Transfiguration historicity???

[pathfinder777]

What are some of the main arguments or reasons that a large majority of biblical scholars today question the historicity of the transfiguration as a historical event. To many if not most biblical scholars today the story is interpreted as allegorical or symbolic. Why do so many place it in the genre of apocalyptic or epiphany literary form and not an actual historical event like the patristic up through the reformation Christians did?

In Christ

 

[Forge3]

Good question. I can say how it could be interpreted as symbolic. But I believe it happened.

 

[OzSpen]

What are some of the main arguments or reasons that a large majority of biblical scholars today question the historicity of the transfiguration as a historical event. To many if not most biblical scholars today the story is interpreted as allegorical or symbolic. Why do so many place it in the genre of apocalyptic or epiphany literary form and not an actual historical event like the patristic up through the reformation Christians did?

In Christ

Theological liberalism, whether modernist or postmodernist, challenges understandings of the Bible that include the supernatural. Let's face it. Jesus' transfiguration was a supernatural event and that doesn't quite fit into the Enlightenment worldview of the West.

Take supernaturalism out of Christianity and what do you have? Naturalism or a modernistic/postmodernistic deconstruction of the supernatural.

What this means is that instead of taking the Scriptures at face value, postmodernists impose their worldview on the Scriptures by doing away with the supernatural of the Transfiguration or redefining it.

If that were to happen in any other form of literature, where the content of what is written is rejected, how would it be described?

Why don't you give a few examples (with bibliographical references) of those who reject the Transfiguration and why they reject it?

Oz

 

[pathfinder777]

Theological liberalism, whether modernist or postmodernist, challenges understandings of the Bible that include the supernatural. Let's face it. Jesus' transfiguration was a supernatural event and that doesn't quite fit into the Enlightenment worldview of the West.

Take supernaturalism out of Christianity and what do you have? Naturalism or a modernistic/postmodernistic deconstruction of the supernatural.

What this means is that instead of taking the Scriptures at face value, postmodernists impose their worldview on the Scriptures by doing away with the supernatural of the Transfiguration or redefining it.

If that were to happen in any other form of literature, where the content of what is written is rejected, how would it be described?

Why don't you give a few examples (with bibliographical references) of those who reject the Transfiguration and why they reject it?

Oz

Hi Oz,
I agree with you that there are those biblical scholars that could be labeled liberal that are overly skeptical regarding the historicity of many miracle stories in the bible. However there are many centrist scholars who accept miracles including the incarnation, virgin birth etc that question the transfiguration. My question regardless of their background (liberal, centrist, conservative) is what are the reasons or arguments put forth??

In Christ

 

[Clare73]

What are some of the main arguments or reasons that a large majority of biblical scholars today question the historicity of the transfiguration as a historical event. To many if not most biblical scholars today the story is interpreted as allegorical or symbolic. Why do so many place it in the genre of apocalyptic or epiphany literary form and not an actual historical event like the patristic up through the reformation Christians did?

In Christ

Because a large majority of the Biblical scholars today are only Biblical "scholars" so called.

There is no scholarhip in the Bible apart from faith in it, because there is no true understanding of it apart from faith,
and with no true understanding of it, there can be no true scholarship regarding it.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
I agree with you that there are those biblical scholars that could be labeled liberal that are overly skeptical regarding the historicity of many miracle stories in the bible. However there are many centrist scholars who accept miracles including the incarnation, virgin birth etc that question the transfiguration. My question regardless of their background (liberal, centrist, conservative) is what are the reasons or arguments put forth??

In Christ

It is disappointing that you have started this thread with not one example of scholars who doubt the Transfiguration and the reasons for their doubting. In my post, I asked you:

Why don't you give a few examples (with bibliographical references) of those who reject the Transfiguration and why they reject it?

But in your response you continue to give no examples of scholars who reject or question the Transfiguration. Why have you not provided some examples of what you are addressing? Otherwise, it's your opinion.

I will give three examples from scholars:

1. Luke Timothy Johnson wrote: 'The Gospel narratives contain stories that flatly confound historical analysis. The synoptic transfiguration account, for example, is about a vision experienced by three of Jesus' followers in his presence: In Luke, it is explicitly designated as an experience that took place during pray. Now, even if this happened, even if it were "real" within the experience of those three persons, how can it be described as "historical"? Visions are not subject to confirmation or disconfirmation, for their only possible evidence must, by the nature of the case, be subjective testimony about a private experience' (Johnson 1996:110).
2. John Dominic Crossan: 'So the transcendentally magnificent apparition from the Cross Gospel [in the Gospel of Peter] was retrojected by Mark into the earlier life of Jesus and historicized as what we call the Transfiguration [Mark 9:2-9].... If one is willing to accept the basic idea that Mark transfigured his source as he relocated it. First, those "two men" whose accompaniment honors Jesus in Peter 10:39 become identified as "Elijah with Moses" in Mark' (Crossan 1995:201-202).
3. 'The three disciples who witnessed the transfiguration had a vision of the Son of Man vindicated and glorified; they saw in graphic anticipation the fulfillment of his words about the powerful advent of the kingdom of God. Matthew, strikingly, in his report of the words speaks of the Son of Man instead of the kingdom of God: "there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Mt 16:28 RSV). This is an interpretation of the words but a true interpretation. And Matthew follows Mark in saying that when the disciples had seen the vision, Jesus forbade them to speak about it to anyone "until the Son of man should have risen from the dead" (Mk 9:9 RSV). His rising from the dead would inaugurate the reality which they had seen in the vision on the mount of transfiguration, and would at the same time herald the coming of the kingdom "with power"' (Kaiser et al 1996:429-430).

The nature of the Transfiguration, the small number of witnesses, and the reliability of the Gospel tradition could be issues in interpretation for some people. However, presuppositional bias against the supernatural could be a factor in understanding this report.

What's your view on the problem?

Sincerely, Oz


References
Crossan, J D 1995. Who killed Jesus? Exposing the roots of anti-Semitism in the gospel story of the death of Jesus. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Johnson, L T 1996. The real Jesus: The misguided quest for the historical Jesus and the truth of the traditional Gospels. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Kaiser Jr., W C; Davids, P H; Bruce, F F; and Brauch, M T 1996. Hard sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

[OzSpen]

Because a large majority of the Biblical scholars today are only Biblical "scholars" so called.

There is no scholarhip in the Bible apart from faith in it, because there is no true understanding of it apart from faith,
and with no true understanding of it, there can be no true scholarship regarding it.

In the faith,
Clare

Clare,

Are you saying that there is no place for apologetics (defense of the Christian faith) in biblical ministry today?

I agree that there are scholars who hack into the integrity of the Bible, but that has been the tactic throughout church history. Are you saying that because we have faith, there is no need to address the antagonism towards the faith by scholars and others?

I'm concerned that your view may promote a 'blind faith' approach to Christianity. I need your clarification on this matter.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Phillip Wynn]

I've published on early Christian history, am currently living in Israel. I've visited Kineret and the Galilean highlands a number of times. Maybe you'd be interesting in hearing how someone generally skeptical not only thinks the Transfiguration actually happened, but is in fact more historically defensible than many other events in Jesus's life.

First, the phenomenon as reported in the Gospels is quite familiar to Buddhists in particular. That is, if seen with the eyes of the heart, an enlightened individual does seem to glow or shine. This phenomenon is widely reported, and even if put down to some sort of common delusion, that in itself doesn't negate that the witnesses experienced "something" of the sort also reported in other spiritual experiences. I should add that the mystic is certain that what is being witnessed is, in fact, a kind of hyper-reality, or elevated state of consciousness, if you will.

Second, when Jesus and his followers went to Jerusalem for Passover, the Gospels record that he took the logical route from Galilee, going south through the Samaritan hill country. This explains, of course, the relatively numerous references to the Samaritans in the Gospels, including the famous parable, which to me further confirms the historicity of this route.

If you are traveling in the northeastern Jezreel valley, then as now one of the most fertile regions in Israel, you can't miss seeing Mt. Tavor. It's rather a large hill, and not really that high, but quite striking because it rises out of the plain and stands alone, quite apart from any range of hills or mountains.

If a group is traveling from Galilee to the Samaritan hill country, it would naturally pass near Tavor. And it would be a natural campsite from travelers on foot. Because at that time, highway brigands would be a danger. So a logical place to stay would be on a hill like Tavor, more easily defensible and safer than camping in the valley. And, of course, Tavor is the traditional site for the Transfiguration. Can't be proved, but it does make sense.

My experiences at Kineret have also proved enlightening for this historian, but no time for that now.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

What are some of the main arguments or reasons that a large majority of biblical scholars today question the historicity of the transfiguration as a historical event. To many if not most biblical scholars today the story is interpreted as allegorical or symbolic. Why do so many place it in the genre of apocalyptic or epiphany literary form and not an actual historical event like the patristic up through the reformation Christians did?

The general idea is that it was a misplaced resurrection appearance.

There have been other scholars intent on placing it (and various mystical experiences in general) back into the life of Jesus. For example, the Context Group is intent on seeing ASC (Altered States of Consciousness) as part and parcel of the early Christian movement, thereby making this sort of experience and things like the walking on the Sea or even the experiences of the Resurrection itself, more "historical".

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

First, the phenomenon as reported in the Gospels is quite familiar to Buddhists in particular. That is, if seen with the eyes of the heart, an enlightened individual does seem to glow or shine. This phenomenon is widely reported, and even if put down to some sort of common delusion, that in itself doesn't negate that the witnesses experienced "something" of the sort also reported in other spiritual experiences.

I wouldn't dispute that this sort of experience occurs amongst Buddhists but I would suggest that it also continues within Christian mysticism: Seraphim of Sarov, for example, appears to shine like the sun for his disciple Motovilov:

How, I asked Father Seraphim, "can I know that I am in the grace of the Holy Spirit? I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself his true manifestation in me?"
Father Seraphim replied: "I have already told you, Your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize his presence in us. So what do you want, my son?" I want to understand it well" I said. Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: 'We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?" I replied: I cannot look, Batiushka, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain."
Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, Your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself, otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am." Then bending his head toward me, he whispered softly in my ear: "Thank the Lord God for his unutterable mercy to us! You saw that I did not even cross myself; and only in my heart I prayed mentally to the Lord and said within myself. 'Lord, grant him to see clearly with his bodily eyes that descent of thy Spirit which thou grantest to thy servants when thou art pleased to appear in the light of thy magnificent glory.' And you see my son, the Lord instantly fulfilled the humble prayer of poor Seraphim. How then shall we not thank him for this unspeakable gift to us both? Even to the greatest hermits, my son, the Lord God does not always show his mercy in this way. This grace of God, like a loving mother, has been pleased to comfort your contrite heart at the intercession of the Mother of God herself. But why, my son, do you not look me in the eyes? Just look, and don't be afraid! The Lord is with us!"
After these words I glanced at his face and there came over me an even greater reverent awe. Imagine in the center of the sun, in the dazzling light of its midday rays, the face of a man talking to you. You see the movement of his lips and the changing expression of his eyes, you hear his voice, you feel someone holding your shoulders; yet you do not see his hands, you do not even see yourself or his figure, but only a blinding light spreading far around for several yards and illumining with its brilliance both the snow-blanket that covered the forest glade and the snowflakes which besprinkled me and the great elder. You can imagine the state I was in!