Yesterday I posted about Bart Ehrman, who has made it his business to find all the “problems” with the Bible. For Ehrman, if two tellings of the same story are not completely identical, then someone is lying.

On the other hand, N.T. Wright has a new book coming out which discusses the Passion and Resurrection, explaining what the Gospel writers intended by their respective perspectives. Christianity Today excerpts a portion ^[1] in which Wright explores the “oddness” of the resurrection accounts, and how this oddness gives them more credence, not less. He mentions four particular aspects of these stories:

1) The strange absence of Scripture in the Resurrection accounts.
2) The presence of women as the primary witnesses.
3) The portrait of Jesus himself.
4) The absence of any mention of the future Christian hope.

The second and third points are pretty well-known, but I have to admit that I have never considered the other two points. Be sure to read the whole article.