In general, Christians would disfavor Mary & women being first witness-heralds of the resurrection.[Full article]
• It’d clearly be self-stigmatizing for their Gospel.
• It’d clearly be subpar as an evidence source (in their origin story).
• Later Christians downplayed their role.
Early Christians would have found favorable—to acquire and use—evidence for their belief that Jesus’ body went missing (to ultimately support Jesus’ resurrection) [Full article.] This is relevant because they may consequently find this argument evidentially valuable: “The testimony of Mary et. al. proves Jesus’s tomb was empty!”
But against the truth of that first claim,…
• ‘Missing body’ evidence…
• …seemed lame or easy to dismiss (e.g. “theft!”).
• …didn't function as evidence in the Gospels.
• …wasn't used as evidence in general.
• …seemed superfluous (at least later: Jews already believed the tomb was empty ).
• E.g. Paul didn’t much desire to acquire/use “missing body” apologetics.
And against the relevance of that first claim…
• …they wouldn’t see “Mary et. al. testify to it” as evidentially valuable.
Given early Christians believed in an empty tomb discovery, they would have valued a report of women as it discoverers in order to preserve the coherence and story virtue of narrating that discovery.
• The male disciples fled (only women remained).
• Only women saw where the tomb was.
• Only women were customary corpse-preparers.
• Only women were mourners, death-checkers, etc..