Matthew 17:1-9

Background: The Synoptics

The Lectionary began reading from the Gospel According to Matthew in the new year (2023), but our first “Sunday Sermon” in this new project, Notes from the Diaspora, finds us in Matthew chapter 17, and I thought it would be a good move to get us introduced to Matthew, before discussing today’s gospel text, Matthew 17:1-9. Because of that editorial choice, today’s post will run longer than usual, but this is also a chance for new readers to get a taste of regular content.

Quick note, unless otherwise specified, I use the New Revised Standard Updated Edition (NRSVUE), and you can read about the resources I use in this post. For shorthand, I’ll usually drop the “according to” phrasing for Gospel according to (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), and simply say the Gospel title, for example, Matthew. This editorial choice, also, deserves at least a note to say that when we drop the Gospel according to structure we run the risk of two errors: First, we may further the tacit assumption that these Gospel traditions take their name from the people who wrote them, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, which is not the case. The identity of the authors is generally unknown. Second, that “according to” does some work to remind us that these accounts are according to certain perspectives, and not a straightforward reporting of the events as they occurred. As we’ll soon see, these accounts are not first-hand accounts, if they are actual accounts at all. The importance of this approach to Biblical study is to unlearn the naive view that accounts described in the Bible happened, as described, written by the people who observed those same events.

We then re-learn that, in fact, each Biblical book has the potential to include several contributors, through authorship and editing, and they are often historical reconstructions of events, or constructed stories inspired by events or cultural exchange of ideas, written from a particular point of view, selecting particular themes, and drawing from the Hebrew tradition as evidence to support the selected theme and objective of the text. Other literary forms include grand, unifying narratives—often events that didn’t happen at all, also poetry, songs, genealogies, and the justice-centered prophetic tradition of edicts and cautions.

The Hebrew Bible actually provides a structural mnemonic to see these divisions of Biblical genre. The Hebrew Bible is also called the Tanakh (TaNaKH), representing the first letter of each major section:

• T: Torah, the “five books of Moses,” or Pentateuch; the law

• N: Nevi’im, the books of the prophets; the prophets

• Kh: Kethuvim, the writings

On Matthew

To orient ourselves to the material from the Gospel according to Matthew, we first begin by orienting ourselves to the Gospel accounts themselves. The Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek root word, synopsis, “seeing together,” refers to Mark, Matthew, and Luke that share a significant portion of the same content, sometimes with identical wording. The Gospel according to John stands outside of the Synoptics, with distinct content.

Academic consensus names Mark as the first account to be written, chronologically, and 75% of Mark’s material is found in Matthew and Luke. Matthew, because that’s the focus for this post, and like Luke, each have around 20-25% of material that is shared between them but that does not appear in Mark. An hypothesis is that (at least) a third source document included the common sayings of Jesus and accounts for the material that is common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark. From the German word for source, quelle, this is referred to the Q source. (No, not that Q.)

This is where we encounter Matthew. Written 20 or 30 years after Mark (60-70 years after the purported death of Jesus), including 75% of Markan material and 25% from the theorized Q source; written in Greek, offering some preliminary evidence of the Gospel’s author. The author is also deeply familiar with Hebrew scripture. The Gospel appears first in the canonized Greek Scriptures (New Testament), given its popularity—the most cited Gospel (JANT). The Matthean text reconstructs many formulas and themes from the Torah, and shows knowledge of Jewish ritual and practice. The overall aim is to draw from the Hebrew tradition to offer new authoritative rulings for the Jesus movement. (Wait around for the Christian season of Christmas, and we’ll see how this theme of connecting Jesus as the new Moses also shows up in the Matthean birth narrative.)

On Sunday’s text: Transfiguration

This scene is a terrific example of Matthew leveraging his deep knowledge of the Hebrew textual tradition to offer a frame of new authoritative ruling for Jesus. The parallel to the Hebrew/Torah account with Moses, as we will see, redirects the focus and interpretation for readers away from “this thing happened this way,” toward an extension of Jewish theology, narrative, and interpretation to serve as a frame for the authority of Jesus’ purported teaching.

For contemporary readers of these texts, we must continue to un-learn that the Gospel accounts report on the factual events of Jesus’ life, and re-learn that authors selected stories from the Hebrew tradition to achieve narrative and theological objectives. This is all very nuanced but we must keep in mind that when reporting on this narrative, we use the language, “when Jesus did this,” and “Jesus did that,” what we are really saying is that by the mythic reconstruction of purported events, the Biblical authors held an aim in mind when placing Jesus and other characters in these scenes. A quote from Christian theologian, Marcus Borg (1942 – 2015) is helpful: “I don’t know if things happened the way or not, but I know that this is true.”

So what did the Matthean author “think was true,” when constructing this narrative? What did the author mean? That’s the central question for this type of discussion.

Before continuing, following is the selected text:

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became bright as light. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will set up three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, the Beloved with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” And when they raised their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

While the Markan account is highly critical of the twelve disciples, Matthew has a much more positive attitude toward them, and Matthew affirms Peter as the leader of the twelve (JANT). More along the lines of this post, rather than who was with Jesus, the thing to ask is how many? For this, scholars point us to Exodus 24:1, where Moses takes three of his followers up a mountain to experience a revelatory event (JANT; JPS). The Matthean author knows this story well, and what’s more, the author knows the Jewish audience who the author may be addressing by leveraging deep knowledge and connect the Torah, knows this story, too. Despite the poor literacy rates for the common class, still, relatively higher in comparison to other groups, the Torah was read aloud in the synagogue then, as it is now, for the Jewish people to experience their unifying narrative.

The Matthean author is drawing intentional parallels between Jesus and Moses to offer readers a deeper foundation for following the edicts of their leader, Jesus, who they took to be the anointed one, the messiah (moshiac; Hebrew, or the christ (christos; Greek). The Moses connection does not end there, Jesus face, shining like the sun, is further reference to Moses (Exodus 34:35), whose mountaintop revelation is the basis for Jesus’ transfiguration scene.

Further Hebrew scriptural references abound: The bright cloud is a Torah signal of God’s presence. In rabbinic literature, the connection to Elijah serves the purpose in Hebrew literature as the prophet who appears before the anointed one (Deuteronomy 15:15-18), and in the Greek scriptural tradition, it was John the Baptizer who served this prophetic role to usher in the coming Jesus, having Matthew place these words in the mouth of John the Baptist, “This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”

Conclusion

This longer post than usual had some work to do! We first oriented ourselves the synoptic tradition, we next said more about Matthew, Luke, and the theorized Q source, before saying more about Mathew’s deep familiarity and intentional connection with Hebrew texts. Finally, we interpreted the transfiguration story in light of Torah traditions with Moses and the prophetic tradition of the coming anointed one.

The key points to take away are…

• Biblical stories are not documentaries, they are narrative reconstructions with theological and political aims

• The synoptics, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are “seen together,” and share much of the same content

• Matthew is especially concerned with the Hebrew and Torah tradition to provide authority for Jesus’ teachings