# The Women at the Tomb On the third day after the crucifixion of Jesus, his male disciples deserted Him and went into hiding ([Mark 14:50](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MRK.14.50),[Matthew 26:56](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.26.56)). They were completely defeated, terrified, and unsure of the future. After his burial, the women were visiting the tomb of Christ to anoint His body with spices when they discovered an empty tomb ([Matthew 16:1-8](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.16.1-8), [Matthew 28:1-10](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.28.1-10), [Luke 24:1-10](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/LUK.24.1-10), [John 20:1-2](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/JHN.20.1-2)). This is an important detail found within the Gospels. ## Criterion of Embarrassment ![[Criterion Of Embarrassment]] ## Why would female followers of Jesus be the first to find this and not one of His male disciples? Testimonies from women were often not seen as legitimate during the life of Christ. This can be verified in the [[Danby2012-ui|The Mishnah]] > [!quote] The Mishnah > Tractate Shavuot 4:1 - An oath of evidence applies to men but not to women, to those who are not near of kin but not to such as are kinsfolk, to those who are eligible but not to those who are not qualified. And it applies only to such as are fit to give evidence. This is also found here in the The Antiquities of the Jews. > [!quote] [[Josephus2018-gw|Josephus]] > But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. 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. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness to have suffered. And in the teachings of Eliezer ben Hurcanus a 1st-2nd century sage, such as: > [!quote] [[Solomon2009-ho]] > "Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy." > > "Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman." > > "A woman's wisdom is limited to the handling of the distaff." And in the Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c and Sotah 31b: > [!quote] [[Solomon2009-ho]] > Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)... > > ...Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, it follows the majority of persons, so that two women against one man is identical with two men against one man. But there are some who declare that wherever a competent witness came first, even a hundred women are regarded as equal to one witness ... but when it is a woman who came first, then two women against one man is like half-and-half. You can also find in the this morning prayer called "shelo asani isha": > [!quote] [[Solomon2009-ho]] > Blessed are you, LORD our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not made me a woman. An additional prayer that was spoken in the Talmud: > [!quote] [[Solomon2009-ho]] > "O God, let not my offspring be a girl: for very wretched is the life of women." And in Volume 3 of Women of Early Christianity, Alfred Brittain and Mitchell Carroll wrote: > [!quote] [[Brittain1908-au]] > "O God, let not my offspring be a girl: for very wretched is the life of women." It was said: "Happy he whose children are boys, and woe unto him whose children are girls." Public conversation between the sexes was interdicted by the rabbis. "No one", says the Talmud, "is to speak with a woman, even if she be his wife, in the public street." Even the disciples, accustomed as they were to seeing the Master ignore rabbinical regulations, "marvelled" when they found Him talking with the woman of Sychar. One of the chief things which teachers of the Law were to avoid was multiplying speech with a woman. The women themselves seem to have acquiesced in this degrading injunction. There is a story of a learned lady who called the great Rabbi Jose a "Galilean Ignoramus," because he had used two unnecessary words in inquiring of her the way to Joppa. He had employed but four. There are even external accounts of women not being treated equally in other cultures. > [!quote] [[Tranquillus1957-kh]] > Nor would he allow any women to witness the combats of the gladiators, except from the upper part of the theatre, although they formerly used to take their places promiscuously with the rest of the spectators. To the vestal virgins he granted seats in the theatre, reserved for them only, opposite the praetor's bench. He excluded however, the whole female sex from seeing the wrestlers: so that in the games which he exhibited upon his accession to the office of high-priest, he deferred producing a pair of combatants which the people called for, until the next morning; and intimated by proclamation, "his pleasure that no woman should appear in the theatre before five o'clock. # Cultural and Theological Implications of Women Being the First to Witness the Resurrected Savior The account of The Women at the Tomb within the Gospels highlights a pivotal moment that shows both the respect Jesus harbored for women and the historical credibility of the Resurrection. It leverages the Criterion of Embarrassment, a principle applied in historical analysis beyond biblical narratives, to argue for the authenticity of the Resurrection account; notably, the narrative positions women as the first to discover Jesus' empty tomb, challenging societal norms of the era that marginalized women. This detail not only attests to Jesus' consistent respect and dignity towards women but also strengthens the argument for the Resurrection's historical accuracy, posing a rhetorical question: if the account were fabricated, why designate women, considered unreliable witnesses by contemporary standards, as the initial discoverers unless it truly occurred? This narrative choice further solidifies the event's authenticity, reflecting Jesus' regard for women and contributing to the compelling evidence supporting the Resurrection's historical foundation.