In general, Christians would disfavor Mary & women being first witness-heralds of the resurrection.[Full article]
[This full article]() analysis 3 reasons to agree, namely…
• …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 etc. proves Jesus’ 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 etc. testifies 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
This article analyzes 3 evidences:
• …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..