Please tell me why I would want to read a book on eyewitnesses when Jesus presented Himself to me many years ago.Truly, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are most certainly sowing confusion.
Because the day of the Crucifixion is not clearly specified, this renders the Biblical account "un-historical" in your mind? Because only the Apostles provided accounts of the Resurrection, this renders the accounts "un-historical" in your mind?
The Resurrection is presented in the Bible, first and foremost, as a literal, historical event. Paul clearly recognized this fact in 1 Corinthians 15. The meaning of the Resurrection, which the Bible likewise presents, is a matter of faith. But without the literal, historical event, the meaning of the Resurrection is: precisely nothing.
The historical reliability of the Gospels may be open for discussion, but they are indeed historical accounts. (And the trend of the discussion is toward them being reliable historical accounts. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906.)
Perhaps you are confused about the distinction between "secular history" and "sacred history." The Bible is obviously not secular history. But more than any other religion, Christianity hinges on the historical reality of its claims.
I don't read the bible for history.
I read it because I love the person it has been written about.