Jesus's appearing to Mary is multiply attesed and in all cases where we read of this, it is clear that Jesus appears to her and her group before anyone else (e.g. before the male apostles).
A full page will debate these 4 arguments:
This is relevant because, if Mary was not known in the 1st church (and churches) as the first witness, then there is nothing else that would’ve later recommended her so strongly to all sources as being the first witness. Any attempt to introduce it would’ve been met with extreme resistance (e.g. “how have we not heard about this before?”)
Both the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 28) and the Gospel of John (chapter 20) reprort on Jesus's appearing to Mary, and they do so without one having borrowed from the other.
On this page we can debate this evidence:
This is relevant because Jn and Mt date to around AD 40-90, and so their independent attestations are indicative of a branching from a common older tradition that predates them both. During these early years, the Jerusalem church held primary and dominating sway.
But no, Plausibly…
Mary Magdalene was herself testifying that Jesus appeared to her alive from the dead. This is factors into the discussion because if Mary was herself saying this then in all likely the Jerusalem church--which she was a part off--was also saying it.
jerusalem-church-say-jesus-appear On this page we can debate these 6 examples and this evidence:
On this page we can debate these 6 examples and this evidence:
This is relevant because the AD 30 Jerusalem church was well-poised to know Jesus bio (i.e. so they’d know of these persons and naturally list them as witnesses of the risen Jesus).
Jesus’s alleged appearance to Mary absent in sources that would’ve mentioned it (if the 1st church knew of it).
The appearance to Mary is absent multiple expected sources: