One of the most common arguments in apologetics is that early Christians never would have invented the detail of women being the first to discover the empty tomb. The theory is that in first century Palestine, women were considered unreliable witnesses so anyone inventing the story of the empty tomb would have had men finding it in order to give it more credibility. They only would have had women finding it if it really happened that way.
Consider this hypothesis though:
Mark invents the story of the empty tomb in 65 A.D. Prior to that time, no one had ever worried about what happened to Jesus' body between the crucifixion and the time he started appearing to his disciples.
Mark's audience says "How come we never heard this before? Peter never mentioned it."
Mark thinks about it for awhile and a little light bulb (or candle) appears above his head. "Peter didn't know about it. These silly unreliable women were the ones who found the empty tomb and they ran off without telling anyone.1 We just found out about it."
Mark's audience replies, "Sure. That could happen."
Couldn't the fact that women were considered unreliable witnesses be the very reason that Mark included them in the story rather than an indication that the story is true?
As Luke, Matthew, and John added details to the story, they brought men into the picture in order to make it more credible. Nevertheless, they didn't feel quite comfortable getting rid of the women getting there first. Maybe people liked that part of the story so much that they figured they should just stick with it.
1 Most textual scholars believe that Mark's gospel originally ended with "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Mark 16:8. The earliest and best manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.