SLD

According to a poster on another message board the fact that women reported the resurrection is proof that it's true. Apparently women were held in such low regard in Judaism, and thus they would not have been used if the story were a fabrication. A person making up the story would not have women used as the first witnesses to the risen christ. Their testimony would not have counted for anything.

But how true is this? What were the ancient views of both Jew, Romans and Greeks towards women testifying? Are there other reports of women in historical documents of that time?

Any other specific critiques of this line of reasoning?

SLD

Cege

It's not reasonable to claim that women reporting makes the report true.

The woman's or women's report (depending on the version) was doubted until "proof" came in first-person to the disciples. It doesn't seem that the female report counted for much, if anything, in the gospel claims.

Toto

Did No One Trust Women?

Much more there.

Steven Carr

I can't think of any apart from these obvious lies about a woman's testimony being considered credible.

John 4:39 'Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” '

This must be a lie, because it is well known that a woman's testimony was not credible.

And you can readily understand why.

That stupid woman in John's Gospel thought the body had been stolen and moved!

What an idiot she was!

Happily a man was there to correct this silly woman. Jesus himself was the first person to announce the resurrection in John's Gospel.

And a young man is the first to announce the resurrection in Mark.

And an angel of the Lord is the first to announce the resurrection in Matthew.

And TWO men are the first to announce the resurrection in Luke.

Surely if they were making it up, they would not have had angels, men or Jesus himself announce that a resurrection had happened?

hjalti

The first problem with this is that in our original source with the women, we are explicitly told that they didn't report the empty tomb.

The second problem with this argument is that even if the women would have reported this in the story, it isn't clear that the author was worried about having reliable witnesses around.

Doug Shaver

It's not true at all.

I highly recommend the article that Toto linked to. It's a good read.

Chili

Not sure if it is low regard but maybe just respect as the woman comes alive in the resurrection when the persona is crucified, and is that not why she is his dowry in bethrothal? his flesh of flesh and bone of bones that was taken from 'her man'? and is not her soul as deep as wide waters are wide and we do not reach the yonder shore intill her depth has been exposed? to become Atlantis down the road as if an island of our own and there Jerualem shall find in the new heaven and earth? where she is to be crowned queen because she was his love, his live, his all and now a mansion of his own?

And if he finds his life in her does she not hold his future to unfold and at large the future of Israel as well? and so also the sins of the clan, tribe and nation to carry forth and come to rest on the children for generations to follow? as she is the womb of man to hold our RNA that modifies our DNA so that beauty has origination in cause as well? but should never tuut her horn without an identity of her own but only sing for him the song contained within her heart that he may hear the melody and dance in steps designed by her?

We have all heard it said that the true beauty of woman lies within her soul with jewels to be found for us shine so that our streets will be paved with prescious stones of every sort . . . including coal so we may 'treat her right' because we will find ourself in her.

I liked "A Streetcar Named Desire" on this topic.

To add line i read once by a Frenchman who said something like: To be born beautiful is a special gift and to want to look beatiful a pain.

Solo

The problem with the argument that Holding and others make is that in the original story line of Mark, the women do not report the annunciation because they are seized by panic. This is in character with the stereotypes most males had about women in antiquity (...and have today; the gender stereotypes are mutual). Matthew's rewrite would have been much more appealing to women than Mark's original. Note the fear of the disciples to ask what 'the rising from the dead' meant (Mk 9:32) matching their fear and the fear of the women in the tomb. Mark transparently derrogates to both.

Best,
Jiri