The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

[AchillesHeel]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me" and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels. In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus. Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

“For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him.” – Philo, On Abraham 17.80

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

"The word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence...

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-six times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

[1213]

....

"Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb."

This is a complete fabrication. It is an assumption ...

It is also an assumption to think it went actually in some other way. And that leads to, why would an assumption that makes the story look wrong be better than an assumption that doesn't. I think it is not good to make baseless assumptions that makes something look wrong.

The text strongly indicates that the women witnessed the angel descend from heaven....

Opinion noted.

[Difflugia]

So I end by asking sincerely, so what? Of what consequence is it for those who believe and continue seeking truth to objectively and quantifiably better themselves?

The consequence is exactly to those that try to derive doctrine from it. Those that fret over contradictions have added a constraint that corrupts their uses of the sources as historical documents or their search to learn the intentions of the authors.

In the Synoptics as we have them, Jesus was crucified after the Passover. John's Jesus was crucified before the Passover. If your goal is to honestly learn the differences between Mark's and John's theologies of the Passover, one can't legitimately pretend that those accounts somehow line up. If one does, then at least one meaning will be lost and perhaps both. The importance of the text at that point is as a source of group cohesion:

"I believe something so inexplicably wrong that outsiders laugh at me."

"Me, too. You must be a trustworthy member of the group."

If that were the end of it, that would be fine. It's not, though. Unfortunately, thirty-seven percent of Americans teach their kids that Jesus made human beings during the reign of Pharaoh Nynetjer. If Bible interpretation weren't used as a shibboleth, then over a third of Americans could stop worrying that teaching science will turn their kids into drug-addicted gay Nazis.

[SimpleLayman]

Is that a consequence of specifically teaching the resurrection of christ occurred. There are plenty of top tier scientists and mathematicians in the past and alive today who claim to believe in the resurrection. I don't dispute there are sects that are flat earthers and anti-science. Not putting a lot of weight behind evolution, or no weight at all isn't inherently detrimental. Putting your faith in the resurrection of christ is not inherently detrimental either. It's actually detrimental to the entire faith if it didn't happen, and the faith as a whole is not detrimental either, quite the opposite.

[AchillesHeel]

It is also an assumption to think it went actually in some other way. And that leads to, why would an assumption that makes the story look wrong be better than an assumption that doesn't. I think it is not good to make baseless assumptions that makes something look wrong.

Opinion noted.

Is the rest of my post and evidence I cited invisible to you? It's simply a misrepresentation to selectively quote certain parts to make it sound like a mere assumption on my part. I clearly argued on the basis of the narrative flow, Greek and Matthew's consistent writing style that the angels see the angel descend and roll back the stone.

The reason the angel says directly to the women "Don't YOU be afraid" is because they witness the guards reaction in the previous verse who are also said to be "afraid." So their fear only makes sense if they've witnessed something to make them fearful. Contextually and evidentially, this is the most probable way to interpret the passage.

Moreover, if you deny the women witnessed the event you have to posit the auxiliary hypothesis that either the guards told someone of what happened who relayed that to Matthew or they told Matthew themselves instead of just the women being the source. This violates Ockham's razor.

[1213]

Is the rest of my post and evidence I cited invisible to you?

No, I saw your opinion, therefore I said opinion noted. I disagree with it, and I showed previously how and why there is no problem in the Biblical story. If you don't accept it, you don't have to.

The reason the angel says directly to the women "Don't YOU be afraid" is because they witness the guards reaction in the previous verse who are also said to be "afraid." So their fear only makes sense if they've witnessed something to make them fearful.

Seeing the angels, or seeing the stone removed, could itself have been reason for them to be fearful.

[AchillesHeel]

No, I saw your opinion, therefore I said opinion noted. I disagree with it, and I showed previously how and why there is no problem in the Biblical story. If you don't accept it, you don't have

Excuse me but Matthew's consistent usage of καὶ ἰδοὺ is not "opinion."

As demonstrated by the examples (Matt 2:9; 3:16; 4:11; 8:1-2; 8:23, 28:8-9), καὶ ἰδοὺ + aorist verb always introduces an event that happens immediately after and witnessed subsequent to the preceding action. The parallel with Matt 8:24 (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ) is particularly striking. Just as the storm arose as they were in the boat, the earthquake and accompanying angelic events happened as the women were at the tomb.

You're just ignoring this and saying "nuh-uh."

Seeing the angels, or seeing the stone removed, could itself have been reason for them to be fearful.

As I demonstrated, that violates the narrative flow and Matthew's writing style so is less probable.

[Goose]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person.

I don’t think Paul’s intention was to equate his appearance experience in terms of the nature of the appearances themselves. That is, I don’t think Paul was necessarily trying to say they were all the same kind of appearance or that they were all necessarily physical in nature in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Although I think the argument that the use of ὤφθη was a signal of some kind has merit, I think drawing any firm conclusions from such an argument is dubious given ὤφθη has a fairly wide range of use as you’ve noted.

I think it’s helpful to remember it’s widely accepted that Paul has introduced an early creedal passage in 1 Cor 15:3-8. If this is the case it’s difficult to make the argument that Paul, himself, is making any comparison between the nature of the appearances to the disciples and to him. The flow of the passage seems to make clear an order of appearances, the point being that Jesus appeared to various people after his death. Paul seems to acknowledge that his experience was, if anything, different from the appearances to the disciples (i.e. “one untimely born” v. 8). That Paul, or the author(s) of the creed, used ὤφθη for each appearance, perhaps as a signal of their divine nature, is not surprising given the supernatural elements of Jesus’ resurrected body, which is consistent with the Gospels (Luke 24:36, John 20:19,26). If the creed is Paul’s creation it’s likewise not surprising that Paul would use ὤφθη given his high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11). In either case, if the passage is attempting to imply anything at all about the appearance of Jesus to Paul, it seems to be that his experience with the risen Lord was every bit as valid as the disciples’. Even though Paul seems to acknowledge a uniqueness to it.

This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me" and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels. In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus.

Hold on a minute. Sufficient evidence for what? Justifying belief in the resurrection, proving the resurrection as an historical fact or something else? Your OP title claims that, The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof. But you haven’t told us what the evidential burden is when it comes to ancient claims. As far as I can see you’ve merely asserted it fails primarily on the basis an argument can be made that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15 implies a supernatural element in the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

What are you saying here? Are you saying that if two or more accounts of the same event conflict that this disqualifies the evidence?

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

“For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him.” – Philo, On Abraham 17.80

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

But Paul also uses the active form of ὁράω in regards to seeing Jesus.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen (εωρακα) Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? - 1 Cor 9:1

Compare it's usage elsewhere in the following:

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have in your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen (εωρακασιν) my face - Col 2:1

But I said to you that you have indeed seen (εωρακατε) Me, and yet you do not believe. - John 6:36

So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen (εωρακας) Abraham?” - John 8:57

Jesus said to him, “You have both seen (εωρακας)Him, and He is the One who is talking with you.” - John 9:37

If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen (εωρακατε)
Him.” - John 14:7

Mary Magdalene came and announced to the disciples, “I have seen (εωρακεν) the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her. - John 20:18

So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen (εωρακαμεν) the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” - John 20:25

Then He said to Thomas, “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, but be a believer.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen (εωρακας) Me, have you now believed? - John 20:27-29

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen (εωρακαμεν) with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - 1 John 1:1

If someone says, “I love God,” and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen (εωρακεν), cannot love God, whom he has not seen (εωρακεν). - 1 John 4:20

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

"The word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence...

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-six times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

It's all very interesting and I think we can agree that ὤφθη had a wide range of usage. Even the usages in the LXX are sometimes in relation to a supernatural agent appearing via a physical manifestation such as fire or a cloud (e.g. Exod 3:2, 16:10; Deut 33:16; Num 16:42). In the end, I’m left puzzled as to what it is you are specifically arguing and how this argument establishes the claim that The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof.

[AchillesHeel]

I don’t think Paul’s intention was to equate his appearance experience in terms of the nature of the appearances themselves. That is, I don’t think Paul was necessarily trying to say they were all the same kind of appearance or that they were all necessarily physical in nature in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

First of all, thank you for actually responding to the content. That seems hard to come by on this forum.

I'd like to respond by pointing out Paul's "intention" is one thing while "how the appearances were understood in the earliest Christianity" is another. The phrasing "appeared to them and appeared to me last of all" is certainly what we'd expect if all the appearances were understood to be the same or similar in nature. If you disagree that the appearances were understood to be the same/similar then that necessarily commits you to the idea they were different as there is no other option, which requires you to show that from the text itself. I will respond to your points about this below.

Although I think the argument that the use of ὤφθη was a signal of some kind has merit, I think drawing any firm conclusions from such an argument is dubious given ὤφθη has a fairly wide range of use as you’ve noted.

Since the Resurrection argument requires the appearances were physical/veridical in nature (due to there being no other way to verify a person had actually been resurrected), then the evidence needs to indicate this. As demonstrated from the wide range of meaning of ὤφθη, that word by itself without any description, is insufficient to demonstrate physical/veridical appearances (due to the equal likelihood of it referring to dreams, visions, post-ascension heavenly/spiritual appearances, etc). The same goes for the entire Pauline corpus. Paul never describes the nature of the appearances except for possibly in Gal. 1:12-16 which he describes in "revelatory" terms and does not help the proponent of physical appearances. So the firm conclusion still stands. The earliest and only verified firsthand testimony for the Resurrection appearances offers no support for veridical appearances which is a necessary prerequisite for the Resurrection argument to be evidentially persuasive.

I think it’s helpful to remember it’s widely accepted that Paul has introduced an early creedal passage in 1 Cor 15:3-8. If this is the case it’s difficult to make the argument that Paul, himself, is making any comparison between the nature of the appearances to the disciples and to him. The flow of the passage seems to make clear an order of appearances, the point being that Jesus appeared to various people after his death. Paul seems to acknowledge that his experience was, if anything, different from the appearances to the disciples (i.e. “one untimely born” v. 8).

This is a common apologetic but I'd like to point out it's still not sufficient to point to a "difference" when the actual difference is not explained. The difference would still need to indicate the appearances to the others were veridical/physical which Paul doesn't do. They could have been "different" in that some were dreams, visions, or something like a mass ecstatic worship experience where they "feel the presence" of someone or someone saw a bright light like in the Virgin Mary sightings then social contagion took over and they believed it was Jesus. The latter involves a "physical" element but is still inconclusive to show it really was a resurrected person.

Moreover, Paul being "untimely born" is a reference to the "timing" of the occurrence and not a reference to the nature, quality or type of appearance. Even though the appearance happened later, that doesn't mean it was different in nature to what the others claimed to experience.

That Paul, or the author(s) of the creed, used ὤφθη for each appearance, perhaps as a signal of their divine nature, is not surprising given the supernatural elements of Jesus’ resurrected body, which is consistent with the Gospels (Luke 24:36, John 20:19,26). If the creed is Paul’s creation it’s likewise not surprising that Paul would use ὤφθη given his high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11). In either case, if the passage is attempting to imply anything at all about the appearance of Jesus to Paul, it seems to be that his experience with the risen Lord was every bit as valid as the disciples’. Even though Paul seems to acknowledge a uniqueness to it.

Read onto verse 9. It was Paul who was different, because he wasn't a disciple like the others were when Jesus "appeared" to him.

Hold on a minute. Sufficient evidence for what? Justifying belief in the resurrection, proving the resurrection as an historical fact or something else? Your OP title claims that, The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof. But you haven’t told us what the evidential burden is when it comes to ancient claims.

The claim to be assessed is that a man was dead and physically resurrected. That can only be demonstrated by him being seen in physical reality which the verb ὤφθη is insufficient to demonstrate.

What are you saying here? Are you saying that if two or more accounts of the same event conflict that this disqualifies the evidence?

If they conflict in such ways to the degree that each account tells an entirely different story of what took place, yes. That's how we impugn testimony in court. When we see the same degree of inconsistency in other stories, our inclination is to not believe them and come to the conclusion that something else must be going on such as embellishment.

But Paul also uses the active form of ὁράω in regards to seeing Jesus.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen (εωρακα) Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? - 1 Cor 9:1

But the appearance is not described there either. The only description we have comes from Acts which calls it a "vision from heaven" and describes others standing there who don't see or hear the vision properly. This is a typical account of a supernatural revelation. Even an ultra literal interpretation of the Damascus Road experience still falls short of Paul "seeing" an actual figure. Rather, he only sees a bright light. So Paul's claim to have "seen" Jesus will need to be qualified if you believe that's what Paul actually experienced.

Moreover, Paul seems to be evoking Sirach 42:15 so it may just be a rhetorical choice rather than a conscious decision to use ἑόρακα.

"Now I will remind you of the works of the Lord and describe the things I have seen (ἑόρακα)."

"That Paul was familiar with Sirach is beyond dispute, since his letters contain allusions to it elsewhere...The appendix to the Nestle-Aland text (27th ed.) lists some 22 allusions to Sirach in the seven undisputed letters of Paul. For illustrations, see E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 59, 76, 153." https://books.google.com/books?id=roZSE ... &q&f=false

Compare it's usage elsewhere in the following:

Yes, the active form also had a wide range of usage so is inconclusive but, given the Sirach 42:15 parallels, the fact the 1 Cor 9:1 has no description, and the context of εἶδον in Galatians being unambiguous, we would still expect an active form in the creed if normal appearances were meant.

In Plato's Crito 44 - "I conclude this from a dream which I had ἐνυπνίου ὃ ἑώρακα (lit. have seen) somewhat earlier tonight."

Genesis 41:15
And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have had (lit. have seen) a dream ἐνύπνιον ἑώρακα, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.”

Zec 4:2
He asked me, “What do you see?”
I replied, “I see (ἑώρακα) a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top. The lampstand also has seven lamps at the top with seven spouts for each of the lamps. - description of a vision

1 Sam 28:13
But the king said to her, “Don't be afraid. What do you see? ”
“I see (ἑόρακα) a spirit form coming up out of the earth,” the woman answered.

It's all very interesting and I think we can agree that ὤφθη had a wide range of usage. Even the usages in the LXX are sometimes in relation to a supernatural agent appearing via a physical manifestation such as fire or a cloud (e.g. Exod 3:2, 16:10; Deut 33:16; Num 16:42). In the end, I’m left puzzled as to what it is you are specifically arguing and how this argument establishes the claim that The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof.

I think I explained this already. The person who says the evidence for the Resurrection is convincing has the burden to show the appearances were veridical. The verb ὤφθη is insufficient to show that and so one must concede the earliest and only verified firsthand testimony does not give any support for veridical encounters with a formerly dead revived corpse. So, it seems one will have to appeal to the gospels but we've already been over the problems with those.

[RBD]

And how it was presented, certainly implies that no one testified of Jesus' resurrection, until about 30 years later. Are you denying that?

Nobody that has ever studied history would read it that way. Historians discuss the relative dating and order of sources

Correct. Determining the dates of published record, is historical work.

But any suggestion that the accounts are doubtful due to publishing after the fact, is only personal opinion. Otherwise, all records of any historical events could be doubted, unless they were recorded withing a month? A year? 10 years? 30 years? Personal arbitration, not historical review.

in order to discuss ways that the stories likely spread and evolved as well as the dependency of later narratives on earlier ones.

This is not the historians work, but only that of personal literary critique. And in this case, it's entirely made up.

Historians do not treat historical records as 'stories', unless the records state they are stories, legends, or hearsay, such as at times in Herodotus' Histories.

Anyone trying to equate the Bible accounts with Herodotus, as being only an amalgamation of stories, later published, are giving biased opinion in the place of objective historical analysis. Unlike Herodotus, none of the Gospel accounts, Acts, epistles, nor Revelation ever speaks of repeating or consolidating 'stories' after the fact...In fact, they all are written as direct witness and direct revelation:
Jhn 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Luk 1:3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Rev 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:...And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell
down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Paul specifically rejects any argument, that he recieved the gospel of Jesus' resurrection, from others going before him with their own testimonies. The whole game of pseudo-scholarship, that the NT is a bunch of stories put together at a later date, is on the face of it a fraud of opinionated skeptics.

There is no comparison between the recorded historical events in the NT, and that of Herodotus. The only possible way to treat the gospel accounts and epistles as 'stories', is to first historically prove any of the events are false, or any of the recorded testimonies conflict. And if any event is false, then they all are doubtful, since all their recorded testimonies agree.

Are you saying that there were testimonies and preachings of His resurrection, before Paul's first published letters?

Probably, but we don't know. Paul says that he preached "Christ crucified" and the resurrection as part of his gospel. He mentioned it in his epistle to the Roman church as though it would be understood by its recipients. Since the church at Rome isn't one of the ones that Paul founded, then it's reasonable to conclude that somebody other than Paul preached a resurrection. We don't know any other details of that resurrection, though, either on its own or how similar to Paul's it was.

Hence, we see an example of opinionated argument, not historical review. To say, 'we don't know', is to first assume the other published accounts are in doubt, and only 'stories'.

Once again, since none of them are recorded as stories, legends, or hearsay, as that by Herodotus, then objectivity demands internal or external proof of any error in them, before doubting the events.

Anyone speaking of any part of the NT as stories, is disqualified from historical debate about the events recorded. I.e. It always returns to prove any error, don't just assume and talk about it...

Where in the NT, does any writer expressly say, that they wrote based upon 'developed legends', as though they had to sort it all out and come up with their own version...

I've learned not to follow links, and especially not whole books, when a simple example from the Book itself is easy enough to give. They're almost always rabbit-holes of opinions and 'scholarship', that likewise give no single example of proof.

Where in the NT, does any writer expressly say, that they wrote based upon 'developed legends', as though they had to sort it all out and come up with their own version...

1Ti 1:4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Once again, examples of the writers denying they are only reporting on fabulous stories. In fact, they warn against such fabled foolishness...

Paul is the only apostle writing

Full stop. Paul is likely the only apostle whose writings we have.

Full reject.

It's also interesting, since most people wanting to personally 'write off' parts of the NT, usually attack Paul first. (Especially when he's listing works of the flesh, condemned by judgement.)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #16]

Your entire argument rests on a single, foundational premise: that we are reading accounts of two different visits by Mary Magdalene. You are not deriving this "two visits" theory from the texts themselves;

If you're not going to acknowledge the difference between a visit at dark before dawn, and another visit after dawn, being another visit, then there's no factual foundation to argue from.

Let's use an analogy. Imagine four witnesses to a single car accident.

Witness 1 (John) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign early in the morning, when it was still dark."

Witness 2 (Matthew) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign as it began to dawn."

Witness 3 (Mark) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign just after the sun had risen."

Witness 4 (Luke) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign very early in the morning."

No rational investigator would conclude there were three or four separate but identical accidents involving identical red cars.

Of course not. Especially since is a sloppy and misleading report.

First. The 3rd is false. It's very early in the morning the same as the 4th, at the rising of the sun. Not after the sun had risen, which would be any time of the morning, and add yet another possible event.

Second: 4th is false. I saw a red car, is more accurate, not necessarily the same red car.

Therefore, we have at least 2 events and possibly 3.

Based on the factual record of report, only an irrational sloppy investigator would assume, that they are all the same event.

They would conclude they have four accounts of the same event with minor, and entirely expected, variations in their perception of the time.

Not a competent investigator. He'd first have to investigate the incompetent officer, that wrote the sloppy reports in the first place. In the process, he would determine 2 things: Whether the clear difference in time between dark and dawn, is factual or false. And then whether the red cars are all the same.

Your method, however, insists that since "dark" is not "dawn" and "dawn" is not "sunrise,"

Now you're not only misreporting what the writers say, now you're misreporting what I say.

Seriously, there cannot possibly be any common ground for an accurate argument, so long as the subject, and the other debater is being misreported.

What I suggest is you first give quotes, before you give any report.

Jhn 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Mar 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Is there any difference between an event at dark, and an event at dawn with the rising sun? Yes, or no?

It is an absurd refusal to acknowledge that different authors can describe the same moment with slightly different language.

Of course. except that in this case, it's a sloppy misrepresentation, as though all the accounts only slightly differed.

There are three closely similar enough to be the same time of event morning, but one certainly different from the others at dark before dawn.

You are treating the Gospels not as historical sources to be compared,

Reporting historical events.

but as a logic puzzle where any slight variation in wording must signify an entirely different event in your complex timeline.

As a historian, analyzing recorded historical events can be a logic puzzle, which is why accurate reporting is historical discipline. Which also must allow for logical sense in reasonable similarities, such as the beginning dawn, and very early in the morning at the rising sun.

However, purposely fudging over the difference between dark and dawn, cannot be mere incompetence, but false historical reporting. No rigorous historical analysis would accept it.

Even if we momentarily entertain your fantasy of a "two-visit" timeline

Once again, 3, not just 2. But whose quibbling...

Matthew's initial appearance: Happens to Mary and "the other Mary" before they report to any disciples.

Correct. And yes, initial. Thank you.

John's initial appearance: Happens to Mary alone after she has already run to Peter and John and they have come and gone.

Now you really need to quote first, because this borders on irrational, rather than just sloppy.

Jhn 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them,

She first visits the tomb, and then runs to the disciples to return with them. That is her 2nd visit, not initial.

Quoting helps keep the record straight.

You attempt to neutralize the contradiction between Luke's informed women and John's ignorant Mary...

Other than a supposed contradiction, without quoting, this is still accurate enough: There being women come very early in the morning in Luke, and also Magdalen, the other Mary, and Salome at the same time in Mark.

...by suggesting Mary Magdalene isn't even in Luke's account. You ask me to agree: "Nothing is said of Magdalene at any time. Correct?"

Now, this is why quotes are best. But they need context to be complete:

Luk 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Nothing is said of Magdalene at any time. Correct?

My question was only for the quoted record, which was the beginning of Luke's account, starting in ch 23, not 24. It does not at all suggest anything about the rest of the account in 24.

You conveniently stop your analysis before Luke 24:10,

My effort has been to establish simple step by step agreement on exact records.

where the author explicitly names the women who delivered the report:
"And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles."

Exactly. Now we have confirmation of two separate arrivals at the tomb at the same quoted time, very early in the morning: Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome in Mark, and the other initially unidentified women in Luke. We also know from Matthew that the other Mary was mother of James, which makes them the same event.

It's John alone that quotes a different arrival of Magdalene alone at dark, apart from the other 3 arrival accounts.

And we know there were two different groups arriving at the same time, because one had their own prepared ointment and spices, while the other had their own bought sweet spices alone.

Your entire argument that Luke's account can be separated from the others hinges on you ignoring verse 10.

No, your misreporting of my argument tries to include 24:10, when I only quoted 23:55-24:1.

Luke himself identifies Mary Magdalene as being part of the group that was inside the tomb, saw the two angels, and was told "He is not here, but was raised."

This would be sloppy/false reading #4.

Luk 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

As you rigorously confirm, nothing is said of Magdalene, the other Mary, nor Salome before 24:10. Nothing reports them joining the other still-unidentified women arriving at the same time. IN 24:10, we have the first record of all the women together, afterward reporting to the apostles.

As stated before, it would be strange that only one group of women came to visit Jesus' tomb, out of all the many women that followed Him.

Mar 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

We already see a distinction of separation being made between the one consistent group of Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome, who remain together in the following records, vs another group of other women following Jesus.

Therefore, Luke's Mary is fully informed.

More fully informed than the others, since she had already been to the tomb twice in the dark, and already met and knew Jesus had risen, and was the first eyewitness testimony of His resurrection recorded in the NT. Which is confirmed in Mark.

Mar 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

This directly and irreconcilably contradicts John's Mary, who is standing outside the tomb weeping because she thinks the body has been stolen.

This being your sloppy/false reporting of the record, that is now used to make a false charge of recorded conflict. Changing the record, and then accusing the record of being false, is called false tampering with the witness...

We can add here another recorded difference between John and Matthew:

Jhn 20:16
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


In John, Jesus forbids Magdalene to touch Him immediately following His resurrection at dark, until He had ascended to the Father. But later in Matthew they were allowed to touch Him in the early morning.

Mat 28:9
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Two different events with Jesus. Which is confirmed in Mark.

Mar 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Your attempt to differentiate the groups of women based on Luke's use of "prepared" and Mark's use of "bought" is scholastic absurdity. Are we to believe that buying spices precludes one from preparing them for use? This is a distinction without a difference, a semantic game played to manufacture support for your theory. It is the very definition of grasping at straws.

Catalogued sloppiness #5. By admission and practice:

It's appears to be reasonable counter-point, until we see the two records are taken out of context, from the two different days at hand:

But first a couple points by the verses alone:
1. The difference is not only prepared vs bought, but also ointment and spices vs spices alone, as well as species vs sweet spices. That makes three distinct differences in the items, not just one distinction without a difference.

2.
Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Mar 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Standing alone, neither record on it's face, reasonably allows for an insert of first bought in one, and then prepared in the other. It's a clumsy insertion into the record at best.

But with context, it's impossible for the other women following Jesus to the tomb, being lawful Jews, to have first bought the ointment and spices, when returning home during the High Sabbath day.

The early onset of darkness compelled the Jews to have Pilate break their legs, so as not to be on a cross during the Sabbath:

Luk 23:44
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Jhn 19:31
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Those women did not leave until Jesus's body was first taken down from the cross and wrapped. Then they followed Him carried to the tomb, to see where He lay. Only then did they return home during the Sabbath, when no selling or buying is allowed by Jewish law.

Luk 23:54
And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

This confirms their travels were as the Sabbath continued on.

Luk 23:55
And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

After the burial, the record is the women went home to prepare the ointment and spices for the body of Jesus. Those lawful Jewish women did not stop to buy anything during any Sabbath, much less the High Sabbath that day, after their Lord was crucified.

You are not interpreting the Gospels;

Of course not. This isn't about interpretation of doctrine and prophecy, but only accurate reporting of the record, which you have shown an admitted sloppy disregard for, and catalogued 5 times:

And now you also admit you're only making interpretations, and have not been quoting and accurately reporting recorded facts. While I have been advising quotations to keep the factual record straight. And doing so...

You then demand we debate your fan-fiction instead of the actual source documents.

Not anymore. Your willingness to at least theorize an event at dark is not an event at dawn, was sufficient for you then to argue any conflicts. But without quotations, your effort was hamstrung. As well as your purpose to only give personal interpretation, rather than recorded fact.