Luke 9:28–36: What evidence supports the transfiguration as a historical event rather than a legend or late addition to the text?

Context of the Transfiguration in Luke 9:28–36

Luke 9:28–36 narrates the event commonly referred to as the Transfiguration, where Jesus is seen in radiant glory, conversing with Moses and Elijah, while Peter, James, and John witness the scene. Critics have sometimes questioned whether this account was a legendary addition, but multiple lines of evidence point to its historical reliability.

Early Manuscript Support

Early Greek manuscripts—such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—contain the Transfiguration account, indicating it was present in the text of Luke from ancient times. Textual critics have noted that there is no substantial manuscript tradition suggesting this passage was added later.

• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Vaticanus (4th century) both include Luke 9:28–36 without any significant textual variation that would suggest a later interpolation.

• Papyrus 75 (late 2nd to early 3rd century) also shows evidence that Luke’s Gospel, including its reference to the Transfiguration, was transmitted faithfully.

Consistency within the Synoptic Gospels

The Transfiguration is recorded in Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–9, and Luke 9:28–36. The core elements—Jesus shining in glory and the appearance of Moses and Elijah—are consistent across these three accounts. If it were a fabrication inserted into only one Gospel, there would likely be noticeable differences or omissions in the parallel passages. Instead, the uniform presence across these three Synoptic Gospels reinforces its historical authenticity.

Peter’s Firsthand Testimony

A critical witness is 2 Peter 1:16–18, which states, “We were eyewitnesses of His majesty”. The author identifies this event and describes hearing the voice from heaven, echoing precisely what Luke 9 records. The fact that a New Testament epistle alludes explicitly to the Transfiguration with language matching the Gospel narratives underscores that early apostles considered it a genuine historical occurrence, not a legend.

Patristic References and Early Church Reception

Early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (late 2nd century) referred to incidents in the life of Jesus in ways that presuppose the Transfiguration’s authenticity. Tertullian (late 2nd to early 3rd century) also echoed the canonical accounts of Christ’s glory. There is no record of any significant debate in the early centuries regarding the Transfiguration being an addition or a myth. Instead, the event was treated as part of the accepted testimony about Jesus’ life and ministry, passed on through the apostles’ teaching.

Internal Coherence and Theological Significance

The Transfiguration in Luke 9:28–36 fits well with the broader narrative flow of the Gospels:

1. Jesus’ announcement of the Kingdom of God and hints of His glory align with this miraculous preview of His divine nature.

2. Moses and Elijah, representing the Law and the Prophets, confirm the continuity of the Old Testament revelation with Jesus’ mission.

3. Luke’s portrayal ties seamlessly to the theme of fulfillment: Jesus as the culmination of redemptive history, as seen in how He “came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets” (cf. Matthew 5:17).

By placing the Transfiguration shortly after Jesus’ prediction of His suffering (Luke 9:22) and right before pivotal teaching and miracles, Luke emphasizes Jesus’ dual nature—fully human and fully divine—without contradiction.

Absence of Legendary Indicators

Legends and late additions often introduce linguistic or thematic anomalies that stand out from the surrounding text, yet the language of Luke 9:28–36 is entirely consistent with Luke’s style. Ancient rhetorical features indicating fictional myth-making—such as elaborate embellishment or contradictory detail—are not present. Instead, the passage maintains sober factual reporting, including the specificity of the witnesses (Peter, James, and John) and the notable reaction of Peter to build tents (Luke 9:33), all of which strongly indicate authenticity.

Historical Validation through Multiple Witnesses

Peter, James, and John serve as a tri-fold eyewitness group. Luke’s record is thus based on direct apostolic testimony, further attested by Mark and Matthew, who also relied on apostolic sources. If the event had been a late invention, it would have been difficult for the early Christian communities to accept it so uniformly without challenge, especially while original witnesses were still alive.

Archaeological and Cultural Backdrop

Although the exact mountain of the Transfiguration is not identified by name in Luke’s account, tradition holds that Mount Hermon or Mount Tabor serve as likely sites. Both locations were in an area accessible to Jesus and His disciples. Archaeological evidence confirms frequent travel by Jewish teachers in these regions in the first century. Nothing in the Gospel narratives about travel or geography conflicts with known historical realities of first-century Galilee, bolstering credibility.

Miraculous Context in Biblical Narrative

Throughout Luke’s Gospel, many miracles are recorded, from healings to nature miracles. The Transfiguration logically fits into Jesus’ divine self-revelation, which culminates in the Resurrection (cf. Luke 24:1–7). The extraordinary nature of the Transfiguration parallels other biblical miracles attested by multiple witnesses, such as the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:49–56). Ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman settings contained reports of the miraculous, but the Gospel authors’ consistent framing of Jesus’ miracles as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Isaiah 35:5–6) sets them apart from legends lacking historical anchors.

Eyewitness Transformation and Impact

Accounts in the Book of Acts show that Peter, James, and John were transformed from fearful disciples to bold proclaimers of the risen Christ (Acts 4:13–20). A fabricated story would not typically produce the lasting and sacrificial conviction that historical, eyewitness experiences generate, especially in a cultural environment where such claims could (and did) incur persecution.

Support from Textual Criticism and Scholarly Consensus

Leading scholars who specialize in New Testament textual criticism have found that core events such as the Transfiguration are deeply embedded in the earliest stratum of the Gospels. Specialists such as Dr. Dan Wallace have noted the remarkable consistency of Luke’s account in thousands of manuscripts. There is no credible textual evidence that Luke 9:28–36 was introduced or modified in any period that would suggest legendary embellishment.

Conclusion

1. Early, consistent manuscript support.

2. Multiple witness accounts across the Synoptic Gospels and in 2 Peter.

3. Verification by early Church Fathers.

4. Absence of linguistic or thematic indicators of late legendary growth.

5. Deep coherence with the broader theological message of the New Testament.

All these factors converge to support the conclusion that the Transfiguration recorded in Luke 9:28–36 is not a later addition or legend, but an authentic historical event in the life of Jesus.