The gospels must be divinely inspired. Not enough time passed between the death of Jesus and when the gospels were written for legend to creep in. Too many people were still alive that could correct the incorrect rumors, so the Gospels must be completely accurate in all the events they portray.
This argument you will often hear for the divinity of the gospels uses the length of time in-between when the events in the gospels purportedly occurred and when the gospels themselves were written. This is the essentially the "Not enough time," argument. The gospel of Mark, for example, is thought to be written from around 50-70 A.D., roughly 20-40 years after the death of Jesus. How could so much legend creep in within 20-40 years? Wouldn't too many people still be alive to correct the errors spreading?
First, this argument very much so overestimates how popular Christianity was at its inception. This argument assumes that Jesus was so popular and had so many followers during his lifetime that there would be scores and scores of people from when he was alive to correctly recall his life and correct any errors spreading in any given time and place. In reality, Jesus had twelve close followers, traveled and preached in small rural towns and not in major cities, and was wildly unpopular with the religious leaders he did come into contact with.
Not only did Jesus only have 12 close followers, plus some women followers who may have traveled outside that circle as well, but Jesus in the gospels had also very few individuals He appeared to after his resurrection. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 claims Jesus appeared to 500 individuals, but this staggering number is not mentioned in any of the gospel accounts, which is itself a rather odd and telling omission.
Especially considering the period as well in context, no social media, no telephones, no automobiles for traveling, etc., it would have been virtually impossible for the relatively small number of individuals who witnessed or were a part of Jesus' resurrection or his ministry to be everywhere at all times to "correct," any errors spreading concerning Jesus' ministry or resurrection. This is also giving benefit of the doubt to human nature, in my opinion not a justified one, that anyone who was "corrected," would actually correct themselves and change their story.
Are we really to believe as the game of telephone was played verbally for the decades after Jesus' death that stories were always passed on accurately? That a preacher evangelist, who converts someone who is passing them on the street and then the convert goes on their way shortly afterwards, makes sure that the convert who they likely never see again passes on information accurately to the next person they evangelize, and that person after them, etc.? The idea of this happening is absurdly impractical.
Second, the reasonable argument to reject the greater miracle completely destroys this type of argument. For the sake of making this argument simple, let's define the greater miracle as something that requires a greater suspension of disbelief to believe, or something that is least likely to happen based on known facts.
Based on empirical human nature, it's a fact of human existence that humans spread false information, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that humans exaggerate stories to fit their own personal narrative, and that humans can be almost legendarily stubborn when it comes to changing their beliefs or opinions, no matter how strong evidence can be contrary to what they believe.
In contrast, there has been millions and millions, perhaps even billions, of deaths through the eons of time through to the present. What Christians give us out of those millions or billions of deaths is one man who died 2000 years ago and was supposedly raised from the dead three days later, who was known during his lifetime and seen during His resurrection by a very significantly small portion of the population. Christians can only tell us, out of billions and billions of deaths, only one person has died and been resurrected, 2000 years ago, and it hasn't happened since and will never happen again. Not only does this require an extreme suspension of disbelief because of the vague claim itself, but the odds Christians also themselves give us, 1 time out of billions and billions that no will ever again witness and very few supposedly witnessed when it happened, the likelihood of this happening becomes so low it should be as close as possible to the 0% mark.
Given the known facts about human nature, versus the virtually impossible odds Christians give us of someone being raised from the dead, which one would be a greater miracle? Is it more likely that people spread false information, even if it's hard to imagine because of the length of time and/or witnesses alive at the time, or that someone was raised from the dead 2000 years ago because they're god? If you know human experience you know the answer. When was the last time you saw someone die, get buried in the ground, and then rise from the dead 3 days later completely fine with the grave untouched? How many times have you seen someone embellish a story? Anyone who has had human experience knows which answer is more reasonable and likely, whether they will admit so or not.
These are what I believe are two strong arguments against the idea that the length of time between Jesus' resurrection / ministry and the gospels proves that the gospels must be divinely inspired.
