A matter of style (for Kunigunde).

[Ben C. Smith]

I am honestly no longer sure what the "usual" arguments are for source criticism, since I have read so many different takes on the subject and have personally rejected most of them as not having any probative value.

I think the usual argument is to note a real or assumed inconsistency or break or error or something similar in the text (lines in blue) and to draw the conclusion that the text has two sources (black and red), patched awkwardly together into one text. This scenario assumes a sloppy redactor, who has overlooked something. The argument from style shows that this scenario of an awkward redactor is not true because at least the assumed redactor must have rendered the style of the assumed two sources very carefully.

What I see in that diagram is a representation of the two possible extremes: the two poles of a spectrum, if you will. On the left, the typical work of the supremely incompetent redactor/author, one whom we might expect to leave a seam in virtually every episode as s/he stitches things together, to leave a trace every time something is reworded, added, or omitted. On the right, the typical work of the supremely competent redactor/author, one who may never leave a seam throughout the entire work.

But, in truth, virtually nobody is either supremely competent or supremely incompetent. Most authors fall in the middle somewhere. As I read and reread 1 and 2 Chronicles, for example, I find that most pericopes run fairly smoothly, with few obvious internal contradictions and tensions. Most, but not all. And I find the same to be the case for Mark. It would be irrational to assume that an author/redactor must (A) be either supremely competent or supremely incompetent or (B) be either fully an author (creating material afresh) or a redactor (editing other people's work). If my current perceptions are anywhere near the mark, I would place Mark somewhere on the competent end of the spectrum, but not all the way. He or she usually keeps things going rather well, but occasionally misses a beat. (Of course, from the perspective we have two millennia later, it is probably not possible to tell the difference between one mostly competent author/redactor and two or more authors/redactors of differing talents. And, of course, some of the seams may be scribal, not authorial.)