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.

[historia]

We've probably jumped the shark at this point in the thread, and my tardy replies haven't helped matters. But, for the sake of completeness, let me add this last bit of analysis.

Keep in mind, Wright does not actually list all 85 claimed instances anywhere in his book. He withholds that from the reader which is suspicious.

Let's go through the sources you cited, then:

Waldenfels gives no analysis of the use of ophthe in the LXX, NT, or other related literature.

Davis gives just nine NT examples, rather than any kind of survey.

Wolter gives 10 LXX examples, rather than any kind of survey.

In his lengthy article on horao in the TDNT, Michaelis gives counts for the aorist and future passive forms together (take note once again), but gives only a handful of LXX examples, rather than enumerating all occurrences.

Fringer, likewise, just tells us "the LXX uses ὤφθη 36 times" without enumerating them. There is, however, a footnote (n. 75) at that point in the text. Let's read that (pg. 98):

75. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 323, surveys all eighty-five passive forms, forty-six of which "refer either to YHWH, or YHWH's glory, or an angel of YHWH, appearing to people."

Isn't that interesting, a source you cited, in turn, cites Wright to give a fuller picture. Someone else in this thread thought that was a good idea too.

Now, Wright, on the other hand, cites nine examples for the 46 times ophthe refers "either to YHWH, or YHWH's glory, or an angel of YHWH, appearing to people." And then cites every single one of the 39 times it doesn't.

In other words, Wright has done far more than any of the authors in the OP to enumerate which verses in the LXX he has analyzed. And, really, there's no reason for any of these authors to list every single occurrence, when readers can easily consult a concordance. Any "suspicion" you might have here, then, seems completely misplaced.

Again -- and I can't stress this enough -- these attempts to discredit Wright himself have only hurt your cause.

[AchillesHeel]

Likewise, as I noted above, this early creed Paul is quoting employs the language of resurrection, which denotes a return to physical life. We also have -- as one of the sources you yourself cited points out -- the mention of the appearance to 500 brothers at one time, which is hard to explain on the hypothesis these are all just subjective visions of some kind.

In other words, all else is not, in fact, "equal" here. The context of 1 Cor. furnishes important information about what Paul meant in ch. 15. And, taken together, show that he and other early Christians were claiming to have seen Jesus resurrected and not simply in a vision.

I've already addressed this.

1. The appearance to Paul was a vision and he uses the same verb for each "appearance" in the list. This fact alone lends evidential weight to the visionary interpretation.
2. A belief in a physical resurrection is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow anyone really saw the physically resurrected person especially when "visions" were accepted as appearances. If these people believed Jesus was appearing to them from heaven, it doesn't matter how large the group was.

So my argument still stands. The earliest source provides no evidence for veridical sightings of a resurrected person which is a requirement for the Resurrection argument to be evidentially persuasive.

And, like Wright, you've ignored the fact that 95%+ uses of the exact same word ὤφθη in the New Testament refer to visions, heavenly appearances, angels appearing, and other supernatural phenomena despite posting about it twice now. I think that speaks for itself and tells me all I need to know. You're also selectively quoting and ignoring the more salient points such as Paul's experience being explicitly described as a vision and not acknowledging the counter to the examples you gave earlier - Acts 26:16 is a vision according to v. 19. Acts 22:17-21 explicitly describes a vision "in a trance." You dodging the question about what did the people actually see when Yahweh's glory "appeared" to them shows you are unwilling to admit any evidence against your view. The point of the question was that, in most cases, what they see is not described or they don't see anything physical at all.