James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Sunday, June 24, 2007

A very quick response on Q and gentiles...

because I'm in a rush...

Michael Bird has made some comments on my view of Christian origins and Q/gentiles.

I am slowly and spasmodically reading through James Crossley's book Why Christianity Happened?

Ok, this may put me in pedants' corner but, ahem, no question mark.

I find myself agreeing with parts and groaning at other parts of his volume.

Good for you. But, come on, do we really need the antiquated, rhetoric of the non-argument 'groaning' (minus evidence). Come on Mike, you're a youthful blogging 30-something, not 94 (no offence meant to our older readers)!!!

On Q and the Gentiles (something I have thought and written about), it will take more than a footnote to H. Schurmann to convince me that Mt. 10.5-6b is part of Q

Again, good for you, and it would take more for me too. But then I never made the case on Mt 10:5-6 that Mike implies. I said some people think this and referenced a prominent example (Schürmann). I also qualified the case strongly and deliberately made next to nothing of Mt 10:5-6. I did say 'assuming for the moment that it was part of Q' (or something like that) just to show a hypothetical situation and why we do not necessarily have to worry about Mt. 10:5-6 (Matt, for instance, could retain it along with a pro-gentile message)! As my argument went (and indeed goes) this had to be done because of the deliberately vague, open and agnostic definition of Q I was using because if the chaotic view is chosen then a good case could be made for Mt. 10:5-6 being a pre-Matthean tradition and potentially something we call 'Q' (actually the same could be, and has been, made for other Q models). But, as I said, the point of the brief discussion of Mt 10:5-6 was not to convince anyone that it definitely was or was not part of 'Q' (however defined) but that it is not necessarily required for a reconstruction of Q and the gentiles and so Mike has missed the point of the discussion here.

4 Comments:

Blogger Michael F. Bird said...

James,
1. I finished reading your book today while I cooked a lovely chicken Kiev.
2. I put in the question mark to correct your bad English grammar!
3. Fair enough, you didn't build your whole case about Q on Mt. 10.5-6b; but then again, assumptions are the mother-of-all-stuff-ups!
4. You didn't address my objection to your reading of Mt. 8.11-12 and par.
5. And don't forget that at the end of the day, you and I both agree with Tuckett on Q and the Gentiles.

June 24, 2007

 
Anonymous steph said...

2. Whose bad grammar?

3. not good enough. A point was being made.

4. !

5. Tuckett thinks those from the East and the West were Gentiles and has those old fashioned Luhrmann like presumptions about "this generation" ... ?

June 25, 2007

 
Blogger James Crossley said...

Ok, well here goes...I'm a mild victim of the Sheffieldfloods at the moment and on the run as it were so this should ease my mind or something....

1. Got to say Steph is dead right on grammar!

2. On Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 you said, that you 'think a better case can be made that Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 does refer to Gentiles than what Crossley admits'. There's no argument there so what am I supposed to answer?

But anyway, though being on the run I haven't got a copy of my book in front of me - nor indeed a chicken kiev - but again I think was trying to show that even if we take the hardest non-gentile readings we still do not have to go for a view that there was an anti-gentile mission or anything along those lines. I thinkthe case for non-gentiles isactually strongbut it didn't matter for my overall argument. Which leads me to...

3. Mt 10:5-6: you are slightly misunderstanding. All I was saying that IF we assume this to be part of Q we still can't say there was hostility toward a gentile mission. It is an old way of making a point and absolutely NOTHING is riding on it (and nor could it be the logic of the argument). But I think we probably agree on this one.

4. Yes, we agree (though some of Tuckett's points I did critque I think) so all is well!

June 25, 2007

 
Blogger Michael F. Bird said...

James,
Hope you stay high and dry in Sheffield. I think we can at least agree on something along the lines of Tuckett's proposal with a few modification.

June 25, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home