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.