OK, I don’t think the duck defense is the best defense for the divinity of Christ but the elephant analogy is not too bad. The stories of the crucifixion were written with a purpose and the writer included details for a reason. Just because Bible scholars don’t understand that reason doesn’t mean the writers didn’t know what they were writing about or that they were lying.

BTW, even if John were the only Gospel that stated Jesus was divine (which I am in no way conceding since they all do in ways that I guess Ehrman doesn’t understand or dismisses), that doesn’t make it a lie. And the lateness of John doesn’t invalidate the truth claims of the Gospel.Here are two examples from Matthew that acknowledge Christ’s deity:

ESV Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).ESV Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'”

Those are two explicit examples but throughout Matthew Jesus assumes an authority that is God’s alone. He is the lawgiver (Matthew 5), he forgives sins (Matthew 9:2), he commands creation (Matthew 8:27), etc.(via)