1 Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis: Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901) 143Google Scholar.

2 During the 62nd Congress of the SNTS (Sibiu, 2007), I discussed the subject of the baptism of Jesus (‘Pourquoi Jésus a-t-il reçu le baptême de Jean?’, NTS 54 [2008] 355–74). The present contribution about the transfiguration of Jesus is in continuity with the previous one.

3 In our case one must exclude the vision of Jesus of Satan's fall (Luke 10.18) and the events that take place after the death of Jesus, which affect the natural world (cosmic phenomena) and the human world (appearance of heavenly beings, and especially of the risen Jesus, with messages to those who will receive them). On Luke 10.18, see my Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the Historical Jesus (WUNT 2/288; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 277–80Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Müller, U. B., ‘Die christologische Absicht des Markusevangeliums und die Verklärungsgeschichte’, ZNW 64 (1973) 159–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nützel, J. M., Die Verklärungserzählung im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FB 6; Würzburg: Echter, 1973)Google Scholar.

5 See Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Matt 8–17) (EKKNT I/2; Zürich/Einsiedeln/Köln: Benzinger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990)Google Scholar.

6 Cf. Zeller, D., ‘Bedeutung und religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund der Verwandlung Jesu (Markus 9:2-8)’, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. A.; Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2002) 303–21Google Scholar, here 303–7, with a comprehensive bibliography.

7 Cf. Focant, C., L'évangile selon Marc (CBNT 2; Paris: Cerf, 2004) 338Google Scholar.

8 Thus, according to Müller (‘Die christologische Absicht’), there would have been an old Jewish account (Mark 9.2ab, 7) that elevated Jesus to the status of Messiah and prophet of the last times, to which a Hellenistic account presenting the epiphany of Jesus as the glorified Son of man would have been attached (vv. 2c-6, 8). A similar distinction between a former Palestinian account, which would have underlined the condition of Jesus as servant (!), and a Hellenistic milieu that would have been responsible for the christology of the Son of God, is found in F. Hahn (quoted by J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 2 [EKKNT II/2; Zürich/Einsiedeln/Köln: Benzinger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchen, 3rd ed. 1989] 35). In a rather similar way, Nützel, Verklärungserzählung, 167–87 and 236–54) makes a distinction on two levels: the source (vv. 3, 7a, 8 and partly vv. 2, 4), which would present Jesus as the Messiah, and Mark's redaction (vv. 5, 6, 7b and partly 2, 4), which would show his condition as Son of God by introducing a Mosaic typology. For his part, Öhler attributes vv. 2c, 3-4, 5b, 7, 8 to the tradition and vv. 2ab, 5a, 6 to Marcan redaction (cf. M. Öhler, ‘Die Verklärung [Mark 9:1–8]: Die Ankunft der Herrschaft Gottes auf der Erde’, NovT 38 [1996] 197–217, here 201). D. Zeller proposes to distinguish an old revelation scene, traceable in v. 4, and a subsequent narrative, as Mark has it now, the point of which would be v. 7 (‘Bedeutung’, 309, 318–20).

9 One can find an excellent summary of the different traditions that have been brought into the episode of the transfiguration in Luz's commentary on Matthew (Matthäus, II, 507–9).

10 D. F. Strauss was the first to establish the relationship between the figure of Moses and the transfigured Jesus. Many have followed suit. This does not mean that the episode of the transfiguration must be conceived as a creation deriving from the Sinai traditions. Rather, it would have been interpreted in light of these traditions. This is the position of Davies and Allison in their commentary on Matthew. Cf. Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., The Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997) 2.694Google Scholar. See also Allison, D. C., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 243–8Google Scholar. The article by A. del Agua interprets the story of the transfiguration as a midrash on the Exodus (‘The Narrative of the Transfiguration as a Derashic Scenification of a Faith Confession [Mark 9.2 to 8]’, NTS 39 [1993] 340–54). For his part, B. Chilton prefers to speak of an ‘explosion of associations’ in his article ‘The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision’, NTS 27 (1981) 115–24. Among other authors, see Marcus, J., The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (StNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 81–4Google Scholar.

11 According to Mark 9.7, the cloud ‘came and overshadowed (ἐπισκιάζουσα) them (αὐτοῖς)’ when Jesus was already transformed.

12 Zeller, D. (‘La métamorphose de Jésus comme épiphanie [Mc 9, 2–8]’, L'évangile exploré [ed. Marchadour, A.; Legasse, FS S.; LD 166; Paris: Cerf, 1996] 167–86)Google Scholar points out that, in Jewish biblical literature, one does not find supernatural transformations of the face. The case of Moses (cf. Exod 34) is, nevertheless, quoted in Philo (Vita Mosis 2.70) and in Pseudo-Philo (LAB 12.1).

13 The transformation of Jesus is temporary. On the contrary, that of Moses persists. Moreover, Moses needs to put a veil on his face when he does not speak with God. In contrast, there is no veil mentioned in the episode of the transfiguration. On the other hand, in the case of Moses, nothing is said about the whiteness of his clothes (an element mentioned, with regard to Jesus, by the three synoptic accounts: Mark 9.3; Mattt 17.2; Luke 9.29).

14 In Deut 18.15 Moses announces the arrival of a prophet whom God will raise and to whom it will be necessary to listen (‘listen to him’). Since Holtzmann, that prophet was identified as the eschatological prophet who appears in Jewish apocalyptic (see John 7.40–41). In Acts 3.20–23 the text of Deuteronomy is quoted in connection with Jesus ‘the Messiah that is destined for you’ (Acts 3.20). We can, therefore, consider it a common topos in the christological interpretation of Scripture in early Christianity. In any event, the fact that the phrase ‘listen to him’ is attested by the three synoptics gives it a remarkable traditional ‘weight’, beyond the reference to a concrete biblical text. In addition, it would be insufficient to limit the divine voice to the proclamation of Jesus as Prophet or Messiah-Prophet (based on Deut 18.15) in a text that also presents Jesus as the beloved Son. As we shall see, Deut 18.15 seems to play no role in interpreting the words of the divine voice in Mark 9.7. In any case, the hypothetical reference to Deut 18.15 in Mark 9.7 does not justify the typology of Jesus as the new Moses.

15 Compare Exod 33.18 (‘show me your own glory’, δεῖξόν μοι τὴν σεαυτοῦ δόξαν, in Hebrew hare'eni na' ‘et kebodekha, a phrase uttered by Moses, who wants to ‘see’ [ra'ah] God) and Luke 9.32 (‘they saw his glory’, εἶδον τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, where the glory that the disciples want to ‘see’ is not God's but Jesus'). Compare also Exod 24.18 (‘Moses entered the cloud’, εἰσῆλθεν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ μέσον τῆς νεφέλης) and Luke 9.34 (‘when they entered the cloud’, ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν νεφέλην.). Let us note, nevertheless, that neither of these two cases requires the typology of Jesus as the new Moses: in both cases, the relationship is between Moses and the disciples. In the same way that Moses wants to see the glory of God, the disciples are able to see the glory of Jesus.

16 ‘Les réalités préfigurées dans les rites de la fête s'accomplissent… l’épisode de la transfiguration manifeste l'irruption du temps messianique' (Riesenfeld, H., Jésus transfiguré. L'arrière plan du récit évangélique de la transfiguration de Notre Seigneur [ANSU 16; Copenhague: Munksgaard, 1947] 343Google Scholar). According to Riesenfeld, if the just begin to live in tents, a full eschatology is in view: the tents built on earth are an image of divine sukkot (p. 337). The messianic-eschatological symbolism, underlined with liturgical accents like the interpretations that one finds in the Fathers of the Church, was accepted by Lohmeyer (1921), Daniélou, Daube, and Le Déaut, who elaborates the tent motif in the Palestinian Targum (‘Actes 7, 48 et Matthieu 17, 4 [par.], à la lumière du Targum Palestinien’, RSR 52 [1964] 85–90). Cf. also Ratzinger–Benedikt, J. XVI, Jesus von Nazareth, vol. 1 (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2007) 353–65Google Scholar.

17 This is the interpretation proposed by Lohmeyer and Baltensweiler. Cf. Baltensweiler, H., Die Verklärung Jesu. Historisches Ereignis und synoptische Berichte (ATANT 33; Zürich: Zwingli, 1959) 43–51Google Scholar.

18 Grappe quotes the Targum of Lev 23, where the tents become signs of the glory of God. See his work D'un temple à l'autre. Pierre et l'Église primitive de Jérusalem (EHPhR 71; Paris: PUF, 1992) 164–72, here 167.

19 In the Hebrew Bible, the word sukkot is not a technical term in the expression ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ (hag sukkot, in Greek ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν) (Lev 23.34). Elsewhere, sukkot may alternate with ‘oholim and mean, for example, the tents of the fields of Israel (in Greek σκηναί). Cf. Num 16.25–26, about the tents of Kore, Dathan, and Abiram! In addition, σκηναί may be the translation of mishkanot (cf. Num 24.5: the ‘residences’ of Jacob).

20 This is the conclusion of B. Standaert: 'Rien n'invite, au niveau de Marc, à faire entrer ici le champ des associations autour de la fête des Tentes' (Évangile selon Marc. Commentaire. Deuxième partie: Marc 6, 14 à 10, 52 [EB 61; Paris: Gabalda, 2010] 660).

21 The conclusion of U. Luz is sharp: ‘Es gibt keinen Schlüssel in der Tradition, der sie ganz erschliesst’ (Matthäus, II, 506). Luz distinguishes five traditional motifs, two of which have already been considered: Moses and the Exodus; the Feast of Tabernacles. The other three are the following: Mount Moriah (Gen 22.2, 12, 16); the royal enthronement (cf. Ps 2.7; Acts 13.33–34); the transformation of the body in the future resurrection, such as is described in Jewish apocalyptic and in Paul (1 Cor 15). One can add to these motifs the hypothesis of A. Standhartinger (‘Jesus, Elija und Mose auf dem Berg. Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zur Verklärungsgeschichte [Mk 9, 2–8]’, BZ 47 [2003] 66–85), according to which the fact that the two prophets, Elijah and Moses, appear on the mountain is a reference to the biblical and Jewish tradition of Sinai. The transfiguration would be a new story (‘Neuerzählung’) relating to the meeting of Moses and Elijah with God, but it would add a third person: Jesus (74). The latter hypothesis raises at least two difficulties: In contrast to the two prophets, Jesus does not meet God on the high mountain; what characterizes the revelation in the case of Moses (the cloud and the voice) is not true for the case of Elijah (81!). Consequently, the Sinai motif does not seem to explain satisfactorily the origin of the episode of the transfiguration.

22 See Zeller, ‘Bedeutung’, 313–18.

23 In his book on Jesus B. Chilton understands the transfiguration of Jesus as the great esoteric teaching that Jesus would have given his three favorite disciples. He writes: ‘By sharing his vision with them, he shifted the centre of his teaching away from what can be discerned of God's Kingdom on earth to what can be experienced of the angelic pantheon around God's Throne’. Cf. Chilton, B., Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 2000) 192Google Scholar.

24 Cf. Fossum, J. E., ‘Ascensio, Metamorphosis’, The Image of the Invisible God (ed. Fossum, J. E.; NTOA 30; Fribourg: Éditions de l'Université; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995) 71–94Google Scholar. The author quotes as examples of a heavenly journey that would have the mountain as a starting point Apoc. Pet. 17; Asc. Isa. 2.8; T. Levi 2.5–7.

25 Fossum affirms (‘Ascensio, Metamorphosis’, 83) that during the transfiguration, Jesus is enthroned as king and prophet with the mission of proclaiming God's divine will. But it is not clear that Mark 9.7 should be understood as an enthronement.

26 Regarding Fossum's interpretation which would make Moses and Elijah the ones who accompany the heavenly ascent of Jesus, Zeller correctly writes: ‘von einem Aufstieg Jesu nach V. 2b nicht mehr die Rede ist’ (‘Bedeutung’, 320).

27 M. Öhler traces the apocalyptic motifs typical of heavenly journeys in the episode of the transfiguration and concludes that one cannot speak here of a heavenly journey of Jesus (‘Verklärung’, 215). Indeed, one of the most notable elements of the episode is that neither Jesus nor the disciples travel anywhere, in the body or out of the body (2 Cor 12.2). According to Öhler, these apocalyptic motifs were introduced into the tradition before Mark.

28 The reference here is that of Frenschkowski, M., Offenbarung und Epiphanie. II: Die verborgene Epiphanie in Spätantike und frühem Christentum (WUNT 2/80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 184–7Google Scholar. See also Lee, S. S., Jesus' Transfiguration and the Believers' Transformation (WUNT 2/265; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 21–36Google Scholar, and the work of Pax, E., EPIPHANEIA: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (MThS.H 10; Munich: Karl Zink, 1955)Google Scholar.

29 See Od. 13.222–23 and 288–89. Cf. Collins, A. Yarbro, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2010) 418Google Scholar. It is not uncommon that the divinity, when it returns to the heavenly world, leaves a sign behind that can be recognized. Ovid writes: signa dedit venisse deum (Metam. 1.220) (text quoted by Zeller, ‘Bedeutung’, 316 n. 51).

30 T. Abr. (rec. A) 12.5. This text is quoted by Zeller, ‘Bedeutung’, 316.

31 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 418–19, 424.

32 As already mentioned, the majority of authors admit that the expression κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (‘apart’) belongs to the Marcan redaction (seven times in Mark). But the direction of the sentence remains the same: only the three were selected, among the Twelve, to accompany Jesus.

33 The hypothesis of Wenham and Moses, according to which this James would be the brother of the Lord (cf. Gal 2.9) is, as the authors themselves acknowledge, ‘admittedly speculative’ (158). Cf. Wenham, D. and Moses, A. D. A., ‘“There are some standing here…”: Did They Become the “Reputed Pillars” of the Jerusalem Church? Some Reflections on Mark 9:1, Galatians 2:9 and the Transfiguration’, NovT 36 (1994) 146–63Google Scholar. This interpretation has been accepted by Yarbro Collins (Mark, 421 n. 43). However, in the Gospels, James and John (always in that order) can only be the two brothers, sons of Zebedee (see Mark 3.17; 5.37; 10.35). In addition, there is no indication that James, the brother of the Lord, is one of the Twelve. Concerning the three disciples in the group of Twelve, see my Jesus: A Biography (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2011) 257–63Google Scholar.

34 The location of the mount of the transfiguration is unknown. The highest mountain in the region of Caesarea/Banias is certainly Mount Hermon (the preferred solution of G. W. E. Nickelsburg based on the Second Book of Enoch and Testament of Levi), but one could also consider one of the many heights of Golan (G. Dalmann). Cf. Öhler, ‘Die Verklärung’, 203 n. 22. The identification with Mount Tabor—venerable for its Byzantine origin in the fourth century and for the influence it has had in Christian iconography—implies that Jesus left the region of Caesarea and, after six days (Mark 9.2 par. Matt 17.1), was already in Galilee (cf. Matt 17.22). It is better to preserve the imprecision of Mark 9.2, which mentions ‘a mountain’ (ὄρος ὑψηλόν). Cf. Standaert, Marc, 649–50. See also Hilhorst, T., ‘The Mountain of Transfiguration in the New Testament and in Later Tradition’, The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology (ed. van Ruiten, J. and de Vos, J. C.; FS E. Noort; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 317–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Gnilka (Markus, 2.32) notes that the episode in Mark is conceived as a revelation to the disciples. On this point, he agrees with Bultmann, Klostermann, and others. But this feature is so present in the three synoptic accounts that it must be considered a traditional element.

36 Cf. Bauckham, R., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 166Google Scholar. This author points out that Peter is not speaking on behalf of others (like a ‘spokesman’) but expresses the opinion that all share.

37 The reference to the resurrection is ambiguous: Is it the resurrection of Jesus on the third day or the general resurrection at the end of time? In Mark 9.10 the disciples seem to discuss the latter, since there is no mention here of the third day.

38 ‘Jesus thinks the other disciples also deserving of the rebuke he delivers to Peter’ (Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 167).

39 The disciples do not align against Jesus nor do they defend themselves: Jesus announces a future tragedy only for himself; his future differs from that of the disciples (in fact, they will not die with him). The refusal of the disciples is, thus, not a kind of mutiny! The question they raise comes finally to this: What is the will of God?

40 There is not, according to Jesus, a specific reference to the mode of action, intervention, or revelation that God will choose. Jesus does not envision anything concrete. Thus, the choice of three disciples has nothing to do with an esoteric teaching that he would have ‘prepared’. Jesus will simply tell them that they should not relate to anyone the experience they have lived (Mark 9.9).

41 Cf. Rev 1,16: ‘his face (of the Son of man) was like the sun shining at its brightest’.

42 Many authors consider that Mark 9.3 is traditional. Zeller notes that three words of this verse (στίλβω, γναφεύς, λευκαίνω) are hapax in Mark. See Zeller, ‘Bedeutung’, 308 n. 18. For her part, Yarbro Collins reports the views of Wellhausen, according to whom Matthew and Luke have omitted the full image because it was ‘too plebeian’ (Mark, 422). It would be better to say ‘too colloquial’. In any case, it is an image that recalls the eyewitness' testimony of the event.

43 Öhler concludes: ‘Hier ist von himmlischer Existenz die Rede’ (‘Verklärung’, 204).

44 On Moses as a prophet, see Deut 18.15 (‘A prophet like me will the Lord raise up’) and Pseudo-Philo (LAB 35.6), who calls him ‘primus omnium prophetarum’. The synoptic tradition attests that, among the contemporaries of Jesus, some wondered if Jesus was not Elijah (cf. Mark 6.15; 8.28) and Jesus himself said that Elijah is the eschatological prophet (Mark 9.12). Deut 18 is applied, in the writings of Qumran (4Q175), to the eschatological prophet conceived as the forerunner of the priestly and davidic messiahs (1QS 9.11). However, as Standhartinger states (‘Jesus, Elija und Mose’, 68–9), one cannot find the two characters presented together as eschatological prophets (the only exception would be the Midrash Rabbah, Debarim 3.17, rather late). Therefore, it is difficult to envisage that the presence of Moses and Elijah could be interpreted as the arrival of two prophets of the last times. In contrast, the change of the order in Mark 9.4 (‘Elijah appeared to them with Moses’) and the mention of the Kingdom that comes (Mark 9.1) show the importance that the Gospel of Mark attributes to the eschatological component.

45 Gnilka (Markus, 2.34) says that Moses and Elijah, according to biblical tradition and the popular belief that mentions their ascension to heaven, were more likely to become ‘the interlocutors’ (‘Gesprächspartner’) of the Transfigured. So also Focant: ‘Dans le contexte socio-culturel de l’époque, on ne peut rêver de meilleurs témoins de l'identité profonde de Jésus' (Marc, 335). One may even wonder how the two characters make themselves known to the disciples. Byzantine representation of the transfiguration has solved this issue with a precise iconography: Moses is identified by the rays that emerge from his head and by the two tablets of the Law that he holds in his hands (Exod 34.29); Elijah is the man praying for fire to come down from heaven (1 Kgs 18.36–38) and, therefore, sometimes carries a flaming sword in his hand (Sir 48.1). Nevertheless, the disciples do not seem to hesitate in identifying one and the other. Note also that in the frescoes of the synagogue of Dura Europos (third century), Moses is depicted with the tablets of the Law he received from God on Mount Sinai and Elijah appears in the scene of Mount Carmel, when God sent fire down from heaven and burned the sacrifice and the altar dedicated to the Lord. Perhaps the two characters are recognized through these two major events, which both occur on mountains. Thus, their identification, on a high mountain, becomes quite plausible from the point of view of the disciples. On Dura Europos, see Gutman, J., ed., The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-Evaluation (1932–1972) (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1991)Google Scholar.

46 The account of the transfiguration, in Mark, is built almost entirely from the perspective of the disciples (Standhartinger, ‘Jesus, Elija und Mose’, 76–7).

47 It is not surprising that the weight of the testimony, expressed by the appearance of three heavenly persons, has resulted in an interpretation that has permeated Western liturgy. One already finds it in Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.22), who points to Moses and Elijah as, respectively, the representatives of the Law and the Prophets. See McGuckin, J. A., The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (SBEC 9; Lewiston: Mellen, 1986)Google Scholar. On the relationship of Moses and Elijah with the Davidic Messiah, see Elwolde, J. F., ‘The Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and Some Issues of Canon’, Canon and Modern Bible Translation in Interconfessional Perspective (ed. de Regt, L. J.; Istanbul: Bible Society in Turkey/United Bible Societies, 2006) 1–41, here 12–13Google Scholar. See also the contribution of Reiser, M., who distinguishes between an historical level and a symbolic level (which already was the interpretation of Origen): ‘Die Verklärung Jesu (Mark 9,2–10): historisch und symbolisch betrachtet’, TTZ 116 (2007) 27–38Google Scholar.

48 The term ‘reaction’ is widely used by authors. The basis for this use is the verbal form of ἀποκριθείς (Mark 9.5a). See, for example, C. Clivaz: ‘l'intervention de Pierre est conçue par l’évangéliste (Marc) sur le mode de la réaction' (her italics) (quoted by Focant, Marc, 339).

49 Perhaps the tradition very solidly maintained them because, as I. H. Marshall says, ‘the idea of making three booths is perhaps the most obscure in the whole story’ (The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Exeter: Paternoster, 1978] 386). By contrast, it seems certain that the introduction to the words of Peter (Mark 9.5a) must be attributed to a redactional intervention.

50 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 424.

51 Gnilka, Markus, 2.34. The author points out (p. 34 n. 27) that this sentence has a very Greek flavour.

52 Thus, right away, the reaction of Peter cannot be considered as selfish or evasive.

53 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 386: ‘to erect earthly counterparts to the heavenly dwelling places’. Gundry (Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 460) points out, for his part, that Peter ‘has in mind places of honour’. Cf. also Öhler, ‘Verklärung’, 208–9. The purpose of the disciples' proposal is, first of all, to honour the heavenly characters and likewise to extend the extremely gratifying situation that they experience.

54 In any case, the cloud remained over those who were inside and it covered them with its shadow—this is the sense of the verb ἐπισκιάζω.

55 Cf. F. Bovon, L'Évangile selon saint Luc 1–9 [CNT IIIa; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991] 488; Gundry, Mark, 461. But many authors do not follow Luke's solution and think that the only ones to enter the cloud were Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Cf. Heil, J. P., The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 7:1–8 and Luke 9:28–36 (AnBib 144; Rome: PIB, 2000) 148–9Google Scholar; and also Marshall (Luke, 387).

56 Bovon (Luc, 488) quotes a text of the Targum Neofiti I to the Pentateuch where one reads: ‘j'ai fait demeurer les enfants d'Israël dans les nuées de la gloire de la shekinah, sous l'image des huttes’ (trad. Le Déaut, SC 256, pp. 484–6).

57 In the episode of the baptism (Mark 1.11), this sentence indicates that the divine voice comes from the heavens and arrives on the earth, where Jesus is. One can likewise conclude that, in the transfiguration, the voice comes out of the cloud towards the disciples, who are outside and in front of the cloud.

58 Note that the same adjective ἀγαπητός means ‘unique’ in Gen 22 and ‘beloved’ in the synoptic episodes of the transfiguration and the baptism. In fact, yahîd, the corresponding Hebrew term, has both connotations.

59 Öhler mentions a list of authors who share this opinion (‘Verklärung’, n. 44).

60 It is necessary to acknowledge that, both during Jesus' vision in the Jordan as well as during that of the disciples on the high mountain, it is not clear whether the words spoken by the divine voice—recorded in the texts of the Gospels—have their origin in the event itself or whether they should be attributed to a post-paschal elaboration originating in a few biblical texts. However, the core of these words corresponds to the benevolent gesture of the Father, who has decided to transfigure Jesus and has sent Moses and Elijah to join him.

61 Likewise, according to Gnilka (Markus, 2.35), the cloud and the voice ‘deuten die Verklärung Jesu und sind die göttliche Antwort auf Petri Reaktion’. It should be added that this response also refers to the episode of the reaction of Peter to Jesus' words about his suffering and death.

62 Jesus is the decisive authority even over the revelation that Moses and Elijah had received. Thus, he deserves trustworthiness and obedience. Cf. Knights, Ch., ‘Metamorphosis and Obedience: An Interpretation of Mark's Account of the Transfiguration of Jesus’, ET 121 (2010) 218–22Google Scholar.

63 Focant (Marc, 336) points out that Jesus' words during the passion are empowered with a new authority, thanks to the divine voice that has spoken on the mountain, and quotes Mark 8.33.