτεινὴ (shining with light) (17:5)."5 Yet Mark only says that a cloud overshadows them (ἐπισκιάζω, Mark 9:7) -without the additional description in Matthew, it is shadow, not light which is described. In both instances, details are added to interpret Mark from the other synoptics.
A second example comes from Candida Moss' important JBL article on the healing of the woman in the crowd (Mark 5:25-34). There she mentions, "the Markan Transfiguration (9:2-8), in which Jesus' face shines as brilliantly as the sun."6 Jesus' face shining like the sun is a feature of Matthew's Transfiguration (Matt 17:2), but not Mark's. This is clearly an unconscious error, not least because at that point Moss cites her earlier article on the Transfiguration in which she specifically notes, in comparing Mark's Transfiguration with Exodus 34:29-35, that "there is a significant difference in the subject of the illumination; in Mark it is Jesus' garments which radiate whilst in Exodus Moses' face is affected by the glory of the divine."7 These examples demonstrate the need for care in distinguishing Mark's Transfiguration from its Synoptic parallels. Thus, the first task of this study is to present a comparative analysis of the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts, demonstrating how Mark's Matthean and Lukan redactors have altered or obscured significant details in Mark's own account -resulting in the need to interpret the Gospel of Mark on its own terms. I will then perform an intertextual reading of Mark's Transfiguration alongside the scriptures alluded to in Mark's account, namely, 1 Kings 19 and particularly Exodus 19-34. I will argue that the typology of Mark's Transfiguration does not present Jesus as the antitype of Elijah or Moses, but rather narrates Jesus in the narrative role of Israel's God and angel from the stories of Elijah and Moses, using the scriptural ambiguity between the Angel of YHWH and Israel's God to generate a similar ambiguity about the divine identity of Jesus.8

Synoptic Analysis
The Synoptic Transfiguration accounts are clearly related, telling essentially the same story and with a considerable overlap in wording.9 The argument here does not depend on Markan priority, or assume any particular relationship between Matthew and Luke. It suffices to show the differences between the accounts which result in different emphases to the same basic narrative. I will not describe every difference, only those I judge significant for this argument. Neither will I attempt to address the hermeneutical significance of all the distinctive features of Matthew and Luke, which are worthy of their own study. My focus here is on Mark's account as distinct from Matthew and Luke's accounts. Mark and Matthew both begin the episode with "Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John."10 Unique to Mark is the emphasis on the exclusiveness of the group (κατ' ἰδίαν μόνους; Mark 9:2). Luke, on the other hand, sets the event "about eight days later";11 specifically relates it to the preceding teaching (μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους);12 and also informs us of Jesus' intention to pray (προσεύξασθαι; Luke 9:28).
Luke alone mentions that Jesus' Transfiguration occurs while Jesus is praying (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι αὐτὸν; Luke 9:29).13 In the description of Jesus' transfiguration itself we encounter subtle, yet critical differences. For Mark, "he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them" (Mark 9:2-3). Matthew also uses Mark's language of transfiguration (μεταμορφόω) but adds, prior to the description of the clothes, "and his face shone like the sun" (Matt 17:2). This appears to be an assimilation to traditions around Moses' appearance at Sinai.14 Luke omits the language of transfiguration and, similar to Matthew, describes a facial change prior to the description of Jesus' clothing (τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον; Luke 9:29).
Each Gospel employs slightly different terminology to describe Jesus' clothing. For Mark they become a radiant, intense whiteness (στίλβοντα λευκὰ λίαν; 9:3). For Matthew, they become white as light (λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς; 17:2). For Luke, they become like lightning (λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων; 9:29). Unique to Mark is the further emphasis on the clothing, "such as no one on earth could bleach them"

10
Matthew adds τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (17:1) to his list of the three disciples present with Jesus, which gives greater specificity to the description of John but appears to have no significance for the interpretation of the story.

11
A change which Wolter considers has not yet been convincingly explained (Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium The next event in the narrative is the appearance of Elijah and Moses (Mark 9:4; Matt 17:3; Luke 9:30). Both Matthew and Luke introduce it with an emphatic ἰδού. Mark mentions Elijah first, but Matthew and Luke mention Moses first.15 All three Synoptics describe them talking with or to Jesus. It is at this point that Luke becomes most idiosyncratic, adding that Moses and Elijah "appeared in glory (δόξα),"16 that they discussed Jesus' departure (ἔξοδος) which he was to fulfil (πληρόω) at Jerusalem, and that the disciples were sleepy but managed to stay awake and so saw Jesus' glory (δόξα) and the two men (Luke 9:31-32). Luke's distinctive use of ἔξοδος (elsewhere in the NT only Heb 11:22 and 2 Peter 1:15) appears to evoke both Jesus' impending death, but also his redemptive work and resurrection or even Parousia.17 In response to the transfiguration of Jesus and appearance of Elijah and Moses, Peter makes his notorious suggestion to build three tents (σκηνή; Mark 9:5; Matt 17:4; Luke 9:33). Mark interprets Peter's suggestion for us, he did not know how to answer for they -the disciples -were so afraid (ἔκφοβος, Mark 9:6). Luke does not mention fear here, and reframes Peter's ignorance: he just does not know what he is saying (μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει, Luke 9:33). Matthew omits any interpretation of Peter's words.18 But Matthew also styles Peter as putting his request at Jesus' discretion, εἰ θέλεις (Matt 17:4).19 Next a cloud overshadows them (ἐπισκιάζω, Mark 9:7; Matt 17:5; Luke 9:34). Only in Matthew is the cloud described as radiant (φωτεινός). For Luke it is the cloud that produces fear (φοβέω) in the disciples. Then a voice speaks from the cloud. For Matthew it is hearing the voice that causes the disciples to be exceedingly afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα, Matt 17:6).20 In Mark the voice declares, "This is my son, the beloved, listen to him." Matthew and Luke share this declaration with changes: Matthew adds "with him I am well pleased," assimilating this account to Jesus' baptism (compare Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11); Luke, however, omits "beloved" and instead inserts "my chosen" (ἐκλέγομαι, Luke 9:35). "My chosen" appears to allude to Isaiah 42:1.21 The English translation, "listen to him," masks a further subtle detail. Luke 9:35 has αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. This appears to reflect the wording of LXX Deut 18:15, αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε, which is again quoted by Luke in Acts 3:22.22 Although the manuscript evidence is not unanimous, Mark and Matthew appear to favour a different word order, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.23 This change is inconsequential in English translation, but potentially critical in allusive potential, as we shall see below.
After this point the Synoptics vary greatly in language but all describe how, after the voice has spoken, the disciples suddenly realise only Jesus is with them again (Mark 9:8; Matt 17:8; Luke 9:36). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus instructs them to tell no one about what they have seen until after "the son of man has risen from the dead." In Luke we are only told that they kept silent about what they had seen "in those days." The preceding synoptic analysis reveals distinctive characteristics of each synoptic account. The focus of this study is Mark's account, and comparison to Matthew and Luke serves to highlight Mark's distinctive features against the other Synoptics.
First, the description of Jesus' transfiguration in Mark is limited to his clothes. In Matthew we have a graphic description of his face and in Luke a less precise description of change. It seems that for Matthew, at least, the addition of a shining face brings this account closer to that of Moses in Exodus 34. Mark, on the other hand, not only omits the face, but has a longer description of Jesus' clothes.
Second, both Matthew and Luke have other sources of light in the episode. Matthew's cloud is radiant, while Luke's Moses and Elijah appear in glory. Only in Mark's account is Jesus the sole source of light. By adding additional light sources, Matthew and Luke detract from Mark's portrayal of Jesus as the only radiant figure in the episode.
Third, each evangelist shows the disciples responding with fear. Fear is the expected response in any epiphany -an appropriate and scripted human response to witnessing a divine being made manifest. However, they each show this at a different point in the narrative. It seems likely that the placement of Allison argues that "Matthew rescripted Mark in order to push thoughts towards Moses."26 Luke's emphasis on Moses is complicated by an additional emphasis on Jesus' suffering and "exodus," and apparent assimilation to Gethsemane (the night time setting and sleepy disciples).27 Yet both Matthew and Luke increase the resemblance of Mark's account to the Mosaic theophanies of the Sinai sequence in Exodus 19-34.28 This is seen in the several details discussed above: the development of a reference to Jesus' face; the additional sources of light; and the narrative location of the disciples' fear. Matthew and Luke present Jesus as a new and greater Moses in a form of typology. Moses is the type and Jesus is the antitype. There is, in Matthew and Luke's understanding, a recurrent character to salvation history. God's acts from the past are be reflected in God's acts, specifically through Jesus, in the present messianic age. This typology can be further defined as a fulfilment or eschatological typology.29 Usually, when Mark's account is read, the same features that have been developed by Matthew and Luke are seen to point to the same typology.30 However, I want to argue here that attention to Mark's subtle differences results

24
For Luz, this makes the heavenly voice "the center" of Matthew's account 394). 25 This gives the Markan narrative a second center of gravity, which needs to qualify, but does not negate, the suggestion that the heavenly voice is the climax. Cf. W. Richard Stegner, "The Use of Scripture in Two Narratives of Early Jewish Christianity (Matthew 4. in a significantly different typological inference, even while the scriptural referent has not changed. In the foregoing Synoptic comparison, we can see how each Gospel author has given a distinctive version of the same story. With our emphasis on Mark, we are now alert to Mark's unique features which must be given full consideration if Mark's account is to be read on its own terms.

The Literary Context of the Transfiguration in Mark
The Transfiguration is one of Mark's Christological high points, identified as such by its structural function in the Gospel, the heavenly phenomena of the overshadowing cloud, and the declaration of Jesus as "my beloved son" by a heavenly voice.31 As Ramsey writes, "The Transfiguration seems to stand at a watershed in the ministry of Jesus, and to be a height from which the reader looks down on one side upon the Galilean ministry and on the other side upon the Via Crucis."32 The Transfiguration occurs within the section that begins the second half of Mark's Gospel (8:31-9:13). This beginning of the second half mirrors many elements from the beginning of the first (Mark 1:1-15).33 Jesus makes a new beginning, ἄρχω (8:31, cf. 1:1, ἀρχή).34 Instead of scripture speaking (1:2-3), Jesus teaches (8:31-9:1). The prophet Malachi quoted in Mark 1:2 (Mal 3:1) is recalled here through the appearance of both Moses and Elijah (Mal 4:4-5, "Remember the teaching of my servant Moses … I will send you the prophet Elijah …").35 Earlier, Satan tested Jesus in the wilderness (Mark 1:13), but here Satan does so in the person of Jesus' disciple, Peter (8:32-33). Like his original preaching of the gospel message, Jesus teaches openly (8:32; cf. 1:14). There is a reiteration of the promised coming of the kingdom (9:1; cf. 1:15).36 At a scripturally sym- Mark 8:34 is also "reminiscent of the first three call stories (1.16-20 and 2.14), which brought home to the reader that anyone who wishes to follow Jesus should be prepared to give up the security of family and livelihood." So, Bas M. F. Van Iersel, Mark: A bolic location, this time on a high mountain rather than in the Jordan,37 a heavenly voice declares Jesus to be "my beloved son" -ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (Mk. 9:7; cf. 1:10). Finally, the section ends with a reference to John's arrest (9:13; cf. 1:14). Recognising this second "beginning" alerts us to the significance of what takes place here for comprehending the rest of the Gospel story that follows. Moreover, just as Mark's prologue (1:1-15) was rich in scriptural allusions and echoes, so too we can expect to find significant use of scripture here as well.38

Scriptural Allusion in the Transfiguration
The ascent of Jesus and three of his disciples up a mountain to meet with God is surely among the stronger scriptural allusions within this section of Mark.

What Links the Two Figures?
One of the indications that interpreters have missed something significant is the way that the focusing on a Moses typology leaves the presence of Elijah in the narrative without meaningful explanation. There are three standard explanations. First, in Jewish tradition both Elijah and Moses are "raptured" or "transported" to heaven without dying (2 Kgs 2:11; Josephus, Ant 4.8.48 §320-346).41 Thus they potentially, simply represent inhabitants of the heavenly world.42 Second, both Elijah and Moses had been given in scripture an expectation of eschatological return (Deut 18:15; Mal 3:23).43 Yet as Pesch observes, their presence here is not a return but only a temporary reappearance.44 Third, in Matthew and Luke, where the order of appearance in Mark is reversed, "Moses typifies the prophetic office that Jesus will occupy, while Elijah pictures the hope of the eschaton;"45 or they stand for the entirety of the scriptures in the sense of "law and prophets."46 This explanation makes little sense when applied to Mark, not least because Elijah is mentioned first.
There is no doubting the heavenly and eschatological significance of these characters' appearance. There is considerable doubt that Elijah effectively represents prophecy, not least because Moses is himself the paradigmatic scriptural prophet. There seems little need for Elijah's presence at all, let alone to mention him first.
Dale Allison observes something that is frequently missed: Moses and Elijah are the only scriptural characters who converse with God on a mountain, specifically Sinai/Horeb.47 Moreover, both the Sinai and Horeb cycles feature the enigmatic angel of YHWH, a third important intertextual link between the two. It is these scriptural narratives, linked by a human interaction with both the angel of YHWH and with God on a mountain that best explain the joint presence of Moses and Elijah in this encounter with God on a mountain.48 Thus, any interpretation of the Markan Transfiguration must explore the 41 Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus,309. 42 So, e.g., Luz,398

5.1
Who Is Talking to Whom? Crucially, in both Exodus 24 and 34 Moses ascends the mountain to talk with YHWH, the God of Israel. In the Sinai cycle, YHWH only speaks to Moses, and is repeatedly described as doing so.55 This is also the case with Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:8-18 where Elijah ascends the mountain to talk with YHWH. Considering these narratives highlights that Mark does not show Jesus talking with God. Bruce Chilton finds "the three-handed conversation of Mark 9.4 is a striking departure from the Sinai motif."56 However, there is a verbal clue to this puzzle. Elijah and Moses, who do talk with YHWH in scripture (συλλαλέω, Exod 34:35),57 in fact talk with Jesus here in the Gospel (ἦσαν συλλαλοῦντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ, Mark 9:4).58 This distinctive word use provides an intertextual signal as to how to relate these two stories.59 Further, in Exod 34:29 Moses' face is changed when he talks with God (LXX: ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτῷ). Jesus, though, is not changed by talking with God.60 In Luke, Jesus talks to God in prayer (9:28-29), but even this is hardly a strong parallel to Moses' dialogue with YHWH. 54 Moss, "The Transfiguration," 74 n. 21. 55 Exodus 19:9-10; 20:22; 24:1, 12; 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22; 31:1, 12, 18; 32:7, 9; 33:1, 9, 11. 56 Chilton, "The Transfiguration," 122.

57
One of only 4 occurrences in the LXX and the only occurrence in the Pentateuch. 58 The only occurrence of συλλαλέω in Mark. 59 Stegner, "The Use of Scripture," 115. 60 Whether or not μετεμορφώθη is a divine passive. He is changed before the cloud appears or the heavenly voice speaks.61 This is another significant departure from the pattern of Moses. As Juncker argues, Jesus is not acting like a new Moses, rather "Jesus stands on the mountain in the place of God."62

"Listen to Him!"
At the beginning of the Sinai sequence YHWH tells the Israelites that his blessing is dependent on their keeping the covenant and "if you listen to my voice" (the verb here ‫,שמע‬ in the LXX rendered with ἀκούω, Exod 19:5).63 This theme is repeated later when, in the giving of the law, God promises to send an angel ahead of the Israelites. Critically the angel of Exod 23:20-33 "has to be considered a substitute for YHWH" because he has authority for judgement and YHWH's name is in him.64 And so, just as the Israelites were told earlier to listen to YHWH (19:5), here they are told to listen to YHWH's angelic substitute (εἰσάκουε αὐτοῦ, Exod 23:21). In the next verse the Hebrew makes explicit that YHWH speaks through the angel's voice, "But if you listen attentively to his voice and do all that I say." In the LXX the assimilation goes even further, to listen to the angel is to hear YHWH's voice, "If by paying attention you listen to my voice and do all that I tell you" (Exod 23:22 NETS). This command to listen is echoed in Mark by the heavenly voice commanding ἀκούετε αὐτου (Mark 9:7).
It is usually suggested that the command ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (Mark 9:7), "listen to him," may call to mind the prophet like Moses in Deut 18:18-19, of whom God says, "And the person who does not hear (LXX ἀκούω) his words, whatever the prophet may speak in my name, I will exact vengeance from him" (NETS, Deut 18:19).65 However, the wording in Mark 9:7 is much closer to that of LXX Exod 23:21; which has the advantage of being part of the Sinai cycle, a scriptural context already clearly evoked by the Transfiguration narrative.66 In Exod 23:21, these words are not spoken by YHWH about Moses, but by YHWH to Moses regarding an angel who has a unique status, "for my name is on him" (Exod. 23:21). In Mark this particular phrase is more prominent because, unlike Matthew and Luke, the heavenly command has not been expanded with additional phrases. Likewise, when God speaks from the cloud in Exodus 24:16-17 it is to address Moses. In the Transfiguration, the voice does not address Jesus, but the disciples. As the subject of God's command "listen to him," Jesus corresponds not to Moses but the angel. As the recipients of God's speech from the cloud, it is not Jesus but the disciples who correspond to Moses. This suggestion is supported by Jesus' changed appearance. For van Iersel, Jesus' bright shining "reflects that of the clothes and hair of the aged figure who sits on the heavenly throne in the vision of Dan. 7.9 … For a moment, the three disciples see the Son of Man clothed with God's glory."67 Comparable is the description of God's cloak (περιβόλαιον) in 1 Enoch 14:20 which is "brighter and whiter than any snow" (λαμπρότερον καὶ λευκότερον πάσης χιόνος).68 Alternatively, the shining clothes reflect Jewish and Greek descriptions of heavenly beings, reinforced by Mark's statement that no one on earth could achieve such whiteness.69 At the least, the shining clothes present Jesus as a heavenly being, an angel or a human made like an angel (cf. Mark 12:25). What they do not do here is present Jesus as a Moses figure, because in the scriptural accounts Moses' clothes do not shine.
The possibility that Jesus is an angelic figure in the Transfiguration is not especially novel. Christopher Rowland suggests that the disciples "may have believed that they had seen Jesus in the form of an angelic envoy."70 Klein states, "Jesus wird den Engeln gleich."71 For Burkett the Transfiguration anticipates Jesus' "angelification."72 And Luz suggests Jesus' appearance is modelled on the angel in Dan 8:16-17; 10:9-12, 16-19.73 These suggestions, however, are an interpretations based on Jesus' radiant appearance, and do not consider the scriptural context evoked in the narrative episode as a whole. Jesus' temporary "angelification" is given context by the scriptural allusion of the heavenly voice Burkett, "The Transfiguration of Jesus," 425. 73 Luz,398. saying "listen to him." The scriptural allusion is strengthened by Jesus' angelic appearance. However, I have now, perhaps confusingly, suggested two different typological referents for Jesus. Because Elijah and Moses talk with Jesus, he is figured as YHWH; because he is the subject of the heavenly voice and appears as an angel, he is figured as the Angel of Exodus. What prevents this dual identification dissolving into absurdity is the frequently ambiguous relationship between the Angel of YHWH and YHWH in the Jewish scriptures.

5.3
The Angel of the Lord In the Jewish scriptures the Angel of the Lord is an ambiguous figure, "a supernatural, unidentifiable manifestation of YHWH,"74 who appears to modulate between being an angelic agent and YHWH personified.75 This scriptural ambiguity then led to considerable speculation and development of this figure in second temple Judaism and well beyond.76 The prime example of this ambiguity is clearly narrated in Judges where both Gideon and Manoah and his wife encounter the ‫יהוה‬ ‫מלאך‬ (Jud 6:11; 13:3, 15). However, upon realising this messenger is the angel of the Lord they are filled with fear and expect to die (6:22-23; 13:22). It is Manoah who interprets this fear for us, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God" (Jud 13:22). Here, to see the angel of YHWH is to see God. At the same time as this close identification between the angel and YHWH, it is also clear they are distinct. Gideon has a separate conversation with YHWH after the angel leaves (6:22-23) and God hears Manoah's prayers, while the angel responds to them (13:9).77 The portrayal of the/an angel of YHWH is not consistent across the Hebrew Bible.78 On occasions the angel is indistinguishable from YHWH,79 but at other 74 Ausloos, "The 'Angel of YHWH,'" 7. 75 The standard treatment of the subject remains, Samuel A. points appears to be a distinct figure.80 This ambiguity meant that later interpreters could insist that the angel was in fact YHWH; or insist that it was only an angel (but of especially high status); or maintain the ambiguity themselves.81 Our present interest is in the Sinai/Horeb narratives which Mark's Transfiguration account evokes. Here the ambiguity occurs in two directions: One, the close identification of the ‫יהוה‬ ‫מלאך‬ with YHWH; two, the anthropomorphic form of Israel's God suggesting a figure in human form (or even "one like a son of man"). I will discuss the Sinai narrative in more detail below.
If Mark is indeed associating Jesus with the Angel of YHWH here, then he is not alone (although arguably the first extant example) among the early church. As Jarl Fossum has shown, Jude 5-7 identifies the angel of the Lord that saved Israel out of Egypt, imprisoned the fallen angels (cf. 1 Enoch [11][12], and punished Sodom and Gomorrah, as Jesus in his pre-existent state.82 Fossum also discusses Justin Martyr's argument that Jesus was the angelic Lord who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (e.g., Justin, Dia 56.22).83 So, Mark's typology fits within the early Christian milieu where we find other evidence of speculation that Jesus pre-existed as the Angel of YHWH.
Less direct, but still pertinent, is the use of angel of YHWH imagery to portray Jesus in various early Christian documents, especially in Revelation. Fossum, 228. 84 Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 150; see also Stuckenbruck,Angel Veneration and Christology, Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 91; but cf. Hannah,Michael and Christ, Figure  Mark's Gospel is all but ignored in studies of angel Christology,86 however, in addition to the narrative form of the Transfiguration and the evocative phrase "listen to him!," another potentially significant Markan evocation of the angelic is the use of the expression/title "Son of Man." Interpreters of Daniel 7:13-14 usually read the Son of Man as either the angel Michael (the "prince" of Dan 10:21; 12:1) or the suffering Jewish nation (the "holy ones" of Dan 7:15-29). However, Phillip Munoa has argued at length for the direct relationship between the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14 and the angel of YHWH in earlier biblical traditions. He notes how both figures are "nameless, human in appearance, solitary, heavenly in association, possess divinely bestowed authority," and act as "God's agent of judgement and deliverance."87 He effectively argues that Daniel's Son of Man figure can be interpreted in the light of the preceding angelic appearances in Dan 2-6. 88 Munoa also demonstrates that early Jewish interpreters of Daniel reinforced this theme, by explicitly referring to the angel of the Lord in their translations and additions. In the OG of Dan 3:25 the fourth figure in the furnace appears ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου θεοῦ. The "holy watcher" of Dan 4:13, 23-24 is described in the OG as ἄγγελος ἀπεστάλη ἐν ἰσχύι. In Bel and the Dragon 34-39, the ἄγγελος κυρίου brings Habakkuk to give food to Daniel. In the OG and Theodotian of Susannah the ἄγγελος κυρίου will bring judgement on the Elders who have falsely accused Susannah. In the OG it is the ἄγγελος κυρίου who stirs Daniel to save Susannah (Susa 44-45) and who burns the false witnesses with fire (Susa 60-62). 89 Munoa concludes that, "'Son of Man' should not be read in isolation as merely a non-titular expression for a human appearance, but as part of a traditional description of the angel of the Lord."90 Here I am not suggesting that the expression Son of Man should be exclusively or even mainly read in this way read in this way in Mark. Munoa, 157-59. 90 Munoa,166. 91 See the cautions of Hannah,Michael and Christ, argument, is that one of the resonances that the expression son of man would have been capable of evoking was this mysterious, nameless scriptural angelic figure of Daniel 7. This was one of the interpretative options available to scripturally literate Jews hearing the phrase "Son of Man." In which case the repetition of the phrase in the dialogue immediately surrounding the Transfiguration episode is significant for the thesis of an angelic typology (Mark 8:31,38;9:9). In particular, Mark 8:38 describes Jesus as a glorious figure at the head of an army of angels92 -any potential association with the son of man and angels has hence been activated by the dialogue immediately preceding the Transfiguration account.93

5.5
Fear of God at Sinai At the beginning of the Sinai cycle, YHWH says to Moses, "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud" (Exod 19:9) and then YHWH descends to the mountain (19:20). After the ten commandments are given, the people of Israel witness thunder, lightning, trumpet sounds and smoke, then they become afraid (LXX φοβέω), either of the meteorological phenomena or of hearing God's voice . This narrative motif of fear conforms to the sequence in Luke (in response to the cloud, Luke 9:34) and in Matthew (in response to the voice, Matt 17:6), but not to the sequence in Mark where the disciples' fear occurs before either cloud or voice manifest. Matthew and Luke have further assimilated their account to the Sinai sequence, but in doing so have changed the cause of the disciples' epiphanic fear from Jesus' transformation and conversation with Elijah and Moses to the cloud and voice.
Rather, Mark's account resembles more the stories of Gideon and Manoah, for "Both feared for their lives when they realised without being told, that they had encountered the angel of the Lord."94 This motif of fear before a human figure revealed as "angelic," combined with Mark's emphasis on Elijah, serves to relativize the Sinai allusion and evokes a wider concept of the Angel of YHWH, who features in both Elijah and Moses' narratives, and frequently causes fear in mortals. This is the moment of recognition; which Burkett claims is absent from Mark's Transfiguration.95 However just as uncomprehending fear is the response to Jesus' other epiphanic moments in Mark (4:41; 6:50), here the 92 "The prince of angels," so, Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 3. 93 Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 376; Additionally, one of the figures potentially called to mind by Jesus' transfigured appearance is the angel of Dan 10. On which see, Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 46-47. 94 Munoa, "The Son of Man and the Angel of the Lord," 154. 95 Burkett, "The Transfiguration of Jesus," 418.
witnesses to the further revelation of Jesus' identity cannot express that identity with meaningful words (on Peter's attempt, see below).

5.6
Seeing God at Sinai Later in the Sinai cycle, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders, ascend the mountain to see the God of Israel (Exod 24:1). It seems likely the three companions of Moses (plus seventy unnamed elders) are reflected in Jesus' three companions. When Moses and company do see YHWH, only what is under his feet is described, but the presence of feet implies that they saw a human form (Exod 24:9-11).96 Moses then advances closer up the mountain and it is covered by cloud (Exod 24:15). Later Moses will make an extraordinary request to YHWH, "show me your glory" (‫/כבד‬δόξα, 33:18). And we read there again that YHWH has physical features, a back and a face, although the face cannot be seen (33:21-23), and a hand that covers Moses' eyes (33:22-23), and so YHWH passes before Moses (34:6).97 Here it is worth observing that in the Transfiguration it is the disciples who witness Jesus' glory (cf. 2 Peter 1:16-18). So, in this regard, typologically it is the disciples who again correspond to Moses but Jesus this time corresponds to YHWH. This correspondence is made stronger by that fact that Moses and the elders view a glorious human-like figure. On the Mount of Transfiguration God is not visible but Jesus is, and Jesus is the only glorious human figure described by Mark.
The claim of the Exodus text, that "they saw the God of Israel" understandably created some difficulty for Jewish interpreters. Regarding Exodus 24:10, R. Judah ben Ilai famously stated, "He who translates the verse literally is a liar, while he who adds to it is a blasphemer" (t. Meg 4.41; b. Kidd 49a). Out of a similar sensitivity, Targums Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan describe Moses and the elders seeing, not God, but his "glory."98 A similar issue pertains to Isaiah's vision of YHWH in the temple (Isa 6:1), which the Targums interpret the same way. John's Gospel, however, asserts that Isaiah did not see God, or God's glory, but Jesus' glory (John 12:41). What John does for Isaiah's vision -interpreting the figure on the throne as Jesus, Mark's Transfiguration does for God's anthropomorphic Sinai appearance. But Mark does this through scripturally allusive narrative rather than discourse.
Here, it is perhaps especially significant that in the Exodus passages YHWH appears as a man who has feet (Exod 24:10) and who stands beside Moses 96 Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 30-32. 97 Shortly before we are told God had inscribed the commandments with his finger (Exod 31:18). 98 Fossum, "Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5-7," 227.
10.1163/18712207-12341472 | Horizons in Biblical Theology (2023) 1-26 (Exod 34:5). The sometimes-anthropomorphic appearances of Israel's Lord in the Jewish scriptures create the possibility that Mark could be reading Jesus back into those scriptural narratives and then applying that exegesis here in the Markan Transfiguration. Again Jewish tradition prepares the way for this because these anthropomorphic appearances of God were sometimes interpreted as being the Angel of YHWH. 99 The ambiguity has come full circle, the Angel of YHWH could be understood to be YHWH, and the anthropomorphic appearance of YHWH could be interpreted as the Angel of YHWH. It is this ambiguity that Mark exploits in portraying Jesus as an angelic figure in his scriptural typology of the Sinai and Horeb narratives.

5.7
The Shining Face of Moses After Moses has this closer encounter with YHWH's glory his face begins to shine "because he had been talking with God" (Exod 34:29). As has been discussed above, a crucial difference between the Synoptic accounts is that Mark does not describe Jesus' face. In Matthew especially, the radiance of Jesus' face surely reflects a narrative assimilation to the glorification of Moses' face at Sinai (LXX δοξάζω,Exod 34:29,30,35).100 Not only does Mark not include this detail, but Mark emphasises Jesus' clothes being extremely white. By contrast Moses uses a veil, an item of clothing, to cover his radiant face, but his clothes are not mentioned as changed (Exod 34:33, 35).
Further, Moses' radiant face is a result of speaking with God, which in Mark's version of the episode Jesus has not done. Litwa suggests that Jesus is not revealed as a god in and of himself but is "enveloped in the nimbus of a higher deity" and receives light as a "reflection" of the light of God the Father.101 Likewise Burkett, states, "The parallel between Jesus's transformation and that of Moses on Mount Sinai indicates that it is not an epiphany but an impartation of divine radiance to a human being."102 But both are vitiated by the fact that in Mark's account there is no other light for Jesus to reflect and that Jesus' radiance begins before God manifests in the cloud and/or voice. Rather, "whereas Moses' Glory on Sinai was reflected, Christ's glory was unborrowed."103 In Mark's account Jesus' radiance is not attributable to anyone other than Jesus.
Within the Synoptics, Mark's focus on Jesus' clothes (τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ) alone is distinctive. If Mark is not presenting Jesus as Moses, but as a radiant angelomorphic figure who speaks with Elijah and Moses, then the most obvious option within Mark's typological scheme is that Jesus is the angel of Exodus 23 and 1 Kings 19, the "supernatural, unidentifiable manifestation of YHWH." 104 In the Transfiguration Jesus takes on the narrative role of the angel of the Lord or of Israel's God in being the one that Moses and Elijah went up the mountain to talk with. By metamorphosing into radiance he is not imitating Moses whose face reflected the glory of God (δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, Exod 34:29).105 God does not manifest in the cloud and heavenly voice until after Jesus has changed. Instead, Jesus enacts the narrative role of the one who made Moses' face shine. As Tertullian puts it, "And with this glory (Moses) went away enlightened from Christ, just as he did of old from the creator" (Adv. Marc. 4.22.16).106

5.8
What of Peter's Tents? The recognition of a Sinai typology in the Transfiguration account provides some much needed context for Peter's intention to build tents (σκηνή) for Jesus, Moses and Elijah. It may be that Peter simply wants to detain the figures on the mountain and prolong the experience of Jesus glory.107 Yet this ignores possible resonances σκηνή has with the Sinai narrative. Part of the law given at Sinai specifically concerns the tabernacle (‫/משכן‬σκηνή, Exod 25:9). And this is often offered as a referent. However, if Peter thought he was recreating the Exodus tabernacle it would not make sense to build three.108 Equally problematic is the suggestion that it is a reference to the festival of Booths. 109 The remaining, and usually overlooked, Sinai reference to a tent is the "tent of meeting/testimony" ‫מועד(‬ ‫/אהל‬σκηνὴ μαρτυρίου, Exod 33:7) which Moses used to meet with God. This cannot yet be the tabernacle, because the instructions for the tabernacle had only just been given and not yet implemented. If Peter's tents are intended as a special place for prophets to meet with God, on the model of Exodus 33:7-11, then it would make sense that he would want to build one for each of the prophets in front of him. If Peter recognises he is seeing the events of Sinai recapitulated before his eyes, the production of a tent for each prophet is the logical next step. This, of course, undermines the typology of seeing Jesus as the Angel of YHWH -hence Mark's narratorial insistence that Peter in fact did not know what to say (Mark 9:6), that is, that Peter's immediate interpretation of the event should be ignored. What is wrong with Peter's suggestion, in Mark's view, is that it makes Jesus the equal of Moses and Elijah, but for Mark this is not sufficient.110 In this episode, Jesus is not to be seen as a Moses figure but as the manifestation of YHWH that Moses spoke to.

Conclusion
In this reading of Mark's Transfiguration, I have argued that Matthew and Luke's versions of the same story have influenced interpretation of Mark's narrative which has its own distinctive features. When read in light of these distinctives, the usual approach of seeing a Moses typology is problematised, because this neither takes the presence of Elijah seriously, nor compares the narrative roles of Moses and Jesus accurately. In their respective scriptural stories, Moses and Elijah talk with God; but in the Transfiguration, they talk with Jesus. Who then is Jesus? God's command "listen to him" was argued to more strongly evoke the Angel of YHWH at Sinai than the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18. The frequent observation that Jesus assumes an angelic form in the Transfiguration, was used to highlight that in both the Sinai and Horeb mountain theophanies, called to mind by Elijah and Moses' appearance on the mountain, the Angel of YHWH also figures prominently. Here, Mark's distinctive placement of the disciples' fear response, further conforms to scriptural characterisation of encounters with the Angel of YHWH. While this is the only place in the Gospel that Jesus assumes an angelic form,111 the angelic connotations of Son of Man language were noted. As well as the Angel of YHWH's ambiguous identity, it was adduced that YHWH's anthropomorphic appearances also generated angelic interpretations. The Angel of YHWH figure in the Jewish scriptures was sometimes employed by early Christian interpreters for their Christology, and this reading of the Transfiguration evinces that the Gospel of Mark does likewise. James Dunn asks of Christopher Rowland and Jarl Fossum, "to what extent in these descriptions [of the angelic Christ] was there a deep reflection on the