ὤφθη

[ParaclitosLogos]

Thanks to Holy Moly for quoting this interesting excerpt

ὤφθη.

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31 (Adds HM --an experience specifically called a "vision" in Matt. 17:9 - Were Moses' and Elijah's physical bodies actually there?), tongues of fire - Acts 2.3; Paul’s vision of a man from Macedonia - Acts 16.9 (HM asks --Was the man's body actually standing there?), supernatural appearances of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed with the sun - Rev 11.19; 12.1, 3; and appearances of God or the risen Christ - Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16, and the various accounts of Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ by Luke. The only clear non-supernatural use of the verb in the NT is in Acts 7.26 where Luke narrates the appearance of Moses to two fighting Israelites (Exod 2.13). Josephus, likewise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appearance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors;— supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around in the clouds over Israel,— and a huge star resembling a sword which stood over Jerusalem." - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107, 118. https://books.google.com/books?id=1FiaCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false

Peter wanted to build a tent for each to spend the night, so, I guess their bodies might have been there.

Wasn´t the body of Moses standing there?

One of the narratives where the word is used is the Emmaus narrative, and even if one thinks it is totally fabricated the word is used to describe an encounter with bodily resurrected Jesus, after all,  he is present bodily, with out any doubt, when he was at the table,  took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 

Also, it´s strange that Supernatural is being conflated , automatically, with vision as in allucination.
when what is in question is if Some phenomena can be supernatural, and even vision like,  yet, completely real, and objectively grounded, or more precisely, if what is being reported is being reported precisely enough as an objectively manifested and located phenomena.


Finney on the quoted book talks about the Essenne's view (presented by Josephus), basically, completely throwing away the body, in the afterlife, and, strangely enough he seems to overlap this view over Paul´s own expposition of his, seemingly, completely dismissing the fact that, Paul does exactly the opposite, Paul goes out of his way to retain the Soma  (the body as a whole) after being freed from the sarks (the sinful ) aspect of the body, which I suggest is wrong headed, and instead, it should serve as an stark contrast between an exposition of a view of  the soul surviving, exclusively,  in the after life (the Essene´s view, as presented by Josephus) and a view where definitely the body (the soma with all its enriched aspects : e.g. an espiritualized soma through the nous (the mind?) acceptance of the Holy spirit ) also does survive in the after life (Paul´s 1Cor view), in Paul´s signature antropology.



PS-- 6/nov/ 2016: I was checking, yesterday, Josephus´s account , and, he uses the term "ψυχὰς", that is translated as soul (AFIU) , and it seems to me that if we were to extrapolate this rendering and compared it with paul, immediately, what jumps to one´s "eye"  is that , different from Paul´s account,  here is no concept of the  spiritualized body ("soma pneumatikon") obtaining as a transformation of the "natural" body ( "soma psychikon");

σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. Ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body


 The Essential Greek New Testament For the Absolute Beginner 

Notice the apparent connection between  ψυχικόν (translated in this context as "natural") and the word soul (ψυχὰς).

When ψυχικόν (as least, that´s what it seems to me) is something like the adjectivized form of the noun ψυχὰς, but, I could be wrong, here.   If right, though, it appears that in the Essene´s view (as renedered by Josephus) the ψυχὰς is the thing that survives, the thing that we predicate of, but, in Pauls´view, ψυχικόν (as well as πνευματικόν - the adjectivized form of Spirit (the pneuma)) is what we predicate of the thing that survives death (the soma (body-the whole human)? ).

.

ψυχικός; psychikós

A ETYMOLOGY: from ψυχή (G5590; soul, life, mind, heart, heartily)

 . The Essential Greek New Testament For the Absolute Beginner

("natural" , it would seem is the "ensouled"ψυχικόν body (soma) with all its failings, and sinful dispositions, in Paul´s view -apparently, For Paul the whole human being has different dichotomous aspects that include, not just the sinful body (the sarks) and the soul (psykis),but also,  the body as a whole ( soma),or psukis), the spirit (pneuma) -- when saved--, the mind (the nous), and the only one be thrown out after salvation was the "sarks".)


Anyways, part of the point is that even if such comparison was appropriate (and I am not saying it is), there would seem to be immense  fundamental differences between what, according to Josephus, the Essene believed, and, what Paul, very probably, believed, taught and very plausibly died for.

[Lucian]

I thought the bolded questions were the author's, in his footnotes, since HM gave no indication they were his.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I thought the bolded questions were the author's, in his footnotes, since HM gave no indication they were his.

I checked in a hurry, and, I could be mistaken, but, I didn´t see that in the book. I think he did add the verses numbers from the references of the book, but, the comments in parentheses, as far as I could see, seem to be his.

[Nunovalente]

For Peter to suggest the need for a tent, suggests a necessity for it! A tent serves a purpose. And Peter must have thought they would need a tent. Would he do this if a mere apparition?

The men on the road to Emmaus spoke to Jesus, not knowing it was he, but they knew he was a man. They had a normal conversation. Nothing alarming about his appearance or the conversation.  They though he was just a stranger who had not heard about the recent events, until he expounded to them the truth.

Although supernatural, it was not in a sense obvious in those cases to the observer.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I thought the bolded questions were the author's, in his footnotes, since HM gave no indication they were his.

You made the following offer "... I'm happy to voice my concerns about the author's use of the Greek if anyone is interested.." on the other thread.

I am interested . So, if you are up to it, fell free to comment.

Thanks.

[Lucian]

Just to update you, I'm still working on this, but I'm going into more depth than I'd anticipated. It's proving a useful exercise. I hope to have something ready for tomorrow, or else Monday.

[ParaclitosLogos]

Just to update you, I'm still working on this, but I'm going into more depth than I'd anticipated. It's proving a useful exercise. I hope to have something ready for tomorrow, or else Monday.

Cool, thanks!

[Lucian]

I'd like to add my thoughts on the quotation (in this funny font, since it displays the Greek properly), which was produced by Holy Moly in a conversation with me a few days ago. HM kindly linked to images of a few pages from the book (Finney, M. T. Resurrection, Hell, and the Afterlife : Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism, and early Christianity. London: Routledge, 2016) which help contextualise the quotation, and it's those pages, in addition to the quotation, I will be addressing. I've chosen to quote Finney in italics, and then add my comments below. If anyone has any questions about what I say here, I'll be happy to answer them.

In 1 Corinthians 15, describing this revelatory christophany Paul uses the term ώφθη (the aorist passive of όραω)...

There are a couple of problems here: Finney misses the breathing from ὤφθη, and is therefore misspelling the word. Further, he inserts an accent for ὁράω where one isn’t needed; fails to insert one where one is needed; and, as before, misses the breathing, and so misspells the word. This isn't the most auspicious of starts.

…which almost exclusively denotes ‘exceptional supernatural apparitions’.-²⁵

Taken at face value, this is simply absurd; F. surely cannot be talking about the totality of Greek literature when he makes such a claim. His reference:

25. BAGD, 577-78; Grimm-Thayer, 451-52…Scott [i.e. Scott 2008: 97-8] notes that for the first forty years of Christianity the verbs ώφθη in 1 Corinthians and άποκάλυψις in Galatians are basically the only ways the NT announce Jesus’ appearances…

Suggests he rather has the New Testament in mind. But this is clumsily expressed, to say the least.

Whilst we are on the subject of this reference: F. calls the noun ἀποκάλυψις a verb, and though he remembers the accent this time, he inserts an accent instead of a breathing over the first alpha. Also, "basically" is oddly informal, and "announce" should be "announces". But perhaps I'm being too pedantic at this point.

Beyond that, F. just seems straightforwardly mistaken: aren't Jesus' appearances also 'announced' in 2 Corinthians by ὀπτασία, for example?

And he uses the same verb of all the other encounters of the risen Christ in the chapter,…

Across pages, F. goes on to partially cite 1 Corinthians 15. 6-8, emphasising, and duly misspelling, ὤφθη throughout.

The verb is found in a wide range of ancient literature: the LXX (including the Apocrypha); -²⁶ Philo; -²⁷ the Apostolic Fathers;-²⁸ and numerous Greco-Roman texts.-²⁹

From the foregoing, by "the verb" one might reasonably suppose that F. means the particular form ὤφθη; bear this in mind for later. For now, it's worth noting that what F. says here is a truism: ὤφθη is a common form of the very common verb ὁράω, I see. One might as well say that the word "seen" is found in a wide range of twentieth century English literature.

That aside, we should consider one of F.'s references:

26 Tobit 12.22; 2 Macc 2.8; 3.25; Bar 3.38.

Tobit 12.22, 2 Macc. 3.25 and Bar. 3.38 are fine. But ὤφθη does not occur in 2 Macc 2.8, but rather ὀφθήσεται, a different, future passive form of ὁράω. What's going on?

In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances.

I count 17 in total (18 with Luke 22.43, which is textually suspect). But at least F. is not far off. Or is he...(see below!)?

These include various angelic appearances;-³⁰ the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration;-³¹ tongues of fire;-³² Paul's vision of a man from Macedonia;-³³ supernatural appearances of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed with the sun;-³⁴ and appearances of God or the risen Christ.-³⁵


Again, it's worth checking F.'s references:

30 Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; [sic]

All these are fine, save for Acts 7.35, which has ὀφθέντος, yet another, aorist passive form of ὁράω. Again, what's going on?

31 Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31.

In what's becoming a recurring theme, Luke 9.31 has ὀφθέντες, still another, aorist passive form of ὁράω.

32 Acts 2.3.

Has ὤφθησαν, not ὤφθη.

35 Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb. 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16…

ὀφθήσεται in Hebrews 9.28, not ὤφθη.

Suffice it to say these notes, as well as n.26, leave me confused. It seemed as though F. was talking about the particular form ὤφθη, yet he cites, on several occasions, passive forms other than this. Perhaps he is referring to passive forms of ὁράω in general, rather than ὤφθη in particular? But if that's so, he has hardly been clear about this, and his "nineteen occurrences" is even wider of the mark. Some clarity is painfully needed.

Josephus, likewise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appearance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors; -³⁶ supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around in the clouds over Israel, -³⁷ and a huge star resembling a sword which stood over Jerusalem-³⁸.

As ever, it's worth checking those references:

36 War 6.293; C. Ap. 1.289.

The references here are back-to-front: War 6. 293 refers to the temple doors, and C. Ap. 1.289 the appearance of Isis. War 6.293 contains ὤφθη. But C. Ap. 1.289 contains no form of ὁράω at all, ὤφθη or otherwise. Perhaps F. confused it with ἐφάνη, which does occur?

37 War 6. 296-8

This checks out, with two occurrences of ὤφθη here.

38 War 6. 290

But this does not, with, as before, no occurrence of ὁράω at all.

So, in total, F. provides three occurrences of ὤφθη in Josephus, all of which he correctly suggests refer to supernatural events. That would be fine, were his point merely that Josephus could use the term to refer to such events. Yet F. seems to want us to think that ὤφθη in Josephus carries with it a certain supernatural significance; that when it is used, there is some inherent association with the supernatural. For that reason, it would be remiss of me not to point out that the term occurs a total of seven times in Josephus, and on every of the four occasions that F. doesn't mention it refers to completely mundane events. It's also worth noting that the examples F. does (successfully) cite all occur within only a few sections of one another.

As we've seen, however, F. may be talking about passive forms of ὁράω in general. If that's so, we can expand our analysis to other passive forms in Josephus. Since F. referred exclusively to aorist and future passives, I've restricted my analysis in the same way. Though I'm sure I've not caught all such occurrences, nevertheless, of the 42 I did locate, in the case of 34 of them the reference was to mundane events.

---

I’m sure I’ve not explored all the problems contained within these pages, but I hope I have elucidated a few. They are really quite serious, ranging from technical issues, to vague and misleading argument, to incorrect citations. I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether this is the sort of scholarship one should take seriously.

(Any references vis-a-vis my interaction with the Greek text are available on request)

[ParaclitosLogos]

I'd like to add my thoughts on the quotation (in this funny font, since it displays the Greek properly), which was produced by Holy Moly in a conversation with me a few days ago. HM kindly linked to images of a few pages from the book (Finney, M. T. Resurrection, Hell, and the Afterlife : Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism, and early Christianity. London: Routledge, 2016) which help contextualise the quotation, and it's those pages, in addition to the quotation, I will be addressing. I've chosen to quote Finney in italics, and then add my comments below. If anyone has any questions about what I say here, I'll be happy to answer them.

In 1 Corinthians 15, describing this revelatory christophany Paul uses the term ώφθη (the aorist passive of όραω)...

There are a couple of problems here: Finney misses the breathing from ὤφθη, and is therefore misspelling the word. Further, he inserts an accent for ὁράω where one isn’t needed; fails to insert one where one is needed; and, as before, misses the breathing, and so misspells the word. This isn't the most auspicious of starts.

…which almost exclusively denotes ‘exceptional supernatural apparitions’.-²⁵

Taken at face value, this is simply absurd; F. surely cannot be talking about the totality of Greek literature when he makes such a claim. His reference:

25. BAGD, 577-78; Grimm-Thayer, 451-52…Scott [i.e. Scott 2008: 97-8] notes that for the first forty years of Christianity the verbs ώφθη in 1 Corinthians and άποκάλυψις in Galatians are basically the only ways the NT announce Jesus’ appearances…

Suggests he rather has the New Testament in mind. But this is clumsily expressed, to say the least.

Whilst we are on the subject of this reference: F. calls the noun ἀποκάλυψις a verb, and though he remembers the accent this time, he inserts an accent instead of a breathing over the first alpha. Also, "basically" is oddly informal, and "announce" should be "announces". But perhaps I'm being too pedantic at this point.

Beyond that, F. just seems straightforwardly mistaken: aren't Jesus' appearances also 'announced' in 2 Corinthians by ὀπτασία, for example?

And he uses the same verb of all the other encounters of the risen Christ in the chapter,…

Across pages, F. goes on to partially cite 1 Corinthians 15. 6-8, emphasising, and duly misspelling, ὤφθη throughout.

The verb is found in a wide range of ancient literature: the LXX (including the Apocrypha); -²⁶ Philo; -²⁷ the Apostolic Fathers;-²⁸ and numerous Greco-Roman texts.-²⁹

From the foregoing, by "the verb" one might reasonably suppose that F. means the particular form ὤφθη; bear this in mind for later. For now, it's worth noting that what F. says here is a truism: ὤφθη is a common form of the very common verb ὁράω, I see. One might as well say that the word "seen" is found in a wide range of twentieth century English literature.

That aside, we should consider one of F.'s references:

26 Tobit 12.22; 2 Macc 2.8; 3.25; Bar 3.38.

Tobit 12.22, 2 Macc. 3.25 and Bar. 3.38 are fine. But ὤφθη does not occur in 2 Macc 2.8, but rather ὀφθήσεται, a different, future passive form of ὁράω. What's going on?

In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances.

I count 17 in total (18 with Luke 22.43, which is textually suspect). But at least F. is not far off. Or is he...(see below!)?

These include various angelic appearances;-³⁰ the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration;-³¹ tongues of fire;-³² Paul's vision of a man from Macedonia;-³³ supernatural appearances of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, a great red dragon, and a woman clothed with the sun;-³⁴ and appearances of God or the risen Christ.-³⁵


Again, it's worth checking F.'s references:

30 Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; [sic]

All these are fine, save for Acts 7.35, which has ὀφθέντος, yet another, aorist passive form of ὁράω. Again, what's going on?

31 Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31.

In what's becoming a recurring theme, Luke 9.31 has ὀφθέντες, still another, aorist passive form of ὁράω.

32 Acts 2.3.

Has ὤφθησαν, not ὤφθη.

35 Luke 24.34; Acts 7.2; Acts 13.31; Heb. 9.28; 1 Tim 3.16…

ὀφθήσεται in Hebrews 9.28, not ὤφθη.

Suffice it to say these notes, as well as n.26, leave me confused. It seemed as though F. was talking about the particular form ὤφθη, yet he cites, on several occasions, passive forms other than this. Perhaps he is referring to passive forms of ὁράω in general, rather than ὤφθη in particular? But if that's so, he has hardly been clear about this, and his "nineteen occurrences" is even wider of the mark. Some clarity is painfully needed.

Josephus, likewise, uses the verb in describing supernatural events: the dramatic appearance of the goddess Isis; the supernatural opening of huge Temple doors; -³⁶ supernatural events that take place before large numbers of people, such as the miraculous appearance of chariots and troops in armour running around in the clouds over Israel, -³⁷ and a huge star resembling a sword which stood over Jerusalem-³⁸.

As ever, it's worth checking those references:

36 War 6.293; C. Ap. 1.289.

The references here are back-to-front: War 6. 293 refers to the temple doors, and C. Ap. 1.289 the appearance of Isis. War 6.293 contains ὤφθη. But C. Ap. 1.289 contains no form of ὁράω at all, ὤφθη or otherwise. Perhaps F. confused it with ἐφάνη, which does occur?

37 War 6. 296-8

This checks out, with two occurrences of ὤφθη here.

38 War 6. 290

But this does not, with, as before, no occurrence of ὁράω at all.

So, in total, F. provides three occurrences of ὤφθη in Josephus, all of which he correctly suggests refer to supernatural events. That would be fine, were his point merely that Josephus could use the term to refer to such events. Yet F. seems to want us to think that ὤφθη in Josephus carries with it a certain supernatural significance; that when it is used, there is some inherent association with the supernatural. For that reason, it would be remiss of me not to point out that the term occurs a total of seven times in Josephus, and on every of the four occasions that F. doesn't mention it refers to completely mundane events. It's also worth noting that the examples F. does (successfully) cite all occur within only a few sections of one another.

As we've seen, however, F. may be talking about passive forms of ὁράω in general. If that's so, we can expand our analysis to other passive forms in Josephus. Since F. referred exclusively to aorist and future passives, I've restricted my analysis in the same way. Though I'm sure I've not caught all such occurrences, nevertheless, of the 42 I did locate, in the case of 34 of them the reference was to mundane events.

---

I’m sure I’ve not explored all the problems contained within these pages, but I hope I have elucidated a few. They are really quite serious, ranging from technical issues, to vague and misleading argument, to incorrect citations. I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether this is the sort of scholarship one should take seriously.

(Any references vis-a-vis my interaction with the Greek text are available on request)

Hi, Lucian.

Thanks for your elucidating comments.

I need to re-read it and think about it for a longer time.

[Holy Moly]

Hi guys,

Was the appearance to Paul a vision or not? If yes, then that's the way Paul means to use ὤφθη in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”

Josephus says that the Pharisees (Paul was a Pharisee) believed their souls would be "removed into other bodies." These "bodies" were said to be pure/chaste. Well, obviously "other" means not the same one and a "pure" body was not composed of flesh because that was sinful (just read Paul). So that pretty much rules out the revivification of a formerly dead corpse. Paul believed Jesus became a "spirit" 1 Cor 15:45 and the "spiritual body" was a spiritual entity in heaven devoid of flesh and blood - 1 Cor 15:50. That's why he equates his vision with the other "appearances" and only gives evidence for the Risen Jesus being experienced spiritually. It's important to note that a "body" does not necessarily mean a flesh and blood corpse. Paul himself says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44.  Is there anything else I can elucidate for you guys?

[ParaclitosLogos]

In the original preface, Kittel explains that his Worterbuch extends the work of Hermann Cremer's Biblico-Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Greek Usage (1878). The distinctive mark of Cremer's work was not biblical-theology per se, but a controversial position that the New Testament represents a peculiar dialect of Greek invented by the biblical writers who used old (secular) Greek words to convey new, theological meanings. This was the so-called "Holy Spirit dialect" that Gustav Deissmann and Richard Moulton among others were trying to disprove.

Kittel sees the TDNT as an extension of Cremer's work in that it concentrates upon "internal" versus "external lexicography." These curious terms distinguish the usual concern of dictionaries and lexicons to provide a range of English word substitutes for a given Greek word ("external lexicography") with Kittel's focus upon the theological concepts which these words might convey ("internal lexicography"). The TDNT was intended to be a series of studies upon theological concepts (Begriffsgeschichte), rather than a traditional dictionary.

Kittel's method contains some crucial flaws which should make us cautious about accepting some of the TDNT's results uncritically. James Barr has exposed some of these flaws in his well known book, Semantics of Biblical Language (1961). His primary criticism is of Kittel's "failure to get to grips with the semantic value of words in their contexts" (Barr, 231).

Furthermore, Kittel's work is a study of theological ideas, but it is based upon individual words which are usually not the same thing. For example, the complex theological idea of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice is not fully communicated by any one word in the Bible, but by a series of words, phrases, events and institutions such as: "propitiation," "sin-offering," "cross," "to cover," "lamb," "scapegoat," etc. In Kittel's writings elsewhere, it is clear that he confuses "concept" (Begriff) with "word" (Wort). The result of Kittel's method is the possibility that "the word becomes overloaded with interpretative suggestion" (Barr, 234)

{Steven M. Baugh } .

[Holy Moly]

Are you guys somehow trying to dispute the well established fact that ὤφθη was used for "spiritually seeing" or "spiritually experiencing" something?

Here's how the word ὤφθη (ōphthē) is used in the LXX.

(1) In some cases we are told that an anthropomorphic figure
appeared materially and visibly and spoke with a human voice, some-
times at great length. For example the appearance of God to Abraham at
the oak of Mamre - Gen 18:1 LXX. Furthermore, Gen 16:3 LXX, 17:1 LXX
(cf v 22), 35:9 LXX (cf v 13), Judg 6:12 LXX (cf vv 11 and 21), 2 Macc 3:25-30.

(2) In other cases the phenomenon appeared visually and acoustically
just as real as in the cases just mentioned, but it was a dream, the con-
tents of which are interpreted as a theophany. An example is the appearance
of God to Jacob at Bethel above the ladder between heaven and
earth - Gen 31:13 LXX, Gen 35:1 LXX. Further examples occur in Gen 26:24 LXX,
48:3 LXX, 3 Kings 3:5 LXX, 9:2 LXX, 11:9 LXX, 2 Chron 7:12 LXX.

It is important that not all these cases explicitly say that a dream
is referred to Genesis three times mentions the theophany to Jacob,
without saying that it took place in a dream, while the reference is evidently
to Jacob's dream at Bethel - Gen 31:13 LXX, 35:1 LXX and 48:3 LXX.

(3) There are cases in which, according to the biblical account, the theophany certainly
took place in everyday reality and was coupled with an intelligible utterance of God, but
in which the visual phenomenon was not anthropomorphic but physical, such as a flame
or a cloud. This is how the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush is represented -
Fire is referred to Exod 3:2 LXX and Deut 33:16 LXX a cloud in Exod 16:10 LXX, Num 14:10 LXX
16:19 LXX, 16:42 LXX and 20:6 LXX.

(4) There are cases in which God is said to have appeared but without a personal form or even
a voice, but exclusively through the physical phenomenon of fire or cloud - Fire is mentioned
in Lev 9:4 LXX, 6:23 LXX, and Ezekiel the Tragic Poet, Exagoge 235, the last passage is dependent
on Ex 14:24 LXX. A cloud is mentioned in Lev 16:2 LXX.

(5) There are references to appearances in some cases in which nothing at all could be seen, but a
voice alone uttered the divine message. The voice which restrained Abraham from killing Isaac is
referred to m the Septuagint in the words "the Lord appeared" - Gen 22:4 LXX. Further examples
occur in Gen 12:7 LXX, 26:2 LXX.

(6) Finally there are references to God's appearances when there is no indication of any visible form or
of the hearing of a voice, but that God's power and favor were made manifest in the course of earthly
affairs. A psalm says, for example, that when God has taken away the indignity from Jerusalem and
freed it from its enemies, "he will appear in his glory" - PS 101:17 LXX, 83,8 LXX See also Isa 40:5 LXX,
60:2 LXX, 66:5 LXX, Jer 38:3 LXX (31:3 MT). All these passages describe the coming of a period of
salvation, but Jer 38:3 LXX has the aorist (κύριος ωφΟη) instead of the future tense. Isa 60:2 LXX shows
that there is no difference between the appearance of God's glory and that of God himself. This is not a
suggestion of a theophany in the strict sense. The word "appear" (όφθήναι) is purely metaphorical.

Taken from H. J. de Jonge, Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity pgs. 44-45
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/957/279_150.pdf?sequence=1

[ParaclitosLogos]

As a histonan the exegete can only sum up, perhaps not even exhaustively,
the vanous ideas that can be associated with Peter's Statement that Christ appeared to him But the histonan can no longer choose among them and determme which one of them was precisely that meant
in Peter's case Here the historian can deal only with possibilities and no longer with reality.  From the standpoint of comparative religion ( ), however, we can be rather more precise In a dream one can see a person appear but to believe that an ontic reality is attached to that appearance is an Interpretation. In everyday reality one can observe a physical phenomenon such äs light or sound, but to call it a theophany or a christophany is an Interpretation. One may see salvation in an event, but to see it metaphorically äs being vouchsafed an appearance of Christ, is an Interpretation40

(Taken from H. J. de Jonge, Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity pgs. 45-46
.

...Comparative religion is the simplification of religion and mythology to make the point that "all religions are fundamentally the same". Mircea Eliade (of The Sacred and the Profane fame)

[Holy Moly]

As a histonan the exegete can only sum up, perhaps not even exhaustively,
the vanous ideas that can be associated with Peter's Statement that Christ appeared to him But the histonan can no longer choose among them and determme which one of them was precisely that meant
in Peter's case Here the historian can deal only with possibilities and no longer with reality.  From the standpoint of comparative religion ( ), however, we can be rather more precise In a dream one can see a person appear but to believe that an ontic reality is attached to that appearance is an Interpretation. In everyday reality one can observe a physical phenomenon such äs light or sound, but to call it a theophany or a christophany is an Interpretation. One may see salvation in an event, but to see it metaphorically äs being vouchsafed an appearance of Christ, is an Interpretation40

(Taken from H. J. de Jonge, Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity pgs. 45-46
.

...Comparative religion is the simplification of religion and mythology to make the point that "all religions are fundamentally the same". Mircea Eliade (of The Sacred and the Profane fame)

Ok but I actually provided an argument based on what Paul actually tells us. You certainly can't claim the appearances were different or more physical. We don't have any of Peter's writings but there is a strong inference that Peter experienced a vision of Jesus as well. He's said to have a vision of an angel in Acts 10 so that's evidence of at least two people in the list of 1 Cor 15:5-8 being susceptible to visions.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I can claim, as many scholars claim, even those with naturalistic presuppositions, that in 1 Cor 15 Paul uses various arguments to disprove the view that there would not be a physical resurrection in the future, and, the most important is that, according to the unanimous preaching of all the apostles, the resurrection of one of the dead was already a fact, namely that of Christ himself. Thus that when it came to the resurrection Paul thought it was a physical (or bodily ) one, which is to say that the creed in 1Cor15:3-7 is probably meant (by Paul) to refer to bodily (physical) appearances

And, I can claim that, it is apparent, that Luke (as well as Paul, and the other gospel writers ) talks of vision and revelation, when it is vision and revelation he is (they are) referring to, and, bodily resurrection and appearances when it is bodily resurrection and appearances he is (they are) referring to.

Additionally, I can claim that from all the gospels, we can clearly know of testimony of the resurrection the empty tomb and subsequent bodily appearances to the disciples.


You seem to  be implying that Paul and Peter were psychologically susceptible to illusions, maybe the Acts 10 event was an illusion, maybe it wasn´t, I don´t know, but here, you are presuming that the vision had no objective source, and if that is the case , the burden is yours.  You are also presuming that there is a very specific connection between the testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus and acts 10,  but , there is no  apparent causal, nor conceptual connection, that one can readily derive from the text, between the Acts 10 experience and the experiences of the resurrected Jesus (that burden is also yours).

We have gone through all these arguments ideas, many times. I don´t think you will change your mind, and, I haven´t seen one argument that strikes me as even mildly convincing for your view (I´m sure you feel the same), I answer your posts, mostly, for those possible readers that can get confused by your comments, that to me , are clearly incorrect.


Thanks for the exchange.


PS: you say that Josephus says that the Pharisees (Paul was a Pharisee) believed their souls would be "removed into other bodies." These "bodies" were said to be pure/chaste.  But this is irrelevant, everytime Paul is giving a different account of what they are testifying was the actual case, in the Christian experiences of the resurrected Jesus (where the Holy Spirit transforms the body into an spiritual one).

You also say that ""pure" body was not composed of flesh because that was sinful (just read Paul). So that pretty much rules out the revivification of a formerly dead corpse".  But, this is obviously a misrepresentation of what Paul says, Paul talks of several dichotomous aspects, within his anthropology of man, and he almost always uses the concept of sarks to refer to the sinful flesh, and, almost always (close to exclusively) uses the concept of soma to differentiate from the former, and in fact,  σῶμα does mean body and also flesh (according to strongs 4983 )


You say that "Paul believed Jesus became a "spirit" 1 Cor 15:45 and the "spiritual body" was a spiritual entity in heaven devoid of flesh and blood - 1 Cor 15:50." 

This is an strange argument, that I know of, no one ever argued that Adam was not a physical entity, yet in 1 Cor 15:45 Paul says he was a soul (ψυχὴν, according to strongs 5590 a singular noun) , which you seem to simply ignore, for some reason, yet, you used Josephus's description of the Essene´s view of the souls (ψυχὰς, according to the same strongs 5590 a plural noun, the plural of Paul´s ψυχὴν) , exclusively, surviving death, yet, here, you remain unmoved when Paul says that Adam was a soul, when by your same lights, we should also be arguing that Adam was not a physical entity, and even more rightly so.

The reason he uses ὤφθη for the "appearances" for all the cases, is simple, as it has been amply shown the word has the general connotation of “seen” , which can mean to have seen a physical, or a nonphysical, or a revelatory, or amundane event, and the more.  It is important to remember, here, that σῶμα does mean body and also does mean flesh,  and that, in Josephus's rendering of the Essene’s view (where only ψυχὰς/souls  survive death )he never uses it, to refer to those death surviving entities.