Literary Theories vs. Common Sense Errancy

Sometimes it's a bit surprising that mainstream Gospels scholars who don't even claim to be inerrantists are not more inclined toward theories of minor good-faith errors. For example, why wouldn't more mainstream scholars suggest that Matthew just misunderstood something and sincerely thought that the centurion came to Jesus in person? They don't have any social reason to avoid the word "error," so what gives?Our series on bad methodology in non-biblical history and classics helps to answer this. It has shows a preference for more "exciting" literary theories over more "boring" common sense theories, an assumption that an author has only one source for his information, based on a very weak argument from silence, and an assumption that authors felt free to make things up. All of these blind scholars to simpler theories such as misunderstanding and good-faith error, as well as to reasonable harmonizations.Check out The Mirror or the Mask, chapter IV, for more on the relationship between my views, traditional inerrancy, literary device theories, and reliability.Here is my older video on the centurion:https://youtu.be/pJ8e7zUvI-sSee also this video on why literary device views *especially* undermine historical reliability, even more than good-faith error:https://youtube.com/live/pS9pFGV8l8w