Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Resurrection #17: Women Who Saw the Risen Jesus

Resurrection #17: Women Who Saw the Risen Jesus

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:58 pm by Dave Armstrong

Resurrection #17: Women Who Saw the Risen Jesus 2026-06-05T23:58:26-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered 59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #75 Which Women Saw the Postresurrected Risen Jesus on Easter Sunday?

The books and epistles found within the Christian scriptures that relate to Jesus’s resurrection read like completely different stories, not several people witnessing the same event from different vantage points. (p. 427)

I have repeatedly shown that this is not an accurate representation, by refuting bogus alleged “contradictions.” The latter is the “bread and butter” of atheist and other skeptical criticisms of the Bible (their favorite “gotcha!” technique). If they go down in refutation (and the more the merrier!), then the essence and heart of the skeptical anti-biblical (or in this case, anti-New Testament) argument goes down, too.

In the Epistles of Paul there is no mention of any women witnesses. (p. 427)

This is untrue:

1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

This usage of adelphos (Strong’s word #80) — most often translated “brethren” or “brothers” — includes both men and women. Several Bible translations make this inclusion of women more clear:

NIV / NASB / Amplified: . . . brothers and sisters . . .

NRSV: . . . brothers and sisters . . . [note: Gk brothers]

CEV: . . . other followers . . .

Good News (TEV): . . . his followers . . .

Phillips / Beck: . . . Christians . . .

Therefore, Paul does mention female witnesses, contrary to Alter’s claim above: just not by specific names.

Christian apologists have offered various explanations for this omission. (p. 427)

I’m sure they have. This is a classic example of a thing that may appear odd or inexplicable from our vantage point (i.e., lack of mention of individual female witnesses); yet it’s no contradiction. Arguments from silence prove nothing. Michael Alter often agrees with that sentiment in his book and correspondence and replies to my critiques. But he readily sees that they prove nothing in views he opposes, while not seeming to notice that they also prove nothing when he uses them.

Mark 16:1-8 records no witnesses. Only later Mark 16:9-11 discusses the sole witness of Mary Magdalene. (p. 427)

Alter distinguishes between 16:1-8 and 16:9-16, because many scholars reject the authenticity of the latter verses in Mark. But Alter thinks the evangelists (considering all of their texts or alleged texts) — whoever they are — are a pack of deceptive liars and mythmakers worthy of Tolkien and Homer, out to create legends in the service of a false theology based on lies (Jesus is Messiah and God; He rose from the dead, etc.), and even constantly correcting each other. So why should he care about mostly Christian internecine disputes about texts? He often presents a grossly misleading portrayal of NT texts, in a failed effort to make them fit into his “relentless contradiction” scenario. This is one of innumerable examples of that technique. Here is what the relevant text actually reads:

Mark 16:9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. [“first” also appears in the KJV rendering that Alter has been using in his book]

This is not claiming that Mary Magdalene was the “sole” witness. It says, rather, that she was the “first” witness (male or female). The use of “first” proves that the writer definitely did not consider her the “sole” witness. How difficult was that to ascertain? But Alter missed this crucial consideration. We shall now proceed to see if contradictions are truly present or not in this collection of passages about the risen Jesus and women.

In contrast, Matthew 28:1 and 28:9 report that two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, witnessed a post-resurrected Jesus. (p. 427)

Matthew 28:1 Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Yes, these two women did witness the risen Jesus. But Alter is trying to make out that this contradicts Mark 16:9. It does not. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Jesus (just as another woman: His mother, was the first human being to be made aware that He was conceived as the incarnate God in her womb). Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages.

For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him; the first person (and woman) to whom He appeared. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of His appearing to her, except with another woman, too.

Luke narrates that no women saw the risen Jesus. (p. 427)

This is incorrect. It simply doesn’t record the instances of women witnessing the resurrected Jesus (another argument from silence that Alter mistakenly thinks holds some weight). To not report that “[females] x and y saw the risen Jesus” — to not say anything about this at all — is not at all, logically, the same as saying, “no [females] ever saw the risen Jesus”. This a huge logical difference.

What it records is that “Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them” (Lk 24:10) saw the empty tomb (24:2-3) and were told by angels that Jesus was risen (24:4-7), which they then reported to the (eleven) disciples (24:10-11). In other words, they had two pieces of evidence (empty tomb and angels’ report) that Jesus had risen from the dead (thus proving His claims as incarnate God).

The only exception might have been the second pilgrim on the way to Emmaus. However, the gender of this person is unknown and subject to speculation. (p. 427)

Luke 24:10-11, 13 make it pretty clear that these two were “apostles”: i.e., men, and eleven in number. But this doesn’t affect my own present argument.

Conversely, Luke 24:34 later reports that Jesus had an earlier appearance with Simon, i.e., Peter. Finally, John 20:16-18 narrates that Mary Magdalene alone witnessed the resurrected Jesus. (p. 427)

John 20:11-18 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; [12] and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. [13] They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” [14] Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” [16] Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rab-bo’ni!” (which means Teacher). [17] Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” [18] Mary Mag’dalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

Again, the text never states that “only Mary” (among all women) saw Jesus, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” saw the risen Jesus. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present. As it is, no contradiction has been established: not even to the slightest degree. The text simply records an instance with Mary Magdalene alone, without denying that other women saw the risen Jesus, too.

These conflicting accounts, along with those discussed throughout this text, prove that the Christian scriptures are unreliable. (p. 427)

Jesus referred to “a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; [27] and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it” (Mt 7:26-27). The “sand” here is Alter’s false premise that “conflicting [contradictory] accounts” are present in the first place. They’re not (neither here, nor throughout the innumerable alleged examples in his book); therefore, the “house” or deductive conclusion built upon them (“the Christian scriptures are unreliable”) is a falsehood. The New Testament is not only eminently reliable, accurate, and trustworthy; it is also inspired and infallible revelation.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: Michael Alter tried to establish a contradiction in the NT accounts of the various women who saw the risen Jesus. But he failed basic logical tests; thus this argument of his collapses.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, women who saw the risen Jesus

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

Trinitarianism & Christology

alleged Bible contradictions

alleged Resurrection contradictions

Bible "contradictions"

Jewish anti-Christian polemics

Jewish apologetics

Jewish critique of Christianity

Jewish-Christian discussion

Michael J. Alter

New Testament

New Testament critics

New Testament skepticism

Resurrection "Contradictions"

Resurrection of Jesus

The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry

women who saw the risen Jesus

Previous Post

April 28, 2021

Resurrection #16: Peter & John at the Empty Tomb

Next Post

April 29, 2021 Resurrection #18: "Touch Me Not" & Mary Magdalene

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz