It should be asserted, from my position, I more or less side with these gospels being embellishments of real events. What I mean by embellishment is not that there was some early gospels that were later fabricated with mythical accounts or that the writers lied or made it up but that the events purported may have occurred in a similar fashion or not at all as described, and irrespective of how they played out; right out of the gate the gospels were already describing blindly asserted propositions or stories built around a real set of events.
Something happened and it was far later that these claimed explanations or choice descriptions came about. There’s a difference between any claims or proposed explanations to a set of events probably added on later and what had really happened.
The resurrection story, or a collection of apologists, are proposing that many of these elements to the original incident are what are claimed in the bible itself when we have no knowledge of or independent source upon which to assess these claims at all as the resurrection story is only in and claimed in the bible but not anywhere else.
It isn’t like we were really there and actually saw what happened to now match this, through a one to one correspondence, to the claimed reasonably accurate description of the event in the many gospels.
Thusly, we can not assess the claims of the resurrection from the bible via the false dichotomy of whether it is either that they are true or false with a reasonably accurate replacement to on the contrary but that we do not even know if these are correct descriptions of the prime event or even what the original prime event was. It may have been that there was a fantastical event that had occurred but was completely different from what is claimed in the bible and the bible’s claims are incorrect in all categories aside from the fact that maybe he was resurrected (Under some definition of the word). Although, he wasn’t the son of god, there wasn’t an angel that moved the stone, there wasn’t these appearances as purposed, or that he visually floated off into the clouds. AT LEAST, the claim that he resurrected was prominent but it is not wholly apparent that any other explanations or assertions to his godly hood or any other events surrounding the central proposition are accurate or conclusive in anyway. More ad hoc in nature are the bible’s claims than conclusive or accurately descriptive.