Abstract
In this study I will argue that, while Matthew and Luke’s redaction of the Markan Transfiguration present Jesus as the antitype of Moses, Mark’s own account does not. Rather, Mark uses typology to narrate Jesus into the stories of Elijah and Moses, 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 features. Distinctive features of Mark’s account suggest that Mark wishes to associate Jesus, not with Moses, but with YHWH and his angel, using the scriptural ambiguity between the Angel of YHWH and Israel’s God to generate a similar ambiguity around the divine identity of Jesus. Consequently, Mark’s Transfiguration presents a “higher” Christology than that of the Transfigurations in the other Synoptic Gospels. In Mark’s Transfiguration, Jesus is compared, not to human prophets, but to the anthropomorphic manifestations of Israel’s God at Sinai and Horeb.
1 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 (
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
2 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 (
Luke alone mentions that Jesus’ Transfiguration occurs while Jesus is praying (
Each Gospel employs slightly different terminology to describe Jesus’ clothing. For Mark they become a radiant, intense whiteness (
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
In response to the transfiguration of Jesus and appearance of Elijah and Moses, Peter makes his notorious suggestion to build three tents (
Next a cloud overshadows them (
The English translation, “listen to him,” masks a further subtle detail. Luke 9:35 has
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 fearful disciples serves to underline a particular point in the narrative that the evangelist wants to emphasise. Luke emphasizes the cloud, perhaps thinking of Exod 24:15–16. Matthew emphasizes the voice from heaven, perhaps thinking of the Israelites’ fear in Exod 20:19, or to underline that this heavenly voice is the God of Israel speaking.24 In Mark, however, the disciples’ fear is neither a response to the cloud nor the voice, it is a response to witnessing Elijah and Moses talking with a radiant Jesus on the mountain.25
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 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.
3 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,
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
4 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. It recalls two significant scriptural stories, that of Moses and that of Elijah (Exod 24, 34; 1 Kgs 19:8–18).39 Unlike some of Mark’s more subtle scriptural typologies this connection can hardly be denied as Elijah and Moses are described as being present (Mark 9:4). Various Jewish writings suggest that the return of scriptural heroes would feature in the eschaton (Mal 4:5; 4 Ezra 6:26; 14:9; 2 Bar 76:2; T. Ben 10:5–6).40 The appearance of Elijah and Moses must therefore, carry great significance.
4.1 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 significance of both scriptural texts evoked by Mark, and not allow the focus on Moses, as developed by Matthew and Luke, to obscure Mark’s own focus, which is somewhat different. Elijah is mentioned first, and so requires at least equal consideration with Moses. The presence and priority of Elijah problematizes the assumption of a Moses typology.49
4.2 Elijah
Elijah is the first of the two prophets mentioned. With the mountaintop scene surrounded by the talk of persecution of both Jesus and his followers (Mark 8:31–38) and mention of Elijah/John the Baptist’s fate (9:13), the Transfiguration recalls Elijah’s encounter with the Angel of YHWH in the wilderness and YHWH at Mount Horeb (1 Kgs 19:1–18). Elijah was under the threat of death (1 Kgs 19:2) as is Jesus (e.g. Mark 3:6; 8:31). Both scenes take place after the death of prophets at the hands of a wicked king and queen (1 Kgs 18:4; Mark 6:14–29). Peter’s presumptuous verbosity (Mark 9:5–6) contrasts with Elijah’s silence until the voice speaks to him (1 Kgs 19:12–13). God’s voice interrogated Elijah (1 Kgs 19:9, 13) before comforting him (19:15–18). In Mark, God’s voice only declares that Jesus is his son (Mark 9:7) and speaks to the disciples, not Jesus (cf. 1:11, where Jesus is directly addressed).
4.3 Moses
Although Elijah is mentioned first by Mark, it is the story of Moses which the Transfiguration most resembles. Moses’ two ascents to meet with God in Exod 24:9–18 and 34:1–35 present a number of corresponding details with the Transfiguration: the otherwise puzzling reference to six days (Mark 9:2; Exod 24:15–17); the high mountain (Exod 24:12; 15–18; 34:3); the presence of a select group (Exod 24:1–2; 16); a transformed and radiant central character (Exod 24:29–30, 35); Jesus’ Transfiguration (
These features have generally been recognised by Markan scholars as also generating a clear Moses typology. Donahue and Harrington are representative when they write, “The common features are so numerous that it is hard to escape the impression that the Transfiguration story presents Jesus as not only the Son of God but also a Moses figure.”52 However, first, this interpretation leaves Elijah as an insignificant detail, the scriptural resonances unexplored, and fails to reckon with a crucial problem with the Moses typology – in Mark, Jesus does not talk with God on the mountain.53 Second, if Jesus’ radiance is of a type with Moses’ then it is distinctly inferior to it: Jesus’ himself does not shine and nor does his radiance last as long.54 This would then be a figuration which portrays Jesus as inferior to Moses. This would be contrary to the Christological tenor of Mark’s Gospel. However, reflection on these features reveals an alternative interpretation is possible.
5 Recovering Mark’s Distinctive Transfiguration
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 (
Further, in Exod 34:29 Moses’ face is changed when he talks with God (LXX:
5.2 “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
It is usually suggested that the command
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 (
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 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
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 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
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 104–6, 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. For example, in Rev 1:12–13 John of Patmos sees Jesus in terms of the Zechariah’s angel of YHWH figure, as well as angelic imagery from Daniel and Ezekiel.84 And Jesus is figured as Wisdom’s angel of the Exodus (Wis 18:15–16) in Rev 19:11–16 (see also 1 Chron 21:15–16; Exod 12:23–29).85 In the context of the New Testament church, an angelic typology in Mark’s Transfiguration would not be exceptional.
5.4 The Son of Man as an Angelic 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
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.91 What I do want to argue, building on Munoa’s 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
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 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” (
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 (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
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 (
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 (
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 (
The remaining, and usually overlooked, Sinai reference to a tent is the “tent of meeting/testimony” (
6 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 being of God, rather than conformity to a genre pattern?”112 What is evident in the Markan Transfiguration is deep reflection on the God revealed in the scriptures, and how Jesus might relate to that God – not in terms of ontological categories of later theological debates, but in terms of scriptural forerunners. The stock angelomorphic imagery says little on its own. Incorporated into Mark’s scriptural typology it becomes far more specific. It is as if the disciples are witnessing a salvation-historical “flashback” to the theophanies experienced by Moses and Elijah and seeing Jesus as YHWH’s manifest representation. Moses and Elijah meet and talk with Jesus on the mountain, thus – to speak in literary terms – Jesus is narratively assimilated to the God of Israel. At the same time, the heavenly voice prevents a complete identification of Jesus with God. Just as God can speak about his angel as a distinct entity (Exod 23:20–21). Jesus is both God’s shining representative and the object of God’s speech from heaven.
In Mark’s Transfiguration, Jesus is not presented as the antitype of Elijah or Moses, because they are in the scene with him. Instead, he is typologically figured in the narrative role of the Angel of YHWH and Israel’s God. Elsewhere in the Gospel, Mark portrays Jesus as the fulfilment of salvation history and the eschatological recurrence and escalation of previous scriptural human figures. Potentially, this literary typology inserts Jesus directly into salvation history as an angelic manifestation of YHWH. Mark could be reading the anthropomorphic manifestation of Israel’s God in Exodus 19–34 and 1 Kings 19 as “Christophanies,” pre-incarnational appearances of Jesus in salvation history. This is not a necessary conclusion though, we do not need to commit Mark to pre-existence here. Equally this could be simply another instance of events from Jesus’ life story being related typologically to events in Israel’s past through scriptural allusion.113
Either way, Mark’s Transfiguration presents a higher, more divine, Christology than that of the Transfigurations of Matthew or Luke, because in Mark’s Transfiguration Jesus is not the new Moses but is the re-manifestation of the divine figure who appeared at Sinai and Horeb, YHWH, the God of Israel with feet on.
Acknowledgement
I gratefully acknowledge the comments of Professor Paul Trebilco on an earlier version of this article, and the comments of my anonymous reviewers.
Bibliography
Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993.
Ausloos, Hans. “The ‘Angel of YHWH’ in Exod. xxiii 20–33 and Judg. ii 1–5. A Clue to the ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’ Puzzle?” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 1 (2008): 1–12.
Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. London: SPCK, 1992.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, edited by C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, 43–69. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Bock, Darrell. Luke. 2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994.
Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Burkett, Delbert. “The Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2–8): Epiphany or Apotheosis?” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019): 413–432.
Carrell, Peter R. Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. SNTSMS 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Chilton, Bruce. “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision.” New Testament Studies 27, no. 1 (1980): 115–124.
Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1989.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT 2. 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Fossum, Jarl. “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7.” New Testament Studies 33, no. 2 (1987): 226–243.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.
Gathercole, Simon. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006.
Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU, XLII. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKK, II. Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1998.
Hamori, Esther J. When Gods Were Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and near Eastern Literature. BZAW 384. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT 2. 109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
Heijne, Camilla Hélena von. The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis. BZAW 412. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Peabody, Mass.: A & C Black, 1991.
Juncker, Günther H. Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology. Unpublished Dissertation. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001.
Klein, Hans. Das Lukasevangelium. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.
Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Lee, Dorothy. Transfiguration. New Century Theology. London: Continuum, 2004.
Litwa, M. David. IESUS DEUS: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2014.
López, René A. “Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Texts.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 1 (2010): 1–18.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001.
Malone, Andrew S. “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 3 (2011): 297–314.
Marcus, Joel. Mark: 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000.
Meier, Samuel A. “Angel of Yahweh מלאך יהוה.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Rev. ed., 53–59. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Moss, Candida R. “The Man with the Flow of Power: Porous Bodies in Mark 5:25–34.” JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 507–519.
Moss, Candida R. “The Transfiguration: An Exercise in Markan Accommodation.” Biblical Interpretation 12, no. 1 (2004): 69–89.
Munoa, Phillip. “The Son of Man and the Angel of the Lord: Daniel 7.13–14 and Israel’s Angel Traditions.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 28, no. 2 (2018): 143–167.
Omerzu, Heike. “Geschichte durch Geschichten: zur Bedeutung jüdischer Traditionen für die Jesusdarstellung des Markusevangeliums.” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 77–99.
Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. HThKNT 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1979.
Ramsey, Arthur Michael. The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1949.
Robinson, Jonathan Rivett. Markan Typology: Miracle, Scripture and Christology in Mark 4:35–6:45. LNTS 678. London: Bloomsbury, 2023.
Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1982.
Sandmel, Samuel. “Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark.” In New Testament Issues, edited by Richard Batey, 45–56. London: SCM, 1970.
Stegner, W. Richard. “The Use of Scripture in Two Narratives of Early Jewish Christianity (Matthew 4.1–11; Mark 9.2–8).” In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 98–120. LNTS 148. London: Bloomsbury, 1997.
Stein, Robert H. Mark. Grand Rapids Mich.: Baker, 2008.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology. WUNT 2. 70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism.” In Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy North, 45–70. JSNTSup 263. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Van Iersel, Bas M. F. Mark: A Reader Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. JSNTSup 164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Wiefel, Wolfgang. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THNT 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998.
Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1949), 116.
Samuel Sandmel, “Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark,” in New Testament Issues, ed. Richard Batey (London: SCM, 1970), 52.
M. David Litwa, IESUS DEUS: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2014), 133.
Litwa, 139.
Litwa, 140 fn 114.
Candida R. Moss, “The Man with the Flow of Power: Porous Bodies in Mark 5:25–34,” JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 518.
Candida R. Moss, “The Transfiguration: An Exercise in Markan Accommodation,” Biblical Interpretation 12, no. 1 (2004): 43.
At a late stage in developing this article I was pleased to find the basic thrust and several details of my exegetical argument here, had been anticipated by Günther Juncker’s unpublished PhD dissertation (Günther H. Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology, Unpublished Dissertation [Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001]). The dissertation is accessible on ProQuest.com. One key difference between us is my framing of Mark’s account in contrast against Matthew and Luke’s. Juncker, on the other hand, takes a more harmonising approach, which suits his wider argument. I have not attempted here to interact with the whole thesis but only the section directly pertaining to this study, pp. 358–83.
Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, THNT 1 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 308; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 351.
Matthew adds
A change which Wolter considers has not yet been convincingly explained (Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium).
But this is already implied in Mark and Matthew, so, Darrell Bock, Luke, BECNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994), 1.866.
Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 346; Bock, Luke, 1.866.
Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 309.
“Die von Matthäus gegenüber Markus (9,4) vorgenommene Um stellung deutet an, daß er in Mose das Gesetz, in Elia die Prophetie verkörpert sah (vgl. 5,17).” So, Wiefel, 309.
Perhaps suggesting that Jesus had ascended the mountain into the heavenly world, as some Jewish traditions held Moses did at Sinai (e.g., Philo, Moses 2.69), see Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, 346; Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 352.
Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, 347; Bock, Luke, 1.869–70.
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 399.
Bock, Luke, 1.872.
Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 310.
Bock, Luke, 1.874; but cf. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 354.
Bock, Luke, 1.874; Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 354.
I here follow NA28, then. It seems most likely that either Luke’s word order or LXX Deut 18:15, or both, is what has influenced the transmission of Mark and Matthew. Given the relative neglect of Mark in the early church, in favour of Matthew and Luke, it seems unlikely that Mark would have influenced Matthew’s transmission.
For Luz, this makes the heavenly voice “the center” of Matthew’s account (Matthew 8–20, 394).
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 4.1–11; Mark 9.2–8),” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, LNTS 148 (London: Bloomsbury, 1997), 111; Luz comments how the fear in Mark is “very strange” (Matthew 8–20, 395).
Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993), 244.
Bock, Luke, 1.863; Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, 344–45; Ramsey, The Glory of God, 112.
Bruce Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” New Testament Studies 27, no. 1 (1980): 121–22.
For a fuller discussion of typology in early Judaism and the New Testament see Jonathan Rivett Robinson, Markan Typology: Miracle, Scripture and Christology in Mark 4:35–6:45, LNTS 678 (London: Bloomsbury, 2023), 29–50.
“The prevailing preoccupation with Moses-Sinai parallels has tended to obscure other more subtle and possibly more significant parallels,” so Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 359.
“Literarily speaking, Mark makes the Transfiguration a kind of fulcrum for his book.” Litwa, IESUS DEUS, 113.
Ramsey, The Glory of God, 101.
Joel Marcus, Mark: 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 640–41.
Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008), 401; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 327, 333; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Peabody, Mass.: A & C Black, 1991), 205.
M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 261.
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 Reader Response Commentary, trans. W. H. Bisscheroux, JSNTSup 164 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 288.
“In second-temple Jewish apocalyptic literature, the mountain is an axis mundi, a conduit between earth and the divine realm, and a place of divine self-revelation.” So, Jamie Davies, “Apocalyptic Topography in Mark’s Gospel: Theophany and Divine Invisibility at Sinai, Horeb and the Mount of Transfiguration,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 14 (2020), 140–48, at 141. See also Delbert Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2–8): Epiphany or Apotheosis?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019): 430.
On the use of scripture in the Markan prologue see discussion and references in Robinson, Markan Typology, 51–56.
“Während der Gesamtzusammenhang der Verklärungserzählung stärker durch die Mosetradition (vgl. bes. Ex 24; 34; 40) als durch elianische Züge gespeist ist – worauf in Kürze zurükzukommen ist –, ist es doch wichtig, dass Elia hier zum ersten Mal als Figur innerhalb der Jesusgeschichte erscheint, und zwar gemeinsam mit Mose und Jesus. In dieser Erzählung überlappen sich die Elia- und die Jesusgeschichte, so dass es sich um ein Beispiel interner Analogie handelt.” Heike Omerzu, “Geschichte durch Geschichten: zur Bedeutung jüdischer Traditionen für die Jesusdarstellung des Markusevangeliums,” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 86.
Ramsey, The Glory of God, 109.
Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 309.
So, e.g., Luz, Matthew 8–20, 398; Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 431.
Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 309.
Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, HThKNT 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 2.75.
Bock, Luke, 1.868.
This assumption is supported regarding Luke, as Moses and Elijah speak of Jesus’ “departure” in Jerusalem as a fulfilment (
Allison, The New Moses, 244; also Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 362.
As Juncker correctly observes, because the mountain of Mark 9 is unnamed, its symbolic potential is enhanced, typologyically it becomes Sinai/Horeb (Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 360–61).
Juncker, 371.
Although this connection has been problematised above, it still needs further exploration.
See, inter alia, Dorothy Lee, Transfiguration, New Century Theology (London: Continuum, 2004), 13; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1114–15; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, EKK, II (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1998), 2.2; Stegner, “The Use of Scripture,” 114–15; Allison, The New Moses, 243–48; Chilton, “The Transfiguration,” 121–22.
John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005), 274.
In Luke, Jesus talks to God in prayer (9:28–29), but even this is hardly a strong parallel to Moses’ dialogue with YHWH.
Moss, “The Transfiguration,” 74 n. 21.
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.
Chilton, “The Transfiguration,” 122.
One of only 4 occurrences in the LXX and the only occurrence in the Pentateuch.
The only occurrence of
Stegner, “The Use of Scripture,” 115.
Whether or not
Thus Litwa (IESUS DEUS, 139) is wrong to argue that Jesus’ light is reflected from YHWH’s light. There is no suggestion in the Markan text that the cloud emits light at all.
Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 372.
Juncker unnecessarily restricts his analysis to one episode in the Sinai narrative, not recognising that a wider context could be evoked (362, but cf. 371).
Hans Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH’ in Exod. xxiii 20–33 and Judg. ii 1–5. A Clue to the ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’ Puzzle?,” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 1 (2008): 9.
E.g., Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 420; Boring, Mark, 262; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 634; Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 310; Stegner, “The Use of Scripture,” 115; Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 218.
Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 381–82.
Van Iersel, Mark, 294.
Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), 367.
Litwa, IESUS DEUS, 134; Lee, Transfiguration, 16; Simon Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 48–49; following Richard Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 51; see also Ezek 9:2 and Rev 15:6 discussed in Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, WUNT 2. 70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 226–28.
Rowland, The Open Heaven, 368.
Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, 346.
Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 425.
Luz, Matthew 8–20, 398.
Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH,’” 7.
The standard treatment of the subject remains, Samuel A. Meier, “Angel of Yahweh
See the material surveyed in the later chapters of, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992).
See further, Meier, “Angel of Yahweh,” 55; Andrew S. Malone, “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 3 (2011): 306–11.
Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2. 109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 20.
E.g., Gen 22; 31:11–13; Exod 3; Judges 6. See further, von Heijne, The Messenger of the Lord, 49, 120; Malone, “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord,” 304; Esther J. Hamori, When Gods Were Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and near Eastern Literature, BZAW 384 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 116; Meier, “Angel of Yahweh,” 55; Hannah, Michael and Christ, 19–20; Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, SNTSMS 95 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 28.
E.g., 2 Sam 24:15–16; 2 Kgs 19:35, 1 Chr 21:14–30; 2 Chr 32:20–22; Isa 37:36; Zech 1:12. See further, von Heijne, The Messenger of the Lord, 49–50; Malone, “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord,” 313; René López (“Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Texts,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 1 [2010]: 1–18) goes too far in his attempt to describe a consistent pattern of the angel’s distinctiveness from YHWH across the entire Hebrew Bible. For a convincingly critique of López, see Malone’s article just cited. Regardless, the important issue for this study is not what the original authors and readers of the Hebrew bible made of this figure, but what first-century Jewish Christ followers would have or could have made of it.
von Heijne, The Messenger of the Lord, 377.
Jarl Fossum, “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7,” New Testament Studies 33, no. 2 (1987): 226–43.
Fossum, 228.
Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 150; see also Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 209–21.
Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 91; but cf. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 151–56.
On angel Christology see, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 45–70; Hannah, Michael and Christ; Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU, XLII (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT 2. 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Carrell, Jesus and the Angels; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology; Barker, The Great Angel.
Phillip Munoa, “The Son of Man and the Angel of the Lord: Daniel 7.13–14 and Israel’s Angel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 28, no. 2 (2018): 151.
Munoa, 154–57.
Munoa, 157–59.
Munoa, 166.
See the cautions of Hannah, Michael and Christ, 156–58.
“The prince of angels,” so, Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 3.
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.
Munoa, “The Son of Man and the Angel of the Lord,” 154.
Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 418.
Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 30–32.
Shortly before we are told God had inscribed the commandments with his finger (Exod 31:18).
Fossum, “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7,” 227.
Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 37, 41; James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 517–18.
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 631.
Litwa, IESUS DEUS, 139.
Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 416.
Allison, The New Moses, 243; following, Ramsey, The Glory of God, 120; see also, Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 373.
Ausloos, “The ‘Angel of YHWH,’” 7.
Contra Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 362.
Ramsey, The Glory of God, 130.
Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 353.
Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 374.
See Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, 347; Stegner, “The Use of Scripture,” 116; Wiefel rightly considers such a typology “merkwürdig gebrochen” (Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 309–10); in fact six booths would be required to celebrate the feast of tabernacles with six men on the mountain. So, Juncker, Jesus and the Angel of the Lord, 375.
Burkett, “The Transfiguration of Jesus,” 419.
Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 230.
James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1989), xxv.
Fletcher-Louis makes the helpful distinction between the Transfiguration as a “transformation” – the first time Jesus has had this form, or as a “manifestation” – a revelation of a pre-existing identity (Luke-Acts, 224). He concludes that for Luke this is a manifestation, however such an argument for Mark is beyond the scope of this present study.