Mark's Gospel originally did not contain any material that attempted to show that the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. It originally ended at verse 16:8, after the young man told the women that Jesus was risen, and the fled, telling no one. Because this left open the possibility that there was no actual Resurrection, the "Long Ending" (there was also at one stage a "Short Ending") was added much later, to show that the Resurrection was real, not simply made up by the apostles.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are now known to have been based on
Mark, but each evangelist had to contend with the fact that their source did not tell them anything about the supposed Resurrection. Each evangelist wrote an account of the Resurrection and each tried, in different ways, to show that Jesus really had risen.
Matthew reported the elders giving money to the guard, to say that his disciples came by night and took his body, and that this claim was still to be heard among the Jews to this day - if a Jew ever said this during the decades that followed, it would have been 'proof' of the Gospel.
Luke relies on a graphic account of the appearance of Jesus to the apostles, showing them his wounds and eating some fish - although this could easily have been something the apostles made up.
Luke also has Jesus ascend bodily to heaven, avoiding questions about what happened to Jesus after his Resurrection appearances.
John's Gospel does not really concern itself directly with proving that the Resurrection was a historical event. Indirectly, the ability to raise Lazarus, along with the frequent assertions that Jesus was God, would have been seen as proving that Jesus was capable of rising from the dead.