> without distinction

I already explained to you the distinction, in Paul breaking from the repetitious formatting of the previous verses to a different mode of expression.

> ὤφθη which was almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions, not physical sight.

ὤφθη has a wide variety of meanings, contrary to what you are saying. In the Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich lexicon, "see" in the sense of literal seeing is the first definition. Agree that the verb can be used in more than one sense, and we see that in 1 Corinthians 15.

1. A. See; catch sight of; notice (of sense perception). a. With accusative of person: a literal seeing. b. With accusative of thing: see a vision. c. As a periphrasis for “see someone, whether literal or figurative. d. Passive: “Become visible; appear,” whether of persons appearing in a natural way or of a vision. B. “Experience; witness.” C. Figurative of mental and spiritual perception a. “Notice, recognize, understand.” b. (Mentally) look at or upon; consider.”
2. A. “Look on or at someone.” B. “See to; take care.”

And the context is quite clear. Peter and James literally saw the physical Jesus come back from the dead. Paul literally saw Jesus, but Paul was on earth and Jesus was in heaven, and it was a visionary, though quite literal, seeing.

> All we have is a good inference that Peter had a "vision" like Paul's

There is no inference of the sort. Every record we have of Peter's "seeing" Jesus is literal and physical.

> only involved a bright light and a disembodied voice

This is incorrect. 1 Corinthians 15.8 says so. Therefore Paul certainly did claim and believe, and write in his letters that Jesus Christ literally appeared to him. What is impossible to know is the nature of the bright light, a very typical description of Jesus in his glory (Rev. 1.16).

> Each account in chronological order is consistent with legendary growth.

First of all, we don't know the chronological order. There is much debate about the dates of authorship and the chronological order of the Gospels. Secondly, there isn't time for legend to grow. The creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 comes from very near to the resurrection event itself.

> But where did the body go?

The total Gospel record tells us. There are appearances on the road to Emmaus, in Galilee, in the upper room, to Mary, to James, to Peter, on the shore of Galilee, to the 500, etc. Mark's is not the only account. To get a complete picture, we have to gather all the information available.

> Even if so, this view is nowhere found in Paul. Did Peter and James forget to tell Paul this amazing story?

No, but that wasn't the concern of Paul's writing, which were about the theological implications of the physical resurrection.

> Doubt

διστάζω is a compound verb meaning "divided in mind."

> Luke: Comes later 85-95 CE

You can't say this with certainty, or even confidence. Luke is dated anywhere from 55-95, depending who you're talking to. But since Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero’s persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), or Peter (65), it was probably written in the early 60s, and Luke’s gospel would have been prior to that. The case for Luke far early than what you are claiming is strong.

> The Doubting Thomas story is nowhere corroborated.

I didn't say that story was corroborated, but that Jesus appeared in the flesh is heavily corroborated.

> John dates to 90-110 CE

This is an extremely late date for John. It is generally dated from 60-90.

> most scholars don't think there is much actual history in John

There is a ton of actual history in John. John's Gospel, more than the Synoptics, is filled with eyewitness elements and historical references.

> Context is never irrelevant, my friend. In actuality, many times context can count more than grammar. I can say "I love you" both sincerely and facetiously—context will tell us the difference.

And the context is given to us by Paul placing his own vision in the same list of the other "appearances" without distinction. He equates them all with the same aorist passive ὤφθη which was almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions, not physical sight. Paul gives no indication the the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a "physical" way. Therefore, the context is quite clear. These "appearances" were understood as visions like Paul's, not physical encounters that involved touching a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life.

> Paul received this credo three years after his conversion on his first trip to Jerusalem, within four years of Jesus’ crucifixion. His source was most likely Peter and James themselves (Gal. 1.18-19). And we know that Peter was an eyewitness of the physical resurrection of Christ (John 20.19ff; 21; Acts 2.24, 31).

No we don't "know" that. All we have is a good inference that Peter had a "vision" like Paul's. We don't have any firsthand writings from Peter and the appearance to him is never described in the NT. Again, you're just reading in that Paul was speaking of "literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh." Paul nowhere indicates such a thing.

> Sure he does. Acts 9.3-6, 27. Remember we have to read all of the Bible, not just cherrypick passages and rip them out of context.

Ok, well if that's the case, the vision is said to have only involved a bright light and a disembodied voice. If you accept the vision report then you can't claim the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical." And you left out the rest of my comment which reads:
He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only, whereas the appearances to the others involved touching his resurrected corpse that left an empty tomb behind and flew to heaven." That distinction is never made.

> These all disagree with you, and I'm going to give their exegeses preference over yours.

It seems you completely ignored the Adela Yarbro Collins (Yale) quote as she disagrees with you! Those first two quotes from Vincent and Keener don't even help you. The last one from MacGregor is just pure apologetic nonsense. Paul was the one "untimely/abnormally" born. This in no way indicates the appearance to him was any different.

Maurice Casey and George Nickelsburg comment: "The extraordinary metaphor of ‘aborted foetus’ (ektrōma) caused endless trouble to commentators until Nickelsburg worked it out. It presupposes that Paul was called like a prophet from his mother’s womb (Gal. 1.15-16), and was as it were ‘born’ when he became the apostle to the Gentiles. Thus he was as it were ‘an aborted foetus’ when he was persecuting the church before his vocational ‘birth’. As was well known, the appearance of Jesus to him on the Damascus Road marked the point at which he ceased to persecute the churches and began to fulfil his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458 https://books.google.com/books?id=nOiRBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA458#v=onepage&q&f=false
So in light of the Collins and Casey quotes, your weak apologetic spin is no longer tenable.

> Yes they do, so why bring them into the discussion? But we can talk about them.

Each account in chronological order is consistent with legendary growth.

> No appearances are narrated, as you say, but the tomb was empty (no body—Mk. 16.6), and the women were told Jesus was risen. Given that the body was missing, that Jesus was said to have risen, and they would be able to see him (7), the implication is clearly a bodily, physical resurrection.

But where did the body go? Did it go to heaven and then return to earth? Did it go to heaven and would return to Galilee as the Son of Man in all his glory? Did Jesus just get up and leave the tomb naked? We don't know because Mark does not narrate the appearances.

> Jesus met them and they touched him (Mt. 28.9). It's a bodily resurrection.

Even if so, this view is nowhere found in Paul. Did Peter and James forget to tell Paul this amazing story?

> The "some doubted" of 28.17: The Greek word is distazo, "to think." They are "thinking two thoughts."

The word means "doubt" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1365.html If Jesus was really standing there then they would have no reason to "doubt." The criterion of embarrassment rules this as that some really doubted what they saw. Otherwise, why would Matthew risk mentioning it? That's why we don't hear about most of them having anything to do with the early church.

> As you say, Luke mentions flesh and bones.

Comes later 85-95 CE. Consistent with legendary growth and contradicts Paul when he says "flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God" - 1 Cor 15:50.

> Physical resurrection. The Gospels all corroborate.

The Doubting Thomas story is nowhere corroborated. John dates to 90-110 CE and most scholars don't think there is much actual history in John. We're supposed to believe the deity of Jesus made it past the synoptic authors without so much as a mention? Get real.

> Nowhere. Paul's focus is the theological implications of the death and resurrection. The stories of the historical facts of Jesus' resurrection have been circulating for two decades at this point. He doesn't bother with rehashing those, but with the salvation aspect. Peter does exactly the same thing in 1 Peter (1.3, 11 et al.). John does the same thing in 1 John 2.2; 3.16 et al. The time of telling the physical story is long past and well established. Now is the time to tell its salvific implications.

If Paul nowhere indicates that the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a "physical" way then you're just reading in the later accounts and claiming it was Paul's view. This is known in historical studies as an anachronism fallacy. You can't claim that Paul was preaching a physical resurrection that involved the resuscitation of the corpse when there's so much evidence otherwise.

> Irrelevant as 1 Cor 15:5-8 only says Jesus "appeared."

Context is never irrelevant, my friend. In actuality, many times context can count more than grammar. I can say "I love you" both sincerely and facetiously—context will tell us the difference.

> Wait, where does Paul say he's speaking of "literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh"?

Paul received this credo three years after his conversion on his first trip to Jerusalem, within four years of Jesus’ crucifixion. His source was most likely Peter and James themselves (Gal. 1.18-19). And we know that Peter was an eyewitness of the physical resurrection of Christ (John 20.19ff; 21; Acts 2.24, 31).

> He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only

Sure he does. Acts 9.3-6, 27. Remember we have to read all of the Bible, not just cherrypick passages and rip them out of context.

> "as to one prematurely born"

Vincent comments: "The word does not mean an untimely living birth, but a dead abortion, and suggests no notion of lateness of birth, but rather of being born before the time. The words as unto the abortion are not to be connected with last of all—last of all is to be abortion—because there’s no congruity or analogy between the figure of an abortion and the fact that Christ appeared to him last. Connect rather with he appeared: last of all he appeared to me as unto the abortion. Paul means that when Christ appeared to him and called him, he was—as compared with the disciples who have known and followed him from the first, and whom he had been persecuting—no better than an unperfected fetus among living men. The comparison emphasizes his condition at the time of his call."

Keener says, "This term usually means a dead fetus, by either abortion or miscarriage. Paul may be calling himself a freak compared to the other apostles (15.9); he is probably deprecating himself in some manner. This expression could refer to his being born at the wrong time, after Jesus’ initial resurrection appearances were complete; other commentators have suggested that Paul was chosen from the womb, but his persecution of the church had been annulling that purpose, making him like an aborted person until his conversion."

MacGregor says (I used some of his material when I wrote to you yesterday), "By placing 'he was seen also by me' after 'as to one abnormally born,' Paul explicitly shows 'as to one abnormally born' to be a qualifying phrase that modifies 'he appeared to me also' rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses 'as to one abnormally born' to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples 'saw' Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have 'as to one untimely born seen' Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion. This is one reason why Paul asserts in the next sentence, 'For I am least of all the apostles, who does not deserve to be called an apostle.' Far from alleging that his experience possessed the same character as the resurrection appearance recounted in the creed, then, Paul goes to great pains to insist that his experience differed in character from the appearances to 'those who were in Christ before I was' (Rom. 16.7).

These all disagree with you, and I'm going to give their exegeses preference over yours.

> The Gospel accounts come after Paul.

Yes they do, so why bring them into the discussion? But we can talk about them.

> Mark

No appearances are narrated, as you say, but the tomb was empty (no body—Mk. 16.6), and the women were told Jesus was risen. Given that the body was missing, that Jesus was said to have risen, and they would be able to see him (7), the implication is clearly a bodily, physical resurrection.

> Matthew

Jesus met them and they touched him (Mt. 28.9). It's a bodily resurrection. The "some doubted" of 28.17: The Greek word is distazo, "to think." They are "thinking two thoughts." The same word is used when Jesus walked on the water. They worship, but they wonder how this can be. Look also in Lk. 24, but he uses a different word, "unbelief." "Out of joy and amazement, they were 'unbelieving.' " That term is used in the same sense of somebody saying, "Unbelievable!" They had seen him die; now they are seeing him in front of their eyes.

> Luke

As you say, Luke mentions flesh and bones.

> John

Physical resurrection. The Gospels all corroborate.

> Now where are any of those details found in Paul's letters?

Nowhere. Paul's focus is the theological implications of the death and resurrection. The stories of the historical facts of Jesus' resurrection have been circulating for two decades at this point. He doesn't bother with rehashing those, but with the salvation aspect. Peter does exactly the same thing in 1 Peter (1.3, 11 et al.). John does the same thing in 1 John 2.2; 3.16 et al. The time of telling the physical story is long past and well established. Now is the time to tell its salvific implications.

> "1 Corinthians 15 is clearly the place to focus. First you should know that the creed of vv. 3-7 is almost unanimously known to be from within 3-5 years of Jesus' resurrection, a far cry from the AD 80 Matthew speculation. (By the way, I happen to think Matthew was written decades earlier than your estimate.) 1 Corinthians was probably written in AD 54-55, so that's 25 years earlier that 80, anyway, but the creed is from AD 33-35ish."

Irrelevant as 1 Cor 15:5-8 only says Jesus "appeared."

> "As far as Peter and James, Paul is speaking of the literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh to Peter, the 12, and then to James, the 500, etc. It fulfills your requirements of "on earth and experienced physically."

Wait, where does Paul say he's speaking of "literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh"? I think you're just reading that in because all he says is that Jesus "appeared."

> "The context of Paul's remark about himself in 1 Cor. 15.8 suggests Christ's resurrection appearance to him was qualitatively distinct from that of the appearance to the disciples. The context (vv. 3-8) has several repetitive patterns, like the 3-fold sequence of "he appeared to Peter"..."he appeared to are than 500"..."he appeared to James". But then he breaks the pattern when he talks about himself: "and last of all he appeared to me, as to one abnormally born." If Paul had wanted to imply that Christ's appearance to him was of the same substance/quality of his appearance to the others, he would not have broken pattern. By this technique he separates his experience from that of the others....But then he moves one step further. By placing "he was seen also by me" after "as to one abnormally born" (in the Greek text), Paul explicitly shows "as to one abnormally born" to be a qualifying phrase that modifies "he appeared to me also" rather than a temporal indicator. In other words, he is using "as to one abnormally born" to explain how the character of Christ's appearance to him was qualitatively distinct from the other. While the other disciples "saw" a physical body in a normal sense, Paul admits to a "seeing" in an abnormal sense. Paul is insisting that his experience differed in character from those who were in Christ before he was (Romans 16.7)."

Nope. Paul in no way indicates the nature of the appearances was different. He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only, whereas the appearances to the others involved touching his resurrected corpse that left an empty tomb behind and flew to heaven." That distinction is never made. The words "untimely" and "last of all" are only indicators of when the appearance occurred, not what it was like.

"The remark that Jesus appeared "last of all" is not evidence that he distinguished the type of appearance he was granted from those of Peter and the twelve. On the contrary, it marks his experience as the last in a series of the same type of experiences. The remark that Jesus appeared to him "as to one prematurely born" (v. 8) does not imply that the nature of the appearance was any different. It was Paul who was different - he was not even a disciple yet. This interpretation is supported by the remark in the following verse that he was persecuting the church of God (i.e. even at the time that Jesus appeared to him)." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 124.

> "There is every indication from the Gospel accounts that the disciples saw Jesus in the flesh, in a physical body and form. John even speaks of touching him (John 20.16-17, 27; 1 John 1.1-3). A physical resurrection is the most reasonable way to understand the Gospel accounts, the Acts messages, and Pauline theology."

The Gospel accounts come after Paul. Mark doesn't even narrate any of the appearances in the original version. All he gives us is a missing body. Matthew has appearances which "some doubt" Mt. 28:17, Luke has the first explicit mention of the "flesh and bones" Jesus and physical ascension after 40 days, and John gives us the Doubting Thomas story. Now where are any of those details found in Paul's letters?

1 Corinthians 15 is clearly the place to focus. First you should know that the creed of vv. 3-7 is almost unanimously known to be from within 3-5 years of Jesus' resurrection, a far cry from the AD 80 Matthew speculation. (By the way, I happen to think Matthew was written decades earlier than your estimate.) 1 Corinthians was probably written in AD 54-55, so that's 25 years earlier that 80, anyway, but the creed is from AD 33-35ish.

But let's talk about your ὤφθη comments. The term speaks of actual appearance and visions. The context decides. As far as Peter and James, Paul is speaking of the literal bodily appearances of Jesus in the flesh to Peter, the 12, and then to James, the 500, etc. It fulfills your requirements of "on earth and experienced physically."

The context of Paul's remark about himself in 1 Cor. 15.8 suggests Christ's resurrection appearance to him was qualitatively distinct from that of the appearance to the disciples. The context (vv. 3-8) has several repetitive patterns, like the 3-fold sequence of "he appeared to Peter"..."he appeared to are than 500"..."he appeared to James". But then he breaks the pattern when he talks about himself: "and last of all he appeared to me, as to one abnormally born." If Paul had wanted to imply that Christ's appearance to him was of the same substance/quality of his appearance to the others, he would not have broken pattern. By this technique he separates his experience from that of the others.

But then he moves one step further. By placing "he was seen also by me" after "as to one abnormally born" (in the Greek text), Paul explicitly shows "as to one abnormally born" to be a qualifying phrase that modifies "he appeared to me also" rather than a temporal indicator. In other words, he is using "as to one abnormally born" to explain how the character of Christ's appearance to him was qualitatively distinct from the other. While the other disciples "saw" a physical body in a normal sense, Paul admits to a "seeing" in an abnormal sense. Paul is insisting that his experience differed in character from those who were in Christ before he was (Romans 16.7).

There is every indication from the Gospel accounts that the disciples saw Jesus in the flesh, in a physical body and form. John even speaks of touching him (John 20.16-17, 27; 1 John 1.1-3). A physical resurrection is the most reasonable way to understand the Gospel accounts, the Acts messages, and Pauline theology.

Where does Paul say the risen Jesus was on earth or experienced physically? And by "physically" I mean in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation." Since Paul met with Peter and James (Gal. 1) then surely he would have known about the physical encounters involving touching Jesus' corpse then watching it float to heaven 40 days after walking around on earth. However, Paul only tells us that the Risen Jesus was exalted to heaven - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9 without any mention of a intermediate period on earth. A further argument can be made that he equates his Damascus Road vision with the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. He says "Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to Peter, James, etc and he appeared (ὤφθη) to me, also" but makes no distinction in the nature of the appearances. This could mean that he's asserting they were of the same type of appearances but just that Paul's was the last in sequence. The word ὤφθη, Greek – ōphthē, was almost used exclusively to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions and since Paul uses the word to describe his "vision" then he's obviously using it in the spiritual sense i.e. not actual "physical" sight.

The first Gospel appearances aren't described until Matthew which most scholars date around 80 CE. So, for the first fifty or so years of Christianity the words ώφθη "appeared" in 1 Cor 15:5-8, ὀπτασία "vision" in 2 Cor 12:1, and άποκάλυψις "revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16 are the only ways we know of that the early Christians announced Jesus’ appearances. These words in no way entail that the disciples actually saw or interacted with a physical body and as such provide no support for an empty tomb.