[3708] A comparison of the narratives leaves on us the impression that the disciples also were touched by the cloud. I cannot agree with Godet, that the question depends on whether we adopt in St. Luke ix. 34 the reading of the T.R. kenous, or that of the Alex. atos.
[3709] The more correct reading in St. Luke seems to be Elect Son.'
[3710] St. Matthew adds, in Whom I am well pleased.' The reason of this fuller account is not difficult to understand.
[3711] St. Mark indicates this by the words: And suddenly, when they looked round about.'
[3712] 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?
[3713] Even if that Epistle were not St. Peter's, it would still represent the most ancient tradition.
[3714] St. John i. 14.
[3715] On Ex. xii.
[3716] 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 head 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 accordant 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 Æon 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.
[3717] 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.
[3718] Deut. xviii. 15.
[3719] St. Matt. iii. 17. __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER II. ON THE MORROW OF THE TRANSFIGURATION
(St. Matt. xvii. 9-21; St. Mark ix. 9-29: St. Luke ix. 37-43.)
IT was the early dawn of another summer's day when the Master and His disciples turned their steps once more towards the plain. They had seen His Glory; they had had the most solemn witness which, as Jews, the could have; and they had gained a new knowledge of the Old Testament. It all bore reference to the Christ, and it spake of His Decease. Perhaps on that morning better than in the previous night did they realise the vision, and feel its calm happiness. It was to their souls like the morning-air which they breathed on that mountain.