In commenting on the Gospel writer Mark as a “preserver” of tradition, Ernest Best makes the following aside: “(We might say that wherever we see the commentators in confusion this is a sign of the preservation of tradition.)” –”Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition,” in The Interpretation of Mark (2d ed.; ed. William Telford, p. 160)
In other words, where commentators can’t see how the Gospel narrative holds together, that means that the author / redactor has stitched things together in a particularly clumsy way, preserving some bit of tradition he had available but which we couldn’t find a suitable place for. So he just shoved the crap in however he could.
From my experience, I would advocate a different conclusion: “We might say that wherever we see the commentators in confusion there is a sign that we need to rethink what the Gospel writer is trying to tell us.”
No, I actually agree with Best, mostly because I’ve seen this principle to be true. Whenever my wife says something that I don’t like or that doesn’t fit with my worldview or desires, I automatically assume that she just doesn’t know what she’s saying, and I brush it off and go on to the parts I like. That always works out great, huh? Why NOT apply that to interpreting the gospels, too?
This line from Best is further proof that there are, indeed, certain levels of stupidity and violation of common sense that require a Ph.D. to be attained to. No offense, Daniel:)
Ah, yes, the “fallacy of the bungling redactor”; at least that’s how some colleagues and I refer to it.
When you come across someone blaming an inept redactor for getting things wrong, it means you need to look closer and really work with what’s there. It’s true there may have been a bungling redactor. But it’s the last option, not the first option. Beware the commentator who uses this with little or no explanation or justification. If they do, then chances are they’re as confused as you are and just don’t want to admit it.
Well, humans can be wrong, right. I know when my wife doesn’t get what I’m saying, sometimes it’s because I’m being a dumb*ss.
So I guess while nobody believes Paul was preserved from making any errors, he was preserved from being a dumb*ss.
I have found that the gospel writers in general, and specifically Mark, are excellent storytellers and that they did not usually make clumsy redaction errors. While redaction criticism did a great deal to enhance our understanding of the gospel texts, their fundamental assumption, that the evangelists were merely compilers, kept many of the challenging messages in the gospel hidden from view.
It has amazed me how many times I have read critical Bib. Studies materials and get the sense that none of the Bible had any authors at all, only editors clumsily stitching together articles from multiple sources.