appearance of Moses and Elijah - from the other, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and to
assign to the latter objective reality, 33 while regarding the former as merely a vision. But
is the account true? It certainly represents primitive tradition, since it is not only told by
all the three Evangelists, but referred to in 2 Peter i. 16-1 8 ,34 and evidently implied in the
words of St. John, both in his Gospel,35 and in the opening of his First Epistle. Few, if
any would be so bold as to assert that the whole of this history had been invented by
the three Apostles, who professed to have been its witnesses. Nor can any adequate
motive be imagined for its invention. It could not have been intended to prepare the
Jews for the Crucifixion of the Messiah, since it was to be kept a secret till after His
Resurrection; and, after the event, it could not have been necessary for the assurance
of those who believed in the Resurrection, while to others it would carry no weight.
Again, the special traits of this history are inconsistent with the theory of its invention. In
a legend, the witnesses of such an event would not have been represented as scarcely
awake, and not knowing what they said. Manifestly, the object would have been to
convey the opposite impression. Lastly, it cannot be too often repeated, that, in view of
the manifold witness of the Evangelists, amply confirmed in all essentials by the Epistles
- preached, lived, and bloodsealed by the primitive Church, and handed down as
primitive tradition - the most untenable theory seems that which imputes intentional
fraud to their narratives, or, to put it otherwise, non-belief on the part of the narrators of
what they related.
33. This part of the argument is well worked out by Meyer, but his arguments for
regarding the appearance of Moses and Elijah as merely a vision, because the former at
least had no resurrection-body, are very weak. Are we sure, that disembodied spirits
have no kind of corporeity, or that they cannot assume a visible appearance?
34. Even if that Epistle were not St. Peter's, it would still represent the most ancient
tradition.
35. St. John i. 14.
But can we suppose, if not fraud, yet mistake on the part of these witnesses, so that an
event, otherwise naturally explicable, may, through their ignorance or imaginative ness,
have assumed the proportions of this narrative? The investigation will be the more easy,
that, as regards all the main features of the narrative, the three Evangelists are entirely
agreed. Instead of examining in detail the various rationalistic atte mpts made to explain
this history on natural grounds, it seems sufficient for refutation to ask the intelligent
reader to attempt imagining any natural event, which by any possibility could have been
mistaken for what the eyewitnesses related, and the Evangelists recorded.
There still remains the mythical theory of explanation, which, if it could be supported,
would be the most attractive among those of a negative character. But we cannot
imagine a legend without some historical motive or basis for its origination. The legend
must be in character - that is, congruous to the ideas and expectancies entertained.
Such a history as that of the Transfiguration could not have been a pure invention; but if
such or similar expectancies had existed about the Messiah, then such a legend might,
without intentional fraud, have, by gradual accretion, gathered around the Person of
Him Who was regarded as the Christ. And this is the rationale of the so-called mythical