One must consider the entire biblical testimony for the resurrection, but since Paul is such an important figure in this drama it is crucial to understand what he said about the resurrection and what he taught about it, in order to delve into his psyche about his own “vision from heaven.”
There is little point in setting this argument up for success. There are some merits for the empty tomb, which are independent of the women witnesses, but when one considered the overall evidence against the empty tomb story it becomes a futile endeavor.
It seems weird to me that in order to promote virtue and good character I must weaken the historical argument for the resurrection, and that to promote the historical argument for the resurrection I must weaken my devotion to virtue and good character.