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]

If you pickup a history textbook or consult a standard reference work, you'll find all kinds of mundane facts about the past that are based on a single, late source that is 'friendly' to the subject matter the author is discussing, and so would be at least a six on your scale. That's especially true for the ancient world, where contemporary sources are the exception rather than the rule.

How is this relevant to the supernatural claim that is at the heart of this thread: the alleged resurrection of Jesus?

Mundane claims and supernatural claims shouldn’t be weighted equally, as I mentioned earlier.

It appears you lost the thread of our discussion here. If you return to post #91, you'll see I disagreed with the first part of your statement about what what was sufficient to support ordinary, mundane claims about the past. You asked me to explain further, which is what my response here does.

For my thoughts about the relationship between miracles and the historical method, just go back to post #91.

[historia]

These are all aorist passive forms with the dative just as in 1 Cor 15 so there's no double standard, just a misunderstanding on your part.

I understand Wolter's claim just fine, of course. My previous comment here was directed specifically at your earlier suggestion that it's somehow "misleading" to include "conjugations" in our analysis. Any analysis of a word will necessarily include conjugations.

This was, at any rate, only a minor point in my previous reply. You didn't address my major point, so let's return to that now:

Wright is not just looking at the aorist passive, but also the future passive, as does BDAG, since these are clearly related.

Why is that relevant?

Because, as I said previously, when you want to analyze what a word means, you don't just narrowly look at one form of it. That's not how any dictionary or lexicon works. Again:

Any serious analysis of the meaning of words (in Greek or any other language) will necessarily group together and analyze related forms of the same word. To see evidence for that just pick up a dictionary.

BDAG gives nearly a dozen definitions for the word horao (pg. 719-20) based on groups of related forms of that verb. The entry for 1(d) is the most relevant to us: "pass. in act. sense become visible, appear." It gives several examples of passages, both inside and outside the NT, that contain one of the various passive forms of horao, all of which have opthe as their root. That includes those in the past tense (usually aorist) as well as those in the future tense, since both give the sense of "appear," the only difference being when ("appeared" or "will appear").

In our analysis of opthe, why would we not include the future passive when BDAG does? Are we to assume that opthe suddenly takes on a substantially different meaning when it's in the past tense that it doesn't possess when it's in the future tense?

Consider, for example, Leviticus 9, where Moses tells Aaron that, if he performs the sacrifices as God commanded, the glory of the Lord "will appear" (v. 6) to the Israelites. And then, having correctly completed the sacrifices, the text goes on to say that the glory of the Lord "appeared" (v. 23) to the people.

Or Acts 26:16, where Luke narrates Paul's encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, in which Jesus says he has now "appeared" to Paul and also "will appear" to him later (cf., Acts 22:17-21 as one of those later appearances).

In both of these examples, should we conclude that "will appear" (passive future + dative) somehow refers to a different mode of seeing compared to "appeared" (passive aorist + dative)? Surely not! But then what, exactly, is the rationale to treat the past tense differently?

Wright is just wrong here and there is no saving him.

But how, exactly, is he "wrong"?

With regard to his analysis, Wright is, again, simply examining the LXX using the same grouping of related forms of opthe that BDAG uses when analyzing the NT. Is BDAG "wrong" too?

With regard to his conclusion that ophthe by itself doesn't tell us in what sense the person is seeing the subject, two of the authors you cited in the OP -- Davis and Michaelis -- say basically the same thing. Are the authors you are citing "wrong" too?

Davis, in particular, is worth quoting in full. You've repeated the same quote from him frequently in this thread, but the very next sentence after the part you quote starts with "But . . ." Backing up slightly:

The argument [from some scholars] is that the religious use of opthe 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.

But other scholars have pointed out that opthe can also be used (and is so used in both the New Testament and the Septuagint) for ordinary visual apprehension of a human being or a material object (e.g. Acts 7: 26). That is, it can be used both for ordinary seeing of material objects and for the visualizing of supernatural beings. Indeed, there are other Greek words (horama and optasia) that are normally used for what we would call visions, especially of things that are normally invisible, like God or angels (see Matt. 17:9; Acts 9:10; 16:19).

It is true that the use of opthe does not require that the sense be that of normal vision, but neither is normal vision ruled out. Indeed, the word covers a whole range of visual phenomena. When Paul says that the risen Jesus 'appeared to me', the notion of normal vision of a material object is neither required nor ruled out.

However, for non-linguistic reasons, the appearance to 'more than five hundred' that Paul mentions (1 Cor. 15:6) must surely refer to seeing rather than visualizing. Raymond Brown rightly ridicules the very idea of more than five hundred people having the same objective vision as synchronized ecstasy.

Simply stated, opthe does not require the sense of visualizing as opposed to seeing, and in view of examples like Acts 7:26 the argument that it does collapses. We must decide what is meant in each instance of its use by analysis of the context (among other things), not simply by lexical fiat. It is not possible to decide the nature of Jesus' resurrection appearances on the basis of a linguistic analysis of one verb.

In the quote we were examining from Wright above, he even cites this work from Davis in support of his conclusion.

All of the quotes I gave in the OP have been ignored.

This is an odd assertion to make when I've engaged with, and quoted from, the sources in the OP over my past three responses. Obviously, I haven't "ignored" them.

Perhaps what you mean to say here is that I haven't uncritically accepted them. That is certainly true. In particular, I find the claim that opthe is a "technical term" unconvincing. Apparently so does Davis.

Ultimately, you and I are just deriving differing -- and not even mutually exclusive -- conclusions from the data and the scholarship.

As I understand your argument, you're noting that, because opthe doesn't un-ambiguously refer to seeing something in the normal sense, it doesn't furnish "proof" that Paul claimed to see (in the normal sense) the resurrected Jesus. I don't disagree. And, as I mentioned previously, since no one is saying it is "proof," that's not even a controversial claim.

The point I'm making is just the other side of the same un-controversial coin: Because opthe doesn't un-ambiguously refer to seeing something in a visionary sense either, it cannot by itself tell us in what sense Paul or the other apostles say they saw Jesus after his death. Other factors will determine that.

[historia]

Do you think Jesus predicted his own resurrection? That would be, I have to say, a rather odd position to hold for someone who considers the resurrection accounts themselves to be "pure mythology."

Critical scholars see the predictions of the resurrection in the gospels as retrojections on the part of the early Christian community -- and thus not historical. Surely that is the more coherent skeptical reading of the text. And one that undermines your objection here.

Let me apologize for overstating my case there.

No need to apologize. If you can't overstate your case on an Internet message board, where can you?

Jesus (as a charismatic new religious movement leader) would have been treated (by his followers) differently than "someone’s grandma," to use your example.

My example also included visions of recently departed saints, who also often led religious movements.

There was also the suggestion earlier in the thread that the Chabad-Lubavitch movement furnishes an interesting, recent example of a Jewish sect that believes their leader is the messiah, with some members making claims about him after his death. We could look at that in more detail, too, if anyone is so inclined.

Btw, when you state “critical scholars” believe something, that’s a bit problematic. Not all critical scholars agree with each other on Jesus’ life, statements or predictions.

Normally I would agree, of course. In fact, I originally included some hedging language with my previous comment. But, on reflection, I took it out, since I couldn't think of a single critical scholar that holds Jesus predicted his resurrection. If you know of one, I'll happily amend it.

belief in resurrection (whether bodily or spiritual) was widespread among Pharisees and Hellenized Jews in the first-century Levant.

The part I bolded is where we appear to have some disagreement, I think. But, first, perhaps you can flesh out what you mean by that and provide support for it.

(I should note that I've given virtually no attention to the other conversations in this thread, so if you've done that already in another post, please just point me back to that.)

That creed says that Jesus was resurrected, which doesn't just "suggest" a physical rising from the dead, it explicitly entails it.

Only if you believe “resurrection” must be a physical process.

What you or I believe is irrelevant here. We're concerned with what Jesus' earliest followers likely believed.

I’d argue that such an insistence is ahistorical (since the concept of “physical” as distinct from spiritual or numinous only dates back to the Renaissance and early science, more than 1500 years after Jesus’ execution).

I'll happily acknowledge that "physical" is something of a modern term. But it would be a mistake to think that ancient peoples didn't have a similar notion of the "material" in contradistinction to the "non-material" -- "body" in contradistinction to the "soul" or "spirit." Gnosticism, Platonism, and much Second Temple Jewish thought wouldn't make much sense if that wasn't the case.

It’s worth noting that even the gospels don’t clearly present Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances as ordinary physical events.

Indeed, while the concept of resurrection could certainly include the notion of returning to "ordinary" life, it could also, and often did, entail the belief that one's resurrected body would take on extra-ordinary properties.

But what is consistent between those two scenarios is the belief in a return to bodily life, a material existence after death. That is what the concept of resurrection entails. And is quite different from the belief that one's "soul" or "spirit" departed into the after-life.

[AchillesHeel]

I understand Wolter's claim just fine, of course. My previous comment here was directed specifically at your earlier suggestion that it's somehow "misleading" to include "conjugations" in our analysis. Any analysis of a word will necessarily include conjugations.

I wasn't citing Wolter here. I was responding to this claim:

Let's back up here a second: You yourself "smuggled in" (to use your phrase) various conjugations of opthe when you provided your summary of NT usage back in post #2 (emphasis mine):

6. Acts 2:3 – "Tongues of fire appeared (ὤφθησαν) among them" – Manifestation of the Spirit "from heaven" – Acts 2:2.

10. Acts 9:17 – "So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared (ὀφθείς) to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'"

13. Acts 26:16 – "I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you" – In a "vision from heaven" – Acts 26:19.

Now, after having demonstrated these have the same aorist passive + dative construction as 1 Cor 15, you have no response.

Conclusion: You were wrong.

Because, as I said previously, when you want to analyze what a word means, you don't just narrowly look at one form of it. That's not how any dictionary or lexicon works.

I'm looking at the exact form and construction as used in 1 Cor 15! Why appeal to other forms that are not used in the passage in question? That is totally dishonest.

You're admitting my point by doing so. Essentially you're saying "ok, when we look at the exact same form/construction as used in 1 Cor 15 you have a point, but what about all the different forms that are not used in 1 Cor 15?"

Now pay attention to why this construction is important from the previous quotes:

"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." - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

"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’)." - Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

Why is this distinction important?

Because a person who is physically there and objectively visible in reality doesn't need to "make himself visible." He just is and should be witnessed by everyone standing around without any help. That is why this construction is a theological passive, meaning he's supernaturally "made visible" by God, meaning normal eyesight alone is not sufficient to see the person.

In our analysis of opthe, why would we not include the future passive when BDAG does? Are we to assume that opthe suddenly takes on a substantially different meaning when it's in the past tense that it doesn't possess when it's in the future tense?

It depends on the context of course but, according to my own understanding, there simply is no future active form of horao and so the terminological options for a future seeing event are limited.

Consider, for example, Leviticus 9, where Moses tells Aaron that, if he performs the sacrifices as God commanded, the glory of the Lord "will appear" (v. 6) to the Israelites. And then, having correctly completed the sacrifices, the text goes on to say that the glory of the Lord "appeared" (v. 23) to the people.

What exactly do they "see" or experience though?

Or Acts 26:16, where Luke narrates Paul's encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, in which Jesus says he has now "appeared" to Paul and also "will appear" to him later (cf., Acts 22:17-21 as one of those later appearances).

Acts 26:16 is a vision according to v. 19. Acts 22:17-21 explicitly describes a vision "in a trance." He does not physically descend from heaven and appear until the Second Coming.

In both of these examples, should we conclude that "will appear" (passive future + dative) somehow refers to a different mode of seeing compared to "appeared" (passive aorist + dative)? Surely not! But then what, exactly, is the rationale to treat the past tense differently?

It depends on the context. Are you saying Paul's past experience wasn't a vision?

But how, exactly, is he "wrong"?

Because he ignores that aorist passive + dative construction and appeals to other forms which are not used in the passage in question!

With regard to his analysis, Wright is, again, simply examining the LXX using the same grouping of related forms of opthe that BDAG uses when analyzing the NT. Is BDAG "wrong" too?

How does Mr. Wright explain this?

Here are all the instances of ὤφθη in the New Testament. 95+% of cases refer to visions or supernatural appearances.

1. Matthew 17:3 – "And behold appeared (ὤφθη) to them Moses" – Called a "vision" (horama) in Mt. 17:9.

2. Mark 9:4 – "And appeared (ὤφθη) to them Elijah" – Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew.

3. Luke 1:11 – "Appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him" – "An angel appeared" – called a "vision" in Lk. 1:22.

4. Luke 22:43 – "Appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him" – "An angel from heaven appeared."

5. Luke 24:34 – "Lord and appeared (ὤφθη) to Simon" – Taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5?

6. Acts 2:3 – "Tongues of fire appeared (ὤφθησαν) among them" – Manifestation of the Spirit "from heaven" – Acts 2:2.

7. Acts 7:2 – "The God of glory appeared (ὤφθη) to our father Abraham."

8. Acts 7:26 – "The day he (Moses) appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting together."

9. Acts 7:30 – "Years forty appeared (ὤφθη) to him in" – "An angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush."

10. Acts 9:17 – "So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared (ὀφθείς) to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'"

11. Acts 13:31 – "Who appeared (ὤφθη) for days" – Compare this to Acts 10:40-41: "But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

12. Acts 16:9 – "To Paul appeared (ὤφθη) a man of Macedonia" – (In a vision).

13. Acts 26:16 – "I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you" – In a "vision from heaven" – Acts 26:19.

14. 1 Corinthians 15:5 – "And that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas then" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

15. 1 Corinthians 15:6 – "Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

16. 1 Corinthians 15:7 – "Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James then" – The same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

17. 1 Corinthians 15:8 – "The untimely birth he appeared (ὤφθη) also to me" – Which was a vision/revelation – Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19.

18. 1 Timothy 3:16 – "In [the] Spirit was seen (ὤφθη) by angels, was proclaimed."

19. Revelation 11:19 – "Heaven and was seen (ὤφθη) the ark" – Takes place in heaven.

20. Revelation 12:1 – "A sign great was seen (ὤφθη)" – In heaven.

21. Revelation 12:3 – "And was seen (ὤφθη) another sign" – In heaven.

Davis, in particular, is worth quoting in full. You've repeated the same quote from him frequently in this thread, but the very next sentence after the part you quote starts with "But . . ." Backing up slightly:

The argument [from some scholars] is that the religious use of opthe 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.

But other scholars have pointed out that opthe can also be used (and is so used in both the New Testament and the Septuagint) for ordinary visual apprehension of a human being or a material object (e.g. Acts 7: 26). That is, it can be used both for ordinary seeing of material objects and for the visualizing of supernatural beings. Indeed, there are other Greek words (horama and optasia) that are normally used for what we would call visions, especially of things that are normally invisible, like God or angels (see Matt. 17:9; Acts 9:10; 16:19).

How does appealing to the sole exception (Acts 7:26) negate the rule as established by the other 20 instances above where it refers to a vision or supernatural appearance?

It is true that the use of opthe does not require that the sense be that of normal vision, but neither is normal vision ruled out. Indeed, the word covers a whole range of visual phenomena. When Paul says that the risen Jesus 'appeared to me', the notion of normal vision of a material object is neither required nor ruled out.

Again, the appearance to Paul was a post-ascension vision and he uses the same verb for all the other "appearances" without distinction in 1 Cor 15. This is an inference they were all understood to be the same type which refutes the idea that anyone physically interacted with a resurrected corpse as portrayed in the gospels. The point is the burden of proof is on the apologist for the Resurrection which requires the appearances were physical. Ophthe is insufficient to demonstrate that and so the earliest source gives no clear evidence anyone really saw Jesus.

However, for non-linguistic reasons, the appearance to 'more than five hundred' that Paul mentions (1 Cor. 15:6) must surely refer to seeing rather than visualizing. Raymond Brown rightly ridicules the very idea of more than five hundred people having the same objective vision as synchronized ecstasy.

It doesn't matter how many people Jesus "appeared" to if it was a post-ascension appearance from heaven. Might as well be 10,000. The verb ophthe is ambiguous and does not necessarily entail 500 people really saw a physical person in reality.

This is an odd assertion to make when I've engaged with, and quoted from, the sources in the OP over my past three responses. Obviously, I haven't "ignored" them.

Perhaps what you mean to say here is that I haven't uncritically accepted them. That is certainly true. In particular, I find the claim that opthe is a "technical term" unconvincing. Apparently so does Davis.

Ultimately, you and I are just deriving differing -- and not even mutually exclusive -- conclusions from the data and the scholarship.

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. The sources I cited actually pay attention to the construction in 1 Cor 15 which Wright seems to intentionally avoid. You don't have to agree it's a "technical term" but you must agree that, all else being equal, the term/construction is usually employed for a visionary/revelatory experience and so is prima facie evidence that is what is meant in 1 Cor 15, given the fact that active forms of "seeing" were also available for Paul to use.

As I understand your argument, you're noting that, because opthe doesn't un-ambiguously refer to seeing something in the normal sense, it doesn't furnish "proof" that Paul claimed to see (in the normal sense) the resurrected Jesus. I don't disagree. And, as I mentioned previously, since no one is saying it is "proof," that's not even a controversial claim.

The point I'm making is just the other side of the same un-controversial coin: Because opthe doesn't un-ambiguously refer to seeing something in a visionary sense either, it cannot by itself tell us in what sense Paul or the other apostles say they saw Jesus after his death. Other factors will determine that.

1. Paul is the earliest source - so less time for any legends to develop due to being in closer proximity to the events.
2. Paul is the only person who records his testimony firsthand - 1 Cor 9:1, 1 Cor 15:8, Gal. 1:16. In contrast, none of the gospels contain any direct firsthand testimony.
3. Scholars are unanimous that Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him. In contrast, the authorship of the gospels is disputed.
4. Paul is the only source in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have met Peter and James, something the gospels never do.

Just so you understand, this necessitates your case for the resurrection will be based on later sources without any firsthand attestation from sources which scholars disagree over the reliability and authorship and do not internally claim to have directly met any eyewitnesses. This puts them on totally different level than Paul's letters in regards to what's most likely to be historically trustworthy.

The takeaway is that the earliest and most reliable source, according to historical criteria, does not contain any evidence anyone really saw a resurrected figure. This is a huge blow to the foundation of the Resurrection claim whether you're willing to admit it or not.

No book I'm aware of, whether Wright, William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas ever address this problem. Rather, they shift the burden onto the skeptic to show the appearances were spiritual when they are the ones who have the burden here.

[Capbook]

You're really something. Even after calling you out for cherry picking and selective bias, you just continue to do the exact same thing.

Did I not point out to you the Bible lexicons definition of "vision" as always one of the definition is "sight?"
Is sight not the ability of the eye to see? Don't we know that visual is derived from the word "vision?"
Online help here..."Yes, the word "visual" is derived from "vision". Both words share the same Latin root, videre, meaning "to see". https://www.google.com/search?q=is+visu ... s-wiz-serp

And besides, the definition you quote about "dream" is absent in all verses you raised, as the Bible is specific if the "appearance" means by sight or by dream, as "appearance by dream" is precisely mentioned.(Mat 2:19)
I'll be selective and bias if "dream" ever cited in your proof-text.

Mat 2:19  But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, 

You trying to drive a wedge between Grandma's vision of Grandpa despite not being resurrected doesn't work because we've already established "appearances" of Jesus can occur in post-ascension visions from heaven because that's what Paul's experience was. This means both experiences would be the same evidence wise as there no physical body located on the earth to be seen or touched.

This is your statement, "For instance, Grandma "really saw" dead Grandpa and you can't tell her different! But do you really think Grandpa was really there in physical reality? Would you have really seen Grandpa too?"
Do the "really saw" means by mind? Or something Grandma's eyes have seen?

If Jesus was physically seen on His ascension and on His future second coming, is there a hint of "dream" appearance to Paul other than bodily seen, by sight at His post-ascension?

Saying “a vision is not something that happens in the mind” is like saying “water isn’t wet.” Wetness is what it means to be water in contact with something else. Likewise, being mental or revelatory is what makes a vision a vision, rather than just ocular sight.

If something that happens in the mind means to a "dream" yes, but nothing of that sort stated in almost all the verses being discussed.

Or it’s like insisting a “dream” isn’t mental unless a dictionary explicitly says “in the mind.” The entire category of “dream” presupposes that mental quality. No ancient Greek would have confused a horama with seeing your neighbor across the street.

Bible lexicons definitions are correct and justified by Bible verses that specifically state whether "appearances" by sight or by dream as it precisely mention "appeared by dream," if it you meant by "happens in the mind," which is absent from all your quoted verses.

The “mental” or “non-physical” aspect of horama and optasia doesn’t have to appear in the lexicon, because it’s inherent in the category of what a “vision” is. It’s like “wetness” for water or “sleep” for dreaming - you don’t need to keep restating what’s already conceptually built in. This is just a category error about lexical semantics. Dictionaries don’t always spell out every obvious entailment of a word’s usage.

Accordingly then, highly credentialed Lexicographers are now in error by the present readers? How about online help regarding the difference between visual and vision? They're both from the primary power of the eyes, not by mind. See below;

The key difference is that visual is about what is seen or related to sight, while vision is about the ability or act of seeing and processing information from sight. https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +vs+vision

The reason I cited the BDAG for revelation is because of Paul's own terminological choice in Gal. 1:12-16 whereby he labels his experience a revelation. Also, in 2 Cor 12 Paul uses the terms "visions and revelations" interchangeably - the exact same terminology used in Dan. 10:1 above. Both use "optasia" for vision and notice how Paul says he didn't know if his experience took place "in or out of the body." Now does that sound like someone with trustworthy information regarding actually seeing someone?

If he used them interchangeably, why not define "vision" directly?

Obviously not, which should cause us to doubt the veracity of Paul's "optasia" in the Damascus Road - the same "ophthe" episode referenced in 1 Cor 15:8 where a person isn't actually seen at all.

I believe I've already quoted 1Cor 15:5-8. The "He appeared or He was seen" is not "optasia" as you supposed.
In NASB+ the Greek is "ὁράω horaō' and in KJV+ the Greek is "optanomai/optomai" same means - to be seen, to see with the eyes.

And also the "seen" which is past participle of "see" defined by Merriam-Webster not by Bible lexicon as you try to downplay them, means - to become aware of by means of the eyes or have the power of sight?
Again clearly means not by mind, would you now dismiss Merriam-Webster same with Bible lexicons?

1Co 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 
1Co 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 
1Co 15:7  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 
1Co 15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

[AchillesHeel]

Do the "really saw" means by mind? Or something Grandma's eyes have seen?

Why does that matter? Grandma really saw dead Grandpa! Saw is the past tense of see which means visual perception, correct?

Are you all of a sudden interested in context after realizing that even if it's not explicitly stated that a vision takes place in the mind, sometimes that's just what visions are?

Does anyone in history who claimed to see a vision stipulate that "they only saw it in their mind" as if to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience? I've honestly never seen that. Rather, people just are convinced their visions are real as everyday experience - whether it was Joseph Smith or Arjuna's vision of Krishna. According to how you use "vision," they really saw what they claimed to!

I believe I've already quoted 1Cor 15:5-8. The "He appeared or He was seen" is not "optasia" as you supposed.
In NASB+ the Greek is "ὁράω horaō' and in KJV+ the Greek is "optanomai/optomai" same means - to be seen, to see with the eyes.

Did you miss the first post in this thread about the word for "appeared" there?

horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Here is the logic to follow:

1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him in 1 Cor 15:8
2. The appearance to Paul was an "optasia" per Acts 26:19, a "revelation" per Gal. 1:16.
3. Therefore, the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was necessarily a revelation/optasia.

Any questions?

[Capbook]

Do the "really saw" means by mind? Or something Grandma's eyes have seen?

Why does that matter? Grandma really saw dead Grandpa! Saw is the past tense of see which means visual perception, correct?

Are you all of a sudden interested in context after realizing that even if it's not explicitly stated that a vision takes place in the mind, sometimes that's just what visions are?

Does anyone in history who claimed to see a vision stipulate that "they only saw it in their mind" as if to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience? I've honestly never seen that. Rather, people just are convinced their visions are real as everyday experience - whether it was Joseph Smith or Arjuna's vision of Krishna. According to how you use "vision," they really saw what they claimed to!

I believe I've already quoted 1Cor 15:5-8. The "He appeared or He was seen" is not "optasia" as you supposed.
In NASB+ the Greek is "ὁράω horaō' and in KJV+ the Greek is "optanomai/optomai" same means - to be seen, to see with the eyes.

Did you miss the first post in this thread about the word for "appeared" there?

horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Here is the logic to follow:

1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him in 1 Cor 15:8
2. The appearance to Paul was an "optasia" per Acts 26:19, a "revelation" per Gal. 1:16.
3. Therefore, the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was necessarily a revelation/optasia.

Any questions?

Your argument of "vision" clearly falls to "dream."
1. If the vision "seeing with the mind", how do you differentiate it to a dream? - while Lexicons defined it as seeing by sight. (open eyes)
2. As dream is a definite description of "seeing with the mind." - Greek "ἐνύπνιον enypnion" Lexicon define it as sleep-vision. (closed eyes)
3. Notice: See visions vs have dreams. It does makes a difference. (Acts 2:17)
4. I'll also ask, any questions?

Act 2:17  ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR OUT MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN WILL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN WILL HAVE DREAMS; 

G1798 Mounce
ἐνύπνιον enypnion
1x: a dream; in NT a supernatural suggestion or impression received during sleep, a sleep-vision,

[AchillesHeel]

Do the "really saw" means by mind? Or something Grandma's eyes have seen?

Why does that matter? Grandma really saw dead Grandpa! Saw is the past tense of see which means visual perception, correct?

Are you all of a sudden interested in context after realizing that even if it's not explicitly stated that a vision takes place in the mind, sometimes that's just what visions are?

Does anyone in history who claimed to see a vision stipulate that "they only saw it in their mind" as if to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience? I've honestly never seen that. Rather, people just are convinced their visions are real as everyday experience - whether it was Joseph Smith or Arjuna's vision of Krishna. According to how you use "vision," they really saw what they claimed to!

I believe I've already quoted 1Cor 15:5-8. The "He appeared or He was seen" is not "optasia" as you supposed.
In NASB+ the Greek is "ὁράω horaō' and in KJV+ the Greek is "optanomai/optomai" same means - to be seen, to see with the eyes.

Did you miss the first post in this thread about the word for "appeared" there?

horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Here is the logic to follow:

1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him in 1 Cor 15:8
2. The appearance to Paul was an "optasia" per Acts 26:19, a "revelation" per Gal. 1:16.
3. Therefore, the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was necessarily a revelation/optasia.

Any questions?

Your argument of "vision" clearly falls to "dream."
1. If the vision "seeing with the mind", how do you differentiate it to a dream? - while Lexicons defined it as seeing by sight. (open eyes)
2. As dream is a definite description of "seeing with the mind." - Greek "ἐνύπνιον enypnion" Lexicon define it as sleep-vision. (closed eyes)
3. Notice: See visions vs have dreams. It does makes a difference. (Acts 2:17)
4. I'll also ask, any questions?

Act 2:17  ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR OUT MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN WILL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN WILL HAVE DREAMS; 

G1798 Mounce
ἐνύπνιον enypnion
1x: a dream; in NT a supernatural suggestion or impression received during sleep, a sleep-vision,

Well, for one you're not necessarily asleep when you experience the vision. We can point to numerous examples in the Bible of this - like Peter's visions in Acts 10 and 12. Moreover, Paul's "vision at night" in Acts is most likely a reference to a dream even though that word isn't used, so it's not necessarily the case that everyone would have made a distinction between dream-visions.

Acts 2:17 (Joel 2) seems to imply visions and dreams are a related medium through which God communicates with humans just like in Numbers 12:6.

Even when dreaming, active forms of "seen" are used in Greek.

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.”

[Capbook]

Do the "really saw" means by mind? Or something Grandma's eyes have seen?

Why does that matter? Grandma really saw dead Grandpa! Saw is the past tense of see which means visual perception, correct?

Are you all of a sudden interested in context after realizing that even if it's not explicitly stated that a vision takes place in the mind, sometimes that's just what visions are?

Does anyone in history who claimed to see a vision stipulate that "they only saw it in their mind" as if to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience? I've honestly never seen that. Rather, people just are convinced their visions are real as everyday experience - whether it was Joseph Smith or Arjuna's vision of Krishna. According to how you use "vision," they really saw what they claimed to!

I believe I've already quoted 1Cor 15:5-8. The "He appeared or He was seen" is not "optasia" as you supposed.
In NASB+ the Greek is "ὁράω horaō' and in KJV+ the Greek is "optanomai/optomai" same means - to be seen, to see with the eyes.

Did you miss the first post in this thread about the word for "appeared" there?

horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).
https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Here is the logic to follow:

1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him in 1 Cor 15:8
2. The appearance to Paul was an "optasia" per Acts 26:19, a "revelation" per Gal. 1:16.
3. Therefore, the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was necessarily a revelation/optasia.

Any questions?

Your argument of "vision" clearly falls to "dream."
1. If the vision "seeing with the mind", how do you differentiate it to a dream? - while Lexicons defined it as seeing by sight. (open eyes)
2. As dream is a definite description of "seeing with the mind." - Greek "ἐνύπνιον enypnion" Lexicon define it as sleep-vision. (closed eyes)
3. Notice: See visions vs have dreams. It does makes a difference. (Acts 2:17)
4. I'll also ask, any questions?

Act 2:17  ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR OUT MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN WILL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN WILL HAVE DREAMS; 

G1798 Mounce
ἐνύπνιον enypnion
1x: a dream; in NT a supernatural suggestion or impression received during sleep, a sleep-vision,

Well, for one you're not necessarily asleep when you experience the vision. We can point to numerous examples in the Bible of this - like Peter's visions in Acts 10 and 12. Moreover, Paul's "vision at night" in Acts is most likely a reference to a dream even though that word isn't used, so it's not necessarily the case that everyone would have made a distinction between dream-visions.

Acts 2:17 (Joel 2) seems to imply visions and dreams are a related medium through which God communicates with humans just like in Numbers 12:6.

Even when dreaming, active forms of "seen" are used in Greek.

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.”

Do you mean that one that was not asleep experience the vision? But the verse does not say "experience" but "see" vision, means by sight.
Yes, vision and dream are related as two method of God's way to deliver His messages to His messengers.

It's been from the Old Testament until the New Testament that "see vision" is different from "have dream."
If ever both means the same "seeing by the mind" the text construction separating them would have been unnecessary, including Numbers 12:6.

You state, "Paul's "vision at night" in Acts is most likely a reference to a dream even though that word isn't used"?
That's not definitely the case because Bible is explicit when "appearance" is by dream the word "dream" is always there.
And notice the term "vision" is absent in all the verses below because "dream" is totally different from it.
Your "seeing by the mind" is absolutely by dream with eyes closed, definitely not "vision" with eyes open, sight capable.

1Ki 3:5  In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream at night; and God said, “Ask what you wish Me to give you.” 

Mat 1:20  But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 

Mat 2:13  Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.” 

Mat 2:19  But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, 

[historia]

I was responding to this claim:

Let's back up here a second: You yourself "smuggled in" (to use your phrase) various conjugations of opthe when you provided your summary of NT usage back in post #2 (emphasis mine):

Here are all the instances of ὤφθη in the New Testament.

6. Acts 2:3 – "Tongues of fire appeared (ὤφθησαν) among them" – Manifestation of the Spirit "from heaven" – Acts 2:2.

10. Acts 9:17 – "So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared (ὀφθείς) to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'"

13. Acts 26:16 – "I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you" – In a "vision from heaven" – Acts 26:19.

Now, after having demonstrated these have the same aorist passive + dative construction as 1 Cor 15, you have no response.

Right, I usually just ignore non sequiturs. I can point them out if that helps you better understand my replies, though.

Again, my comment here was directed at your earlier suggestion that it's somehow "misleading" to include "conjugations" in our analysis. I'm making the point that everyone here is including conjugations in their analysis. The fact that you are analyzing a group of related conjugations doesn't refute that point, obviously.

I'm looking at the exact form and construction as used in 1 Cor 15!

Not exactlty.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul uses the aorist passive indicative third person singular form of opthe with various dative indirect objects. Your NT analysis above, on the other hand, included a first person form, a plural form, and a participle form -- so not the exact form of ophthe used in 1 Cor. 15.

Moreover, the three verses from Revelation in your analysis do not have a dative indirect object but rather a dative locative phrase -- just like in Luke 9:31, which for some reason you didn't include in your analysis -- so are not the exact construction.

Just as everyone here is including conjugations in their analysis, nobody here is limiting their analysis to just the exact form and construction used in 1 Cor. 15. We need to move past these kind of simplistic objections.

Why appeal to other forms that are not used in the passage in question?

Because, again, that is how every serious analysis of a word proceeds! Look at any dictionary or lexicon and you'll see it groups together related forms of a word when analyzing what that word meant and how it was used, especially in a highly inflected language like Greek.

The only question is which related forms should be grouped together. That brings us back to my main point:

In our analysis of opthe, why would we not include the future passive when BDAG does? Are we to assume that opthe suddenly takes on a substantially different meaning when it's in the past tense that it doesn't possess when it's in the future tense?

It depends on the context of course but, according to my own understanding, there simply is no future active form of horao and so the terminological options for a future seeing event are limited.

It's not clear what you're trying to argue here. I'm not asking about the future active -- or for that matter the future middle, another option to describe seeing in the future -- but rather the future passive.

Again, BDAG groups together the aorist passive and the future passive forms of horao -- all of which take ophthe as their root -- when considering its usage in the NT and other Greek literature. Why shouldn't we?

Consider, for example, Leviticus 9, where Moses tells Aaron that, if he performs the sacrifices as God commanded, the glory of the Lord "will appear" (v. 6) to the Israelites. And then, having correctly completed the sacrifices, the text goes on to say that the glory of the Lord "appeared" (v. 23) to the people.

What exactly do they "see" or experience though?

This is another non sequitur.

My question here is a grammatical one: When we see the passive future + dative ("will appear"), should we -- based on the form and construction alone -- conclude that that likely refers to a different mode of seeing compared to the passive aorist + dative ("appeared")?

If the answer is 'yes', what is the rationale to treat the past tense differently? If the answer is 'no', then these forms are clearly related and therefore should be analyzed together when considering their use in the NT, LXX, or other Greek literature.

That is precisely what we see in Andrzej Gieniusz's detailed analysis in "Jesus' Resurrection Appearances in 1 Cor 15,5-8 in the Light of the Syntagma ὤφθη + Dative," The Biblical Annals vol. 9 iss. 3 (2019), pp. 481-492.

He writes:

This verb [ὁράω] is particularly irregular: in the present, the imperfect and the perfect tenses it is constructed with the ὁρ-stem, while the aorist passive as well as the future passive are built mainly from the ὀπ-stem, and the aorist active from the ἰδ-stem.

The point of interest of the present study is the use of the ὀπ-stem of the verb (the aorist passive and the future passive forms).

This is simply the expected way one would analyze this word, as these forms are clearly related. Even if, having completed that initial analysis, we wanted to look narrowly at the aorist passive, we would always want to keep that fuller analysis in view, lest we jump to unfounded conclusions.

In that vein, Gieniusz continues:

The aorist passive of ὁράo followed by a dative of the indirect object (and a few times by its prepositional equivalent) occurs about 50 times in the LXX, 12 times in Philo, 7 times in Josephus and 6 times in the Old Testament Greek Pseudoepigrapha.

The expression occurs in different contexts, with different subjects and different indirect objects. On the one hand, the syntagma can have merely secular connotations and refers to a human action within an ordinary life: somebody makes oneself present unto another or unto God. It even indicates things which should not be shown to someone.

On the other hand, the expression may also refer to the realities which belong to the realm of God and which make themselves visible to somebody: angels (Exod 3,2; Jgd 6:12; 13:3.21), face (Exod 33:23), glory (Lev 9:23; Num 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; Isa 60:2), a magnificently caparisoned horse (2 Macc 3:25) and especially and most frequently God himself.

He concludes:

The Greek construction examined in this study yields no answer to the vexata quaestio of the what kind of seeing was involved in the case of the appearances of the Risen Christ. Our initial semantic analyses of the use of the passive forms of ὁράω have shown that it can be used for (1) ordinary seeing of material object and (2) for a real and objective visualizing of supernatural beings, normally invisible, made possible for the seer because of divine enablement, or even for (3) a kind of a vision that is clearly intellectual.

The precise nature of the seeing is each time decided by the convictions of the one who tells the stories and does not have much to do with the semantics of the expression itself. However, if it is true that the use of ὤφθη does not require that the sense be that of normal vision, the normal vision, is not ruled out either. The expression as such covers a whole range of visual phenomena and from a linguistic point of view one is not entitled to say anything more nor less than that.

This is, far and away, the most complete and detailed examination of ophthe + dative cited so far in this thread, and arrives at, I think, a sensible conclusion -- the same one reached by Wright -- that this word and construction simply doesn't, by itself, suggest a particular mode of seeing.

That's also the same conclusion reached by Davis, who you quoted out of context in the OP, and are now forced to argue against:

But other scholars have pointed out that opthe can also be used (and is so used in both the New Testament and the Septuagint) for ordinary visual apprehension of a human being or a material object (e.g. Acts 7: 26). That is, it can be used both for ordinary seeing of material objects and for the visualizing of supernatural beings. Indeed, there are other Greek words (horama and optasia) that are normally used for what we would call visions, especially of things that are normally invisible, like God or angels (see Matt. 17:9; Acts 9:10; 16:19).

How does appealing to the sole exception (Acts 7:26) negate the rule as established by the other 20 instances above where it refers to a vision or supernatural appearance?

First of all, this analysis is somewhat question-begging. You've lumped the times ophthe is used in connection with appearances of the risen Christ with those where it concerns a "vision," even though that's the very issue in question.

There is no doubt the early Christians thought Jesus' resurrection was "supernatural." But Luke's use of ophthe in the midst of an account where the risen Christ is clearly physical, for example, illustrates that he did not think that term inherently denotes a vision.

And, second, we need to be very cautious about constraining our analysis to a relatively small corpus of documents, like the New Testament, as you are attempting to do here, as ratios can easily give a false impression. That's why all the authors cited in this thread also expanded their analysis to at least the LXX, where there are many more exceptions to this supposed "rule."

Now pay attention to why this construction is important from the previous quotes:

"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." - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

So, here we've jumped from the simple observation that the word "appeared" was often -- but by no means overwhelming! -- used in the LXX in reference to theophanies, to it being a "rule" or "technical term," and from there somehow imagined a "Christological interpretation of 'seeing'" and further a "theological passive," whatever that means.

These are castles built on sand.

You don't have to agree it's a "technical term" but you must agree that, all else being equal, the term/construction is usually employed for a visionary/revelatory experience and so is prima facie evidence that is what is meant in 1 Cor. 15, given the fact that active forms of "seeing" were also available for Paul to use.

But this is precisely why I think this whole line of argumentation is unconvincing. It is, at best, a prima facie case. To properly understand what any author meant when considering their words, we always look at the context, not simply how one word or construction was "usually" used.

In 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Paul is passing on a tradition -- what Haven described above as an early "creed" of the Christian community -- that he himself had received. That creed employed the word ophthe. In adding his own experience of the risen Christ to the end of it (v. 8), Paul also naturally uses the same term.

Left to his own devises, though, Paul uses a different term. Earlier in the same letter, he draws a parallel between his experiences and those of the other apostles, in a way that is quite similar to ch. 15: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (9:1). Here Paul employs an active form of horao, which is what you just said we should expect him to do if he meant "seeing." So, if opthe is in some ways ambiguous, here we have an important clarification from Paul himself.

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.