Talk:Transfiguration of Jesus

Connection to fasting

All three people in the transfiguration (Jesus, Moses and Elijah) have fasted for 40 days. I added it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transfiguration_of_Jesus&oldid=626446856 "Incidentally Jesus, Moses and Elijah have all done 40 day fasts." but it got removed for being "editorial". I thought it was interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.127.244 (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox

.... In the Orthodox Church, the Feast of the Transfiguration commemorates this event. It is one of the twelve Great Feasts in the liturgical year of the Orthodox Church and is observed by it on August 6....

Is this date Julian or Gregorian ? If it's Julian, the Gregorian date would be August 19, right ? Can someone confirm the dates, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:26, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

The date of the Transfiguration on the Orthodox liturgical calendar is August 6. So, whether one is using the Julian or Gregorian calendar the date is always August 6. For those who use the Julian calendar (the majority of Orthodox) the day their calendar calls August 6 is the day that everyone else calls August 19. MishaPan 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MishaPan. This is now on MainPage, with other holidays on August 6. --PFHLai 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Nietzsche's opinion matter?

This section is being taken off the main article:

• The philosopher Nietzsche interpreted the painting in his book The Birth of Tragedy as an image of the conflict between Apollonian and Dionysian principles.

The article on the painting currently mentions nothing about this. JBogdan 10:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does your opinion of whether Nietzsche's opinion matters matter? Surely more than yours. The lack of info in a different Wikipedia article in no way justifies the removal of info from another Wikipedia article. The mention is going back in until you can find a reason based on some rule to remove it.--Hraefen ^Talk 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy page on No Original Research, paragraph 1:

• Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Thank you for the correction. It will be moved from the article on the event to the article on the painting. As for the sentence on interpreting divine grace, it will be moved to the talk page about the painting until resources are cited. For ease of further research, the content was added by IP address 195.188.152.12 at 11:41 on February 12, 2005. JBogdan 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 Done. That sentence has now been moved to Transfiguration (Raphael). --DavidCary (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

POV Boxes combined into one

There were way too many POV boxes spread throughout the article so I removed them all and put it at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.81.53 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references necessary?

The Transfiguration is a story that has been recorded for 1900 years. Are a couple media references to it in the last 5 years really significant enough to warrant mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepinion (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nobody responded, so I just deleted it. 71.79.66.80 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Date

Why August 6? I'd be curious to know that. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer, but I have heard that some persons see in it a connection with Sukkoth; except that seems to be about a month after we celebrate the Transfiguration, but it's in the ballpark, I suppose. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you dig around on Google, you'll find references to it being connected with the Kingdom of Hungary successfully breaking the Ottoman Empire's Siege of Belgrade; Callixtus III declared that the phenomenon of the Transfiguration would be celebrated on August 6 in the whole church (it had apparently been celebrated locally prior to that, and had long been venerated in the Eastern churches) in celebration/honor of the Christian victory over the Muslims. The problem with that as the explanation is that the Siege of Belgrade ended on July 22. So, even given the above story, there's still some explaining needed for why this is celebrated 15 days after the breaking of the Siege of Belgrade. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not much help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have found an answer. Apparently, August 6 was the day that the news of the Hungarian (or, perhaps more appropriate in this context, Christian) victory at the Siege of Belgrade reached Rome. It's at this website if you scroll down a ways: http://www.breviary.net/propsaints/propsaints03/propsaints03283.htm. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, a convenient coincidence presumably, as this had long been the Orthodox date. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alban Butler confirms what's been said above. The date 6 August was observed in the East before 1000 A.D. In the west, in those places where the Transfiguration was observed at all, its date varied, until Calistus III required it to be celebrated on 6 Aug everywhere. Rwflammang (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

He/His

Is it wikipedia policy to use a capital H in pronouns reffering to Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.191.59 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, it would be a violation of NPOV. Feel free to decapitalize these instances under those grounds. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The MoS specifies that God should not be capitalised when used in "the Christian god", so I would not expect his to have a capital.--Charles (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox understanding of the apostles having transfigured, NOT Christ

Please may someone find time to look through this article and then cite it if they like. I was simply trying to find something that actually shows this; I#m afraid that this is an area that scholars often don't pick up on, e.g. even the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible. "According to Saint Maximos and the whole patristic tradition, the face of Christ, radiating on Mount Tabor a dazzling, unendurable light, reveals Christ’s divinity, which both illumines, dazzles and blinds (Ambiguum 10). The garments of the Lord, which Saint Mark’s gospel says became “exceedingly white,” impossibly bright, reveal the transfiguration of the creation. Saint Maximos says the transfigured garments of the Lord are both the words of Scripture and the forms of creation (Ambiguum 10). The cosmos is a book of revelation and the Scripture is a revealed cosmos. Both consist of logoi, words, which reveal, when read with the Spirit, the will and mind of God. Both are transfigured through Christ. The disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration were also transfigured, not only in spirit and soul, but also in body. The uncreated light and grace of Christ, streaming from his transfigured face, body and garments, transfigured the very senses of the apostles, allowing them to behold his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, “full of grace and truth.” Since the human nature shared by Christ with all humanity, according to the Fathers, is a microcosm of the whole created order, the fact that the transfigured body of Christ reveals His divinity in a flood of uncreated light, and that this same transfiguring uncreated energy streams from his face. body and clothing and illumines and transfigures the bodies of the apostles, means without doubt that the whole of creation is lifted up, and is meant to be lifted up, transformed and transfigured by the irresistible power of the grace of the Logos." This section is specially important

http://www.orth-transfiguration.org/library/orthodoxy/transfiguration/

Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL Mangoe, it's not polemics [history of the edit], I'm not saying the west rejects it per se, but it is in fact a crucial difference that is placed on emphasis. The entire difference between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is precisely that; there is very little that these churches exactly disagree upon, however there are massive and fundamental differences in what is considered as salient. A more extreme example would be for instance, to illustrate this point, where you look at the difference between Islam and Orthodoxy; Islam has five prayers a day, and as it happens Orthodoxy has seven. However Islam places a huge emphasis on performing those five prayers as a pillar to the faith, whereas Orthodoxy doesn't. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is "in fact". Indeed, the problem here is that what you originally wrote was your interpretation of one source, which may present a view not generally shared in the East, without any evidence at all for what those in the West think. I think Maximos's interpretation is interesting, but it isn't at all clear that it represents an East-West difference; and I think you overstated it as originally presented. If there is such a difference (and this isn't something I've studied-- I'm just hazarding a guess) it is more likely that in the West there's little concern about the mechanism of revelation. There is a tendency in these articles to enlarge the difference between East and West; to show such a difference, one must show both ends of it. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right of course; I haven't used any western sources and yes my view had been filtered through what Orthodox themselves state to be the difference without being objective. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Imgs and txt

The image placements are throwing the text off. As you edit, please move images to gallery. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Transfiguration in the Gospel of Mark, 1300.

I thought that might be happening, unfortunately cannot fix that I think with this browser/firewall, images are not displaying. Can you help? Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I like fixing images. But I did not want to jump in the middle of your edits. Will do that in a little while if you have finished your changes. History2007 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the images and made a gallery, and added churches etc. In the process I found a REALLY nice image of the Gospel of Mark with the transfiguration page. But the quote in the first section is from Matthew 17:5. If you change that quote to the suitable quote from Mark, then it will fit really well. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't put that quote there btw. might be better if you did it to avoid me throwing the images off In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I already fixed it. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Greswell

I've removed the following text:

Edward Greswell (1834) raised the possibility of either Tabor or Mount Nebo where Moses viewed the promised land.

Reference: Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a harmon Page 485 "Yet we may conjecture it was probably some neighbouring mountain, as Tabor, where our Lord was transfigured, or Nebo, on which Moses had the view of the promised land revealed to him. Either of these was within a moderate distance"

The citation is wrong (it's actually page 209 of "Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a harmony of the Gospels"). It's also taken out of context: Greswell is speculating on where the last temptation took place. Not where Moses viewed the promised land! The Cake 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

I've updated the article with Greswell's actual assessment. Mangoe (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is episode an improvement over event?

So how is episode in the New Testament narrative an improvement over event reported in the New Testament? The older wording is more direct; the newer is vaguer, and the New Testament narrative is more verbose while adding no meaning. Rwflammang (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In a rational world you would be correct. On the Good Friday and crucifixion of Jesus pages it used to say "event" and IPs would show out of nowhere and say it is all fake, etc. Some would just change event to myth. I am tired of the dumb debates, so I always say episode just for that. And technically speaking the baptism and crucifixion are the events that scholars consider historical... So changing it to event will start a debate some day with some IP who has eaten the wrong type of pizza the night before... sigh... History2007 (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Events, of course, can be real or fake, fictional or historical. Tell your wrong-type-of-pizza eaters to consult a dictionary. IMHO, this article should use a encyclopedic tone, and not an inaccessible po-mo jargon tone. (I'm trying to make a point. Pardon my exaggeration; you're new verbage is not that bad.)

So if I change it back, will you revert me? I'll keep your modifications to the note. Rwflammang (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I will absolutely not revert you, if you agree to watch this page and when some IP shows up to argue you will argue with him.... Good luck. History2007 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed 'episode' to 'event' in agreement with Rwflammang - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Metamorphosis

Why is 'metamorphosed' put forward in the opening sentence of this article as an alternative to 'transfigured'? Metamorphosis is usually seen as a permanent change, such as from caterpillar to pupa to butterfly - the word is used in these articles. It is not correct to suggest that the change in appearance which Jesus is portrayed as undergoing in the transfiguration was a permanent change - quite the contrary.
BobKilcoyne (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed this word - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

reference style

So a whole bunch of references have been inserted (relatively) recently (yeah I dont get out much) directly into the text rather than as footnotes. Please correct these before I correct them in my rather chainsaw fashion. Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sant'Apollinare in Classe (Ravenna) - Saint Apollinaris mosaic 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word ‘Event’ to describe biblical narratives, is it accurate?

@Rwflammang @BobKilcoyne @History2007 @Nythar Hi there, I’d like to open up this can of worms again, specifically in reference to the opening sentence to this article, why is the wording ‘event in the New Testament’ which implies is has happened, rather that ‘narrative in the New Testament’, which more accurately describes what the article is about. Using the current wording is not the correct usage of this word and gives the article a less than neutral tone. I see @Rwaflammang previous talk on this subject, with my understanding being that the conclusion is that the distinction is not important, however in order for the article to remain neutral, isn’t it is important to be as clear as possible when using language about things that are of conflicted historical accuracy. It’s unclear how being more accurate is being vaguer, just because it doesn’t slip off the tongue as smoothly. It seems to be that episode and event are both implying it actually happened, yet narrative describes it without explicitly implying it’s truth or it’s fiction, as it hasn’t been proved or disproved by any consensus, thereby remaining neutral:

A narrative, story, or tale is any account of a series of related events or experiences,whether nonfictional (memoir, biography, news report, documentary, travelogue, etc.) or fictional(fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel, etc.).

Event

noun [ C ]

UK   /ɪˈvent/ US   /ɪˈvent/

B1

anything that happens, especially something important or unusual:

This year's Olympic Games will be the biggest eversporting event.

Susannah's party was the social event of the year.

The police are trying to determine the series of events that led up to the murder. Neddo23.nr (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fine to use it; "narrative" is too vague, as the whole of each gospel is a narrative. I don't see any of the dictionaries you quote saying anything against this usage. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. But dictionaries don’t quote against usage generally they more often define it. Although I’m not sure if this conflicts with other Wikipedia editing policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". I would’ve thought is was more specific, as this article is about a small narrative within a larger narrative the gospels, not a single event. An event can’t be more than one event without it becoming a series of events (which is more convoluted).

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36) describe it, and the Second Epistle of Peter also refers to it (2 Peter 1:16–18).

In these accounts, (1 event.) Jesus and three of his apostles, Peter, James, and John, go to a mountain (later referred to as the Mount of Transfiguration) to pray. On the mountaintop, (2 events) Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. (3 events) Then the Old Testament figures Moses and Elijah appear next to him and he speaks with them. Both figures had eschatological roles: they symbolize the Law and the prophets, respectively. (4 events) Jesus is then called "Son" by the voice of God the Father, as in the Baptism of Jesus.

It seems vaguer as it is to me, as the word event is singular. But maybe that conflicts with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however hopefully it’s not just a case of it’s good enough as is…. Neddo23.nr (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Normally an event is broken down into "actions". In normal English usage, a United States presidential inauguration is an event - just one. Using your method it would be 200 events, but it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks again, I still see it differently, but appreciate your point of view. As far as I can see each one of these events is a tangible seperate event not necessarily an action either, which belies the spiritual nature of the source texts (apparitions and the voice of god calling, can’t really be called actions as such, which is the action, god calling or god being heard or both or are they actions and their associated reactions, and how do these fairly complex smaller elements make up a single event). It is more describing an interaction than a singular thing, the article title already states that is about a singular topic, this doesn’t need to be restated in the opening sentences in place of a more descriptive term.

This is why I think it should be narrative, in larger articles about gospel pages it’s set of texts, or historical books, written account. Narrative fits with this terminology and has more flexibility in articulating what the sources are describing. It is a also a completely neutral term. Neither more or less descriptive than necessary. A presidential inauguration isn’t a narrative, unless you can count it being in the newspapers and on tv, so there is no other possible description than calling it an event, as in

a planned public or social occasion.

"staff have been holding a number of events to raise money for charity"

There are several fairly specific definitions for other usages of the word event, such as sporting event, social occassion etc. Event to describe this narrative just loops between event, action, reaction, happening, interaction and narrative, which is vague and circular, one has to use significant deduction just to unlace what the article is actually about, with no reference to it being part of the biblical canon as the sources support. Introduction is so important, because it leads the rest of the text, if it’s not aptly used, it’s harder to read. The article is about the transfiguration of Jesus, the article isn’t actually itself the transfiguration of Jesus.

I don’t think these things are exclusive to one single rule fits all semantics though. Neddo23.nr (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Neddo23.nr, thanks for raising this. Taking account of the comments above, I still have a minor preference for "event in the New Testament" rather than "episode". The phrase "event in the New Testament" allows the reader to interpret the historicity of the account in the same way as they might interpret other New Testament usage. It is not as if the article said the transfiguration was an event in AD30 or some similar year. The words "episode" and "narrative" are better suited to each of the evangelists' accounts, for example "Matthew 17:1-8 is an episode in the Gospel which records the occasion when Jesus and three of his followers went up a mountain", or "Matthew's narrative and Mark's narrative both state that "He was transfigured before them" (NKJV text) whereas Luke's narrative does not use the word 'transfigured'".

I notice in passing that the Life of Jesus in the New Testament article describes the transfiguration as "an episode in the New Testament narrative", although the words "event" and "episode" are both used frequently in that article. The word "metamorphosed" is also still used in that article but I am intending to remove that now in accordance with the reasoning above. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC) - This change has now been made.

Thanks. Sorry to be so pedantic.

Yes fair enough, I agree that event does work better than the convoluted alternative episode in the New Testament narrative, which is overkill. And metamorphoses has a different meaning to transfiguration.

I guess it just sounds a bit like two separate statements are trying to be made in one sentence, saying the article is about an event in a book but that it’s also about the narrative of that event in that book. It can’t be about both at once without the inclusion of a verb such as described to express the events relevance to the book, in that statement, this doesn’t question its historicity, it just identifies the word ‘event’s relevance to the rest of the sentence. It’s a bit of a circular and cryptic word placement as opposed to linear and logical usage, which would enhance the meaning, rather than confuse it by the slightly loose use of the word event, and apologies if my interpretation is overly literal, but it sounds like it’s an event that only exists in a book, that lives in a book? It’s both an event and it’s described (as is stated in the second sentence) in the New Testament regardless of whether or not it’s factual.

Taking into account your comments on using the word narrative more appropriately to describe individual narratives of the event, and fully acknowledging I’m a total newbie, I wonder if the below sentence would make more sense, while still allowing the reader to make their own interpretation:

The Transfiguration of Jesus is an event described in the New Testament, where Jesus is transfigured and becomes radiant in glory upon a mountain.

And re edit and simplify the second sentence which is a bit clunky and doesn’t need the additional description, which sounds more appropriate in the first sentence.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36) , and the Second Epistle of Peter refer to it (2 Peter 1:16–18). Neddo23.nr (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. For me, described in the first sentence would be a useful addition, but I would want to note that 2 Peter "refers" to the transfiguration in a way which differs from how the three gospels give an account of what they say took place. BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, duly noted. Perhaps as recounted or reported (if it’s not too old fashioned) by the three gospels and your original the Second Epistle of Peter also refers to it, to avoid using describe twice? Neddo23.nr (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to go with that: perhaps "The Synoptic Gospels ... recount the occasion, and the Second Epistle of Peter refers to it? BobKilcoyne (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds much better, thanks for collaborating with a newcomer. I concur. Neddo23.nr (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Article now amended, pleasure to work with you. BobKilcoyne (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unique?

"the miracle happens to Jesus himself"

Are you nuts?

WHat about the alleged resurrection and the so called immaculate conception? With whom did that happen if not with Jesus? Ok, the second with Mary too, but with Jesus. Allegedly.

Your fairy tales are already confused enough, dont make that bigger with idiotic statements!

2003:C1:B700:2D00:5912:C950:FB11:D3DB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)