Let me take another swing at this: >>I do not require<< the Resurrection to be a scientific event, whatever that means. If someone chooses to accept this event as a scientific fact, then I have no particular reason to object. If a person further asserts, “… and therefore the Earth is only 6000 years old”, then I might have an issue, but that is not the case here.
The value of your faith is not contingent of my acceptance of the Resurrection.
From my reading of Gould’s essay I think he would agree that NOMA has exceptions. It is basically Gould’s attempt at describing his own fallible view as an agnostic of how science and religion interact.
That last part is the all-purpose get out of jail free card. He freely admits that this won’t cover all questions, and one could perhaps argue that the Resurrection fits into this area of non-coverage.
Another possible way of looking at this is to define the magisteria by the empirical evidence we do have. The scientific magisteria would include theories that are either supported or refuted by known evidence. Being that there is no evidence for or against the Resurrection, it would fall outside the magisteria of science.
It can also be a scientific fact if it created empirical evidence that we could observe in the present. The Chicxulub meteor impact is a scientific fact because of the massive crater and other evidence (e.g. tektites, iridium layer) we can find in the present.
The meteor is a scientific fact, in part, because no religion claimed their God produced that event.
If we are being semantically careful… the resurrection of Jesus may have scientifically verifiable evidence… without necessarily any evidence that the resurrection itself was due to natural laws and causation.
I don’t think resurrection specifically could be proven. It could, maybe, be proven that some “event” did happen but we wouldn’t, scientifically call it resurrection because we haven’t seen any other resurrection.
However, would it be logically consistent to think that “event” is resurrection? Certainly.