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.

[Difflugia]

But any suggestion that the accounts are doubtful due to publishing after the fact, is only personal opinion.

That's not what's being suggested. The reason that publication date is important is that Paul's history of the church seems to conflict with the canonical Gospels. When there are conflicts, we tend to trust the earlier narrative in preference to later ones. That's not something that can't be changed with more evidence, but order of composition is important when comparing sources.

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

Historians do not treat historical records as 'stories'

From How the Gospels Became History by M. David Litwa, page 1:

This book compares stories in the canonical gospels with stories often
classified as Greek and Roman “myths.”

That's exactly how historians treat historical records. Page one!

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:

Which is why historians have such a difficult time separating fact from fiction in the the New Testament. The evangelists made no distinction between things like, "walking by the sea of Galilee, Jesus saw two brothers," and "many bodies of saints that had died were raised." One's possible and one's not, but both are presented as fact without comment.

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.

I know, right? Those kooky skeptics.

There is no comparison between the recorded historical events in the NT, and that of Herodotus.

I absolutely agree with you.

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.

To the contrary, the only way to treat the bulk of the Gospel account as history is to declare the the Bible is a priori authoritative and trustworthy, like we do for T&D discussions.

And if any event is false, then they all are doubtful,

Now you're thinking like a historian!

since all their recorded testimonies agree.

Let's not get carried away.

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

Probably, but we don't know.

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'.

Anyone speaking of any part of the NT as stories, is disqualified from historical debate about the events recorded.

Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the New Testament:

Greek mythology contains accounts of gods and humans performing wonders similar to some of the New Testament miracle stories.

In case you don't recognize Blomberg's name, he's arguing here for the historical reliability of the New Testament. That's just how historians talk. You might want to spend some more time with the subject.

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.

Those grapes are probably sour, anyway.

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

The following is the opening sentence to Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, a novel that involves time-travelling aliens shaped like plungers:

All this happened, more or less.

Fiction sometimes says it's not fiction. So it goes.

Full reject.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[1213]

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

Good that you say "less probable". To me it is enough that it is probable.

[AchillesHeel]

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.

If you're saying that since Mary Magdalene isn't named before Lk. 24:10, therefore she wasn't a member of the group of women in Lk. 23:55 - that is simply a non-sequitur.

Just compare Lk. 23:55 to the other gospels:

Lk. 23:55
"The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it."

Mk. 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2
"Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there...Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid. 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."

Mt. 27:55-56, 61; 28:1
" Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons....Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Now let's bookend with Lk. 24:1, 10.

"On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb....It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."

The reason Luke, who was dependent on Mark, mentions Mary Magdalene in v. 10 is because she's one of the women who came with Jesus from Galilee, watched the burial and went to the tomb Sunday morning per the other gospels. That's why she was able to explain what happened to the apostles! Notice how Luke matches Mark verbatim in that the visit was "very early in the morning."

It's the same exact visit. There is no way you're able to wiggle out of this.

You're also failing to see the contradiction in Mary first seeing Jesus prior to telling any disciples versus telling disciples first then seeing Jesus afterwards. It doesn't matter how many "visits" you invent. You cannot have the first appearance of Jesus to Mary be both before and after telling disciples. It can only be one or the other.

[RBD]

It defies our understanding of the laws of nature. It's ancient, as it happened over 2,000 years ago. Today we don't accept anecdotal evidence for something that's considered so extreme. So you are correct, without even getting into details. What is your point, just that? If so, your point is moot if the word of God is living with the power to transform lives and the course of human history. You can believe in the resurrection without having the ability to observe it and reproduce data and peer reviewed research.

This is also the main point for debate. The problem is not individuals choosing to not believe, but people who declare it's can't be believed. It's not a matter of objective sketicism, but of fraudulent claims that it didn't happen.

And since it can't be physically proven today, then it can only be proven false by some error within the Bible record. That is where the debate is supposed to be moved to objective review, not subjective personal tampering with the Book itself. (Which is always proven to be the case, including here...)

Conclusion, as a firm believer in Jesus' resurrection, my only interest is any verifiable errors in the record. The good exercise is to objectively review the Book for myself to see if that's so. In the process I do in fact learn much more about what the record is actually saying, than if I had not been challenged by supposed contradictions, conflicts, factual errors from others. So, I am in that way thankful and more than glad to handle them:

Act 26:2
I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews (and Gentile unbelievers...)

So I began this debate by saying you are correct, and I'm ending it by saying there are other ways to test the validity of a belief, and these ways are just as valid. Maybe even more valid if the entire objective of it is to achieve transformation and growth through the salvation of Christ.

And this is exactly true. Not only does Bible inerrancy at least allow for intelligent belief in the Book as written, but another sure way to see for ourselves is to practice it, and see if the promises made are promises kept:

Acts{3:19} Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

And that is the problem with anyone against believing the gospel record, they can never set aside their own antagonism to even belief enough to see for themselves, if such things are so...

[RBD]

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.

While I normally stick to the details of Bible debate itself, I firmly agree with your point here. So far as outcomes of faith, we can easily compare the lives and societies of those who believe in being created in God's image and Jesus's resurrection, vs those who believe in human evolution, where humans are animals no created in the image of God.

No doubt pogrom harm has been done in the name of Christianity, whether ignorantly or purposeful, but what has the 'humans are animals' movement produced? Marxist and communism with godless persecution, liberalism with political correctness, schooled indoctrination, unrestricted abortion, radical environmentalism, wokism, and gender identity crises...Just to name a few.

Among the police, they have saying for former criminals gone good, that don't need watching: Gone Christian...

[RBD]

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.


Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the argument is twofold: First that the earliest published record of Jesus' resurrection, is Paul's eyewitness testimony in 1 Cor 15, in the the 50's A.D.

This is used to somehow mean Paul was the first person to ever testify of Jesus's resurrection:

"When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15)...

The statement is fairly clear, that the intent is to propose that no one before the apostle Paul ever testified of seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Therefore, the lateness of the testimony makes it suspicious at best. In fact, if the first 'sighting' were about 30 years later, then such an event is highly unlikely.

This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me""

The argument then states any other published records of the testimony of others, is somehow disqualified, since it's not written firsthand, like Paul's.

Therefore, the published Gospel accounts can be set aside as 'only' secondhand hearsay stories, and not firsthand witness accounts of the writers. This is arranged by reverting to the the 'scholarly' reviews, who conclude in most scholarly fashion, that they are voila, in fact not written by any eyewitness in the account, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

And though once again, I haven't seen the argument against Rev 1, where John is also publishing his own eyewitness account, the same above argument could apply due to it's even greater lateness..

Secondly, having redefined the terms of historical analysis and proof, the argument then focus's on Paul's published testimony, in order to dismiss a physical resurrection testimony.

"the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person."

The first and 'only' verifiable account of Jesus' resurrection, isn't even seeing Him physically, but only as a kind of spiritual vision of the old prophetic sort.

Conclusion: There's no basis for beleiving in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because there's only one published account 30 years later, that can be 'historically' called an eyewitness testimony, which of course is long past due, but the final nail to Jesus' coffin, is that one single out of date account, doesn't really even say it was physical: You see, there's no reason whatsoever to believe in Jesus' physical resurrection, because in fact there fails to be so much as an 'historically legitimate' eyewitness testimony saying so...

Personally, I find it to be a pretty ingenious way to erase testimonial reports of an historical event, but simply redefining the criteria for historical analysis and proof.

Specifically, that would be some kind of historical demand, that the only eyewitness testimony that can be accepted, is firsthand publishing of the account. Other secondhand recorded testimonies, shouldn't be entered into the record at all. Which of course, not only rules at the great majority of historical records, both ancient and modern, but including any published records of testimony by a mere court secretary...

AQs to your point that Paul certainly does later state emphatically of the seeing the risen Lord Jesus physically, then perhaps the 'lateness' doctrine, can be used to discount it. Perhaps Paul later revised his account as being physical, in order to become a co-conspirator of the growing new Christian religion, that has been 'evolving' it's stories around the original events, in order to state it was indeed a physical body resurrection, and not just fireside tales to buck-up the spirits of His erstwhile believers and followers?

Which also earned him the immediate right to be persecuted by the Jews, and later beheaded by the Romans. But hey, apostolic power in a new religion for a season? with the accompanying stonings, whippings, accusations, and kangaroo courts, is more enticing than a comfortably favored leadership in the Jewish Sanhedrin...?

[AchillesHeel]

Seems RBD is trying to bury this thread in three separate comments while refusing to respond to the fact that Mary Magdalene was one of the women in Luke 23:55. viewtopic.php?p=1176609&sid=7350f7a5758 ... 1#p1176609

This is used to somehow mean Paul was the first person to ever testify of Jesus's resurrection:

Not at all. The point was to show that Paul seemingly equates the appearance to him (which was a vision) with the appearances to the others in the earliest written testimony we have in regards to the Resurrection witnesses. So the inference is that they all had post-ascension visions like he had and the stories evolve more fantastic later on with embellishments involving touching a fully revivified corpse that is witnessed floating into the sky.

"When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15)...

The statement is fairly clear, that the intent is to propose that no one before the apostle Paul ever testified of seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Therefore, the lateness of the testimony makes it suspicious at best. In fact, if the first 'sighting' were about 30 years later, then such an event is highly unlikely.

Wrong again. Of course, there was earlier testimony - but from Paul's written testimony whereby he places a "vision" in the list of appearances without making a distinction, the nature of the appearances in the earliest Christianity becomes indistinguishable from imaginary visions and revelations.

This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me""

The argument then states any other published records of the testimony of others, is somehow disqualified, since it's not written firsthand, like Paul.

Therefore, the published Gospel accounts can be set aside as 'only' secondhand hearsay stories, and not firsthand witness accounts of the writers. This is arranged by reverting to the the 'scholarly' reviews, who conclude in most scholarly fashion, that they are voila, in fact not written by any eyewitness in the account, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Not "disqualified" but of less importance historically in comparison to a verified firsthand eyewitness account. Why on earth would you put more stock in the truth of a disputed and later source than an earlier and verified firsthand account? Does any historian on earth do this?

And though once again, I haven't seen the argument against Rev 1, where John is also publishing his own eyewitness account, the same above argument could apply due to it's even greater lateness..

Would that be the John in Revelation who was describing a vision he had too?

Feel free to respond to my comments directly. Using someone else's post to refer to my arguments seems very disingenuous.

[RBD]

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"...

The failure of this argument appears to be by one thing: Some sort of rule of historical review and proofing, that testimonials must be published firsthand, in order to be considered as recorded testimony. Hence, the argument that Paul in 1 Cr 15 is earliest testimony of Jesus' resurrection, which would be not until 30 years after the fact. The recorded testimonies and preaching of His physical resurrection, published secondhand don't count.

your assertion that Mary Magdalene's testimony is the "earliest" was not supported with any evidence whatsoever. We do not even have Mary's own firsthand account.

I.e. because the published gospel account of Magdelene's testimony is only secondhand, and not firsthand by Mary herself, then it don't count as the earliest published testimony of seeing Jesus resurrected and alive on earth...

This pseudo 'qualifier' for historical review, of course, disqualifies most ancient and present historical records, including published stenography of court testimony. Because they are only secondhand published accounts, they must be relegated to only 'hearsay' evidence... Hence, the further references to the gospel accounts being mere stories and legends, until being consolidated into one Book by some later publisher.

This kind of revisionist historical proofing, would then of course conveniently rule out most of the Bible, as well as all the recorded testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Needless to say, such a personally made rule has nothing to do with accepted proofings of historical accounts.

And still, even if that's not the case being argued here, then the argument fails, by being centered around a single 'word-definition' objection, out of all the many testimonies of Jesus' resurrection recorded in the gospel accounts. I.e. there is no unusual time gap between the event, since the first recorded testimony of the event is on the first day, with recorded preaching of the event 49 days later.

If indeed the very first testimony of Jesus' resurrection is not until 30 years later, then it could be dismissed as some other kind of fabulous vision, like an Elvis sighting...And any argument about the actual testimony is just an addendum.

[Haven]

This pseudo 'qualifier' for historical review, of course, disqualifies most ancient and present historical records, including published stenography of court testimony.

This isn’t even remotely true. For impactful historical figures like Julius Caesar, we have multiple contemporaneous independent attestation, enemy attestation, historical events that would only work if they existed (like the founding of the Roman Empire), and physical artifacts as well. Court records are corroborated by documentation that requires independent attestation and usually physical evidence, or records of it after a certain time has passed.

[Goose]

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.

Thanks for saying thanks and you’ve obviously put in a good effort. Although I think you are ultimately knocking down a strawman (I will get to that), it’s an interesting topic. Well, I find pretty much anything to do with the Resurrection interesting.

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.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make. However, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 does represent the beliefs of early Christianity and simply does not say anything explicit about the nature of the appearances.

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.

I don’t think that necessarily follows. We’ve already agreed that ὤφθη has a wide range of usage. The use of ὤφθη for each appearance can also be understood as conveying that all the appearances were equally valid regardless of the mode. There’s nothing in the creed that necessarily commits it to equating the nature of the appearances.

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.

The text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 doesn’t explicitly comment on the nature of the appearances. We would have to turn other texts such as the Gospels/Acts to establish that.

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.

The totality of the evidence does 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.

Using your reasoning I’ve already given a text where Paul does provide this kind of evidence in 1 Corinthians 9:1.

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.

While I can appreciate the desire for Paul to explain everything, perhaps the difference, if there was one, is not explicitly explained by Paul because he is simply reminding his readers of a creed that they had already received from him.

The difference would still need to indicate the appearances to the others were veridical/physical which Paul doesn't do.

Using your own reasoning, Paul implies it at 1 Corinthians 9:1.

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.

We can speculate but the point is the creed isn’t trying to make a statement about the nature of the appearances. As far as the creed is concerned, the appearances could have been all different, they could have been all the same. That’s not the point being made by the creed. The point being made is that Jesus was seen by a variety of people.

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.

Paul has already indicated the timing by placing himself last in the order combined with the use of εσχατον. The word Paul uses in relation to his experience is ἔκτρωμα (often translated as “untimely born”) which literally means a miscarriage/abortion. It implies Paul’s experience was anomalous in some way.

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.

The five hundred weren’t disciples either. Nor was James a disciple if we accept this is a reference to James the brother of Jesus. Verse 9 is Paul’s admission that he is not worthy to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church.

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.

You’re just repeating your argument here. I’m asking you what is the evidential burden that needs to be met when considering ancient claims? What evidence must be provided to meet the evidential burden of proof? Firsthand accounts? Multiple accounts? Archaeological confirmation? Or something else? Rather than just asserting the resurrection fails to meet some undisclosed evidential bar, can you flesh out what that evidential bar is as it relates to ancient history?

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.

Your reasoning here would rule out much of the historical record since so much of it conflicts. Take for instance the extra-Biblical evidence we have for Pilate which comes to us from Philo and Josephus. Their respective accounts contradict one another to such a degree that some scholars question whether they are even referencing the same event. Using your reasoning those sources are disqualified.

As for the resurrection narratives in the Gospels the core of the narratives are the same - death, burial, resurrection and appearances. It’s the secondary details that differ. It’s not unlike other accounts from ancient history in this regard.

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.

It doesn’t need to be. I’m using your reasoning that Paul uses the active form when he unambiguously refers to seeing someone.

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.

Paul’s Damascus road experience as recorded in Acts shows that his experience with Jesus was different than the experiences of the disciples recorded in the Gospels.

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

What rhetorical purpose does evoking Sirach 42:15 serve? The contexts are entirely different, the word order doesn’t follow. Paul is asserting his apostleship on the grounds of having seen Jesus whereas in Sirach 42:15ff the things that have been seen are God’s natural creation. Which would only serve to undermine your argument if Paul is in fact evoking Sirach 42:15. In such a case Paul would be consciously borrowing from a text that uses the same word to describe things seen in the natural world. Moreover, if Paul did pull the active form ἑόρακα from Sirach 42:15 and use it in 1 Cor 9:1 we would expect him to do the same for the creed in 1 Cor 15. I think a better explanation is that 1 Corinthians 9:1 are Paul’s words whereas 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is Paul repeating the words of a creed.

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.

The fact remains Paul uses the active form of ὁράω in relation to having seen Jesus. Your counterargument here is grounded in a double standard. On the one hand you argue 1:18-19 or 2:14 is unambiguous. But there are likewise no explicit details or description. Even one of your proof texts in Galatians 2:14 seems to imply seeing in a figurative sense. Unless we hold that Paul meant he literally saw them not walking around in an upright bipedal position. Furthermore, Paul uses the past tense active form of ὁράω in the context of figuratively seeing in Galatians right between your two proof texts:

But on the contrary, seeing (ιδοντες) that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised – Galatians 2:7

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.

You’re having to go far afield (Plato?) to find support for your counter argument whereas my support was taken right from the New Testament. Indeed I provided an example of εωρακασιν being used for literally seeing Paul’s face taken from one of his letters if we hold that Colossians (2:1) was authored by Paul as the internal and external evidence suggests.

Ultimately these word study arguments are not advancing the argument one way or the other. Which I suspect is the objective of your overall argument. It’s not meant to prove anything, only to muddy the waters.

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.

You are quite clearly shifting the burden here. You are the one who has claimed in your OP that The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof. Now, rather than defend the assertion beyond repeating the argument, you are shifting the burden.

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.

And there it is, the strawman. Christian theology is not that Jesus resurrection appearances were “encounters with a formerly dead revived corpse.” I suggest you take some time to understand the Christian theology concerning the resurrected body. I think it will help you nuance your arguments in such a way that you aren’t knocking down this juvenile night of the living dead strawman.

Now, if you are making the argument that Paul's letters alone are insufficient to establish the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact, I can concede the point just as we might concede the letters of Cicero alone are insufficient to establish the assassination of Caesar as an historical fact.

So, it seems one will have to appeal to the gospels but we've already been over the problems with those.

All historical sources have problems, including the Gospels. But alas the Gospels form part of the historical record just like the later narratives of Caesar’s assassination form part of the historical record as well. The way in which you are arguing would be similar to me arguing that the cryptic references to Caesar’s death found in the letters of Cicero are insufficient to demonstrate that Caesar was actually assassinated in a grand senatorial plot involving as many eighty senators. While I can appreciate the preference for first hand sources, this kind of methodology, where we only work with firsthand sources, is frankly ridiculous. It’s just not how historians do history.