I was watching Dr. Bart Erhman and one of his augments was that the gosples are the product of legendary development, for example; in Mark, it ends in Mark 16:8 and it has no resurrection appearance, only the women fleeing in terror, while later texts progressively become more physically detailed, Jesus is touched (Matthew 28:9), he eats fish (Luke 24:42–43) and Jesus invites Thomas to touch him (John 20:27), Ehrman argues this reflects a trajectory from earlier minimal/visionary traditions to later embodied appearances; how would you assess that claim, and the significance of this apparent development?
-
4The way this question is phrased "How would you..." is inviting opinion. Not to be overly pharisaical, but we much prefer it when the question is phrased "What is the apologetic argument refuting ...". Imagine you're looking for something in the library rather than asking a friend.Peter Turner– Peter Turner ♦2026-06-16 21:41:04 +00:00Commented 12 hours ago
-
-
3I would suggest that the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) is original. The "older" manuscripts is a hotly debated issue amongst NTTC's. This is the fruit of having the foxes guarding the henhouse, putting doubts in minds about what is true or not regarding the gospel.Mimi– Mimi2026-06-16 23:52:00 +00:00Commented 9 hours ago
-
2Dwayne Green is a NTTC who has a number of YouTube videos on the longer ending; he makes it very accessible for those like myself who are not NTTC's, and he is a gentleman to boot.Mimi– Mimi2026-06-17 00:26:40 +00:00Commented 9 hours ago
-
1Bart Erhman is not a Christian believer and asserts many things contrary to the Bible. That is the basic problem - he is unwilling to believe. In any case, the earliest NT writing is probably 1 Cor 15:1-8 which probably quotes a creed or hymn from very soon after the resurrection - extremely early indeed. See John 20:29.Dottard– Dottard2026-06-17 02:53:18 +00:00Commented 6 hours ago
Add a comment
|
1 Answer 1
Overview
Ehrman's is applying the logic of a scholar. The best way to respond to this type of argument, is with a "scholarly" rebuttal. To begin, the four Gospels reflect an inherent relationship with people as they are grouped in the Kingdom of God.
Type of Person Gospel
Gentile Mark
Jew Matthew
Levite Luke
Children of God John
Arguably, there is a specific Gospel written to give the "core" information each type of person needs to decide if Jesus is the Christ. Mark's Gospel is for the Gentiles. By itself is enough for any person to decide. However, a Jew would rightly say more information is needed, since Mark gives no genealogy or place of birth.
Matthew supplies the additional information Mark lacks, for a Jew. That is, the Jews have been given the OT and have a prophetic understanding of the Messiah. They would rightly withhold judgement if the genealogy and birthplace were not known. Luke is not redundant in that regard as Luke provides Mary's perspective. Thus Matthew (Joseph - male) and Luke (Mary - female), provide 100% of the genealogic and birthplace information any Jew would rightly need to reach a decision.
John completes the picture since the children of God, having life in His name, are given information about the pre-existence of Christ.
Resurrection
With respect to Erhman's arguments on the resurrection, the first response is Jesus did not appear to any Gentiles. Therefore, just as information about genealogy and birthplace are not included in Mark, resurrection appearances are omitted (in the earliest Mark). Erhman conveniently dismisses Matthew's report of resurrection appearances of other than Christ.
52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27)
Consider the harmony of Mark and Matthew in this regard. Jesus did not appear to any Gentiles so it is omitted. The resurrection of the Christ caused the resurrection appearances of Jews who had died, to some Jews living in Jerusalem. Matthew, writing to Jews, reports this. In the case of Matthew, the multiplicity of resurrections brought on by the resurrection of the Christ, outweighs the lack of details of the appearance of Jesus.
Luke, on the other hand, provides the greater detail Erhman sees myopically. This is a result of the fact Luke is addressed to a specific individual, Theophilus.
3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1)
Theophilus, likely the man who would serve as High Priest during early years of the Church (37-41 AD), had been taught of those resurrection appearances Luke includes. In other words, in addition to the reports found in Matthew, written to all Jews, there are specific appearances circulating which Theophilus has been informed about. [This parallels what Paul records in his first letter to Corinthians. Additional reports are not progressive embellishments. They are the natural result of multiple appearances at different times to different people and groups.]
Finally, John's descriptions are of the type which serve to encourage those who may have questions, not about whether Jesus was raised from the dead, but related questions which a believer would have. For example, Chapter 21 is not so much about proving there was a resurrection as it is about restoring Peter and validating John's place in the Church.
