doreen, i did that
and i'm probably not looking hard enough, but i just read like the first 4 essays that came up and they all were about the historical evidence that the writers claim points to confirming the resurrection etc.
regarding the gospels, one that i read said that anything written within a generation of christ's death would not have had the opportunity to be influenced by legend; in other words, they were as true as the writers thought them to be based on first or second hand accounts.
i dont think i ever assumed there were any writings prior or even during the time that paul was writing from jail and stuff.
i'm not trying to sway you either way. i'm more curious about this topic myself now that i've seen some stuff about it. what struck me is that the schools of thought over the past century seem to have flucuated between different primary theories, of which new ones come out every so often and earn their supporters. there's certainly nothing special about what's being said right now compared to another time in the century where a lot of scholars thought something else.
i guess it really is a matter of faith. you either believe or you dont (this isnt a criticism). there is so much stuff out there refuting it, supporting it ... i expect that you could be a huge scholar and still have either faith or doubts.