Christians would know that the reported usage of women as witness-heralds would stigmatize their gospel, community, and leadership.
This page analyzes 3 arguments
This is relevant because Christians in general disliked stigmatizing their gospel’s reputation. So for these apostles and Christians who desired to be proud of their leadership and the pedigree of their faith, it was uncomfortably embarrassing to dignify these women with an almost inextricably primary role in the news of Jesus’s resurrection to the men and the rest of Christendom. In fact, if Christians could have left it out of their origin story, the average Palestinian would’ve sooner assumed that none of the original witnesses—by the standards of AD 30 Mediterranean society—were scandalously subpar. [On a closely related note: see here on how Christians would consequently see this as a very unappealing lie to tell.]
In terms of their desire to have more evidence in the origin story of the Christian gospel that Jesus rose, this circulating account grounding it in the women’s testimony would be overtly subpar.
This page analyzes 2 arguments:
This is relevant because Christians would prefer to have at least some average evidential force behind their witnesses.1, 2
**But against that first claim, re the empty tomb evidence, Christians didn’t care to have this.
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 the climax and main 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 story-telling.
Christians did historically (AD 35-100) dislike and/or disvalue those women being known as the empty tomb discoverers.
A full page will analyze these 4 arguments:
This is relevant because its improbable that later Christians would choose to do this unless these women truly were undesirable as Christianity’s initiating witness-heralds to Jesus’s resurrection.
The Gospel of Mark clearly and deliberately chooses to portray the women as witnesses.
See this page to analyze 6 arguments:
This is relevant because Mk was a Christian; he wouldn't have emphasized their role as witnesses if it was so offensive to his Christian sensibilities.
Against that first claim's relevance, plausibly…