Revisiting Mark's Empty Tomb Story from the Resurrection Argument

The argument for Mark's story being accurate is here.

Bart Ehrman has mentioned (as other skeptical scholars have argued) that the empty tomb was invented because it has to be. Since Jesus became to be interpreted as being physically resurrected, He would of course leave an empty tomb behind. This is why there is growing legend with Mark first only having that, and then Matthew, Luke, and John have Jesus being touched and maybe eating.

However, if the empty tomb was invented to emphasize a physical body, certainly a legend writer would have included more details (like being touched). As a growing legend it doesn't make sense to leave out because it's just something they'd think of anyway. Being able to be touched is an important part of having a physical body, and makes it more explicit.  Moreover, even if that did make sense, there still is a lack of embellishment in how Jesus's empty grave was found. 

I mentioned in the original post it could be argued that if Mark is going to have such an unembellished story anyway, he could have invented it because it would fit his theology. (I also further detailed an explanation against it there, of course.) But the point is that Mark's story reflects that which is an unembellished account separate of other information. Just because a Gospel would be willing to use a primitive account doesn't mean it could plausibly be formed later. To further explain, some scholars think that the original ending of Mark was lost and so appears to end abruptly. Even if that is true, the empty tomb story Mark used is well-evidenced as being early and invented to just report historical fact. All the other Gospels, although they have appearance stories, include something which is appears to be an embellishment(1). A late forgery, as skeptical scholars Kremer and von Campenhausen pointed out, would have appearances and more splendorous detail.

Then I just want to quickly respond to the idea that Mark's Gospel ends with the women telling no one means the Disciples never found out what happened to Jesus. Who could say Jesus's Disciples never came to understand Him? Did even second-century gnostics and other heretical sects of Christianity do away with the Disciples as important? It is well secured that in the time of Mark's writing (skeptics say around A.D. 70) everyone would know of Jesus's Disciples. They were important church figures. Mark couldn't be saying in his ending that they never come to understand Him. Moreover, this doesn't align with the strong implication that Peter and the rest of the Disciples would see Him later.

Notes:

1. For a good explanation of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke), see here. It could be argued that an inventor could have an unembellished account because John 20:1-13 seems to have a lack of invention. There is no great rolling away of the stone, quoting Jesus, and even the angels are just dressed in white instead of great splendor.

For one thing, John had a lot less to do with Mark than Matthew and Luke. This wouldn't be a counterexample so much as more evidence. Both are unembellished, and the stories are so different they clearly are independent testimony. But John does have Peter and the other Disciple running to the tomb, which Craig mentioned is seen as later legend (see this post).