Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.2 Et Resurrexit
tomb to the other disciples — apostola apostolorum. 21 Yet, as is well known, in
Middle Eastern society of the time women were not regarded as reliable witnesses:
a woman's testimony in court was heavily discounted. 28 And any report
that Mary had formerly been demon-possessed (Luke 8.2) would hardly add
credibility to any story attributed to her in particular. 29 Why then attribute such
testimony to women — unless that was what was remembered as being the
case? 30 In contrast, can it be seriously argued that such a story would be contrived
in the cities and/or village communities of first-century Palestine, a story
which would have to stand up before public incredulity and prejudice? This consideration
alone may be sufficient to explain why the tradition cited by Paul does
not include the testimony of women in its list of witnesses (1 Cor. 15.4-8). 31
It is a little surprising that Mark and Matthew say nothing about any other
witnesses to an empty tomb, since we have other testimony within the tradition.
John's account of Peter and the other disciple seeing for themselves (John 20.3-
10) is hardly intended to replace Mary's testimony, 32 since John immediately
proceeds to give Mary the honour of the first resurrection appearance as well
way or another it got out; Mark knows it! It is part of Mark's genius that he leaves his story
open at the end, open for the congregations who hear it being read to carry it on from what they
know happened thereafter and what they know from personal experience is still happening. As
Pesch (Markusevangelium 2.535-36) and Wedderburn (Beyond Resurrection 281 n. 320) remind
us, the closing note of 'fear' should not necessarily be regarded as a negative feature.
27. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her 332.
28. Josephus indicates what was probably the typical prejudice of the time: 'From
women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex' (Ant.
4.219). Luke shares the same scepticism (Luke 24.11)! Subsequently it was specified in the
Mishnah that the law about 'an oath of testimony' (Lev. 5.1) applied only to men and not to
women (m. Shebu. 4.1); the ineligibility of women as witnesses was a benchmark of what was
to be counted as ineligible (m. Rosh Hash. 1.8). Even today in Islamic states a woman's testimony
is regarded as worth only half the value of a man's. See also M. Hengel, 'Maria
Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen', in O. Betz et al., eds., Abraham unser Vater, O. Michel
FS (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 243-56.
29. Celsus speaks dismissively of the testimony of 'a half-frantic woman' (Origen,
c. Cels. 2.59).
30. That the story as initially told included seeings of angels neither adds to nor detracts
from the testimony regarding the empty tomb; visions of angels were part of the 'mechanics' of
revelatory experiences (data, e.g., in C. A. Newsom, 'Angels', ABD 1.252). Whether that fact
conditioned the seeing process as much as the narrating process is a moot point.
31. See also Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection 59-61: 'It is far likelier that a prominent
role of women, particularly of Mary of Magdala, was later suppressed, than that such a tradition
was a later accretion' (60); Catchpole, Resurrection People 199-201.
32. H. Grass argues, however, that John 20.2-10 is a secondary addition to John 20.1,
11-18 (Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2 1961] 54-
57).
833