theory. But all such ideas vanish at the touch of histo ry. There was absolutely no Jewish
expectancy that could have bodied itself forth in a narrative like that of the
Transfiguration. To begin with the accessories, the idea, that the coming of Moses was
to be connected with that of the Messiah, rests not only on an exaggeration, but on a
dubious and difficult passage in the Jerusalem Targum.36 37 It is quite true, that the face
of Moses shone when he came down from the Mount; but, if this is to be regarded as
the basis of the Transfiguration of Jesus, the presence of Elijah would not be in point.
On the other hand - to pass over other inconsistencies - anything more un-Jewish could
scarcely be imagined than a Messiah crucified, or that Moses and Elijah should appear
to converse with Him on such a Death! If it be suggested, that the purpose was to
represent the Law and the Prophets as bearing testimony to the Dying of the Messiah,
we fully admit it. Certainly, this is the New Testament and the true idea concerning the
Christ; but equally certainly, it was not and is not, that of the Jews concerning the
Messiah.38
36. On Ex. xii.
37. Moses and the Messiah are placed side by side, the one as coming from the desert,
the other from Rome. 'This one shall lead at the head of a cloud, and that one shall lead
at the hea d of a cloud, the Memra of Jehovah leading between them twain, and they
going' - as I would render it - 'as one' (Ve-innun mehalkhin kachada), or, as some render
it, 'they shall walk together.' The question here arises, whether this is to be understood as
merely figurative language, or to be taken literally. If literally, does the Targum refer to a
kind of heavenly vision, or to something that was actually to take place, a kind of realism
of what Philo had anticipated (see vol. i. p. 82)? It may have been in this sense that Fr.
Tayler renders the words by 'in culmine nubis equitabit.' But on careful consideration the
many and obvious incongruities involved in it seem to render a literal interpretation well
nigh impossible. But all seems not only plain but ac cordant with other Rabbinic teaching
(see vol. i. p. 176), if we regard the passage as only indicating a parallelism between the
first and the second Deliverer and the deliverances wrought by them. Again, although the
parallel is often drawn in Rabbinic writings between Moses and Elijah, I know only one
passage, and that a dubious one, in which they are conjoined in the days of the Messiah.
It occurs in Deb. R. 3 (seven lines before the close of it), and is to this effect, that,
because Moses had in this world given his life for Israel, therefore in the Ĉon to come,
when God would send Elijah the prophet, they two should come, keachath, either
'together' or 'as one,' the proof passage being Nah. i. 3, 'the whirlwind' there referring to
Moses, and 'the storm' to Elijah. Surely, no one would found on such a basis a Jewish
mythical origin of the Transfiguration.
38. Godet has also aptly pointed out, that the injunction of silence on the disciples as to
this event is incompatible with the mythical theory. It could only point to a real event, not
to a myth.
If it is impossible to regard this narrative as a fraud; hopeless, to attempt explaining it as
a natural event; and utterly unaccountable, when viewed in connection with
contemporary thought or expectancy - i n short, if all negative theories fail, let us see
whether, and how on the supposition of its reality, it will fit into the general narrative. To
begin with: if our previous investigations have rightly led us up to this result, that Jesus
was the Very Christ of God, then this event can scarcely be described as miraculous -
at least in such a history. If we would not expect it, it is certainly that which might have
been expected. For, first, it was (and at that particular period) a necessary stage in the