Next question.

Hi Dr Craig, I'm an agnostic.

I follow much of your work and appreciate your perspective, you have argued in the past that the

gospel empty tomb narrative is historical, among other reasons because it is

women that discover the tomb and supposedly Jews would have considered these women unreliable witnesses.

I did not find this argument compelling, since in no case is there any evidence that the

Christians were trying to prove the historicity of the empty

tomb on the basis of any woman's testimony? The women are not cited by Paul as witnesses.

Indeed, they are never mentioned by him, nor is Joseph of Averimuthia.

The Gospels never say the story is based on their testimony, and Acts never appeals to their testimony to prove the empty tomb of the resurrection.

I don't see how angelic appearance at the empty tomb is any different than, for example,

the angelic appearance to Abraham's

concubine Hagar in Genesis. Are we also to accept that story is true because

Jews would not invent female witnesses, or is it more likely that the creators of such stories

wrote them to be accepted at face value and thus felt no need to prove their truth by appealing to the testimony of anyone.

I welcome your thoughts on my skepticism and thank you for your consideration.

Corey.

Now I think that it's very clear that in the crucifixion and burial and

empty tomb narrative the women are being used as witnesses.

In the first century, the practice of ancient historians

in writing historical narratives was to list the people who were

witnesses of these events as a way of testifying to their credibility. And this is exactly what we find in Mark.

...