Saturday, June 23, 2007

Q and the Gentiles

I am slowly and spasmodically reading through James Crossley's book Why Christianity Happened? (you must read the one review of this book on the link at the bottom of the page!) and I find myself agreeing with parts and groaning at other parts of his volume.

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 and I think a better case can be made that Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 does refer to Gentiles than what Crossley admits. But I do think, in general, that Crossley is correct in following Chris Tuckett about Q and a Gentile mission. Most of the mentions of Gentiles in Q are rhetorical and seem to be aimed at calling Israel to repentance (e.g. Mt. 12.41-42/Lk. 11.31-32). I surmize that Q knows of a Gentile mission, has no problem with it, but is fundamentally concerned with the renewal of Israel. A perspective that probably reflects a Judean or Galilean or Syrian provenance for the use of Q.


James Crossley said...

The review is hilarious (one of those people you need opposing you at all costs) and he is the most right wing redneck ever (his views on Carter and Palestinians are even worse).

On Mt 10:5-6, I was not making a case for people to believe it was part of Q but that IF accepted it would not have an impact on gentiles and Q and is therefore not necessarily required for the analysis.

Grosey's Messages said...

I have a friend (fprmer lecturer from the WA Baptist theo college and now in glory) who wrote his PhD thesis (assessed by CK Barrett) on the authenticity of gospel pericopes based on the "ie" spellings found in Bezae. He postulates that the ie spellings indicate the hand of an editor and indicate possible additions to the original autographs. What are your thoughts bro.
Steve Grose