JSNT2012-Litwa-286-97. CA in Oglinda 2Cor3cu18

8/12/2019 JSNT2012-Litwa-286-97. CA in Oglinda 2Cor3cu18

1/13

http://jnt.sagepub.com/Testament

Journal for the Study of the New

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286

Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X114350442012 34: 286Journal for the Study of the New Testament

M. David LitwaTransformation through a Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor. 3.18

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the New TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 9, 2012Version of Record>>

by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.refs.htmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286http://jnt.sagepub.com/


2/13

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament

34(3) 286297 The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X11435044

jsnt.sagepub.com

Transformation through aMirror: Moses in 2 Cor. 3.18

M. David LitwaDepartment of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, VA, USA

Abstract

The odd juxtaposition of beholding God in a mirror and transformation in 2 Cor. 3.18 has

incited many commentators to grasp for some parallel from Greek magic (R. Reitzenstein),

catoptromantic ritual (H. Achelis), Dionysian mysteries (C. Wagner), Wisdom traditions(M. Thrall), Jewish hydromancy (J. Scott), vision mysticism (A. DeConick), or Greco-Romanmythology (A. Weissenrieder). All of these proposals, it is contended, fail to note the key

importance of Moses in 2 Cor. 3. Ancient Jewish exegetical traditions based on Num. 12.6-8 portray Moses seeing God through a mirror on Mt Sinai (Lev. Rabb.1.14; Philo, Leg. All.

3.99-101). Although most commentators note an allusion to Moses in another famousPauline reference to a mirror (1 Cor. 13.12), the allusion to the Mosaic mirror in 2 Cor.3.18 has not been explored. Using the Mosaic mirror traditions, this article argues that Paul

knew and used Mosaic mirror vision as the model for Christian catoptric seeing in 2 Cor.3.18. The Mosaic model indicates that the Christian vision through a mirror was thoughtof as both clear and involving a Mosaic-like metamorphosis into glory (Exod. 34.29-35).

Keywords

Mirror, Moses, Paul, Philo, rabbinic tradition, transformation, 2 Cor. 3.12-18

Introduction

The strange juxtaposition of mirror vision and transformation in 2 Cor. 3.18 has incited

many commentators to seek for some background for Pauls image of the mirror. Richard

Reitzenstein (1916: 247-48) compared the mirror to a mirror of divination mentioned in

a Late Antique magical text (Zosimuss ). Looking intothis mirror involved both a vision of God, Reitzenstein proposed, and a literal transforma-

tion into spirit. Soon thereafter, Hans Achelis (1918: 62-63) drew upon Greek

Corresponding author:

M. David Litwa, Department of Religious Studies, University ofVirginia, PO Box 400126, Charlottesville,

VA 22904-4126, USA

Email:[email protected]

JNT34310.1177/0142064X11435044LitwaJournal for theStudy of the NewTestament

Article

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/13

Litwa 287

catoptromantic rituals.1The mirror, said Achelis, was a magic mirror. The object of the

vision was God. The Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 13.12 was a riddling image whichrevealed the future.2In the mid-twentieth century, Christian Wagner (1958: 370-81)

compared the mirror to a scene from the Great Frieze of Pompeiis Villa of the Mysteries.

In the relevant panel, a satyr looks intently into a bowl (presumably filled with liquid)and sees the image of a silen mask held up behind him. Wagner posited that the satyr was

a Dionysian initiate who saw his face transformed into the image of the mask. Drawing

on Plotinus, he identified the mask with the great Bacchus. Thus by gazing into the

mirror, Wagner inferred, the initiate underwent an identification with the god.3More

recently, Margaret Thrall (1994: I, 293) has attempted to derive the mirror metaphor from

Wis. 7.25-26: For she [Wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the

working of God ( ), and an image of hisgoodness. In this interpretation, Christ identified with Wisdom in 1 Cor. 1.30 serves

as the revelatory mirror into which Christians look to behold Gods glory. James Scott(1998: 100) derived the mirror in 2 Cor. 3.18 from Ezekiels vision by the Chebar canal.4

The canals reflectivity appears to stem from a reading of Ezek. 1.4, where the phrase

(NRSV: something like gleaming amber) can be understood as a mirrorof bright metal.5April DeConick (2001: 65-66) situated 2 Cor. 3.18 in the context of

ancient vision mysticism, reconstructed from an assortment of Jewish, Hermetic and

Gnostic texts. She argued that Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 3.18 of a face-to-face encounter with

oneself because he employs the middle form of , which, according toDeConick, designates self-vision. From this perspective, the vision in 3.18 is a vision of

ones divine self into which one is transformed. Most recently, Annette Weissenrieder(2005: 313-43) compared Pauls mirror vision to the myths of Perseus and Narcissus.6

1. Achelis was specifically studying the mirror in 1 Cor. 13.12, but his proposals apply equally

to the mirror in 2 Cor. 3.18.

2. For a critique of Achelis, see Behm 1929: 322-25. Alan Segal (1990: 323-24 n. 94) mentions

catoptromancy (specifically lecomancy) in reference to 2 Cor. 3.18, citing a number of spells

(PGM4.154-285;PDM14.1-92, 295-308, 395-427, 528-53, 627-35, 805-40, 841-50, 851-55).

The proposal only comes in passing in a footnote, however, and receives no development.

3. The interpretation of this frieze is hotly contested, a fact that leaves Wagners view precarious.

Otto J. Brendel (1980: 106-107), for instance, identified the silen mask with Akratos, the

daemon of the unmixed wine. He left open the possibility whether the satyr was about to drink

the wine or was looking into it. Nancy T. de Grummond (2002: 74) has argued for bowl divina-

tion in the scene, viewing the mask as a prophesying silen seen within the bowl.

4. Scott was partially dependent on Seyoon Kim (1984: 231-33), who traced the mirror language in

3.18 to visions of God seen through the medium of a shining crystal firmament (cf. Ezek. 1.22).

5. This reading ultimately derives from O. Procksch (1920: 141-49, esp. 142 n. 1, and 144).

6. In the article, Weissenrieder also discussed Euclidean optics in relation to Pauline mirror vision.

According to Euclid, the light ray flowing from the eye rebounds off the surface of the mirror

to return to make contact with the viewer (thus combining aspects of both an extramission and

an intromission theory of vision). The tactile-like quality of the ray allows it to have a trans-

formative effect on the object seen (in this case, the viewer). Thus no magic mirror is required

for transformation (2005: 320-26, 343). The points are sound, but not apropos to Pauls reason-

ing in 2 Cor. 3.18, for there the transformation occurs through divine power and not through

the simple mechanics of catoptric vision.



4/13

288 Journal for the Study of the New Testament34(3)

Perseus neutralized the harmful effects of Medusas gaze by beholding the gorgons image

in a mirror.7Narcissus fell in love with a bodiless phantom which became a symbol of

death. In these myths, the act of looking into a mirror, Weissenrieder claimed, is transfor-

mative because the reflected image in the one case makes the harmful look of Medusa

invisible,8and in the other changes the self-relatedness of Narcissus into a bodily hope.9

To understand the function and meaning of the mirror, these interpreters have largely

sought to interpret 2 Cor. 3.18 through (perceived) parallels either from Greco-Roman

sources or from the world of Hellenistic Judaism.10Although their attempt at comparison

is admirable, one gets the sense that they have somewhat too quickly introduced a recon-

structed religio-historical horizon somewhat foreign to Pauls characteristic thought forms.11

This is especially problematic for those leaning on Greco-Roman materials, since Paul is

generally characterized by (at least a conscious) resistance to ideas and practices he sees

as religiously other and false.12Consequently, the theory that he referred to a magic

mirror, or a mirror of divination, a mirror in the cult of Bacchus, or even a mirror inGreco-Roman mythology would, in my judgment, be unlikely in 2 Cor. 3.18. This is not

to say that the interpreters who used Jewish texts as bases of comparison are without their

own difficulties. Aside from the question of water divination as a practice acceptable to

Paul, it is somewhat doubtful that he was familiar with reading in Ezek 1.4 as mir-ror.13The direct statement that Ezekiel used the water of the canal as a reflective surface

comes from the late book Visions of Ezekiel.We cannot presume that Paul would have

known of this tradition, especially since there is, in the words of David Halperin (1988:

232), no direct evidence that Jews engaged in water-divination either with rivers or with

bowls of water. DeConicks argument that signifies self-vision is gram-matically correct, but improbable since Paul clearly presents glory as the object of theverb and not the self. Thralls theory though arguably closest to Pauls thought world

suffers from the fact that the revelatory mirror in the Wisdom of Solomon differs from

the revelatory and transformativemirror in 2 Cor. 3.18. Wisdom reveals God, but does

7. On Perseus and the mirror, see also Vernant 1991: 141-50.

8. But note the interpretation of Rabun Taylor (2008: 170): this mirror [of Perseus] worked

precisely againstmetamorphosis against the petrification that befell anyone unlucky enough

to have an unmediated encounter with the gorgon. 9. Das Spiegelbild macht den bsen Blick der Medusa unsichtbarund es verndert die

Selbstbezogenheit des Narziss hin zu einer krperlichen Hoffnung (2005: 341). Weissenrieders

interpretation of these myths seems a bit strained and, to my knowledge, has no precedent

among ancient writers. Furthermore, the transformations to which Weissenrieder points, if they

can be called such, are manifestly different from transformations into divine glory. Indeed,

throughout her essay, Weissenrieder seems more interested in the transformation of the image

which is inthe mirror rather than the one whoseesthe image in the mirror, as in 2 Cor. 3.18.

10. The Greco-Roman background of the mirror (a well-known Hellenistic image) is taken for

granted by Harm W. Hollander in a recent contribution toJSNT(2010: 402).

11. The term religio-historical horizon is DeConicks (2001: 67).12. See Barclay (1996: 390-93).

13. The interpretation ofin Ezek. 1.4 is contested. The Septuagint translates it by ,appearance. Moshe Greenburg (1983: 43) understood it to mean color (as in Lev. 13.5, 55;

Num. 11.7; Prov. 23.31) with the full phrasemeaning like the color, appearance of.



5/13

Litwa 289

not transform the viewer into the image of it- (or her)self. In point of fact, although each

interpretation of the mirror picks up individual elements in 3.18, none of them present the

elements in the correct sequence: an act of unveiling, a vision of a divine being, and a

transformation into the image of that being. Thus none of them are fully parallel with 2

Cor. 3.18. Perhaps most surprising, however, is that none of the interpreters surveyedlinked their theories of the mirror with the flow of Pauls thought in the broader context

of 2 Cor. 3. None of them, that is, turned to the story of Moses to illuminate the background

and meaning of Pauls mirror.

To see the importance of Moses to Paul in 2 Cor. 3.18, one must merely note the context

of ch. 3, in particular vv. 12-18. The text is as follows:

Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a

veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was

being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear thereading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.

Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one

turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of

the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord

as though reflected in a mirror (), are being transformed into the sameimage from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit (2 Cor.

3.12-18; NRSV).

In these verses, Paul is interpreting a story (or several interwoven stories) of Moses

through a matrix of Jewish traditions. I emphasize reading the story through Jewishtraditionsbecause it is not at all certain that Paul in 2 Cor. 3 is interpreting Scripture

directly.14There is, in my reading, no Septuagintal reference to Moses mirror vision of

Gods glory. Trying to find such a reference is similar to trying to find a scriptural basis

for Moses supposedly fading glory (2 Cor. 3.13) it simply does not exist in the text of

Exodus as we have it.15

It must be mentioned that various commentators have attempted to derive Moses vision

of God from a conflationary reading of Exod. 33 and 34.16In the former chapter, Moses

asks to see Gods glory, and in the latter Moses sees Gods back. Thus the lawgiver sees

Gods glory indirectly, as it were. But this inferential exegesis, even if reasonable, stilldoes not explain the mirror, since indirect vision is simply not equivalent to vision through

a mirror (which Exodus does not mention). Scholars cannot claim, then, that the Exodus

14. Thus I must take issue with interpreters like Dumbrell (1986: 189-90), who tend to root every

exegetical move of Paul in 2 Cor. 3.12-18 in a strong reading of Exod. 3334. Dumbrell con-

veniently glides over the fact that no mirror is present in the Exodus narratives.

15. Belleville (1993: 172, 174, 183) made a valiant attempt to find the fading glory in extra-

scriptural traditions (most importantly PhilosMos.2.69 andL.A.B.19.16); but her results

are based mostly on her own inferences, or exceedingly late texts (such as the Zohar).

I should note that the very translation fading (for ) is disputed (as seenin the NRSV translation above).

16. E.g., Larsson 1962: 279 n. 1; Thrall 1994: 295; and most recently Rabens 2010: 183-84.



6/13


narratives give us the full background for Moses mirror vision.17Even if we include Num.

12.8 (LXX), which explicitly says that Moses saw Gods glory, we still lack a mirror.

To locate the mirror we need access to the exegetical traditionsthrough which Paul

read Scripture. The text of Num. 12.6-8 accumulated a number of traditions decisive for

our interpretation. I claim absolutely no originality in pointing out these traditions, whichhave often been used to interpret 1 Cor. 13.12 (where Paul also mentions a mirror).18I do

claim, however, that these traditions have not gained sufficient recognition among inter-

preters of 2 Cor. 3.18.

The Exegetical Origin of the Mirror in 2 Cor. 3.18

First, then, we turn to the text in Numbers itself. Chapter 12 records Gods attempt to

resolve a controversy between Moses the prophet and his jealous siblings. Verses 6-8 are

Gods oracle announcing Moses preeminence.

And he [God] said, Hear my words.

When there are prophets among you,

I the LORD make myself known to them in visions ();

I speak to them in dreams.

Not so with my servant Moses;

he is entrusted with all my house.

With him I speak face to face clearly (), not in riddles;

and he beholds the form of the LORD (NRSV)

The text raised at least two problems for rabbinic interpreters: (1) it seemed to imply

that Moses vision of God was direct, in contradiction to Exod. 33.20 (No one shall see

me [God] and live), and (2) the text seemed to highlight the superior vision of Moses but

17. This view is assumed by Huged (1957: 63). More recently, Belleville (1993: 275) regards 2

Cor. 3.18 as a phrase-by-phrase commentary on Exod. 34.35. Rabens (2010: 186) states that

the [Moses] narrative [in Exod. and Num.] contains all the necessary elements for the elucida-

tion of transformation through contemplation. His remark is somewhat misleading because

in 2 Cor. 3.18, the subject is seeing through a mirror; and this very specific kind of seeing

cannot be converted into a more general sense of contemplation.

18. The traditions (discussed below) were noted long ago in the standard works of Strack andBillerbeck (19781983: III, 452-54) and G. Kittel (1965: 178-80), on whom several scholars

depend. Dautzenberg (1975: 172-85) applied the traditions to 1 Cor. 13.12. Wolff (1989: 78)

applied Dautzenbergs results to 2 Cor. 3.18, but with scant development and minimal results.



7/13

Litwa 291

used the very same word () to describe normal prophetic as well as superior Mosaicvision. The first problem I will treat further below; for now, I turn to the second.

The word translating prophetic visions in Num. 12.6 is morphologically the same as

the word the NRSV translates by the adverb clearly in v. 8:

. Rabbinic tradition

vocalized this word in both instances as, which in rabbinic Hebrew primarily meansmirror (Jastrow 1950: I, 835) Thus normal prophetic vision was in a mirror (v. 6), as

was Mosaic vision (v. 8). This reading produced a troubling incongruity in the text, and

raised the question How then was Moses mirror vision different from the mirror vision

of the prophets?

One way to answer this question focused on the number of mirrors used by prophets.

According to a tradition inLev. Rabb. 1.14 (Margulies 1993: I, 30-32), the prophets beheld

their visions through nine mirrors (), while Moses looked through onlyone.19The nine mirrors derive from Ezek. 43.3, which uses the root the same rootas the word for mirror nine times.20Moses single mirror, then, apparently derives fromthe single use of this root in Num. 12.8.

Another solution appears inLev. Rabb., namely that Moses looked through a polished

mirror ( ), while the other prophets looked through a dirty mirror( ).21The dirty mirror appears to derive from Hos. 12.11, whichsays that God multiplied prophetic vision ( ). The multiple visions of the

prophets evidently came from a dirty reflecting surface, since dirt distorts the refraction

of light, causing multiple images. In contrast, Moses saw a single, clear image, which

assumes that he was looking through a clean, polished mirror.22The single, clear image

which Moses saw derives from a reading of Num. 12.8b, he sees the form of the LORD.The singular word form (, which can also mean likeness) suggested, at least tothe rabbinic mind, a single image.

19. This tradition is attributed to R. Judah (c. 200 CE) though the dating of this tradition and all

the rabbinic traditions dealt with below cannot be pinpointed with precise accuracy. The rab-

binic loanword derives from the Latinspecularia, meaning window panes, orsimply windows (e.g., Seneca,Ep. 90.25; Pliny,Ep. 2.17.4, 21; Martial, Epigram.8.14;

Juvenal, Sat.4.21). Jastrow (1950: I, 96) defined the rabbinic term as a window-pane, and

metaphorically as a prophetic vision. There are, however, clear places in rabbinic literaturewhere means mirror. In theMekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, for instance, a commenton Exod. 18.21 ( , You [Moses] should also look for [able men] [NRSV]) reads,You shall look for them with thespecularia(), with the mirror () throughwhich kings try to see (Amalek 3, trans. Lauterbach [1961: II, 183]). (or ) isan undisputed word for mirror, used synonymously with (Sokoloff 2002: 300).Likewise in Gen. Rabb.91.6, Jacob sees that Joseph is in Egypt by looking in an .Here Jacob is certainly not looking through a window pane. For further support of as mirror, see Gruenwald 1970: 95-97.

20. Rabbinic interpreters counted in Ezek. 43.3 twice because it is plural.21. Cf. b. Yeb.49a.22. Contrast Fishbane (1986: 72), who focuses on Hos. 12.11, seeing in it an implicit al tiqre

interpretation: notby the prophets I spoke in parables () but (I was imagined).It is not clear, however, how this reading relates to a dirty mirror.



8/13


The passage inLev. Rabb.continues with a parable or mashal:

R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Hoshaiah. [This may be compared] to a king who allowed

himself to be seen by his intimate friend [lit. son of his house, cf. Num. 12.7] by means of his

image ().23Because in this world the Shekinah manifests itself to chosen individuals;but in the world to come what is written? And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and theywill see [it together] (Isa. 40.5).

In context, this interpretation indicates that at Sinai Moses was looking at Gods image,

and that this foreshadows the eschatological age when all people will recapitulate this

experience. It is important to note that the mirror Moses looks at in the previous two inter-

pretations has become an image (). Second, Moses looking at Gods image isfunctionally equivalent to the glory seen by everyone in the world to come.24The semantic

associations of glory and image as well as image and mirror indicate that we are

close to the kind of interpretation we see in 2 Cor. 3.18.25

The Mosesmirror connection also appears in Philos allegorical interpretation of Genesis

(Leg. All.3.99-101), where Moses asks God to reveal himself through a mirror. This text is

often cited by commentators to clarify the meaningof the mirror (beholding not reflecting),26

but not the exegetical originof the mirror. The latter topic will be my focus here.

The point of Philos commentary is to distinguish Moses from other less perfect and

pure minds. While the latter gain their knowledge of God solely through the shadow of

nature, Moses lifts his eyes above and beyond the creation to behold a clear reflection

of the Ingenerate ( ). Philo calls this vision an apprehen-sion of God from himself (), which he specifies as a vision of Gods Logos( , 100). The text Philo interprets is Exod. 33.13, which, in a literaltranslation of the Septuagint, reads: Manifest yourself to me, that I might see you know-

ingly. Philo glosses this text with an additional speech put in Moses mouth:

[F]or I pray you not to be reflected to me through heaven or earth, water or air or through anything

whatsoever of generate reality. Nor would I behold as in a mirror () your form( ) through anything else than through you who are God. For the reflections in generatereality break apart, but those in ingenerate reality remain singular, firm, and eternal (3.101,

authors trans.).

To repeat the significant line, nor would I behold as in a mirror () yourform through anything else than through you who are God the statement is a gloss on

23. Other MSS read here: signs, or emblems.24. We see the same association of form (or image) and glory in Targum Onkelos, which interprets

Num. 12.8b, he beholds the form () of the LORD as he beholds the image of the gloryof the Lord ( ).

25. Wolff (1989: 78 n. 144) also points out that Num. 12.8 and Exod. 34.29-35 are also exegeti-

cally linked inLev. Rabb. 20.10. Hulmi (1999: 157 n. 59) sees the mirror of Moses inMemarMarqah5.3. Peace be upon you [Moses], with whom Yahweh speaks face to face in a mirror

(), not secretly.26. See, e.g., the commentaries of Windisch (1924: 128), Bultmann (1976: 97) and Furnish

(1984: 214).



9/13

Litwa 293

Exod. 33.13 Manifest yourself to me, but the language of the mirror recalls the rabbinic

exegesis of Num. 12.8 (which verse Philo soon quotes as a prooftext, 103). 27In the

Septuagints translation of Num. 12.8 a mirror does not appear. The Hebrew word that

rabbinic tradition understood as mirror () is translated by the phrase (in a form). This phrase seems to be picked up in Philos line, nor would I behold your

form (). The fact that this is seen in a mirror is hardly intuitive, whichsuggests that Philo was familiar with the exegetical tradition we find in later rabbinic

literature.28In this reading, , as we saw, is read as in a mirror. Even if Philo wasunfamiliar with the linguistic basis of this reading, he seems aware of the tradition.

Importantly, Philos use of the tradition allows us to locate it in time and space, namely

in the early first-century Alexandrian Jewish community. The Corinthian connection to

Alexandria through Apollos (well-versed in the scriptures, Acts 18.24) is secure. Pauls

familiarity with the mirror image is thus not far-fetched.29Importantly, Philo shows us

that the Sinai episode was already exegetically linked with the vision of God through amirror in Num. 12.8, exactly the link I wish to propose that Paul made in 2 Cor. 3.18.30

The Meaning of the Mirror

If we have located the exegetical origin of the mirror, we can ask why Paul used the image

in the context of his own thought. His purpose may have been similar to that of Philo and

Lev. Rabb. Some rabbinic interpreters were uncomfortable, it seems, with reading (vision or appearance) in Num. 12.8 because it implied that Moses vision of God was

direct and unmediated. To avoid this reading, rabbinic tradition read (mirror),which put a layer of mediation between Moses and God. For his part, Philo repeatedly

emphasized that God cannot be seen in his own essence, but only through the natural

world (for the lower grade of initiates) and the Logos (for the higher grade). The Logos

thus serves as a layer of mediation the metaphorical mirror between Moses and the

primal God, or Philos Existent.

In both cases, Mosaic mirror vision can hardly be described as unclear.31Rabbinic

tradition set only one mirror between Moses and God, and ensured that it was polished.

27. In Greek, the exegetical connection between the Exodus and Numbers texts was probably theword translated Manifest () in the phrase Manifest yourself to me. The word is related to the noun , which can mean reflection. We might thustranslate Moses request in Exod. 33.13 ( ) as Make yourselfappear to me as a reflection a reflection which may have suggested a likeness or an image

such as we have in Num. 12.8.

28. For Philos modest knowledge of Palestinian aggadic tradition, see Bamberger 1977: 153-85.

29. He could also conceivably have learned it in Palestine, since the exegetical origin of the tradi-

tion assumes a knowledge of Hebrew.

30. The LXX already begins to connect Num. 12.8 (Moses vision of God) with Exod. 33.17-23

(Moses vision of Gods glory) by translating as and (he sees) with theaorist verb suggesting a definite past incident of divine revelation (e.g., Exod. 34)(DAngelo 1979: 100).

31. The clarity of mirror vision in the ancient world was already underscored by older commentators

(Weiss 1977: 318-20; Windisch 1924: 128; Kittel 1965: 179 n. 9).



10/13


For Philo, the mirror through which Moses sees God is God himself in the person of

the Logos. Indeed, a clearer vision can hardly be conceived. Clarity exists side by side

with mediation.

I propose that Pauls mirror language in 2 Corinthians has the same general purpose,

namely to underscore both the clarity and mediation of the vision: clarityin that Christ,Gods very image and glory, is the mirror; mediationin that the eschatological face-to-face

vision remains unavailable.32

If this logic is cogent, we can conclude that the mirror vision in 2 Cor. 3.18 is neither

better nor worse than that of Moses. In this verse, Moses is neither an opponent to be

overcome nor a hero too high to be imitated. He is a model for the Christian experience

of seeing God, and transformation into Gods glory.33

This Mosaic background explains, I propose, why Paul in 2 Cor. 3.18 so quickly turns

to a verb of transformation. He has in mind Moses, whose vision of God in Numbers was

already exegetically tied to his transformation in Exodus. After Moses looks into Godsmirror on Sinai, he descends the mountain reflecting Gods glory (Exod. 34.29-35). That

the reflection of the glory was a transformation into glory seems to be a Pauline interpreta-

tion of the Mosaic tradition. (Here we may see Hellenistic influence through the back

door). The mirrors power to transform the viewer () in 2 Cor. 3.18 is clearlyan allusion to this transformation of Moses in Exod. 34.29-35. Moses is the one who

removes the veil, who sees the glory, and is transformed into it. All the pieces of 2 Cor.

3.18 fit together in the archetypal experience of Moses.

Importantly, the story of Moses unites both the idea ofseeingdivine glory in a mirror

(Num. 12.8) and reflectingit (Exod. 34.29-35) ideas naturally combined by Paul in 2Cor. 3.18. The two ideas are probably not found in Pauls single verb ,however, but in two verbs: (with the meaning of behold) and ,since transformation is the way Paul understands Moses reflecting Gods glory. That Paul

linked mirror-gazing and transformation so closely underscores the preexisting exegetical

link of Exod. 3334 and Num. 12.6-8. Just as Moses both beholds Gods glory through a

mirror and becomes the manifestation of that glory, so do Christians in 2 Cor. 3.18.

Conclusion

The strength of my reading is its firm link to Pauls flow of thought in 2 Cor. 3.12-18.

There, Paul is reshaping a story (or web of stories) about Moses unveiling himself and

32. The mediation of the vision is reinforced by Pauls usage of the mirror in 1 Cor. 13.12, where

seeing in a mirror corresponds to seeing in a riddle ( ) (Behm 1929: 338-39).33. Indisputably, Moses is negatively compared withPaulas a covenantal minister in 2 Cor. 3.13.

But this does not negate the idea that Moses is the model for Christiansin 3.18. Note how

quickly Paul turns from negatively comparing himself with Moses in 3.13 to a negative com-

parison of Jews (vv. 14-15) and Christians (we all in v. 18). His main point in vv. 14-18 is tocontrast Israels failure to see God with the churchs Spirit-empowered vision. Ironically,

Moses, scolded at the beginning of the section, can still be (implicitly) honored as a model of

vision when Paul introduces Christian experience (v. 18). Christian experience, unlike Jewish

experience, is Mosaic experience.



11/13

Litwa 295

turning to see the Lords glory in a tent. The story culminates with Moses obtaining a

clear vision of God through the mediation of a mirror. Just as Christians, with unveiled

faces (3.18), turn to the Lord as Moses did (3.16), so like Moses they behold Gods glory

in a mirror. In accord with Moses, Christians reflect Gods glory so vividly that they are

transformed into it. In this interpretation, Christ has apparently taken the role of God inthe Exodus account: he is the Glory of the Lord, seen as a mirror image in 2 Cor. 3.18.

In turn, Moses has become the model for Christians being transformed into the identical

image of the divine Christ.

References

Achelis, H.

1918 Katoptromancie bei Paulus, in H. Achelis et al., Theologische Festschrift fr G.

Nathanael Bonwetsche zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage(Leipzig: A. Deichertsche

Verlagsbuchhandlung): 56-63.

Bamberger, B.J.

1977 Philo and the Aggadah,HUCA48: 153-85.

Barclay, J.M.G.

1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE 177 CE)

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Behm, J.

1929 Das Bildwort vom Spiegel, 1 Kor 13: 12, in W. Koepp (ed.), Reinhold Seeberg-

Festschrift(Leipzig: Deichert): 315-42.

Belleville, L.

1993 Tradition or Creation? Pauls Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition, in C.A. Evans and

J.A. Sanders (eds.),Paul and the Scriptures of Israel(Sheffield: JSOT Press): 165-86.

Brendel, O.J.

1980 The Visible Idea: Interpretations of Classical Art(Washington, DC: Decatur House).

Bultmann, R.

1976 Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

DAngelo, M.R.

1979 Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews(SBLDS, 42; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).

Dautzenberg, G.

1975 Urchristliche Prophetie, ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und

ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).

DeConick, A.D.

2001 Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and

Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 157; Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press).

de Grummond, N.T.

2002 Mirrors, Marriage, and Mysteries, in C. Stein and J.H. Humphrey (eds.),Pompeian

Brothels, Pompeiis Ancient History, Mirrors and Mysteries, Art and Nature at Oplon-

tis, and the Herculaneum Basilica(Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary

Series, 47; Portsmouth, VA: Journal of Roman Archaeology): 62-86.



12/13


Dumbrell, W.

1986 Pauls Use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3, in P. OBrien and D. Peterson (eds.),

God Who Is Rich in Mercy(Homebush West, Australia: Lancer Books): 179-94.

Fishbane, M.

1986 Through the Looking-Glass: Reflections on Ezek. 43.4, Num. 12.8 and 1 Cor. 13.8,HAR10: 63-75.

Furnish, V.P.

1984 II Corinthians(AB, 32a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

Greenburg, M.

1983 Ezekiel,120: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary(AB, 22; Gar-

den City, NY: Doubleday).

Gruenwald, I.

1970 The and the Technique of the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Vision, Tarbiz40: 95-97 (Hebrew).

Halperin, D.

1988 The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiels Vision (Tbingen:

Mohr Siebeck).

Hollander, H.W.

2010 Seeing God in a Riddle or Face to Face: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13.12,

JSNT32: 395-404.

Huged, N.

1957 La mtaphore du miroir dans les ptres de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens(Neuchtel:

Delachaux et Niestl).

Hulmi, S.

1999 Paulus und Mose: Argumentation und Polemik in 2 Kor 3(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht).

Jastrow, M.

1950 Dictionary of Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic

Literature(2 vols.; New York: Pardes).

Kim, S.

1984 The Origin of Pauls Gospel(2nd edn; WUNT, 2/4; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Kittel, G.

1965 (), in TDNT: I, 178-80.

Larsson, E.

1962 Christus als Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten

(Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup Lund).

Lauterbach, J.Z.

1961 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael(Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society).

Margulies, M.

1993 Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and GenizahFragments with Variants and Notes(2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary).

Procksch, O.

1920 Die Berufungsvision Hesekiels,BZAW34: 141-49.



13/13

Litwa 297

Rabens, V.

2010 The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-

Ethical Life(WUNT, 2/283; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Reitzenstein, R.

1916 Historia Monachorum und Historia Lausiaca: Eine Studie zur Geschichte desMnchtums und der frhchristlichen Begriffe Gnostiker und Pneumatiker(Gttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Segal, A.

1990 Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee(New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press).

Scott, J.

1998 2 Corinthians(NIB; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Sokoloff, M.

2002 A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (2nd edn;Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press).

Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck

19781983 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch(8th edn; Munich: C.

Beck [19241961]).

Taylor, R.

2008 The Moral Mirror of Roman Art(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Thrall, M.

1994 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians(2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark)

Vernant, J.-P.

1991 Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays(ed. F.I. Zeitlin; Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press).

Wagner, C.

1958 Gotteserkentniss im Spiegel und Gottesliebe in den beiden Korintherbriefen,Bij-

dragen19: 370-81.

Weiss, J.

1977 Der erste Korintherbrief(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [1910]).

Weissenrieder, A.2005 Der Blick in den Spiegel: II Kor 3, 18 vor dem Hintergrund antiker Spiegeltheo-

rien und ikonographischer Abbildungen, in A. Weissenrieder, F. Wendt and P. von

Gemnden (eds.), Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images

(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck): 313-43.

Windisch, H.

1924 Der zweite Korintherbrief(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Wolff, C.

1989 Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther(Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).

JSNT2012-Litwa-286-97. CA in Oglinda 2Cor3cu18

Documents

Transcript of JSNT2012-Litwa-286-97. CA in Oglinda 2Cor3cu18