Sectional Analysis

On the difference in numbers of days see here. One again Mark bears the sign of Peter's elaborated personal witness (the added description of the clothes) and the signs of an oral performance (added emphasis on their being alone). Meanwhile if Luke is using Mark alone it is odd that he knows of Jesus' face being transformed, and also makes the switch from six to eight. It is probable that Luke has interviewed Peter or John (James would be deceased by this time) for the more precise timing, and we will see more signs of this -- it is an event like the transfiguration that a sober historian like Luke would be inclined to check into with eyewitnesses.

Matthew does his usual redactive use of kurios (sir) as an address for Jesus. Note how between Matt and Mark, there is a shift in order not only of reporting (Matt: M-E appeared; Peter speaks; the cloud, and God speaks; the disciples fear -- Mark: M-E appeared; Peter speaks; the disciples fear; the cloud, and God speaks) but in the order that the names of Moses and Elijah are reported. Yet the speech of God is reported almost exactly, with Matthew only adding a clear echo (delighted) from the baptism. What we are seeing here is oral tradition, not literary copying. The extra details from Luke bear the marks of details obtained via interview and questioning.

As they pericopes now diverge considerably, the pericope in oral form likely ended in the prior section. All three reports their silence in quite different words.

This teaching was likely attached to the one about the transfiguration. Peter has added another eyewitness touch (what else they discussed) which not incidentally confirms Luke's account previously that they were discussing what Jesus was soon to do at Jerusalem. Luke omits this portion perhaps because his readership would not have the knowledge to grasp the typological John-Elijah connection. Hawkins [124] thinks Matthew deleted the "written of him" about John, because it "is by no means clear how the ill-treatment of the Baptist had been 'written of'." Hawkins is a low-context modern having problems with a high-context text. This is an allusion to 1 Kings 19:1-3 and the death threat against the "original" Elijah, now accomplished against the "new" Elijah by Herodias. It may not occur to Hawkins that if this is a problem, Mark certainly did not see it as one when he wrote it.

Those who say that Matt and Luke might be embarrassed to show Jesus angry need to consider this passage carefully. This is a false ground in the Marcan priority hypothesis. However, this does show extensive eyewitness additions by Peter, and a common source in that Matt and Luke come up with the same Greek word for "they-were-able" while Mark differs, and that Luke shows signs of note-taking from both Mark and a Matthean version (for example, the "perverted" comment). Hawkins [124] idiotically thinks that Matt eliminated Mark's amazement of the crowd because there was nothing to be "amazed" about; he says that the radiance of the Transfiguration was gone by then. He apparently has no idea that the crowds were "amazed" (the word also means "frightened") because of a premonition of what would happen when Jesus would a) confront the deaf and dumb spirit; b) see that his disciples had failed in their own efforts. However, Witherington [266] disagrees that the radiance would of necessity been lost by this time. This is just as well seen as a Petrine eyewitness addition. He also supposes that the father's reaction implies "acceptance of a lower standard of faith" which would be found disagreeable, but this hardly makes sense given that Matt says even faith as minute as a mustard seed can move mountains (17:20).

Matt again displaces a teaching topically. The different word for "going out" points to a common Aramaic source and not copying. There is also a lapse here in the Marcan priority theorem, for it is claimed that Matthew deleted Jesus weakness due to lack of faith in Mark 6:5, yet Matt gives here the same lesson Mark teaches in 6:5!

Great variation here points to a much simpler core tradition and the different word for "raised" points to it coming from a different language.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

Since it is likely Luke conducted further interviews on this matter, he would not have used Ur-Matthew (and Mark) alone, but:

And after days six takes-alongside (the) Jesus (the) Peter and James and John the brother of-him and leads them into mountain high (in a way) private. And He-was-transfigured before them and shone the face of-Him as the sun the and garments of-him became white as the light. And behold! Appeared to-them Moses and Elijah with him talking-together. answering And Peter said to Jesus Lord good it-is us here to-be. If you-desire let-us-make here three tents for you-one and Moses one and one Elijah. While he was speaking Behold cloud radiant overshadowed them And behold voice out the cloud saying This is the Son of-Me the Beloved Him hear.

And questioned him the disciples of-him saying, Why then the scribes say that Elijah must come first? (the) and Jesus answering said to-them Elijah indeed comes first and shall-restore all-things I-say but to-you that Elijah already came and not they-recognized him but did by him whatever they-desired; so also the Son (the) of-man is-about to-suffer by them.

And behold man from the crowd cried-out saying Teacher I-beg you to-look upon the son of-me . And behold! a spirit takes-hold of-him and suddenly he-cries-out and convulses him with foam and with-difficulty departs from him bruising him. And I-begged the disciples of-you that they-cast-out it and not they-were-able. answering And Jesus said O generation faithless and perverted, until when shall-I-be with you? until when shall-I-endure you? Bring to-me him here. yet But coming-near him tore him the demon and violently-convulsed. And rebuked it the Jesus and came-out from him the demon and was-healed the boy from the hour that. Then having-come-up the disciples of Jesus in-way privately said Why us not were able to-cast-out him the And Jesus said this kind does-go-out except for in prayer.