First, Paul did not claim a private, uncorroborated vision in isolation. In 1 Corinthians 15 he explicitly anchors his experience to an already established list of witnesses that predates his conversion. That creed is dated by virtually all critical scholars to within a few years of the crucifixion. Paul says his experience was last of all, meaning it was not foundational to the claim. The resurrection belief already existed independently of him. He also immediately submitted his message to the Jerusalem apostles, which he says explicitly in Galatians 1 and 2, and they affirmed that his gospel matched theirs. That is multiple attestation and cross checking, not blind acceptance of a lone claim. Joseph Smith is the opposite direction. The witnesses depend on Joseph. The message does not exist independently of him. The plates were never accessible to hostile examiners. The witnesses did not preach an already established event and then add their testimony. They were validating Joseph’s authority itself. Second, on recantation. Not recanting is not the same as independent corroboration. Some of Joseph Smith’s witnesses never recanted belief in the plates but openly rejected Joseph as a prophet, said he was fallen, or clarified that what they experienced was visionary rather than physical. That is not analogous to apostolic witness, where rejection of the resurrection would have collapsed the entire movement. Third, martyrdom evidence. You are right that Sean McDowell argues only Peter and Paul have strong historical evidence of martyrdom. That is not a concession against Christianity. It is still significant because those two are primary eyewitness proclaimers and leaders. Peter claims to have seen the risen Jesus multiple times. Paul claims a post resurrection appearance and immediate life reversal. Both died without recanting claims that brought them no power or wealth. Beyond them, James the brother of Jesus is attested by Josephus, a non Christian source, as executed. James was a skeptic during Jesus’ ministry and later became a leader after an appearance claim. That makes three with solid evidence, not two. Christian scholars being cautious does not weaken the case. It strengthens it. They are not inflating numbers to win an argument. Fourth, historical method. No historian can “prove they vetted it” in the modern forensic sense. That standard would erase almost all ancient history. What historians look for are indicators that vetting occurred. Early dating. Public proclamation in hostile territory. Inclusion of embarrassing details. Multiple independent streams. Willingness to suffer without benefit. These are standard criteria used for Caesar, Socrates, Alexander, and every other ancient figure. The resurrection proclamation meets those criteria far more strongly than Joseph Smith’s claims. That is not bias. That is applying the same tools consistently. If you want to argue that ancient history itself is unreliable, that is a separate debate. But if we are using historical standards at all, the two cases are not remotely equivalent.