http://jnt.sagepub.

com/
Testament
Journal for the Study of the New
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/34/3/286
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X11435044
2012 34: 286 Journal for the Study of the New Testament
M. David Litwa
Transformation 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 Testament Additional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

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

What is This?

- Mar 9, 2012 Version of Record >>

by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 a
Mirror: Moses in 2 Cor. 3.18
M. David Litwa
Department 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-Roman
mythology (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 famous
Pauline 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 thought
of 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 Htpi optq, po, Otoottiov). Looking into
this 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 of Virginia, PO Box 400126, Charlottesville,
VA 22904-4126, USA
Email: mdl2dj@virginia.edu
435044JNT34310.1177/0142064X11435044LitwaJournal for the Study of the New Testament
2012
Article
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Litwa 287
catoptromantic rituals.
1
The mirror, said Achelis, was a magic mirror. The object of the
vision was God. The oiviyo Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 13.12 was a riddling image which
revealed the future.
2
In 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 lled 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 identied the mask with the great Bacchus. Thus by gazing into the
mirror, Wagner inferred, the initiate underwent an identication with the god.
3
More
recently, Margaret Thrall (1994: I, 293) has attempted to derive the mirror metaphor from
Wis. 7.25-26: For she [Wisdom] is a reection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the
working of God (t oopov o |qii oov q , ou tou t vtpyti o,), and an image of his
goodness. In this interpretation, Christ identied 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 reectivity appears to stem from a reading of Ezek. 1.4, where the phrase
"CL" |`. (NRSV: something like gleaming amber) can be understood as a mirror
of bright metal.
5
April 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 |oopio, which, according to
DeConick, 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 specically 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 (specically lecomancy) in reference to 2 Cor. 3.18, citing a number of spells
(PGM 4.154-285; PDM 14.1-92, 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, identied 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 rmament (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 owing 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.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
288 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(3)
Perseus neutralized the harmful effects of Medusas gaze by beholding the gorgons image
in a mirror.
7
Narcissus 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 reected image in the one case makes the harmful look of Medusa
invisible,
8
and 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.
10
Although 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.
12
Consequently, 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 in
Greco-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 difculties. 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.
13
The direct statement that Ezekiel used the water of the canal as a reective 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 |oopiooi signies self-vision is gram-
matically correct, but improbable since Paul clearly presents glory as the object of the
verb 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 transformative mirror 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 against metamorphosis against the petrication 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 in the mirror rather than the one who sees the 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 to JSNT (2010: 402).
11. The term religio-historical horizon is DeConicks (2001: 67).
12. See Barclay (1996: 390-93).
13. The interpretation of |`. in Ezek. 1.4 is contested. The Septuagint translates it by opooi,,
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 phrase |`.3 meaning like the color, appearance of.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 surveyed
linked their theories of the mirror with the ow 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 the
reading 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 reected in a mirror (|oopio tvoi), are being transformed into the same
image 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 Jewish
traditions because it is not at all certain that Paul in 2 Cor. 3 is interpreting Scripture
directly.
14
There is, in my reading, no Septuagintal reference to Moses mirror vision of
Gods glory. Trying to nd such a reference is similar to trying to nd 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 conationary reading of Exod. 33 and 34.
16
In 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, still
does 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 nd the fading glory in extra-
scriptural traditions (most importantly Philos Mos. 2.69 and L.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 |oopyoutvo,) is disputed (as seen
in the NRSV translation above).
16. E.g., Larsson 1962: 279 n. 1; Thrall 1994: 295; and most recently Rabens 2010: 183-84.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
290 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(3)
narratives give us the full background for Moses mirror vision.
17
Even 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 traditions through 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, which
have often been used to interpret 1 Cor. 13.12 (where Paul also mentions a mirror).
18
I do
claim, however, that these traditions have not gained sufcient 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 (NC2);
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 (NC), 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 specic 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 and
Billerbeck (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.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Litwa 291
used the very same word (NC) to describe normal prophetic as well as superior Mosaic
vision. The rst 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: NC. Rabbinic tradition
vocalized this word in both instances as N C , which in rabbinic Hebrew primarily means
mirror (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 in Lev. Rabb. 1.14 (Margulies 1993: I, 30-32), the prophets beheld
their visions through nine mirrors (``"7`N), while Moses looked through only
one.
19
The nine mirrors derive from Ezek. 43.3, which uses the root N the same root
as the word for mirror nine times.
20
Moses single mirror, then, apparently derives from
the single use of this root in Num. 12.8.
Another solution appears in Lev. Rabb., namely that Moses looked through a polished
mirror ("S"`SC `"7`N), while the other prophets looked through a dirty mirror
(3"3`"C `"7`N).
21
The dirty mirror appears to derive from Hos. 12.11, which
says that God multiplied prophetic vision (``2 |`l"). The multiple visions of the
prophets evidently came from a dirty reecting 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.
22
The 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 (.`C, which can also mean likeness) suggested, at least to
the 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 N`"7N derives from the Latin specularia, meaning window panes, or
simply 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) dened the rabbinic term as a window-pane, and
metaphorically as a prophetic vision. There are, however, clear places in rabbinic literature
where N`"7N means mirror. In the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, for instance, a comment
on Exod. 18.21 (l" N`, You [Moses] should also look for [able men] [NRSV]) reads,
You shall look for them with the specularia (N`"7N2), with the mirror (`l"C2) through
which kings try to see (Amalek 3, trans. Lauterbach [1961: II, 183]). `l"C (or `l"C) is
an undisputed word for mirror, used synonymously with N`"7N (Sokoloff 2002: 300).
Likewise in Gen. Rabb. 91.6, Jacob sees that Joseph is in Egypt by looking in an N`"7N.
Here Jacob is certainly not looking through a window pane. For further support of N`"7N
as mirror, see Gruenwald 1970: 95-97.
20. Rabbinic interpreters counted `NC` 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: not by the prophets I spoke in parables (CN) but CN (I was imagined).
It is not clear, however, how this reading relates to a dirty mirror.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
292 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(3)
The passage in Lev. 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 (|`.``N2).
23
Because 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 they
will 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 (|`.``N). Second, Moses looking at Gods image is
functionally equivalent to the glory seen by everyone in the world to come.
24
The 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 meaning of the mirror (beholding not reecting),
26

but not the exegetical origin of 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 reection
of the Ingenerate (tooiv tvopyq ou oytvqou). Philo calls this vision an apprehen-
sion of God from himself (o ouou ), which he species as a vision of Gods Logos
(otp qv ovioyov, 100). The text Philo interprets is Exod. 33.13, which, in a literal
translation 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 reected to me through heaven or earth, water or air or through anything
whatsoever of generate reality. Nor would I behold as in a mirror (|oopiooiqv) your form
(oqv itov) through anything else than through you who are God. For the reections in generate
reality break apart, but those in ingenerate reality remain singular, rm, and eternal (3.101,
authors trans.).
To repeat the signicant line, nor would I behold as in a mirror (|oopiooiqv) your
form through anything else than through you who are God the statement is a gloss on
23. Other MSS read here |`.`N2: 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 (.`C) of the LORD as he beholds the image of the glory
of the Lord ("37C `` N` `C2`).
25. Wolff (1989: 78 n. 144) also points out that Num. 12.8 and Exod. 34.29-35 are also exegeti-
cally linked in Lev. Rabb. 20.10. Hulmi (1999: 157 n. 59) sees the mirror of Moses in Memar
Marqah 5.3. Peace be upon you [Moses], with whom Yahweh speaks face to face in a mirror
(NC2), not secretly.
26. See, e.g., the commentaries of Windisch (1924: 128), Bultmann (1976: 97) and Furnish
(1984: 214).
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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).
27
In the
Septuagints translation of Num. 12.8 a mirror does not appear. The Hebrew word that
rabbinic tradition understood as mirror (NC) is translated by the phrase tv titi
(in a form). This phrase seems to be picked up in Philos line, nor would I behold your
form (i t o). The fact that this i t o is seen in a mirror is hardly intuitive, which
suggests that Philo was familiar with the exegetical tradition we nd in later rabbinic
literature.
28
In this reading, NC, as we saw, is read as in a mirror. Even if Philo was
unfamiliar 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 rst-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.
29
Importantly, Philo shows us
that the Sinai episode was already exegetically linked with the vision of God through a
mirror 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 NC
(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 NC (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.
31
Rabbinic
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 the
word translated Manifest (tovioov) in the phrase Manifest yourself to me. The word
tovioov is related to the noun tooi,, which can mean reection. We might thus
translate Moses request in Exod. 33.13 (t o vioo v oi oouo v) as Make yourself
appear to me as a reection a reection 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 .`C as oo and I`2` (he sees) with the
aorist verb titv suggesting a denite 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).
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
294 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(3)
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: clarity in that Christ,
Gods very image and glory, is the mirror; mediation in 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 Gods
mirror on Sinai, he descends the mountain reecting Gods glory (Exod. 34.29-35). That
the reection of the glory was a transformation into glory seems to be a Pauline interpreta-
tion of the Mosaic tradition. (Here we may see Hellenistic inuence through the back
door). The mirrors power to transform the viewer (toopo o) in 2 Cor. 3.18 is clearly
an 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 t together in the archetypal experience of Moses.
Importantly, the story of Moses unites both the idea of seeing divine glory in a mirror
(Num. 12.8) and reecting it (Exod. 34.29-35) ideas naturally combined by Paul in 2
Cor. 3.18. The two ideas are probably not found in Pauls single verb |oopio,
however, but in two verbs: |oopi o (with the meaning of behold) and toopo o,
since transformation is the way Paul understands Moses reecting 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 rm link to Pauls ow 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 (tv oiviyoi) (Behm 1929: 338-39).
33. Indisputably, Moses is negatively compared with Paul as a covenantal minister in 2 Cor. 3.13.
But this does not negate the idea that Moses is the model for Christians in 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 to
contrast 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.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 reect Gods glory so vividly that they are
transformed into it. In this interpretation, Christ has apparently taken the role of God in
the 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, HUCA 48: 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 (Shefeld: 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; Shefeld:
Shefeld 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.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
296 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(3)
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: Reections on Ezek. 43.4, Num. 12.8 and 1 Cor. 13.8,
HAR 10: 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 `"7N and the Technique of the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Vision, Tarbiz
40: 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,
JSNT 32: 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 oiviyo (toopov), 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 Genizah
Fragments with Variants and Notes (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary).
Procksch, O.
1920 Die Berufungsvision Hesekiels, BZAW 34: 141-49.
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 des
Mnchtums 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-
dragen 19: 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).
by melniciuc ilie on November 13, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from