How scholars look at Gospel narratives?

I remember watching this particular video where Christopher Hitchens was debating a presbyterian NT scholar on certain verses of the Bible, and he pointed out one verse in Matthew where it talks about the dead rising from the grave in the midst of the earthquake after Jesus' died on the cross (before the Resurrection of course). And Hitchens was pinning down on the guy telling him that it says it in the Bible and why does history not talk about it.

The minister said that as a Christian, he has to trust that the event happened, from a non-historical account. Thus, this is a point where Hitchens takes issue with how he was interpreting the Gospel of Matthew.

While I'm not a fan of his views, I think Hitchens may have made a point about how we've been interpreting the narratives of Gospel-- deciding which should be taken as historical and which as symbolic. I really think scholars, in the NT department, should really continue the Quest for the Historical Jesus so we can learn more about each events.

Any thoughts?

BTW, here's the link:
Hitchens and Mark Roberts