How can you explain the resurrection? 3

I am nearing completion of N.T. Wright's work on the resurrection that's taken me close to 4 months to accomplish. I have read all the way through roughly 650 pages (including all footnotes), except the remainder of the section on early Christian writings (I read the first half or so and saw the development of his point and skimmed through to see that this point was continually supported in the rest of the chapter). I've just now gotten to the "good part", which is to say the part where the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are actually examined. Up until now, it has been regarding only the "pagan" writings (referring to works outside the realm of Judeo-Christian theology, such as Homer), Jewish and pre-Christian writings (including the Maccabees), and early Christian writings (including mainly the Apostle Paul and also all New Testament writers, but also many of the early Christian fathers and those such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius). It is remarkable to say I am about 9/10 through the book and the Gospel accounts have not been directly discussed. I am anxious to hear the remainder of the historical argument, and his conclusions (not that I already don't have suspicions about what that may be). I highly recommend the book if you can handle the in-depth often trudging nature through scholarly work. There are points when I've wanted to check out, but I've stayed with it the best I can and it has been enormously profitable to read I feel.

One point that stands out to me is the view, consistent in all four of the New Testament Gospel accounts, that a few frightened women were the heralds of the news of Jesus' (or is it Jesus's?) resurrection. This fact is unprecedented for the time period since women were not viewed as having any credibility when it came to public (or private I assume) testimony (in a trial or otherwise), and to have THEM be one of the few consistent matters of fact within the all the Gospel accounts is simply amazing. Were the accounts completely fabricated or distorted for political (or otherwise) reasons, as is so often contended by biblical scholarship on the more liberal side, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone would leave in the fact of the women's first testimony. Unless it were all true. I don't see much of any good argumentation against this point, and the most reasonable explanation, the explanation that Wright is putting forth and in my view which we are ultimately forced to consider, is that the account of Jesus' bodily resurrection is simply and historically true according to the eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament. This I feel is the gist of Wright's argument, and I am hard-pressed to see it in any other way.