Introduction 95

Luke is an indication that he interpreted the phenomenon as an inward change. He also tells us that it was ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι, “as he was praying,” that the change took place (Luke ix. 29). 2 Peter, _ on the other hand, seems to think of the glory as having an outward source, like what happened in the case of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 29 ff. ; 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff.), as a reflexion of the glory of God, an outward attesta- tion in addition to the voice (λαβὼν yap παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, i. 17). Spitta argues that this is a more natural and primitive account, and therefore independent of the account in the Synoptics, which shows traces of later thought playing upon the incident. There can be no doubt that the conception of the glory as external is found in 2 Peter, but it is not regarded as an attestation previous to the voice, as in the Synoptics. On the contrary, the two aorist participles imply coincident action, the first really taking the place of a finite verb (cf. the common phrase, ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν). ‘‘ He received honour and glory when there came to Him,’ etc. Moreover, τιµή can only refer to the attestation of the voice (see note on passage). To this extent 2 Peter differs from the Synoptic gospels. Are we then justified in regarding the disparity as a mark of the eye-witness? There are, however, other characteristics of the passage in 2 Peter which rather point to literary dependence on the Synoptic account. (a) The reading of SACKL, adopted in the text, is οὗτος ἔστιν 6 vids pou 6 ἀγαπητός, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα, which differs from Matt. xvii. 5 only in respect that (a) εἰς ὃν is substituted for ἐν 6 (see note on passage), (B) ἐγώ is inserted, and (y) ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ is omitted. Again, σκηνώµατι (1, 12) σκηνώµατος (ii. 14) and ἔξοδον (ν. 15) occurring together, seem to indicate that the vocabulary of the Synoptic account was lingering in the mind of the writer. oxyvwpa, a rare and unusual word in this sense, is used characteristically in the sense of the ordinary σκῆνος, and may have been suggested by the σκήνη of the Gospel narrative. έξοδος belongs to Luke’s own vocabulary in reporting the conversation of the three men, and its employment indicates acquaintance with his Gospel. ‘‘Omission of details of the history (e.g., the presence of Moses and Elias) in an allusion contained in a letter cannot reasonably be taken to show that a writer is giving an account independent of, or more primitive than, that of the Synoptists”, (Chase, op. ctt. iti. 809 b, but cf. Zahn, Introd. Π., pp. 217 f.). Moreover, ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ dpe. indicates a later stage of thought than the simple eis ὄρος ὑψηλὸν (Mark, ix. 2; Matt. 1. 7), or εἰς τὸ ὄρος (Luke ix. 26). It implies not only the assignment of a definite locality, but also the ascription of a ‘‘sacred”’ site, ‘‘a known mountain which had now become consecrated as the scene of the vision” (Mayor, of. cit.,