Figuring out the Transfiguration

One of the great fears of a PhD student (speaking for myself at least) is that someone will publish your original ideas before you do. It can happen. Thankfully with my PhD research this didn't turn out to be a problem. However, experience has taught me that a bigger problem is when: 1) people just don't care about your original ideas; or 2) people dismiss out of hand your original ideas because they are already convinced by the earlier ideas. So it actually because rather gratifying when you find people are independently thinking along the same lines as you. This has happened twice to me recently, once with an idea I had published and once with an idea I had presented on but not got around to publishing. This blog deals with the former, and another blog post will deal with the latter.

image credit: https://www.nationalshrine.org/blog/the-meaning-of-the-transfiguration-of-the-lord/

In 2023 I published in Horizons in Biblical Theology (open access). 

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

Which was arguing for a reading of the Transfiguration account that took seriously the intertextual resonances created by the appearances of Elijah and Moses, which led to the conclusion that Jesus is not being figured as another prophet like E or M but as the revelation of the LORD that E and M received in their biblical mountain-top experiences.

Early this year (2024) I spot this article in New Testament Studies (open access)

Caleb T. Friedeman, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus’ Divine Glory (Mark 9.2–8) 

Freideman's abstract reads,

Scholars generally agree that Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration because they are connected to each other in some way, and that this connection informs the significance of the story as a whole. However, there is no consensus regarding how Moses and Elijah are related, and consequently there is significant disagreement about how their presence contributes to the Transfiguration. The present study, which focuses on Mark's account (Mark 9.2–8), argues that Moses and Elijah appear together because they received similar theophanies at Mount Sinai and, as a result, the Transfiguration should be read as a mountaintop theophany in which Jesus constitutes the personal presence of Israel's God. 

This caught my attention. I immediately searched the PDF to see if he cited me. Sadly, no. Of course, with a 2024 publication he had probably written it a year or more before and would not have had the chance to read my recent work. 

I read the article, wondering to what extent it would make the same arguments I did and whether or not I still felt my article had something to offer. Freideman's article is well written, well argued and concise. It also uses a number of helpful sources I was not aware of.

Key differences:

negatively

1. Freideman does not treat Mark's voice as distinctive but seems to assume the Synoptics' versions of the Transfiguration all have the same basic message. (I spend a lot of time teasing out the significance of the differences between the Synoptics)
2. As a consequence of 1. Freideman does not note the significance of the order: Elijah and then Moses in Mark 9, which is the other way round to what you would expect. This order especially undermines the assumption there is a Moses typology at work. I think this would add to F's argument.
3. Freideman connects "listen to him" with Deut 18:15, a prophet like Moses, and doesn't notice that it is a better fit with the Angel of the LORD in Exod 23:21. This is a major departure between our approaches because discussing the Angel of the LORD allows me to considerably nuance my approach to divine christology in the Transfiguration. To be fair, F's take is in line with most of the scholarship on this passage.

positively

1. Freideman cites Irenaeus (Haer.4.20.9–10) as an early example of noting the significance of E and M as both having Sinai theophanies, I wish I had spotted this as it considerably strengthens the argument!
2. Freideman does a masterful job showing how the Moses and Elijah theophanies are themselves intertextually related and were connected in Rabbinic interpretation, again strengthening the argument. 
3. Freideman makes his argument in a much shorter space than I was able to and with less steps, so I suspect more people will read it and be convinced.

Most important though is that we both agree that Jesus cannot be "one like Moses" as he is transfigured before any divine activity, and the narrative ordering of this is vital to the Christology of the passage. As Freideman writes, "the divine glory that radiates from Jesus at the Transfiguration seems to be not a borrowed glory like that of Moses, but a glory that Jesus himself possesses" (p69). My argument on this point is more detailed but Freideman's gets to the point efficiently and I think convincingly. I wonder what he thinks of my take?

If you read our articles I'd love to know what you think of them! Leave a comment! :-)