Historical Moses and Transfiguration

[cloudyday2]

Moses is dead. Whoever says otherwise is wrong. And there's no accepted tradition in Judaism that says he did not die.

Here is a quote from Josephus where he explains the tradition that Moses was taken to heaven like Enoch and Elijah.

48. When Moses had spoken thus at the end of his life, and had foretold what would befall to every one of their tribes (36) afterward, with the addition of a blessing to them, the multitude fell into tears, insomuch that even the women, by beating their breasts, made manifest the deep concern they had when he was about to die. The children also lamented still more, as not able to contain their grief; and thereby declared, that even at their age they were sensible of his virtue and mighty deeds; and truly there seemed to be a strife betwixt the young and the old who should most grieve for him. The old grieved because they knew what a careful protector they were to be deprived of, and so lamented their future state; but the young grieved, not only for that, but also because it so happened that they were to be left by him before they had well tasted of his virtue. Now one may make a guess at the excess of this sorrow and lamentation of the multitude, from what happened to the legislator himself; for although he was always persuaded that he ought not to be cast down at the approach of death, since the undergoing it was agreeable to the will of God and the law of nature, yet what the people did so overbore him, that he wept himself. Now as he went thence to the place where he was to vanish out of their sight, they all followed after him weeping; but Moses beckoned with his hand to those that were remote from him, and bade them stay behind in quiet, while he exhorted those that were near to him that they would not render his departure so lamentable. Whereupon they thought they ought to grant him that favor, to let him depart according as he himself desired; so they restrained themselves, though weeping still towards one another. All those who accompanied him were the senate, and Eleazar the high priest, and Joshua their commander. Now as soon as they were come to the mountain called Abarim, (which is a very high mountain, situate over against Jericho, and one that affords, to such as are upon it, a prospect of the greatest part of the excellent land of Canaan,) he dismissed the senate; and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God.

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-4.htm

 

[danny ski]

Here is a quote from Josephus where he explains the tradition that Moses was taken to heaven like Enoch and Elijah.

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-4.htm

How is that a part of Judaism?
Let me put it into perspective. There was a tradition among the Christians, in the Eastern and Central Europe, that the newborns who died without baptism turned into blood sucking vampires. Does it mean that that twisted belief was a part of Christianity? Of course not. Yet, I can see how, primitive people afraid of hell, could reach that conclusion re. the unbaptized kids. The text of the Torah regarding the death of Moses is unambiguous. There's no wiggle room. The premise does not survive the Torah's text.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, Moses died and then he appeared alive in the story if that's not summoning the dearly departed, I don't know what is.

Summoning the dead to me is to call the dead out from hades. I don't think Moses and Elijah are in the hades. They might come down from the Heaven. That is why Abraham or King David are not among them.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Christianity doesn't need a historical Moses. When people take the OT so literally they create problems in the texts and its relationship to the NT. Also, it's important to remember that the centrality of the Temple was even more important than the OT for Palestinian Judaism during the time of Jesus.

 

[cloudyday2]

How is that a part of Judaism?
Let me put it into perspective. There was a tradition among the Christians, in the Eastern and Central Europe, that the newborns who died without baptism turned into blood sucking vampires. Does it mean that that twisted belief was a part of Christianity? Of course not. Yet, I can see how, primitive people afraid of hell, could reach that conclusion re. the unbaptized kids. The text of the Torah regarding the death of Moses is unambiguous. There's no wiggle room. The premise does not survive the Torah's text.

I don't read a lot of books, but one that I read and refer to occasionally is "From Gods to God" ( http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch ).

The authors believe that the editors who created the Torah from earlier stories had an agenda to promote monotheism. They claim that the original more polytheistic forms of these stories continued to exist in portions of the Bible that the editors missed and in folklore. Sometimes the original forms reemerged centuries later after the monotheism of Judaism was secure enough to tolerate them. (That is my sloppy paraphrase of the author's ideas. You should read the book yourself.)

 

[ChetSinger]

Many Christians believe that portions of the Bible are simply religious fiction. The Exodus story is commonly dismissed as fiction, because the God it portrays is not palatable to modern tastes. On the other hand, most Christians consider the Transfiguration story to be historical. The Transfiguration implies that Moses was historical.

(1) If you think the Exodus story is literally true, how do you rationalize God's behavior with the "God is love" expectations?

(2) If you don't think the Exodus story was literally true, then what did actually happen? Who was Moses? When did Moses live? What did Moses actually do? ...

I believe both Moses and Elijah were historical and the transfiguration happened as recorded. As did Josephus, since he wrote of both of them in Antiquities.

The non-historicity of these two is a modern idea, not an ancient one afaik.

If you think God's behavior requires rationalization you might want to start a thread with some specifics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Christianity doesn't need a historical Moses. When people take the OT so literally they create problems in the texts and its relationship to the NT. Also, it's important to remember that the centrality of the Temple was even more important than the OT for Palestinian Judaism during the time of Jesus.

Christianity doesn't need a historical Moses? And why not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't read a lot of books, but one that I read and refer to occasionally is "From Gods to God" ( http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch ).

The authors believe that the editors who created the Torah from earlier stories had an agenda to promote monotheism. They claim that the original more polytheistic forms of these stories continued to exist in portions of the Bible that the editors missed and in folklore. Sometimes the original forms reemerged centuries later after the monotheism of Judaism was secure enough to tolerate them. (That is my sloppy paraphrase of the author's ideas. You should read the book yourself.)

What did the author use as proof of these ideas?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Christianity doesn't need a historical Moses? And why not?

Because Christianity is typologically and intertextually related to the Old Testament. It doesn't require historicity it requires textuality. It's not necessary for there to have actually been a Moses for the stories to have been important.

 

[cloudyday2]

What did the author use as proof of these ideas?

The authors are professors of Bible at Hebrew University, so a lot of their arguments are over my head to be honest. One source was the Bible itself. There are often two versions of the same story in the Bible. Their other sources were mostly extra-biblical Jewish texts, but they also referenced some Christian and Islamic texts. Also they saw clues in the names of towns and landmarks in Palestine.

The review I linked says this:

The topics and personalities analyzed are fascinating. The authors demonstrate familiarity with multiple forms of exegesis as well as knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The book is well written, well researched, and offers a challenging look at many significant Biblical stories and personalities.

The original Hebrew volume was entitled “Lo kach katuv ba-Tanakh” meaning that these (reconstructed) stories were not in the Bible. However the English title From Gods to God really indicates what the authors feel is the reason these narratives were suppressed. It is not for the casual or general reader.

http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch

 

[cloudyday2]

Because Christianity is typologically and intertextually related to the Old Testament. It doesn't require historicity it requires textuality. It's not necessary for there to have actually been a Moses for the stories to have been important.

Thanks, finally a believing Christian is willing to admit that Moses might not have existed. Now we can get to the interesting part of the discussion - how do you make your belief work specifically?

If you believe the Transfiguration happened, then why did the disciples see Jesus with fictional characters? Did God use these fictional characters to communicate something to the disciples? What did God want to communicate?

If you do not believe the Transfiguration happened, then what portions of the gospels do you believe actually happened?

If your belief doesn't fit either possibility, then what is it?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The authors believe that the editors who created the Torah from earlier stories had an agenda to promote monotheism.

In my opinion the Pentateuch is a product of the Persian period in its entirety, I don't buy the Documentary Hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned the duplicate (and at times triplicate) stories like the Endangered Ancestress motif are literary features which paint the figure of Sarah as the New Eve and don't need to be cut into literary sources. Scholars who focus too much on the composition history of the texts don't appreciate that for an author (or group of authors) living in the Persian period, the text was a literary whole. The same can be said of the Flood Narrative, it's messy in its composition purely because it was part of the monothesizing process, the text as it currently exists seems to be an attempt at blending the ancient deities "El" and "Yhwh" into the one character.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Thanks, finally a believing Christian is willing to admit that Moses might not have existed. Now we can get to the interesting part of the discussion - how do you make you belief work specifically?

My faith works in that I receive the Eucharist and confess the Nicene Creed.

If you believe the Transfiguration happened, then why did the disciples see Jesus with fictional characters? Did God use these fictional characters to communicate something to the disciples? What did God want to communicate?

Some scholars have suggested that the Transfiguration was a misplaced Resurrection story. I don't personally buy that, and I actually would be inclined to see it as historical. The Christian tradition, especially its more mystical aspects, does have a place for these sorts of experiences, a classic example is St Seraphim of Sarov who transfigured in front of one of his disciples. I don't think that the notion of "historicity" precludes the massive importance of the Moses character in the biblical tradition, I think that it's quite likely that the experience and the shape it had was that of Jesus being the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets which is precisely what the Transfiguration story means in the gospel stories.

If you do not believe the Transfiguration happened, then what portions of the gospels do you believe actually happened?

I really very much like historical Jesus studies, I don't think that it's altogether easy to say what exactly was historical and what exactly wasn't in a cut-and-dry fashion. I also don't think that stories which are obviously coloured in myth and symbolism are so obviously non-historical. Historical Jesus studies needs to admit that the earliest Christians were not rationalists, neither was Jesus, it's altogether very likely that Jesus believed what we would today consider strange things even about himself. This is why, as a historian, I'm very much inclined towards an early and high Christology, perhaps one going all the way back to Jesus' own lips. This is also why, as a theologian, I'm inclined to believe that very high Christology, as being historically credible and theologically efficacious.

 

[danny ski]

Summoning the dead to me is to call the dead out from hades. I don't think Moses and Elijah are in the hades. They might come down from the Heaven. That is why Abraham or King David are not among them.

Well, what happen after we die is not part of the Torah. It's probably a later addition.

 

[danny ski]

I don't read a lot of books, but one that I read and refer to occasionally is "From Gods to God" ( http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch ).

The authors believe that the editors who created the Torah from earlier stories had an agenda to promote monotheism. They claim that the original more polytheistic forms of these stories continued to exist in portions of the Bible that the editors missed and in folklore. Sometimes the original forms reemerged centuries later after the monotheism of Judaism was secure enough to tolerate them. (That is my sloppy paraphrase of the author's ideas. You should read the book yourself.)

Without going into a discussion on the issue. Yes, there are linguistic clues that could point away from the strict monotheism. Since we do not know the origins, author(s), background or time frame, the only thing that's left is a leap of faith. it is a religious text, after all.

 

[cloudyday2]

In my opinion the Pentateuch is a product of the Persian period in its entirety, I don't buy the Documentary Hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned the duplicate (and at times triplicate) stories like the Endangered Ancestress motif are literary features which paint the figure of Sarah as the New Eve and don't need to be cut into literary sources. Scholars who focus too much on the composition history of the texts don't appreciate that for an author (or group of authors) living in the Persian period, the text was a literary whole. The same can be said of the Flood Narrative, it's messy in its composition purely because it was part of the monothesizing process, the text as it currently exists seems to be an attempt at blending the ancient deities "El" and "Yhwh" into the one character.

Their argument is a bit different from the documentary hypothesis.

Let's say a group of communists decided to create a more communist culture in the US. There are stories about the rugged individualists of the Wild West and so forth that might seem to be anti-communist. The communists can't simply erase those stories, so instead they enhance those stories. They add some new twists to create a more communist message. Maybe the original versions of these Cowboy stories continue to exist on renegade websites in spite of the communist efforts. Eventually the original versions return to official media when the communist position is secure.

You ought to read the book yourself. You seem to know a lot about these topics, and would probably enjoy it.

 

[juvenissun]

Because Christianity is typologically and intertextually related to the Old Testament. It doesn't require historicity it requires textuality. It's not necessary for there to have actually been a Moses for the stories to have been important.

Funny logic.
Moses is needed, but is not needed as a real person.
How about Abraham, Issac and Jacob? or Joshua and Samuel? Do they need to be real?
How about King David? Does he "need" to be real?

No wonder the Catholic doctrine is a mess today.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, what happen after we die is not part of the Torah. It's probably a later addition.

This is new to me. Thanks.
Is the Messiah also not a part of the Torah?
Would that make the teaching in the Torah incomplete, or even crippled?
What do you believe on the issue of afterlife? Or are you satisfied with "I don't know"?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Funny logic.
Moses is needed, but is not needed as a real person.
How about Abraham, Issac and Jacob? or Joshua and Samuel? Do they need to be real?
How about King David? Does he "need" to be real?

No wonder the Catholic doctrine is a mess today.

Well, I'm not talking doctrine I'm speaking from what we know of history and we don't know about them, historically. There's simply no data.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I'm not talking doctrine I'm speaking from what we know of history and we don't know about them, historically. There's simply no data.

Agree. But we can not say it is NOT historically true. There is simply no (official) data.
And, we should not say Moses is not needed to be historically true either. It is NEEDED. We simply do not have (official) historical data.

But, we have the Bible. I take what the Bible (or the Torah) says more reliable than the official data. What's said in the Bible is critical to those who believed in it. Official historical data is only political and academic. Nobody (no officers) really care how reliable and complete those data are. To put down some historical descriptions is only their job.