As portrayed by the Gospel authors, Mary and the other women who end up first learning Jesus rose, up until that moment, play virtually no role in the Gospel drama of Jesus’s ministry.
This is relevant because the empty tomb discovery and its proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection by the accompanying angel is a climactic main event in content of the Gospel story. Yet using negligible characters as the heroes in your story’s climax —tossing out all the character development beforehand—is awkward. It frustrates the narrative’s development, and makes for generally inept storytelling.1
In 1st century Jewish thought, women were thought to be inappropriate/unworthy mediators of God’s word to men.
A full page will analyze these 5 arguments:
This is relevant because the story uses women to first hear news of God’s grand message and vindication of His Son and to consequently inform the male apostles.
The male disciples historically fled to Jerusalem soon after Jesus was crucified. [Forthcoming] This is relevant because the author's audience knew the males fled (i.e., the author could not erase this), and so female witnesses would then be the only available disciple-witnesses the author could use.1 Their use would therefore be a necessary evil; (i.e., “If Mark was working from a source which had only women as witnesses of the burial of Jesus, only they could be responsible for discovering the empty tomb.”)
But the first claim is false,
• Gerd Theissen & Annette Merz: “The disciples had fled at the arrest of Jesus. Only a few women disciples ventured to look on the crucifixion from afar. Probably the fugitives had removed themselves to Galilee.” [This Historical Jesus (Fortress, 1998), 503.]
• J.M.G. Barclay: “…it could arise simply from literary necessity: if Mark was working from a source which had only women as witnesses of the burial of Jesus, only they could be responsible for discovering the tomb empty.” [“The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” in G. D'Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 23.]
• Gerd Lüdemann: “From there the narrative of the tomb develops with apologetic intent. It was not strange that women should have been the main figures in this legend, since the flight of the male disciples was an established fact.” [The Resurrection of Jesus (Fortress, 1994), 118.]
• W. D. Davies & Dale Allison: “One fails to see why Christian legend preferred to create a story with Mary Magdalene at the tomb instead of a story in which the disciples, if gone to Galilee, soon return to Jerusalem to find the tomb empty.” (cf. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, p.320-330)
• William Lane Craig: “…if the story of the women’s discovery of the empty tomb is a pure legend, then why could we not have a purely legendary account of the discovery of the empty tomb by male disciples?” [Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's Hallucination Hypothesis, online
In the tradition(s) being circulated, only women were reported to have seen where Jesus was buried.
This is relevant because, from a narrative-coherence point of view, only persons who knew where the tomb was could visit it.1
But that first claim is false …
And regarding the claim's relevance …
• Peter Carnley: “[t]here was an existing tradition that only the women were in the close vicinity of the crucifixion and that they alone participated in the burial. This would dictate that only the women, therefore, despite their unfortunate incompetence at law to supply evidence of the highest calibre, could really be called into the empty tomb story.” [The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Clarendon Press, 1987), 60.]
The role of anointing a dead body was only appropriate for women to perform. Women uniquely had the duty to anoint a buried corpse. So only women would make sense in the story as ones returning to the tomb.
But that first claim is false.
And regarding the claims relevance …
Women were uniquely associated with certain after-burial practices, namely the practices of of mourning and checking a buried body to see if it was actually dead. So only women would make sense in the story as ones returning to the tomb.
But that first claim is false,
• John Nolland: “[supposing] only the presence of women at the tomb could be readily accounted for [because of their role in Jewish mourning practice] involves a misuse of the evidence concerning Jewish mourning practice; [Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35c: Luke 18:35-24:53, (Word Books, 1998).]
• Carolyn Osiek: “Both men and women lament, often publicly (e.g., 2 Sm 13: 31; 18:33-19:8; Job 1:20; 2:12-13; Ezk 29:30-36; Mk 5:38; Jn 11:33), but it is especially women who carry the tradition with their own particular and culture-specific customs.” [“The Women at the Tomb: What are they doing there?” HTS Theological Studies 53/1 & 2 (1997): 110.]