51. The mountain of the transfiguration.  The traditional site, since the fourth century, is Tabor in Galilee.  Most recent opinion has favored one of the shoulders of Hermon, owing to the supposed connection of the event with the sojourn near Caesarea Philippi.  WeissLX III. 98 points out that there is no evidence that Jesus lingered for “six days” (Mk. ix. 2) near that town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration is futile.  GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk. ix. 30 is decisive in favor of a place outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermon is the true locality.  See AndLOL 357f.

52.  General questions. Was Jesus twice rejected at Nazareth? (comp.  Lk. iv. 16-30 with Mk. vi. 1-6^a; Mt. xiii. 54-58).  Here are two accounts that read like independent traditions of the same event; they agree concerning the place, the teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishment of the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus’ rejoinder.  Luke makes no reference to the disciples (Mk. vi. 1) nor to the working of miracles (Mk. vi. 5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing of an attempt at violence.  These differences are no more serious, however, than appear in the two accounts of the appeal of the centurion to Jesus (Mt. viii. 5-8; Lk. vii. 3-7).  Moreover, Lk. iv. 23 indicates a time after the ministry in Capernaum had won renown, which agrees with the place given the rejection in Mark.  The general statement (Lk. iv. 14f.) suggests that the visit to Nazareth is given at the beginning as an instance of “preaching in their synagogues.”  The three accounts probably refer to one event reported independently.  For identification see WeissLX III. 34; Plummer on Luke iv. 30; GilbertLJ 254f.  For two rejections see Godet’s supplementary note on Lk. iv. 16-30; Meyer on Mt. xiii. 53-58; EdersLJM I. 457, note 1; Wieseler, Synopsis, 278.  BeysLJ I. 270 identifies but prefers Luke’s date.

53. Were there two miraculous draughts of fish? Lk. v. 1-11 is sometimes identified with Jn. xxi. 3-13.  So WendtLJ I. 211f., WeissLX II. 57f., and Meyer on Luke v. 1-11.  Against the identification see Alford, Godet, and Plummer on the passage in Luke.  The two are alike in scene, the night of bootless toil, the great catch at Jesus’ word.  They differ in personnel, antecedent relations of the fishermen with Jesus, the effect of the miracle on Peter, and the subsequent teaching of Jesus, as well as in time.  These differences make identification difficult.

54. Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast in Jerusalem (Jn. v.) be placed? There is nothing in John’s narrative to identify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals to which he refers (Passover, ii. 13, 23; vi. 4; xi. 55; xii. 1; Tabernacles, vii. 2; Dedication, x. 22).  Even if John wrote “the feast,” rather than “a feast” (the MSS. vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), it would be