by wordlywife 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
This is a passage that has always bothered me, and was wondering if it bothered anyone else. To me it sounds as though Jesus thinks of some people as dogs and not deserving of anything. Maybe I have an incorrect view on this. Anyone care to share an opinion? Thanks-
WW
What this story does is take a proverb that was independently attributed to Jesus and places it within a narrative context; it constructs a story in which the proverb may have been used in order to explore what Jesus may have meant by saying this. The proverb is independently attested in varying forms:
"Jesus said, 'Do not give what is holy to dogs, lest they throw them on the dung-heap. Do not throw pearls to swine, lest they grind it to bits" (Gospel of Thomas 93:1).
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls in front of pidgs, or they may trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6).
"But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, 'Give not that which is holy to the dogs' " (Didache 9:5).
The proverb originally assumed that the dogs were to be understood as "fools" or "those without wisdom," for similar expressions occur in earlier wisdom literature (cf. Proverbs 23:9; Sirach 22:9-10). Note however that the Didache has interpreted the proverb differently: here the "dogs" are to be understood as the "unbaptised" who eat and drink the Eucharist. This connection to the Eucharist was naturally suggested by the fact that the Eucharist is something very holy (as the flesh of Christ) that is consumed, just as food given to dogs is consumed. But it just isn't any unbaptised person. The Didache was used in the late first century (or early second century AD) as a catechism for Gentile converts to Jewish-Christianity, so the "dogs" were really Gentile converts who partook of the body of Christ though they had not yet been baptised. At the time, the Jews referred to the Gentiles as "dogs"; this usage can be found in an ironic sense in Philippians 3:2 and in rabbinical texts (Niddah 77a; Baba Kama 49a) that liken non-Jews to dogs. For instance, Rabbi Ishmael bar Jose referred to Samaritans as dogs who were "adhesive to idolatrous customs as the dog is to the flesh of carcasses" (Genesis Rabba, 81). This reflects a general attitude that Gentiles were "unclean" from the perspective of purity laws (as dogs were "unclean" animals), and lawless for not abiding to the Torah (cf. Revelation 22:15 in which the "dogs" and murderers and idolators are "everyone of false speech and false life").
The original form of the Matthean story occurs in Mark 7:24-30 (assuming Markan priority and not that the story has been interpolated from Matthew), and there the proverb is given a narrative context. Here the woman is clearly "a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth" (v. 26), and she begged Jesus to cast out the demon from her daughter. Then Jesus says:
"And he said to her, 'Let the children (tekna) first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the puppies (kunariois).' And she answered him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs' " (Mark 7:27-28).
The highlighted words clearly constitute a version of the same proverb attested in Matthew 7:6 / Gospel of Thomas 93:7 / Didache 9:5, but it differs in wording. The metaphor in this text, of dogs eating crumbs at the table, is seperately attested in rabbinical texts. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, for instance, referred to the godly as guests invited to the king's table and the unfaithful Gentiles as dogs who ate the crumbs that fell down (Midrash Teh. Psalm 4:8). The word for "dog" in Mark is actually the dimunitive for "puppy," which forms a parallel to the "children" who would otherwise be the recipient of what is thrown. The tekna "children", in the context of Mark (cf. 10:24) are Jesus' disciples, and the text does not clearly say that "children" are only Jewish disciples though it is implied by making the woman's ethnicity so salient. Anyway, in the context of this story, Jesus asserts that his mission to to feeding the "children" (whomever they might be) and they must be fed first before feeding the "puppies", while the woman points out that even while the children are eating, the puppies may still eat the crumbs underneath the table. Thus, the passage makes the argument that even though Jesus' mission was first limited in scope, others may receive blessings from him as well -- despite purity laws (which Jesus flaunts with his healings, cf. Mark 1:23, 5:2, 9:42, etc. and his teaching in 7:1-25).
The Matthean verison, however, is quite different. It is much more elaborate and dramatic. In Mark, the woman approaches Jesus inside a house and Jesus' response about the puppies is quick and direct. But in Matthew 15:21-18, Jesus is outside walking with his disciples and the woman "came outside" (exelthousa) and was following "behind" (ophisthen) them (v. 22-23). Unlike the quick response that Jesus gives in Mark, here "he did not answer her a word," and she had to continue crying behind them so that they would beg him to say something to her. Then Jesus speaks, not to her, but to them by saying: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (v. 24). This verse is clearly a Matthean addition, for it is absent in the Markan version of the story, and it occurs also in Matthew 10:6 -- a verse that has no parallel in the other gospels. There Jesus says:
"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, ' Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' " (Matthew 10:6).
The same commission story is given in Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 9:1-6 but nowhere does Jesus make such a demand. In fact, John's gospel presents the exact opposite scenario; there Jesus goes early in his ministry into Samaria and even has a whole Samaritan town become his disciples (John 4:1-42). So much for wasting bread on dogs! Matthew takes the Markan story and makes the identity of the "puppies" much more explicit by inserting the statement from 10:6 into this context. This restricts Jesus' ministry to the "sheep of Israel"; the Gentile ministry would not begin until after Jesus' resurrection (cf. Matthew 28:16-20). John however has Jesus preaching to non-Jews early on and John 10:16 explicitly indicates that the "sheep" were not restricted to the Jews but that Jesus already has "other sheep not of this fold". The story in Mark and especially Matthew thus may constitute an attempt to explain why Jesus' mission was to be limited to the "lost" Jews and yet he still preached and worked miracles with non-Jews. Just like dogs snacking on the crumbs while the children were being fed, so could the Samaritans and Syrophoenicians could have received blessings from Jesus before his death and resurrection opened up salvation to all.
Edited: To provide a link to a relevant article on this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/syrophoenician.html
My view as one who believes the Bible is what it is because God made it so:
1. Matthew and Mark, in this instance, opened the door to the spiritual inclusion of those who would naturally be excluded. The law of love was shown as superceding the law of even Jesus' commission. An important rule to be remembered by all Christians.
2. It also highlights the all too evident superior qualities of the Gospel of John, a Gospel written for our day. In my opinion.
worldlywife, are you satisfied with these answers? As leolaia pointed out, the Greek word for "dog" in this case is a diminutive, meaning that the Gentiles were compared to house pets - little dogs, or puppies - which softens what may appear to be harsh. Jesus' mission as the Jewish Messiah was to his own people, but the Gospels anticipate the calling of the Gentiles in his incidental dealings with Gentiles. Even the Gospel of John does not clash with this because the Samaritans were in a class of their own - accepting the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) but not the remainder, and they may have even had some Jewish descent but had lost their identity.
Your question is one which should interest Christians generally, and is not peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses. You may want to check out some of the Christian websites available and ask others what they think.
The rub with John is more with Matthew 10:6, which is specific about the Samaritans (and puts them in the same boat with the Gentiles). The Samaritan woman story in John 4 is also preceded by John 3:16 which establishes the universal scope of Jesus' work, while the Canaanite woman story in Matthew 15 is preceded by Matthew 10:6 which limits its scope for the time being. Good point about the Samaritans accepting the Torah, which kind of makes them a little intermediate between the Jews and fully heathen Greeks.
I was not trying to "harmonize" John with the synoptics so much as attempting to show that even John did not completely ignore the situation of the historical Jesus, having him hold extensive dialogue with a Samaritan rather than just any Gentile. Even John has Jesus say to the Samaritan woman, "salvation is of the Jews." (4:22) John's vantage point is even further along into the new era, when Jesus is recognized as a universal savior. The statement attributed to the post-resurrection Jesus at Acts 1:8, that the apostles were to be witnesses "in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth," would seem to put the Samaritans in a class unto themselves.
To me it sounds as though Jesus thinks of some people as dogs and not deserving of anything.
Your addition of the "deserve" bit may be a jw judgemental hangover ?
It is not a good thing for dogs (those who behave as a dog - hierarchical social view, bark at any perceived intrusion, hunt in a pack, short on manners aside from enforced vertical social respect, etc etc.......) to be treated thus - they don't understand 'holy' and spiritually would be the worse off for it.
IMO one shouldn't make too much of the diminutive as the purely stylistic (=> meaningless) overuse of diminutives is a well-attested phenomenon in koinè Greek and especially in Mark (ploiarion, thugatrion, ôtarion...).
Is it meaningless though when the diminutive word is placed in contrast with tekna "children"? My impression was that this stylistic contrast explains the diminutive and thus is meaningful for highlighting this contrast. I would agree that the diminutive is not overtly used to "soften" the derogatory term or characterize Gentiles as "puppy-like", as this contrast is sufficient to explain the use of the word.
The transcriber actually suffered from dyslexia! dogs=sgod. Stay away from the S Gods!
caveman
