Imagine with me that one day the police came knocking on your door because you are a suspect in a terrible crime. They immediately put you in hand cuffs and tell you that you are under arrest for murdering your neighbor the previous night. Apparently, some of your other neighbors saw you entering your house about thirty minutes after the crime with blood all over your shirt. You plead innocence, but they are having none of it.

So they take you down to the station and put you in the interrogation room — the kind you see on tv with a table and a two-way mirror with the police listening on the other side. The tough detective slams his fist the table, slides his chair over right in front of yours, gets right in your face, and asks you how you did it in a rather accusatory tone.

You are aware that your alibi sounds sketchy, but you know it’s the truth. So you tell him that last night, during the time of the crime, you were downtown feeding a homeless man who, to put it nicely, has had a rough life — he’s been in and out of jail several times for drugs, grand theft auto, and embezzlement. You tell the detective that you took him a burger and fries and ate with him on a park bench. Unfortunately, as you were getting ready to eat your fries, the ketchup packet exploded leaving red stains all over your white shirt. You tell the detective that if he will go talk to the homeless man, he will verify your story.

Now, let me ask you this: If you were lying, would you make up this story? Would you base your future freedom on the testimony of a former criminal? Probably not. Because if you made up this story, you would want to find a reputable person that would make your story more plausible — someone who would help your case — not someone who nobody is going to believe.

WOMEN WERE THE FIRST EYE-WITNESSES

We have a similar dilemma near the end of the Gospels. Each of the four Gospel writers tells us that women were the first eye-witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 23:55-24:6; Jn 20:1-16). Why is this a big deal you ask? It’s a big deal because a woman’s testimony didn’t go far in early Jewish culture. In fact, it was essentially worthless. Here are a few quotes that illustrate my point:

JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES 4.8.15

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.”

TALMUD, SOUTH 19A

“Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women.”

TALMUD, ROSH HASHANNAH 1.8

“Any evidence which a women gives is not valid, also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.”

WOMEN EYE-WITNESSES WOULDN’T BE MADE UP

Yikes. All you ladies can count your blessings that you weren’t born two thousand years ago, because your word would have meant next to nothing — on par with a robber actually. So if the Gospel writers were trying to convince the world of Jesus’ resurrection, why would they say that women were the first eye-witnesses? Making that claim wouldn’t help make their case.

It’s telling that perhaps the earliest Christian literature we possess is a creed that circulated Jerusalem within only a few of years of Jesus’ death. Paul quotes this famous creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which includes several eye-witnesses, but notice who’s missing from the list:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

After reading the creed, how does it appear that the early Christians tried to persuade the public of Jesus’ resurrection? They tried to persuade everyone by listing a slew of credible eye-witnesses such as Cephas (Peter), the remaining disciples, James (Jesus’ brother and leader of the Jerusalem church), Paul (the apostle), and a whole group of five hundred people at one time. To be sure, Paul probably infers some women in the list of five hundred, but he doesn’t mention them specifically. Why? Because their testimony wouldn’t convince the general public — nobody would care what they had to say.

WHY MAKE THIS UP?

It seems reasonable to suggest that the Gospel writers had no motivation to make up the story that women were the first eye-witnesses of the resurrection. Every Jew in that culture knew that a woman’s testimony was on par with a convict. The meaning of this is plain. The reason the Gospel writers state that women were the first eye-witnesses is because, in fact, they must have been the first eye-witnesses.

Historians call this the criteria of embarrassment — the idea that authors don’t willingly invent a story that embarrasses their cause or weakens their position with opponents; therefore, it’s probably true. Think about it this way. If the Gospel writers invented the resurrection narrative, they would have been motivated to say that Peter, James, or John were the first eye-witnesses. But since they were telling the truth, they included the embarrassing detail that it was, indeed, the women who found the tomb empty. This remarkable detail gives us greater confidence that the resurrection narrative actually happened as the Gospel writers described it.