Markus Kleinert
Abstract: The paper examines the neglect of the Transfiguration of Christ in the Western churches and the cultures influenced by them. The neglect is explained by Luther’s critique of a theologia gloriae and its aftermath, which causes an indirect and hidden influence of the Transfiguration in den West.
PDF Keywords: Transfiguration, theologia crucis, Luther, Raphael, Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg, Nietzsche
I. Questions
How relevant and present the Transfiguration of Christ on the mountain is in Eastern Christianity hardly needs explanation: Icons bring it to mind, churches call it to mind through their patronage, and also from the perspective of the history of religion it is evident, if we only think of the mysticism of the Tabor light and its theoretical and practical formations in Palamism and Hesychasm. It is equally obvious that the Transfiguration has received relatively little attention in Western Christianity. But how can this striking difference be understood? And what consequences can it have for the Eastern and Western cultures, perhaps even and especially when these cultures are no longer directly religious but understand themselves as secular? In order to prepare possible answers to these questions, I would like to concentrate in this paper on the Western perspective on the Transfiguration and show that the history of the Transfiguration in Western Christianity and the culture shaped by it is nevertheless more complex than it seems at first glance; yet, the Transfiguration can become important where it is less expected, i.e. not in the dominant religion or theology, but in heterodox faiths or in the arts and in philosophy. Thus, there is a more or less secret history of the impact of the Transfiguration in the West. At the same time, reasons can be given why the Transfiguration has received little attention in the mainstream of Western Christianity and the culture it has shaped. As a result, few scholars have studied this cultural impact of the Transfiguration, whose research has often been initiated by the contrast between Eastern Church relevance and Western Church indifference. Thus, the Eastern and Western perspectives on the Transfiguration are often related with religious and cultural programmatic intentions: either as antitheses or as complements.[1]
II. Bible episode
It may be useful first to revisit the biblical Transfiguration. In religious contexts, the term ‘transfiguration’ denotes a glorification or transformation into glory, of which the resurrection of the dead and their admission into the kingdom of heaven is an example. In the Bible, however, the concept of transfiguration is associated primarily with one transformation scene: with the Transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain, which is reported in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Mt 17,1-13; Mk 9,2-13; Lk 9,28-36). The synoptic gospels describe the Transfiguration in a sequence of events quite dramatic: first, Jesus’s ascent of the mountain with three disciples and his transformation (“His face shone like the sun”, Mt 17,2; “His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them”, Mk 9,3); the appearance of Moses and Elijah next to Jesus; the fear or bewilderment of the disciples; the voice of God the Father sounding from the cloud to affirm Jesus as his Son; and, finally, the descent from the mountain, along with Jesus’s command to the disciples to remain silent about these events until the resurrection of the dead (a command which must have been almost as difficult to understand as the theophanic transformation on the mountain). The time structure of this episode is striking. The episode describes a temporary or transitory transformation and glorification, an anticipation of glory, as opposed to the final transformation through Resurrection and Ascension; and this temporary emergence of Jesus in his highness takes place before his appearance in extreme lowness, before the Passion. The biblical narration points out the paradoxical unity of Man and God in Jesus in an inverse presentation – Jesus appears in his godly nature only before Easter when he is temporarily glorified, while the eternally glorified Jesus after Easter shows himself only in his human nature. The spectacular yet confusing story of the Transfiguration seems hard to ignore, since it is a central element in the Gospels (as already implied by where the story is placed within the texts): It occupies the midway point of the life of Jesus, where it points back to his baptism and forward towards the Parousia, and it reinforces the interconnectedness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. At the same time, the Transfiguration of Christ links the New Testament to the Old Testament, whether one puts emphasis on the difference or the cohension; for the former, we have the superseding of Mosaic law through the Gospel of Christ, and for the latter we have the acknowledgment of a common authority by analogizing Elijah with John the Baptist.
Despite the story’s central position, its singular structure and many possible points of connection, the story of the Transfiguration of Christ is marginalized in Western modernity. The Western disinterest in the Transfiguration cannot be explained simply by referring to secularization and waning religious education. It might be more instructive to look at religious-immanent motives for the disinterest. And these motives can still be relevant today since confessions can stay culturally formative under secular conditions. So, let us look more closely at the relationship between the Lutheran Reformation and the Transfiguration of Christ.
III. Luther’s Influence: Terminology, Theology, Iconography
Luther influenced the reception of the Transfiguration in various ways. In his translation of the Bible, he used the German word ‘Verklärung’ to translate ‘metamorphosis’. The German word ‘Verklärung’ evokes other associations and emphasizes the visual aspect of transformation, the appearance, brightness, and luminosity. It must be added that Luther here adopted a term that already existed in the German church, so he did not invent the term but rather authorized and popularized it (cf. for example the image caption on the so called Großes Zittauer Fastentuch [Large Zittau Lenten Cloth] 1472: “got sich vorclerte czu thabor off dem berge” [God transfigured Himself on mount Tabor]). Luther’s choice of words was certainly favored by the wide range of meanings of the word ‘clarity’, which can denote transparency as well as glory, two meanings that Luther combined in the theological-hermeneutical principle of the ‘clarity of Scripture’ (claritas scripturae). In the case of the Transfiguration, however, a special reason for Luther’s choice of words can be assumed: the differentiation from the metamorphosis concept of the pagan-antique tradition. The Transfiguration of Christ is, as Luther’s choice of words signals, a singular transformation and not just another metamorphosis. However, the transformation of Jesus is characterized by Luther in a way that not only distinguishes it from the pagan-ancient mythical metamorphoses, but at the same time emphasizes the anticipation of glory – and thus a problematic aspect for Luther’s own theology.
The connection between Transfiguration and Passion might easily be disregarded and the aspect of glorification isolated from the context of the salvation story (as it is often ascribed to Peter, Mt 17,4: “Lord, it is good for us to be here.”). This type of simplified Transfiguration would correspond to a theology that centers on God’s unconcealed glory and decentres the cross. In contrast to this Theology of Glory (theologia gloriae), Luther developed the Theology of the Cross (theologia crucis). According to the Heidelberg Disputation 1518,[2] God reveals His Glory to mankind only indirectly, through the opposite of the cross. Luther proposes that the true theologian does not recognize God directly based on visible works, because God can only be recognized indirectly through opposites and in opposites: “Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.” (Thesis 19)
Luther’s theology is important because it offers reasons for a religiously motivated distancing to any anticipated glorification. However, the theology developed in Luther’s disputation itself is also subject to misunderstanding. A common misunderstanding is that Luther’s criticism of the theologia gloriae is confused with a criticism of glory in itself, while the theologia crucis provides the correct foundation for referring to glory.
In addition to the obvious influence of his Bible translation and the latent influence of his theologia crucis, Luther might have affected the reception of the Transfiguration in yet another way. It is possible that Luther’s reformatory appearance and the Roman reactions to it did in fact influence Raphael during the years of designing his last painting (which was commissioned by Giulio de’ Medici, the later pope Clemens VII.). In his last painting, the most famous depiction of the Transfiguration of Jesus in Western art and for several centuries the most famous painting in the world at all, Raphael combines in an original way the Transfiguration of Jesus with the subsequent episode of the healing of a possessed (moonstruck) boy (Mk 9:14-29 parr.), so that the rapture into higher spheres interacts with the lower, demonic reality. If one follows the interpretation of the art historian Damian Dombrowski, then the lower half of the picture with the (imminent) healing of a possessed boy formed the original concept, which was supplemented and reinterpreted by Raphael under the impression of the Roman debate about Luther’s appearance by the upper Transfiguration motif, whereby Peter (the pope, the Catholic Church) moves to the center as mediator between the two halves of the picture.[3]
A comparable use of the Transfiguration motif to strengthen the position of Peter and the papal position can be found in Bernini’s work, who (as the art historian Kurt Rossacher has shown) originally intended the transfigured Christ and not the dove of the Holy Spirit for the glory window of the Cathedra Petri in St. Peter in Rome (framed by two Church Fathers each from the East and the West: John Chrysostom and Athanasius; Augustine and Ambrose).[4]
But in view of such masterpieces, can one still speak of a neglect of the Transfiguration in the West? Here it is worth taking a closer look at the reception history of Raphael’s Transfiguration (since Bernini’s Transfiguration window has not been realized). Raphael’s Transfiguration, from its creation until the 20th century, has been regarded as a Leitbild, eliciting innumerable commentaries, which, however, refer primarily to Raphael’s image concept rather than to the biblical sujet. In addition, there is an increased interest in the genius glorifying himself through his work. Symptomatically, the death of Raphael becomes itself a popular sujet for painting (for example in a drawing by Nicolas-André Monsiau from 1804). Finally, Raphael’s Transfiguration also lends itself to political instrumentalization: namely, the Transfiguration of Christ was not only related to Peter and the central position of the pope and the church, but also became a model for secular leaders and emperors (Napoleon). The religious meaning of Transfiguration of Christ plays a minor role in these variants of Raphael’s reception.
IV. Heterodoxy
Religious transfiguration is relevant in areas where, as already mentioned, one might expect it less, for example in mystical-heterodox writings. An excellent example is a text by Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg, the most prominent female German poet of the Baroque period, titled “Des Höchstheiligen JEsus-Lebens Neunte Betrachtung. Von seiner herrlichen Verklärung am Berge Tabor” [The ninth contemplation on the life of the most holy Jesus. On his glorious Transfiguration at Mount Tabor] (1693).[5] In her comprehensive contemplation on the glorious Transfiguration with detailed visions of celestial hierarchies and eternal bliss, Greiffenberg strictly maintains a Lutheran distance to the anticipated glory. So, Greiffenberg focusses on the relationship between revealing and not-revealing glory, since only the latter prepares the Passion, the progression of the salvation story and, in the end, the salvation of humankind. The poet evokes the paradox unity of Transfiguration and Passion, cross and glory:
“There it becomes apparent what a benefit He has done us by not letting his clarity appear: For if he had made his clarity-glory appear, then no man could have interrogated and bound him, consequently he could neither have suffered nor redeemed us: therefore we have all these graces to thank his renunciation.”[6]
V. Critique of Religion
It is certainly even more astonishing when religious transfiguration is mobilized in the context of criticism of religion – as in the case of Friedrich Nietzsche. Transfiguration is a leitmotif which runs from his early writings to the latest notes. Nietzsche’s own philosophical project might be characterized by comparing transformation models and their cultural impact. So, for example, Nietzsche wrote in a note from 1885: “there must be some who sanctify all acts, not just eating and drinking: and not merely through remembrance of these, or becoming one with them, but rather, by transfiguring this world, always anew and in new ways”.[7] Nietzsche’s secularized transfiguration alludes as a temporaryglorification to the Transfiguration of Christ. This does not mean that Nietzsche adopts the Christian frame of reference – instead, he performs his inversion and subversion by adopting a neglected element of Western Christianity without its horizon of earthly passion and heavenly glory.
VI. Research
The Western disinterest in the Transfiguration is mirrored in research, so there are only a few studies that venture beyond special (for example exegetical or art historical) questioning to explore the cultural influence of this Biblical motif. These exceptions include from the Catholic side Anton de Waal[8] and from the Anglican side Arthur Michael Ramsey[9]. With regard to the relationship between Eastern and Western Christianity, the studies of Konrad Onasch[10]are particularly important, in addition the more popular accounts of Nikolaus von Arseniew[11]. Furthermore, the Lutheran theologian Wilhelm Stählin, for example, pointed out the relevance of the Transfiguration for Christian existence in a small but very instructive article in 1963, emphasizing especially the cosmic (creation-theological) dimension. Since this aspect appears prominent in Eastern Church piety, ecumenic exchange could also contribute to a self-correction of the Protestant doctrine of justification:
“In this respect, the emphasis on the Transfiguration also has a distinctly ecumenical relevance, in that this biblical concept brings us close to an essential side of Eastern Church piety. Instead of denying the fullness of Scripture for the sake of an isolated and thus narrowed doctrine of justification, we should embrace the boldness of biblical thinking of the promise lying on the whole world. Only in the fullness and breadth of biblical thinking can the unity of the whole holy Church be established and maintained. Faith in the Transfiguration is an essential contribution to this fullness, which we have so often lost or denied.”[12]
This cosmological aspect is also emphasized in contemporary contributions to the topic, the consecration of the world connected with the Transfiguration of Christ, a transformation and glorification for whose continuation human mankind shares responsibility (for example John Chryssavgis).[13] This ecologically accented Orthodox theology can meet with Western approaches to a spiritual ecology.
After this sketch of the Western perspective on the Transfiguration, from Luther and Raphael to Friedrich Nietzsche and Wilhelm Stählin, what remains? What remains, and all the more strongly now, is the interest in the Eastern Church’s perspective on the Transfiguration and its cultural consequences.
[1] This essay is based on my book: Andere Klarheit. Versuch über die Verklärung in Kunst, Religion und Philosophie, Göttingen 2021.
[2] http://www.bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php
[3] Damian Dombrowski: Göttliches und Menschliches in Raffaels Transfiguration, in: Communio 37 (2008), p. 20-37; p. 31f.
[4] Kurt Rossacher (Hg.): Die Metamorphose. Künstlerentwürfe des römischen Barock, Salzburg 1979.
[5] Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg: Des Höchstheiligen JEsus-Lebens Neunte Betrachtung. Von seiner herrlichen Verklärung am Berge Tabor, in: Dies.: Des Allerheiligisten Lebens JESU Christi Ubrige Sechs Betrachtungen Von Dessen heiligem Wandel/ Wundern und Weissagungen/ von- und biß zu seinem Allerheiligsten Leiden und Sterben. Denen auch eine Andacht vom Heiligen Abendmahl hinzugefügt, Nuremberg 1693, p. 348-505.
[6] Ibid., p. 367: “Da erscheinet / was vor ein Wolthat Er uns durch die nit Erscheinen-Lassung seiner Klarheit gethan: Dann wann er seine Klarheits-Herrlichkeit hätte erscheinen lassen / so hätt ihn kein Mensch fragen und binden dürffen / folgends hätt er nicht leiden / noch uns erlösen können: daher wir alle diese Gnaden seiner Entäusserung zu danken haben.”
[7] Friedrich Nietzsche. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden (KSA), ed. by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, Munich – Berlin / New York 1999, KSA 12, 40 (NL 1885, 1[127]): “es muß solche geben, die alle Verrichtungen heiligen, nicht nur Essen und Trinken: und nicht nur im Gedächtniß an sie, oder im Eins-Werden mit ihnen, sondern immer von Neuem und auf neue Weise soll diese Welt verklärt werden.”
[8] Anton de Waal: Die Verklärung auf Thabor in Liturgie und Kunst, Geschichte und Leben, Hamm 1912. Cf. Anton Gundlach: Verklärung des Herrn. Die Botschaft vom Heiligen Berg, Munich 1957.
[9] Arthur Michael Ramsey: The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, London 1949.
[10] Konrad Onasch: Die Idee der metamorphōsis (Verklärung) in den Liturgien, in der russischen Philosophie und im russischen Frömmigkeitsleben, Danzig 1944.
[11] Nikolaus von Arseniew: Die Verklärung der Welt und des Lebens im ästhetischen und religiösen Erlebnis, Gütersloh 1955.
[12] Wilhelm Stählin: Verklärung, in: Ich glaube eine heilige Kirche, Festschrift für D. Hans Asmussen, ed. by Walter Bauer, Hellmut Heeger, Friedrich Hübner and Walter Zimmermann, Stuttgart and Berlin / Hamburg 1963, p. 80-86; p. 85: “Insofern hat die Betonung der Verklärung auch einen deutlich ökumenischen Bezug, indem uns dieser biblische Begriff eine wesentliche Seite der ostkirchlichen Frömmigkeit nahe bringt. Statt um einer isolierten und dadurch verengten Rechtfertigungslehre willen die Fülle der Heiligen Schrift zu verleugnen, sollten wir uns die Kühnheit des biblischen Denkens von der auf der ganzen Welt liegenden Verheißung zu eigen machen. Nur in der Fülle und Weite des biblischen Denkens kann die Einheit der ganzen heiligen Kirche begründet und erhalten werden. Der Glaube an die Verklärung ist ein wesentlicher Beitrag zu dieser Fülle, die wir so vielfach verloren oder verleugnet haben.”
[13] John Chryssavgis: A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality, and the Sacraments, in: John Chryssavgis / Bruce V. Foltz (eds.): Toward an Ecology of Transfiguration. Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature, and Creation, New York 2013, p. 152-171.
Philosophia 31/2023, pp. 5-15
Philosophia 