2 Peter 1:18

and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The big point of this verse is that Peter affirmed the event of the transfiguration of Christ to have been historical, objective and factual. There was nothing ephemeral or uncertain about it. It happened. "We ourselves heard." "We were with him in the holy mount."

The holy mount ... Many commentators mention the allegations based upon this expression and which "suggest a late date for the letter, at a time when ecclesiastical traditions were crystallized."[52] But, as Plummer said, "Such a view is not even partly right."[53] The attitude that would cause that mountain to be spoken of as "holy" was not in any sense a "late view," being far older than any of the gospel writers, and even older than the New Testament itself. The Old Testament reveals that any place where God manifested himself was "holy." See Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15; Genesis 28:16,17; Exodus 19:12; Acts 7:33, etc. Any Jew speaking of such a place as the mountain of transfiguration would naturally have referred to it as "holy."

Where, precisely, was the mountain here designated as "holy?" The tradition favoring Mt. Tabor as the site, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[54] is too late to have much weight. Furthermore, Mount Tabor, in the days of Christ and the apostles was populated and had a fortress on top of it;[55] and Christ's taking his apostles there would not have been taking them "apart" as Matthew said. The best guess would appear to be that the mount of transfiguration was either Mount Hermon, or one of its adjacent peaks. It would at least qualify as being a "high" mountain, as Matthew said (9,000 feet), which Mount Tabor was not (1,800 feet).

[52] David H. Wheaton, op. cit., p. 1254.

[53] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 449.

[54] A. Lukyn Williams, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 15 2(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 171.

[55] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 683.