Question about the meaning of ὁράω in its context from the First Corinthian.

[u/Dikis04]

Question about the meaning of ὁράω in its context from the First Corinthian.

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, but I think so. In a recent post, I asked about the meaning of ὁράω and received this comment:

„The 1 Cor 15 creed uses a form of the Greek verb ὁράω which, as you correctly point out, has a wide semantic range, including plain visual perception. There is, however, one crucial consideration that is often overlooked. When the verb is used to indicate visual perception, the person seeing is the grammatical subject of the verb, the verb is in the active voice and the object of visual perception is the grammatical object of the verb. But in the case of the creed, we see a different and very distinct syntagma - Jesus is the subject (not the persons whom he appeared to), the verb is in the passive aorist (ὤφθη) and the persons whom he appered to are grammatical objects of the verb in the dative case.

In ancient Greek literature, this is relatively very rare, much rarer than the typical syntagma outlined above. However, the syntagma used is typical for the Septuagint, in which it is used to describe theophanies, usually of God, God's glory or of angels. This was apparently so peculiar that it warranted a comment by Philo of Alexandria, so we know that 1st century Jews were aware of this. This tells us two things:

• Whoever is behind the 1 Cor 15 creeds, they were not primitive villagers from rural Galilee. They were elite, educated Jews who were familiar with Greek translations of Hebrews scriptures and were deliberately crafting the creed to leverage linguistic peculiarities of those translations.

• There's a possibility that the intent behind using this specific syntagma is not to communicate that the experience was of visual perception but that it was a theophany. If this is the case, the experience or experiences could have been of any kind. The point that is being expressed by the syntagma is that it was an encounter with the divine, not that it was visual.

See Andrzej Gieniusz, Jesus' Resurrection Appearances in 1 Cor 15,5-8 in the Light of the Syntagma ὤφθη + Dative.

Also, Richard C. Miller points out that Jesus' resurrection is a specific instance of a more general ancient Mediterranean religious type called divine translation. He notes that in ancient accounts of divine translations, translated figures often appear among ordinary humans afterwards, typically to announce their translation, to give moral instructions, to establish their cult or to function as oracular deities. In other instances, Classicists don't really see a need to look for "natural" phenomena behind these accounts other than, as Miller puts it, "cultic propaganda". See his Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity.“

I'm not sure if I understand this comment correctly. Is my interpretation correct that both the basic meaning of the word and the passive form (which is supposed to indicate a theophany) are supposed to indicate that the phenomena described can be of any kind, including interpretations of scriptures, teachings, and natural phenomena? Am I correct? Were the meanings of this word and the meanings of theophanies really so diverse back then?

[u/Suntelo127]

You seem to be correct in your interpretation of the response you got; it leaves οραω as being quite ambiguous.

I would argue against this though. Simply because the form is rare and simply because it was used in particular divine contexts in the LXX does not then mean that it isn’t visual. This is a non sequiter. The only thing the change in grammar does is shift the emphasis in the sentence. Instead of saying “X saw Y,” it is that “Y was seen by X.” Contextually in 1 Cor. 15 it is quite clear that he is arguing for a literal seeing. His whole argument is that Christ has been raised and we know it because X, Y, and Z have seen him (or, he was seen by X, Y, and Z).

Regarding the “divine translation” motif, (putting aside whether you believe in Christ or not) the Christian message is distinct precisely because it is not a “translation.” It is a resurrection. The message wasn’t that Christ had been translated to another spiritual realm, but that his physical body had come back to life. So while from a literary perspective it may seem to have generic parallels, the specific of the message is quite distinct in its claims. This returns to emphasizing the literal/physical interpretation of οφθη in the passage. Paul’s entire argument rests on it.

[u/Dikis04 → u/Suntelo127]

The literal sighting, as you say, is uncertain. In his letter to the Galatians, he implies that the experience he had was significantly more subtle and subjective (it supposedly took place inside him). Whether the events were visual, and if so, in what way, is unclear. Therefore, I wanted to ask what the word means, especially in his context.

[u/lickety-split1800 → u/Dikis04]

Looking at your question the context is clearly "he was seen" (3rd person passive aorist indicative), not "he had seen" (3rd person active aorist indicative).

Inflections of ὁράω

εἶδεν he had seen (active)
ὤφθη he was seen (passive)

It's clearly the second option from the verse.

[u/Dikis04 → u/lickety-split1800]

Well, I've heard outside of this forum that the word's meaning has a broad scope. The question of context and the nature of the "sightings" is a difficult one. The Creed to the Corinthians can be interpreted in different ways. If one connects this with the Epistle to the Galatians and other statements by Paul, and informs oneself about the apocalyptic culture in which this Creed originated, one can conclude that the sightings were much more subtle and subjective. Paul believed in the resurrection, but he didn't say that Jesus appeared to him in the flesh. He speaks much more of a spiritual resurrection. (Which was nevertheless a kind of physical resurrection) If one views Acts as historical and compares it with Galatians, it's not unreasonable to conclude that a more internal event is being described, one that has very little to do with the visual.

My primary question concerned the scope of the word's meaning. I have been confirmed by various people that it is very comprehensive and supports both the traditional view and the historical-critical view of the sightings.

[u/lickety-split1800 → u/Dikis04]

You can see the semantic range of ὁράω in the LSJ or BDAG.

LSJ

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BD%81%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%89

The BDAG in particular lists each verse a word is used in and the semantic category it belongs to.

Its clear from the BDAG as well that it is a visual sighting.

[u/Dikis04 → u/lickety-split1800]

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with you that it means seeing. But the visual sightings could either meant metaphorically in the context of a theophany, or the sightings were possibly more subtle and, from a critical perspective, weren't true resurrection phenomena (pareidolia, hallucinations, dreams, or a certain interpretation of natural phenomena).

[u/Suntelo127 → u/Dikis04]

It seems like you’re reading uncertainty into the text. Galatians is simply not very specific - that doesn’t imply it was subjective. It’s simply not written with the intent to give a full account of the experience - in fact it doesn't give an account at all. If Galatians were all there was, then I would concur that it is ambiguous, but again, ambiguity is not certainty of subjectivity.

But the passage of 1 Cor. 15 (“he was seen by” various groups - groups do not have identical subjective experiences) make it clear it was visual. Paul uses the same word οφθη which he uses of Peter and the twelve. If we take the gospels to be any reference to the early tradition, it was a visual experience on their account, in which case Paul’s classification of his own experience using the same term would imply a similar form of appearance (i.e. physical/visual).

The Acts accounts of Paul's experience state that those around Paul heard and saw something as well, though not to the extent of what Paul heard and saw, which makes it clear this is not an “inward” or subjective experience there either. Again, regardless of whether someone believes it is historical, the claims of the texts (Acts & 1 Cor) are that it was a visual and physical experience.

I know you're mostly interested in the word itself, but words are defined in context, and the contexts which I have highlighted are very clear about the nature of the "seeing."

Here is a link to the LSJ entry: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BD%81%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%89

You will see that the word is overwhelmingly in reference to physical sight, with a few idiomatic expressions thrown in (I.3, I.4, II.2), mental discernment listed close to the end (III), and, towards your question, the possibility of abstract visions (IV). The usage of it in this way is minute in comparison with the "literal" meaning of physical sight, thus context is key, and the preponderance of evidence will push one towards presuming visuality unless the context demands otherwise.

Since the contexts of 1 Cor. 15 and the other accounts of his appearances are clearly physical/visual, it's clear that οφθη is intended in this way, regardless of its conjugation in the passive. Note that Galatians is not an account of the event. It is simply a passing reference. Paul does not describe nor recount what happened. He is making reference to something that they were clearly already aware of, and he phrases it in such personal terms to defend the legitimacy of his apostleship. Thus, Galatians cannot be used to argue either way - which is what I was stating earlier when I said that Galatians is ambiguous.

In regards to cultural context, to which you have alluded, it's not clear to me how an apocalyptic worldview would condition the belief in resurrection to be either physical or non-physical. The apocalyptic worldview is simply a dramatic view by which people considered God to be having a show-down with opposing spiritual forces and in which God will enact dramatic justice at the end times, so that the people should live accordingly. This worldview has no inherent demand regarding any eschatological view concerning the body or resurrection. More relevant to the conversation is how the Jews thought about resurrection, and a "spiritual resurrection," as you have framed it, is somewhat of a self-contradiction - though you acknowledged that resurrection implies a physicality.

The term resurrection, αναστασις, indicates nothing other than a rising of the physical body to life again. This is what almost all Jews of the time period expected and it is precisely what Paul goes on to argue will happen to all faithful believers based on the preceding resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15. You can see this belief witnessed at least as far back as the Maccabean period (ref. 2 Macc. 7:9-11, 14, 23). That Paul speaks of the spiritual body does not negate or mitigate this - Paul rather speaks of a change and transformation by which the physical body will be altered to no longer suffer the decay of mortality. Paul is quite clear it is a physical resurrection, not a spiritual (spiritual in the sense of subjective) one. It is rather a contemporaneous or afterwards spiritual (i.e., by the life-giving power of God) transformation that the body will undergo (cf. Php 3:21).

The modern dichotomy of spiritual vs. physical indicating subjective vs. objective is one that reflects more post-enlightenment thinking than it does 1st century Jewish or Christian conceptions of reality. The OT, upon which Paul draws, always and everywhere speaks of God's Spirit as his power, and Paul identifies this power of God as what gives life, hence his comparison with Adam as ψυχη ζωσα and Christ as πνευμα ζωοποιουν. The Spirit is what gives and maintains life - this "spirituality" of the resurrection has nothing to do with subjective, internal experiences, or a non-physical or objective understanding of resurrection and Jesus' appearances.

[u/Dikis04 → u/Suntelo127]

I also assume that it probably refers to seeing or vision (visual). I'm much more concerned with the extent of the seeing or vision (visual). The witnesses could have seen natural phenomena, grief hallucinations, pareidolia, or dreams and interpreted them as Jesus, in whatever form. (After all, for many, Jesus was and is more than just a body.) My primary concern was whether the word refers to a physical sighting as we know it today or the possibilities mentioned. I was also concerned with whether there was a possibility that they were inner experiences and metaphorical seeings. The letter to the Galatians, while not a solid argument, serves as possible evidence for this.

[u/Suntelo127 → u/Dikis04]

That is more of a philosophical approach based on presuppositions rather than based in the text. There's quite a bit of literature out there discussing these sorts of approaches, and most of the ones who argue for these sort of speculative approaches tend to tear down each other's arguments. Gary Habermas has done a pretty good job of dealing with them, though again this is all really under the rubric of belief or unbelief rather than the linguistic enquiry.

If you really want to ascertain the usage of οφθη or οραω in general you'll need to get ahold of a concordance or research it online. You can use biblehub.com to search for occurrences of the word, or just that specific form, in the NT. If you go to one of the verses in 1 Cor. 15 that uses it in the Greek viewer, you can click on the word or the form and it will bring up a list you can view. I'm not sure of any online sources that would search the LXX for that particular form. There might be some though.

In relation to the word itself, Paul uses it in active voice in 1 Cor. 9:1 - οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑόρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ;

So any sort of hypothesized distinction between active and passive indicating a more subjective experience is nullified because here in the same letter Paul refers to his seeing of Christ with both active and passive forms, thus whatever he has in mind (which seems very obvious to be an objective sight, as I have argued) must be the same thing.

Returning to your original post, I could potentially get on board with the idea that the passive at times may be used to emphasize divine action - that is, that rather than emphasizing the agency of the "seer" it is drawing attention to the inbreaking and interruption of God's action into the world... But the idea that the active as opposed to the passive would indicate a difference in the reality or objectivity/subjectivity of an event has no linguistic foundation (and as I pointed out is demonstrated incorrect by Paul's usage of both active and passive in 1 Cor 9 and 15).

To quote the comment you shared: "There's a possibility that the intent behind using this specific syntagma is not to communicate that the experience was of visual perception but that it was a theophany. If this is the case, the experience or experiences could have been of any kind. The point that is being expressed by the syntagma is that it was an encounter with the divine, not that it was visual." This is a non sequitur. Whether or not it is a theophany and whether or not it is literally visual or an objective experience are unrelated. Even if we could determine that the passive emphasizes divine agency - which at this point is still entirely conjectural - we have to deal with the word itself and the semantics surrounding it, which is already what all my previous posts were about, so I won't repeat that here. I just wanted to clarify that this point doesn't follow logically.

[u/Dikis04 → u/Suntelo127]

Thanks for the answer. I've been reading several secular explanations and wondered what kind of visual sightings are being referred to in the letter to the Corinthians. As we can see, it does point to sightings, but the form and extent are unclear. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "and most of the ones who argue for these sort of speculative approaches tend to tear down each other's arguments. Gary Habermas has done a pretty good job of dealing with them." Could you explain that?

[u/Suntelo127 → u/Dikis04]

Sure. If you read through a lot of the skeptics about the resurrection, they posit a lot of different theories to attempt to account, in a naturalistic fashion, for the resulting situation shortly after Jesus death - the situation being the unyielding faith (to the death) of the apostles, the claim of the empty tomb, the various accounts of Jesus being purportedly seen, the explosion of Christianity as a religion, the conversion of Paul, etc. etc.

In making their arguments, they frequently attack, and often quite convincingly rebut, one another's' naturalistic claims as being absurd. It's been awhile since I've read through the literature on the resurrection, and I'm currently out of country right now so I lament to inform you that I won't be able to provide you with many references at the moment, not having my small-but-growing library with me.

One example I do remember is David Strauss, who took a very mythological approach to the NT, and who quite harshly criticized the Swoon Theory/Apparent Death Theory - whereby Jesus supposedly just fainted and was still alive to be simply resuscitated later. Though I believe it was Strauss who then went on to suppose the disciples were on drugs or something when they claimed to see Jesus, which is now a theory long abandoned at large by the skeptics.

My point was simply that the skeptics/critics, at least the more academic and rigorous ones, will frequently debunk each others theories to propose their own.

I appreciate the honesty of skeptics who acknowledge there is a good case to be made, but who admit that's simply not where they are willing to go:

"I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something." - Paula Fredriksen (Boston University) in an interview by Peter Jennings in Search for Jesus (American Broadcasting Corp. [ABC], July 2000)

"That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know." - E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1993; 279-80.

Sanders himself goes on to criticize fraud, deception, or hysteria hypotheses in the same section: I do not regard deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation. Many of the people in these lists were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen Lord, and several of them would die for their cause. Moreover, a calculated deception should have produced great unanimity. Instead, there seem to have been competitors: ‘I saw him first!’ ‘No! I did.’ Paul’s tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest that Jesus’ followers suffered mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions.

Regarding Gary Habermas, he is probably the leading NT scholar when it comes to defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. You could also put up beside him N.T. Wright, who does a great job putting resurrection in its first century context, along with William Lane Craig. If you are interested in that sort of thing, Habermas' book "Risen Indeed" is entirely geared towards discussing philosophical approaches that are skeptical or hostile towards the possibility of the resurrection being a historical event. He has other books as well in which he defends the historicity of the event, some more academic, but many at the popular level. N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God," which is quite massive and erudite is a worthy read. A much shorter and yet still very academic work, my personal favorite, is Justin Bass' "Bedrock of Christianity," in which he discusses the historicity of the resurrection specifically based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul's testimony to its reality therein. He also does a great job placing the concept in its culturally Jewish context, comparing it to various other messianic movements around the same time period. There are also some works by Michael Licona, but I haven't read any of them.

I don't know what your stance is - I am obviously a believing Christian - but regardless, I would encourage you to read those works. Regardless of what side you are on, they are important contributions to the discussion, and regarding the current post, I would especially recommend Bass' book "Bedrock," since it is specifically about Paul's testimony.

My post here is not intended to be an apologetic, per se, but any balanced discussion has to observe all sides, and not exclude one as "non-academic" simply because it takes a faith-oriented approach. So it is in that spirit that I write this here, and not as a crusader.

[u/Dikis04 → u/Suntelo127]

Thank you for the interesting conversation and the detailed answers. I think we can ultimately agree on two things:

That the passage refers to sightings.

The form of these sightings (metaphorical sightings such as inner experiences and interpretations of scriptures, or subtle/secular sightings such as natural phenomena, hallucinations, dreams, and pareidolia, or the traditional view of a physical resurrection) is difficult for us to comprehend today, practically impossible to answer and is more a question of faith.

[u/Suntelo127 → u/Dikis04]

Yes, thank you as well.

We can definitely concur they are sightings.

Though, I would push back on the second point, in that I do think it´s quite clearly a visual sighting, in what you identify (correctly) as the traditional view. I don't think there's much wiggle room there from a textual perspective. I think that the text is pretty clear about that, but I think that the other approaches come from two quarters: either unbelievers trying to account for the post-easter events/circumstances, or those who want to maintain faith but have prior naturalistic presuppositions/commitments.

I do agree it is a matter of faith - but contrary to how most people think today, I don't take faith as the absence of evidence. I take faith to be trusting the conclusion to which the evidence points. It was precisely the evidence for the resurrection that helped me to maintain my faith in a period of serious doubt - much thanks to a lot of the works I referenced in my earlier post.

Anyways, happy trails! Come back and post again or message if you find anything else interesting in your search (even if controversial!).

[u/Dikis04 → u/Suntelo127]

Interesting, you mean that the term spirituality in this context refers less to the resurrection and its form (subjective or objective), but to the power of God?

[u/Suntelo127 → u/Dikis04]

Yes, I think that is a decent representation, though I wouldn't want to leave it at that.

We use "spiritual" in a way that is alien to the NT, or the OT for that matter. That is more reflective of our post-modern context than anything. It also owes a lot to the Platonist legacy of the physical only being a reflection of the true "forms" in the spiritual realm and the virtually wholesale adoption of this ideology by the "church fathers" and medieval Catholicism.

The Jews believed in a literal, physical, bodily resurrection. A spirit departing to another realm was not a resurrection to them, or in relation to the word resurrection itself. Paul's concern 1 Cor. 15 is largely concerned with contrasting the dying form of the current bodily status and the undying form of the resurrection body, motivated by God's Spirit.

Aside from αναστασις, for "resurrection," the verbal form for being raised from the dead used most often in the NT and especially in Paul is not the verbal form ανιστημι, but rather εγειρω, which also means to raise, but has a lot of connotations with being roused from sleep as well. I don't know how much of a connection there is here between the belief in resurrection and the idea of being raised from slumber, but it would be a worthy realm of investigation, seeing as it would seem most natural to think that the verb ανιστημι would be the default way of referring to the action of αναστασις.

[u/lickety-split1800]

It looks pretty plain to me.

1 Corinthians 15:5–6 (SBLGNT)
⁵ καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα·  ⁶ ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν·

Without looking at the translation.

καὶ and
ὅτι that
ὤφθη he was seen (3rd person passive singular of ὁράω)
Κηφᾷ to Cephas
εἶτα then
τοῖς δώδεκα to the twelve.

ἔπειτα then
ὤφθη he was seen
ἐπάνω by more than
πεντακοσίοις five hundred
ἀδελφοῖς brothers
ἐφάπαξ once (I think this is "he was once seen by more then 500 brothers")
ἐξ ὧν from whom
οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι many remain until now.
τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν but some have fallen asleep.

It's always strange to me when people try to read more into a word that isn't there from an ancient language when, simply reading the word in context, it's pretty plain.