The external evidence (compositional textbooks, Plutarch) is far weaker than claimed. The textbooks never explicitly say "it's acceptable to change historical facts." Plutarch's differences may just be mistakes, not intentional literary devices. Licona admits attributing devices to the Gospels that aren't even found in the textbooks or Plutarch.

The case for literary devices relies on: (1) Greco-Roman compositional textbooks (progymnasmata, especially Theon) that supposedly taught these devices; (2) Plutarch's Lives as the prime example of devices in practice. McGrew's critique: (a) The textbooks never explicitly say it's acceptable to change historical facts — they say exercises are "useful for historians" but that's vague. (b) Plutarch's differences (e.g., which trip to Spain Caesar wept about Alexander) could simply be mistakes from working with scrolls from memory — not intentional literary reshaping. (c) Licona's own admission (from "Why Are There Differences"): he attributes compositional devices to the Gospels that "are neither described in the compositional textbooks nor observed being employed by Plutarch" — and "much of what an ancient author did and why he did it will remain in the realm of informed guesswork." McGrew calls this a "ratchet" — each step expands the scope beyond what the evidence supports.