Jesus and a Canaanite Woman

Matt. 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30
(Huck 116; Aland 151; Crook 170)^[95]

Revised: 2 September 2021

Text

To view the Greek text of Jesus and a Canaanite Woman click on the link below:

Conclusion

The story of Jesus’ encounter with a Canaanite (or Syro-Phoenician) woman does not show signs of having descended from a Hebraic source. This conclusion does not mean that the story is fictional, only that it did not appear in the conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua. This conclusion also helps us understand why the story of the Canaanite woman does not occur in Luke, even though the author of Luke was particularly interested in stories about women and Gentiles. Luke’s main sources were Anth. and FR, both of which descended from the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. Since the Canaanite Woman story did not appear in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, it did not appear in Anth. or FR either. Mark supplemented his Gospel with this story, which might have come to him via oral tradition, and Matthew reused the Canaanite Woman story because he found it to be a convenient vehicle for conveying his own theological message.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] For an overview of our understanding of how the Synoptic Gospels are interrelated, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[2] For a discussion of typical features of Markan redaction, see “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style.” ↩
• ^[3] See France, 297; Marcus, 1:466. ↩
• ^[4] Other scholars have also concluded that Mark was Matthew’s sole source for the Canaanite Woman pericope. Among these are Davies-Allison (2:543), Hagner (2:439), Nolland (Matt., 631) and Luz (2:336). ↩
• ^[5] When applying his seventeen criteria for determining whether a Greek text is the translation of a Semitic source to the Jesus and a Canaanite Woman pericope, Martin concluded that the Canaanite Woman story falls in the middle category between what is clearly a Greek composition and what is clearly a translation of a Semitic source. According to Martin's criteria, Matthew's version is somewhat more Semitic than Mark's. See Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Gospels (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), 44. ↩
• ^[6] The disciples are mentioned in Matthew’s version (Matt. 15:23), but they were written into the story by the author of Matthew. ↩
• ^[7] According to Mark 7:26, the woman was a Greek, which may be a reference to her language and culture. ↩
• ^[8] In the first century C.E., Aramaic was spoken by many non-Greek Gentile inhabitants of the eastern Roman Empire. Cf. Marcus, 1:462. ↩
• ^[9] The Gospel of Mark is the only Gospel to include Aramaic sentences. See Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, "LOY Excursus: Greek Transliterations of Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew/Aramaic Words in the Synoptic Gospels." On the author of Mark's use of Aramaic, see Robert L. Lindsey, "A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem," thesis 4; "LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style," under the subheading "Mark's Freedom and Creativity." ↩
• ^[10] For this reason, scholars who accept the theory of Markan Priority often refer to this section as Luke’s Great Omission. For a challenge to this scholarly assumption, see Halvor Ronning, "Who Made the 'Omission,' Luke or Mark?" ↩
• ^[11] The Hellenistic thaumaturgical techniques include the use of “power words” (εφφαθα; Mark 7:34) and the use of saliva (Mark 7:33; 8:23). See “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[12] Notley observes that Mark’s topographical descriptions of Jesus’ movements in Mark 6:45-8:26 are both puzzling and problematic. In Mark 6:45, for instance, Jesus instructs the disciples to go by boat to Bethsaida on the other side of the lake. In Mark 6:53, however, when the disciples have “crossed over” they arrive not in Bethsaida, but in Gennesaret on the western shore of the lake, presumably near the point from which they had launched their boat. In other words, the disciples made a U-turn in the course of their voyage across the lake. It is not until Mark 8:22, where Mark begins to recount the healing of a blind man, that the author of Mark has Jesus and the disciples arrive in Bethsaida. It is noteworthy that it is immediately following the conclusion of this narrative that the Lukan and Markan narratives resume contact. As Notley writes:

  It is during the crossing of the Sea of Galilee that the literary gap, “the Great Omission,” begins. While in Luke’s Gospel Jesus and his disciples arrive at the intended destination, such is not the case in Mark and Matthew. These Evangelists give no indication that they are aware of a change of direction.... It seems more than a coincidence that the literary disjuncture between Mark and Luke coincides with a corresponding geographical parting of the ways.... In light of the Markan U-turn on the lake, if Luke is relying upon Mark for the structure of his Gospel, he has uncannily nuanced the geographical lapse of Mark and eliminated the circuitous route to Bethsaida. Most scholars would hardly allow such sophisticated knowledge of the land by Luke.

  See R. Steven Notley, “Literary and Geographical Contours of ‘The Great Omission’” (Rainey-Notley, 360-362; quotation on 361). ↩

• ^[13] Notley suggests that mention of the Decapolis (Δεκάπολις; 3xx in NT: Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31) might be evidence of a post-70 C.E. date for the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Luke does not use this term). In Josephus the few references to the Decapolis (Life 341 [τὰς ἐν τῇ Συρίᾳ δέκα πόλεις], Life 342 [τῶν δέκα πόλεων], Life 410 [τῆς Συρίας δέκα πόλεων]; J.W. 3:446 [δεκαπόλεως]) are in the context of the Jewish revolt in the Galilee. Since there is no mention of the Decapolis in Greek or Latin sources prior to the Jewish revolt, Notley writes that the Decapolis “may have stemmed from the desire of these cities to define themselves in contradistinction to the neighboring regions heavily populated with Jews, who had recently rebelled against Rome. Use of the term 'Decapolis' in the Gospels may reflect the period in which the individual writings were composed (i.e., post-70 CE), because there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that the Decapolis was known in the days of Jesus” (Rainey-Notley, 362).

  Bundy (279 §168) noted that “Tyre, Sidon, and Decapolis are instances of geographical proper names which occur often in the latter part of Mark’s Galilean story and which always appear at the beginning or at the end of the stories to which they are attached. They never appear in the body of the stories, and they are unorganic to them. In general they are to be regarded as the editorial contribution of Mark, as his attempt to give unlocalized stories a known scene and setting.”

  For references to the Decapolis in ancient sources, see S. Thomas Parker, “The Decapolis Reviewed,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94.3 (1975): 437-441. ↩

• ^[14] On the prohibition against going to Gentiles in Matt. 10:5, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L52. ↩
• ^[15] Taylor (633) wrote: “No preaching or teaching to Gentiles is recorded [in Mark 7] because the tradition had no knowledge of it, and, although the disciples suddenly reappear in [Mark] viii. 1-21, in the region of Tyre Jesus is alone. No mission to the Gentiles is recorded; only intimations of such a ministry. The section is a defeated attempt to represent what would have been welcomed if the tradition could have supplied the evidence.” Cf. Jeremias’ statement that “The topographical details in [Mark] 7.24, 31; 8.4, 13, 22, 27 might suggest that Mark intended this section to be a description of an extended activity among the Gentiles on the part of Jesus; but an analysis of the section leads to the result that the only concrete material which the evangelist possessed for this supposed Gentile activity on the part of Jesus consisted of the story of the Syrophoenician woman” (Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations: The Franz Delitzsch Lectures for 1953 [London: SMC Press, 1958], 33). ↩
• ^[16] Cf. Matt. 11:21. The saying is not found in Mark. ↩
• ^[17] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 52:1; cf. Davies-Allison, 2:543; Marcus 1:466. ↩
• ^[18] It must be noted that there is also a phrase that, in NT, occurs only in Luke 16:21 and in Matthew’s version of the Canaanite Woman story, namely, τῶν πειπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης (“that which is falling from the table”; Matt. 15:27). While it is theoretically possible that Matthew picked up this phrase from Luke or that Luke picked up this phrase from Matthew, the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that Luke and Matthew had no knowledge of one another’s works. ↩
• ^[19] See Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups.” ↩
• ^[20] See Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[21] The table below shows all the instances of the verb ἀναχωρεῖν and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 2:12 U Matt. 2:13 U Matt. 2:14 U Matt. 2:22 U Matt. 4:12 TT (cf. Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14) Matt. 9:24 TT (cf. Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52) Matt. 12:15 TT = Mark 3:7 (cf. Luke 6:17) Matt. 14:13 TT (cf. Mark 6:32; Luke 9:10 [ὑπεχώρησεν]) Matt. 15:21 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:24) Matt. 27:5 U Mark 3:7 TT = Matt. 12:15 (cf. Luke 6:17)

  The two instances of ἀναχωρεῖν in Acts (Acts 23:19; 26:31) prove that the author of Luke did not have a dogmatic abhorrence of this verb. There is no reason he would not have copied it if it had occurred in his sources. The Lukan-Matthean minor agreement to use a compound of χωρεῖν in Matt. 14:13 ∥ Luke 9:10 (cf. Mark 6:32), on the other hand, is a strong indication that either Luke’s or Matthew’s compound of χωρεῖν did occur at least once in Anth. ↩

• ^[22] See Metzger, 95. ↩
• ^[23] Mark mentions unidentified houses in Mark 2:1; 3:20; 7:17, 24; 9:28, 33; 10:10. ↩
• ^[24] See Hawkins, 35. ↩
• ^[25] There is not a single example in Luke or Matthew of agreement with Mark’s mention of an unidentified house:
  • Mark 2:1 (TT); cf. Matt. 9:1; Luke 5:17 (This may be a possible exception, however, since the “roof” of a building is mentioned in Luke 5:19 when the bedridden man is lowered down to Jesus, so this may imply a house—whose owner is unidentified—even if the word “house” isn’t used in the story.)
  • Mark 3:20 (TT); no equivalent verse in Matt. or Luke
  • Mark 7:17 (Mark-Matt.); cf. Matt. 15:15
  • Mark 7:24 (Mark-Matt.); cf. Matt. 15:21
  • Mark 9:28 (TT); cf. Matt. 17:19; no equivalent verse in Luke
  • Mark 9:33 (TT); cf. Matt. 18:1; Luke 9:46
  • Mark 10:10 (Mark-Matt.); cf. Matt. 19:10

  ↩

• ^[26] In Matthew unidentified houses are mentioned in the following passages:
  • Matt. 9:10 (TT); cf. Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29 (In this instance Matthew might have expected readers to infer that the house belonged to Matthew, the tax collector who is mentioned in the previous verse. See Call of Levi, Comment to L27.)
  • Matt. 9:28 (U)
  • Matt. 13:1 (TT); cf. Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4
  • Matt. 13:36 (U)
  • Matt. 17:25 (U)

  ↩

• ^[27] Davies-Allison (2:546) state that the conclusion that the home in the region of Tyre where Jesus is said to have stayed was the home of a Gentile is inevitable. ↩
• ^[28] For a discussion of Jesus’ halachic avoidance of Gentile homes, see Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Purity Laws as Viewed by the Church Fathers and by the Early Followers of Jesus,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (ed. M. J. H. M. Poorthius and J. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 73-91, esp. 87-89. ↩
• ^[29] Lindsey’s translation of Mark 7:25 is as follows: כִּי מִיָּד שָׁמְעָה עָלָיו אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר בִּתָּהּ אֲחוּזַת רוּחַ טֻמְאָה וַתָּבוֹא וַתִּפֹּל לְרַגְלָיו. See Lindsey, HTGM, 115. ↩
• ^[30] On the use of εὐθύς in Mark, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes”; Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups,” in the entry for Mark 1:10. ↩
• ^[31] The term θυγάτριον occurs only 2xx in NT: Mark 5:23; 7:25. On Mark’s tendency to use diminutive forms, see “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[32] The author of Mark picked up on the term “impure spirit” in Luke and expanded its use. See Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups,” under the entry for Mark 1:23. ↩
• ^[33] See Marcus, 1:467. ↩
• ^[34] Grintz cited Matthew’s description of the woman in Matt. 15:22 as “Canaanite” as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was translated directly from a Hebrew source. See Jehoshua Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 32-47, esp. 35. ↩
• ^[35] The phrase καὶ ἰδού occurs 28xx in Matthew: Matt. 2:9; 3:16, 17; 4:11; 7:4; 8:2, 24, 29, 32, 34; 9:2, 3, 10, 20; 12:10, 41, 42; 15:22; 17:3, 5; 19:16; 20:30; 26:51; 27:51; 28:2, 7, 9, 20. ↩
• ^[36] In the works of Josephus καὶ ἰδού does not occur at all, while the ten instances of καὶ ἰδού in the works of Philo are confined to biblical quotations (Leg. 3:169; Det. §126; Migr. §135; Her. §159, 249; Somn. 1:3 [2xx], 133; 2:19, 216). ↩
• ^[37] The phrase καὶ ἰδού occurs, for instance, in the story of the magi (Matt. 2:9), which probably did not come from Anth., but was likely composed by the author of Matthew himself. ↩
• ^[38] Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language,” 35. ↩
• ^[39] Thus, Nolland’s comment that “the choice of ‘Canaanite’ is archaising” is incorrect (Nolland, Matt., 631). ↩
• ^[40] See Anson F. Rainey, “Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304 (1996): 1-15, esp. 12. ↩
• ^[41] Philo of Byblos (first-second cent. C.E.) was an historian of Phoenician ancestry who endeavored to dress Phoenician culture, history and religion in Hellenistic garb, comparable to Philo of Alexandria’s adaptation of Judaism to the Hellenistic world. ↩
• ^[42] Philo of Byblos refers to Χνᾶ...μετονομασθέντος Φοίνικος (“Chna...whose name was changed to Phoenix”; quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 1:10 §39). For the Greek text and English translation, see Albert I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 19 (text), 216 (trans.); and see Baumgarten’s comments on 232. Josephus, too, regarded Canaan as the ancestor of the Phoenicians. See his paraphrase of Gen. 10:15 in Ant. 1:138. ↩
• ^[43] Hippo, the city in North Africa where Augustine served as bishop, was settled by Phoenicians as a colony of Tyre centuries before the rise of the Roman Empire. ↩
• ^[44] According to Augustine,

  Unde interrogati rustici nostri, quid sint, Punice respondentes: Chanani, corrupta scilicet, sicut in talibus solet, una littera, quid aliud respondent quam: Chananaei?

  ...if you ask our peasants what they are, they will answer in Punic “Chanani” which, although it is missing a letter, which is usual in such case, can mean nothing other than “Canaanite.” (Exp. quaest. Rom. 13:5)

  Text and translation according to Paula Fredriksen Landes, Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982), 68-69. Tsirkin mentions the discovery of a Punic inscription that refers to an individual as “man of Canaan.” See Ju. B. Tsirkin, “Canaan. Phoenicia. Sidon,” Aula Orientalis 19 (2001): 271-279, esp. 271. ↩

• ^[45] Flusser surveyed the archaeological and epigraphical evidence for the persistence of Canaanite religion in the land of Israel into the Roman period in David Flusser, “Paganism in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:1065-1100). Ancient Jewish sources witness to the Jewish perception of the continued presence of a Canaanite population in the land of Israel (cf. 1 Macc. 9:37). Canaanite slaves, for instance, are mentioned in m. Maas. Sh. 4:4; m. Eruv. 7:6; m. Kid. 1:3; m. Bab. Kam. 8:3, 5; m. Bab. Metz. 1:5; m. Arach. 8:4. Tabi, the slave belonging to Rabban Gamliel II (cf. Safrai-Safrai, 28), is mentioned in connection with his Canaanite ancestry in b. Yom. 87a. See Eyal Ben-Eliyahu, “The Rabbinic Perception of the Presence of the Canaanites in the Land of Israel,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 275-284. ↩
• ^[46] See the comments in Luz, 2:338. ↩
• ^[47] See Katell Berthelot, “Where May Canaanites Be Found? Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Others in Jewish Texts from the Hellenistic and Roman Period,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, 253-274, esp. 264-265. ↩
• ^[48] Kilpatrick (132-133) suggested that the author of Matthew chose the term “Canaanite” in order to distingish the heroine of the story—a rural country woman—from the Hellenized urban Syrian readers for whom Matthew’s Gospel was intended. ↩
• ^[49] These disparaging remarks about Gentiles were probably taken over from the Anthology. Matthew’s view seems to have been that the members of the Church were neither Jews nor Gentiles, but the true, spiritual Israel, who had become heirs to the promises to the patriarchs and of the prophets on account of their faith in Jesus. ↩
• ^[50] Lindsey, HTGM, 115. ↩
• ^[51] See Jastrow, 1190. ↩
• ^[52] Cf. m. Dem. 6:11 (2xx); m. Shev. 6:2 (2xx), 5, 6; m. Maas. 5:5; m. Hal. 4:7 (2xx), 11; m. Orl. 3:9 (2xx); m. Rosh Hash. 1:4; m. Bab. Kam. 7:7; m. Edu. 7:7; m. Avod. Zar. 1:8 (2xx); m. Ohol. 18:7. ↩
• ^[53] Κύπριος τῷ γένει (“a Cypriot by birth”; Acts 4:36); Ποντικὸν τῷ γένει (“Pontian by birth”; Acts 18:2); Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει (“an Alexandrian by birth”; Acts 18:24). ↩
• ^[54] Cf. Σύρα τὸ γένος (“a Syrian by birth”; Philo, Congr. §41) and the numerous instances of "τὸ γένος (or τῷ γένει or γένει or γένος) in apposition to adjectives or proper nouns denoting origin” in the works of Josephus cited by Shaye J. D. Cohen, “ἸΟΥΔΑΙΟΣ ΤΟ ΓΕΝΟΣ and Related Expressions in Josephus,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 23-38, esp. 29-30. ↩
• ^[55] See LSJ, “Συροφοῖνιξ,” 1732. The reference to Juvenal cited in LSJ is in Latin. The toponym "Syro-Phoenicia" is mentioned in Justin, Dial. chap. 78. ↩
• ^[56] Text and translation according to Lucian with an English Translation by A. M. Harmon (8 vols.; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 5:422-423. ↩
• ^[57] But according to Cohen, “‘Greek’ should be construed here as a cultural term, which in Jewish settings means ‘pagan.’” See Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkley: University of California Press, 1999), 79. ↩
• ^[58] Note also Philo’s topographical description of a region in the Levant:

  ἡ Σοδομιτῶν χώρα, μοῖρα τῆς Χανανίτιδος γῆς, ἣν ὕστερον ὠνόμασαν Συρίαν Παλαιστίνην

  The region of Sodom, part of the land of Canaan, afterwards called Syria-Palestine.... (Abr. §133)

  ↩

• ^[59] The title “Son of David” occurs 10xx in Matthew (Matt. 1:1, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; 22:42), 3xx in Mark (Mark 10:47, 48; 12:35) and 3xx in Luke (Luke 18:38, 39; 20:41; cf. Luke 1:32, 69). ↩
• ^[60] See Davies-Allison, 2:548. ↩
• ^[61] The verb δαιμονίζεσθαι occurs in Matt. 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Mark 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; Luke 8:36. ↩
• ^[62] See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[63] See Nolland, Matt., 633. ↩
• ^[64] Meier is one scholar who understands the disciples to be urging Jesus to grant the woman’s request. See John P. Meier, “Matthew 15:21-28,” Interpretation 40 (1986): 397-402, esp. 398. ↩
• ^[65] Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 27. ↩
• ^[66] Davies-Allison, 2:557. ↩
• ^[67] See Luz, 2:71 n. 3, 2:336. If Jesus really did believe that he had been sent only to Israel, one wonders what he was doing with his disciples in Gentile territory. This discrepancy strengthens our suspicion that the "Israel only" saying is a Matthean interpolation. ↩
• ^[68] See Peter J. Tomson, “The Names Israel and Jew in Ancient Judaism and in the New Testament,” Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 47 (1986): 120-140, 266-289. ↩
• ^[69] According to Gal. 2:8, even in the post-resurrection period Peter continued to view his apostolic mission as directed to the Jewish community. ↩
• ^[70] Cf. Streeter, 191 n. 1. ↩
• ^[71] In Matthew προσκυνεῖν occurs 13xx (Matt. 2:2, 8, 11; 4:9, 10; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 20:20; 28:9, 17), compared with 3xx in Luke (Luke 4:7, 8; 24:52) and 2xx in Mark (Mark 5:6; 15:19). ↩
• ^[72] Although προσκυνεῖν can mean either “to prostrate oneself” or “to worship,” it seems likely that the author of Matthew intended the latter when we consider that nearly all instances of προσκυνεῖν in Matthew are redactional. ↩
• ^[73] Compare the woman’s plea with κύριε, εἰς τὸ βοηθῆσαί μοι πρόσχες (“Lord, pay attention to helping me!”; Ps. 39:14); ἀνάστα, κύριε, βοήθησον ἡμῖν (“Arise, Lord, help us!”; Ps. 43:27); σύ, κύριε, ἐβοήθησάς μοι (“You, Lord, helped me”; Ps. 85:17); τὸ ἔλεός σου, κύριε, βοηθεῖ μοι (“Your mercy, Lord, helps me”; Ps. 93:18); and βοήθησόν μοι, κύριε (“Help me, Lord!”; Ps. 108:26). ↩
• ^[74] See Robert L. Lindsey, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” thesis 6; Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups,” under the entry for Mark 2:16. ↩
• ^[75] See Davies-Allison, 2:541. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:552-553; Marcus, 1:466. ↩
• ^[77] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; idem, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke,” under the subheading “Further Proof of Mark’s Dependence on Luke.” ↩
• ^[78] Apart from the variation between οὐ/οὐκ, the omission of γάρ, and the different placement of βαλεῖν, Matthew’s wording is the same as Mark’s. ↩
• ^[79] The noun κυνάριον (kūnarion, “little dog”) occurs nowhere else in NT apart from the Canaanite Woman story. Furthermore, the noun κυνάριον does not appear in Josephus, Philo or LXX. The word κυνάριον is extremely rare in Koine Greek. ↩
• ^[80] See Luz, 2:340; Yamauchi, “Dogs,” in Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical & Post-Biblical Antiquity (ed. Edwin M. Yamauchi and Marvin R. Wilson; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2015), 2:136. ↩
• ^[81] As to whether “little dog” or “puppy” should be considered less offensive than “dog,” Jeremias wrote, “quite apart from the fact that it is uncertain whether in contemporary Greek the diminutive had any mitigating force, it cannot be pressed, since Semitic has no corresponding form” (Jeremias, Jesus' Promise to the Nations, 29). ↩
• ^[82] In the Hebrew Scriptures dogs are consistently portrayed in a negative light (cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Sam. 9:8; Isa. 56:10). “Dog” is a pejorative term in Phil. 3:2 and Rev. 22:15. See Michael Avi-Yonah, Views of the Biblical World (Vol. 5: The New Testament) (Jerusalem: International Publishing Co., 1961), 54. ↩
• ^[83] See Joshua Schwartz, “Dogs in Ancient Rural Jewish Society,” in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel (ed. Aren M. Maeir, Shimon Dar, and Ze’ev Safrai; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003), 127-136; idem, "Dogs in Jewish Society in the Second Temple Period and in the Time of the Mishnah and Talmud," Journal of Jewish Studies 55.2 (2004): 246-277. In Ben Sira, when doggy dan review are mentioned in the home (some Hebrew MSS of Sir. 4:30; 11:30), they are unwelcome intruders. ↩
• ^[84] See Tob. 5:17; 6:1 (Sinaiticus); 11:4; 4QTob^b ar [4Q197] 4 I, 5 (= Tob. 6:1). ↩
• ^[85] See, for example, Phaedrus, Aesopic Fables 2:3; 3:7. ↩
• ^[86] Columella (first century C.E.) wrote:

  ...barley-flour with whey is a suitable food for all dogs without distinction; but if the land is closely planted with young shoots and affords no pasture, they must be given their fill of bread made from emmer or wheaten flour, mixed, however, with the liquid of boiled beans.... (Columella, De re rustica 7:12.10)

  For these references we are indebted to Schwartz, “Dogs in Ancient Rural Jewish Society,” 130. ↩

• ^[87] See the footnote on historical presents in “LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style,” under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[88] Out of the 90 instances of τότε in Matthew (enumerated below), only seven have support from at least one of the other Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 7:5 [// Luke 6:42]; 9:15 [// Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35]; 12:29 [// Mark 3:27]; 12:45 [// Luke 11:26]; 22:8 [// Luke 14:21]; 24:16 [// Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21], 23 [// Mark 13:21]), all of them in direct speech. While the three instances of τότε which are supported by Luke in DT ensure that τότε did occasionally occur in Anth. (Matt. 7:5 [// Luke 6:42]; 12:45 [// Luke 11:26]; 22:8 [// Luke 14:21]), the use of τότε, especially in narrative, is a strong indicator of Matthean redaction.

  The table below lists all of the instances of τότε in the Gospel of Mathew, and their parallels (if any) in the Gospels of Mark and Luke:

  Matt. 2:7 U Matt. 2:16 U Matt. 2:17 U Matt. 3:5 TT (cf. Mark 1:5 [καί]; Luke 3:7 [--]) Matt. 3:13 TT (cf. Mark 1:9 [καί]; Luke 3:21 [--]) Matt. 3:15 TT (cf. Mark 1:[--]; Luke 3:[--]) Matt. 4:1 TT (cf. Mark 1:12 [καὶ εὐθύς]; Luke 4:1 [καί]) Matt. 4:5 DT (cf. Luke 4:9 [δέ]) Matt. 4:10 DT (cf. Luke 4:8 [καί]) Matt. 4:11 DT (cf. Luke 4:13 [καί]) Matt. 4:17 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 1:14 [--]) Matt. 5:24 U Matt. 7:5 DT = Luke 6:42 Matt. 7:23 DT (cf. Luke 13:27 [--]) Matt. 8:26 TT (cf. Mark 4:39 [καί]; Luke 8:24 [δέ]) Matt. 9:6 TT (cf. Mark 2:10 [--]; Luke 5:24 [--]) Matt. 9:14 TT (cf. Mark 2:18 [καί]; Luke 5:33 [--]) Matt. 9:15 TT = Mark 2:20 // Luke 5:35 Matt. 9:29 U Matt. 9:37 DT (cf. Luke 10:2 [δέ]) Matt. 11:20 DT (cf. Luke 10:[--]) Matt. 12:13 TT (cf. Mark 3:5 [--]; Luke 6:10 [--]) Matt. 12:22 TT (cf. Mark 3:[--]; Luke 11:14 [--]) Matt. 12:29 TT = Mark 3:27 (cf. Luke 11:22 [καί]) Matt. 12:38 TT (cf. Matt. 16:1 [καί]; Mark 8:11 [καί]; Luke 11:16 [δέ]) Matt. 12:44 DT (cf. Luke 11:24 [--]) Matt. 12:45 DT = Luke 11:26 Matt. 13:26 U Matt. 13:36 U Matt. 13:43 U Matt. 15:1 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:1 [καί]) Matt. 15:12 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:17 [καὶ ὅτε]) Matt. 15:28 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 7:29 [καί]) Matt. 16:12 TT (cf. Mark 8:[--]; Luke 12:[--]) Matt. 16:20 TT (cf. Mark 8:30 [καί]; Luke 9:21 [δέ]) Matt. 16:21 TT (cf. Mark 8:31 [καί]; Luke 9:22 [--]) Matt. 16:24 TT (cf. Mark 8:34 [καί]; Luke 9:23 [δέ]) Matt. 16:27 TT (cf. Mark 8:38 [--]; Luke 9:26 [--]) Matt. 17:13 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 9:[--]) Matt. 17:19 TT (cf. Mark 9:28 [--]; Luke 9:[--]) Matt. 18:21 DT (cf. Luke 17:[--]) Matt. 18:32 U Matt. 19:13 TT (cf. Mark 10:13 [καί]; Luke 18:15 [δέ]) Matt. 19:27 TT (cf. Mark 10:28 [--]; Luke 18:28 [δέ]) Matt. 20:20 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 10:35 [καί]) Matt. 21:1 TT (cf. Mark 11:1 [--]; Luke 19:29 [--]) Matt. 22:8 DT = Luke 14:21 Matt. 22:13 DT (cf. Luke 14:[--]) Matt. 22:15 TT (cf. Mark 12:13 [--]; Luke 20:20 [--]) Matt. 22:21 TT (cf. Mark 12:17 [δέ]; Luke 20:25 [δέ]) Matt. 23:1 TT (cf. Mark 12:38 [καί]; Luke 20:45 [δέ]) Matt. 24:9 TT (cf. Mark 13:9 [--]; Luke 21:12 [--]) Matt. 24:10 TT (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Matt. 24:14 TT (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Matt. 24:16 TT = Mark 13:14 // Luke 21:21 Matt. 24:21 TT (cf. Mark 13:19 [--]; Luke 21:23 [--]) Matt. 24:23 TT = Mark 13:21 (cf. Luke 17:23 [--]) Matt. 24:30 (first) TT (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Matt 24:30 (second) TT (cf. Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Matt. 24:40 DT (cf. Luke 17:34 [--]) Matt. 25:1 U Matt. 25:7 U Matt. 25:31 U Matt. 25:34 U Matt. 25:37 U Matt. 25:41 U Matt. 25:44 U Matt. 25:45 U Matt. 26:3 TT (cf. Mark 14:1 [--]; Luke 22:2 [--]) Matt. 26:14 TT (cf. Mark 14:10 [καί]; Luke 22:4 [καί]) Matt. 26:16 TT (cf. Mark 14:11 [--]; Luke 22:6 [--]) Matt. 26:31 TT (cf. Mark 14:27 [καί]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:36 TT (cf. Mark 14:32 [καί]; Luke 22:39 [καί]) Matt. 26:38 TT (cf. Mark 14:34 [καί]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:45 TT (cf. Mark. 14:41 [καί]; Luke 22:45 [--]) Matt. 26:50 TT (cf. Mark 14:46 [δέ]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:52 TT (cf. Mark 14:[--]; Luke 22:51 [δέ]) Matt. 26:56 TT (cf. Mark 14:50 [καί]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:65 TT (cf. Mark 14:63 [δέ]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:67 TT (cf. Mark 14:65 [καί]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 26:74 TT (cf. Mark 14:71 [δέ]; Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 27:3 U Matt. 27:9 U Matt 27:13 TT (cf. Mark 15:4 [δέ]; Luke 23:[--]) Matt. 27:16 TT (cf. Mark 15:7 [--]; Luke 23:19 [--]) Matt. 27:26 TT (cf. Mark 15:15 [--]; Luke 23:25 [δέ]) Matt. 27:27 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 15:16 [δέ]) Matt. 27:38 TT (cf. Mark 15:27 [καί]; Luke 23:33 [--]) Matt. 27:58 TT (cf. Mark 15:45 [καί]; Luke 23:[--]) Matt. 28:10 TT (cf. Mark 16:[--]; Luke 24:[--])   Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  For further discussion of the author of Matthew’s redactional use of τότε, see Hawkins, 8; Randall Buth, “Edayin/Tote—Anatomy of a Semitism in Jewish Greek,” Maarav 5-6 (1990): 33-48; idem, “Matthew’s Aramaic Glue”; idem, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 296-302). ↩

• ^[89] See David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560, esp. 556); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels,” under the subheading “Matthew’s ‘True Israel.’” ↩
• ^[90] See Davies-Allison, 2:556. ↩
• ^[91] Nolland, Matt., 636 n. 218. ↩
• ^[92] See Beare, Earliest, 132 §116. ↩
• ^[93] See Allen, Matt., 169. ↩
• ^[94] See Davies-Allison, 2:543; Nolland, Matt., 631; Hagner, 2:439; Luz, 2:336. ↩
• ^[95] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’“ ↩