The Syrophoenician Woman in the Gospel of Mark
In Mark 7:24–30, Jesus interacts with a Syrophoenician[1] woman in the city of Tyre. According to the Gospel of Mark, the woman begs Jesus to cast out a demon from her daughter, to which Jesus responds, “Let the children be fed first; for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27).[2] The woman contends, however, that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). Jesus is pleased by her answer, telling her to return home to her now-healed daughter.
Jesus’s use of the term κυναρίοις (“to the dogs”) has initiated a lot of debate among exegetes regarding how to translate and understand the term. Linguistically, the word κυνάριον is a diminutive of κύων, meaning “dog.”[3] While not the only words in the language with these endings, Koine Greek diminutives tend to contain one of the following suffixes: -ιον (i.e., -αριον), -ίς (or -ίδ-), and -ίσκος. The diminutive form of a word typically implies either endearment or contempt for its recipient,[4] leaving the proper interpretation up to its context. Given the diminutive’s differing connotations, some have seen Jesus’s use of κυνάριον as a display of affection for the woman, while others argue that it is a patronizing insult to her ethnic identity.[5]
Regardless of how one renders the term κυναρίοις in Mark 7:27, the woman’s Syrophoenician and, more broadly, Gentile[6] identity is brought to the forefront. This is apparent through Jesus’s reluctance to heal the woman’s demon-possessed daughter, a situation without parallel among Jesus’s “Jewish healings.”[7] The story provides an insightful glance into Mark’s[8] soteriology, as for the second evangelist, the gospel was to be given first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.
The Canaanite Woman in the Gospel of Matthew
Mark’s account of the Syrophoenician woman in 7:24–30, outlined above, has a strong literary connection with Matthew’s account of the Canaanite woman in 15:21–28. Working under the assumption that the Gospel of Mark was the first Synoptic Gospel written,[9] Matthew transforms Jesus’s encounter with a Syrophoenician woman into one with a Canaanite woman.
Matthew’s transformation of Mark’s “Syrophoenician” to “Canaanite” has often been overlooked. In their seminal work, Davies and Allison state, “[The story of the Canaanite woman] leaves the status of the Gentiles hanging in the air.”[10] Similarly, Donald Hagner recognizes that “[The term] ‘Canaanite’ contrasts the woman all the more with the people of God,”[11] yet elsewhere uses this narrative to develop an understanding of the role that Gentiles play in Matthew’s Gospel. One should not assume that Matthew viewed the Canaanites as indistinguishable from other Gentiles. Instead, there are numerous reasons to believe that Matthew’s account of the Canaanite woman speaks directly to his antipathy of the Canaanite people living in the land of Syria rather than to the broader Gentile population.
“Canaanite” and “Phoenician”
The titles “Canaanite” and “Phoenician” referred to a singular cultural identity during the Hellenistic era. “Canaanite” was still a common designation among the Jews,[12] whereas “Phoenician” was more widely used in the Greco-Roman world for those living in Phoenicia. But at this time, even the Phoenicians referred to themselves as Canaanites,[13] linking the two titles to a singular people group and putting to rest the notion that the term “Canaanite” was solely a pejorative used by outsiders.
There is also evidence that at least some of the LXX (Septuagint) translators found “Phoenician” a proper substitute for “Canaanite.” While the Hebrew Bible is consistent in its usage of כְּנַעֲנִי (“Canaanite”), the Septuagint translates this word as Χαναναῖος, Χανανὶς, and Χανανῖτις, of which Χαναναῖος accounts for the overwhelming majority. Χανανὶς is only used in Numbers and the Book of Ezra.[14] Conversely, Χανανῖτις is used exclusively for feminine referents.[15] Matthew’s use of Χαναναία for the woman in 15:22, a form of Χαναναῖος, is the only time the word is used in the New Testament.[16] However, the three times a Canaanite woman appears in the Hebrew text, a word other than Χαναναῖος is used in the LXX. Two of the times (Genesis 46:10 and 1 Chronicles 2:3), the feminine Χανανῖτις is used. Interestingly, in the third, Exodus 6:15 translates the Hebrew “Canaanite woman” as Φοινίσσης (“Phoenician woman”). Apart from Joshua 5:1, this is the only example of the LXX translating the Hebrew “Canaanite” as “Phoenicia(n).”[17]
Although the two terms shared an identical denotation, the connotation of Mark’s “Syrophoenician” and Matthew’s “Canaanite” would surely have been different for early readers of the Gospel.[18] Early Jewish Christian readers would be reminded of texts in their scriptures that spoke strongly against the Canaanite people and the religious, ethnic, and military competition between the two “nations.”[19] Passages such as the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9:25–26, YHWH’s command for the destruction of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7:1–2 and 20:17–18, and the siege of Jericho in Joshua 6 all portray the people group in an antagonistic manner. Because of this, social interactions between the Jews in Palestine and the inhabitants of Phoenicia remained tense even in the first century.[20] Despite the evangelist’s use of an ethnic synonym for Mark’s “Syrophoenician,” the connotation of the term “Canaanite” would have conjured up a sense of hostility toward the woman among the Gospel’s earliest readers.
Predicated on the assumption that Matthew’s community would have scoffed at the mention of Jesus’s interaction with a Canaanite woman is the idea that his audience primarily consisted of Jewish Christians.[21] The Gospel of Matthew incorporates numerous Jewish themes that are absent from the other Synoptics. For instance, the evangelist shows special interest in the Jewish elite, setting up a Moses typology for Jesus, and as mentioned before, restricting Jesus’s ministry to the land of Israel.[22] When quoting the Jewish scriptures, Matthew prefers the MT (Masoretic Text) over the LXX, signifying his confidence in the Hebrew language.[23] He also quotes the Hebrew scriptures far more often than the other canonical Gospels.[24] More specifically, the first evangelist also seems concerned with his fellow Jewish Christians’ desire to keep the Torah, a situation that is referenced in the writings of the apostle Paul.[25] To this end, in 15:17, he omits the authorial comment in Mark 7:19 which declares that all foods were made clean. The most glaring evidence that Matthew’s original audience largely consisted of Jewish Christians is his lack of explanation of Jewish customs. For example, Mark 7:3, 14:12, and 15:42 explain the hand washing and Feast of Unleavened Bread procedures of first century Jews. The corresponding narratives in Matthew’s Gospel do not contain an explanation of these customs. While not exhaustive, the above considerations amount to a solid case that Matthew’s audience was primarily Jewish. Therefore, to Matthew and his audience, the presence of the Canaanite woman is a meaningful and intentional alteration to Mark’s account of the Syrophoenician woman.
An Analysis of Matthew’s Redactions of Mark’s Account
In order to see how Matthew uses the story of the Canaanite woman as a symbol of the Canaanite people, it is crucial to examine the first evangelist’s use of Mark while acknowledging the different connotations that “Canaanite” and “Phoenician” present. The Greek and English texts of the two Gospels are placed side-by-side below to display Matthew’s editorial changes, which provide further insight into his negative view of the Canaanites. The important redactions to this end are italicized in the English text.
Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel appears more skeptical of interacting with the Canaanite woman than Mark’s Jesus does with the Syrophoenician woman. In Matthew’s account, Jesus ἀνεχώρησεν (“withdraws”) to Gentile territory, as opposed to Mark’s Jesus who ἀπῆλθεν (“went away”) to that area. Although a seemingly trivial difference, Matthew’s word choice is quite important. While Mark has Jesus enter someone’s house during his time in the Gentile region, the author of Matthew insinuates a different situation. The absence of the house, along with the presence of the verb ἀνεχώρησεν, implies that the evangelist envisions Jesus going up to the region of Tyre without entering into it.[26] The preposition εἰς in 15:21 is often translated as “into” but can also indicate one going up to or toward another place. After Jesus goes toward the cities, the woman, ἐξελθοῦσα (“having come out”), shouts at him. The woman coming out of “those regions” (the nearest antecedent to the verb) implies that she is leaving her land to speak with him.[27] Jesus not entering the district of Tyre and Sidon serves to distance him from the woman and the area’s inhabitants. This aligns with Matthew’s wariness to incorporate scenes where Jesus initiates acts of favor upon Gentiles,[28] which is intensified given her identity as a Canaanite.
Additionally, Matthew adds the city of Sidon in conjunction with Tyre, the only city mentioned in Mark’s account of the Syrophoenician woman. Certain manuscripts of Mark also read “Tyre and Sidon,” agreeing with Matthew.[29] But given that early Christian scribes tended to harmonize the wording of the Synoptic Gospels,[30] Mark’s Gospel likely did not originally contain “Sidon.” This is not a meaningless addition on behalf of Matthew but one in which he found precedents from both scripture and the text of Mark. Although willing to extensively edit his source material, the evangelist was concerned with ensuring that the majority of Mark was represented in his retelling.[31] His intent to use specifics of Mark’s account can be seen in the addition of “Sidon,” as well. While Sidon isn’t present in Mark 7:24, the city is mentioned in the following pericope in 7:31. Here, Matthew conserves Mark’s wording by relocating Sidon next to Tyre. Tyre and Sidon are often mentioned together in the Hebrew Bible, so it is not difficult to understand why Matthew would consider making this change to Mark. For example, in Ezekiel 26–28, prophecies against Sidon are intertwined with those of Tyre. In Jeremiah 25:22, the kings of the two cities are paired together. Additionally, Joel 3:4 mentions Tyre and Sidon among the nations that the Lord intended to judge. In many ways, the cities can be seen as analogous in the Jewish scriptures.[32] Among the many references to the cities, Tyre and Sidon are occasionally depicted in a positive manner but are most often portrayed as wicked and idolatrous.[33] In addition to the scriptural pattern of combining these cities, 2 Samuel 24:7 directly links Tyre to the Canaanites. Every time Tyre is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, it is accompanied by Sidon,[34] but this is not the case in Mark. Matthew includes Sidon to signal opposition to his Jewish readers, calling to mind images of the Canaanite people from Israel’s past.
After the woman comes to Jesus and pleads for him to heal her demon-possessed daughter, Matthew adds the above narrative in 15:23–24, which recounts Jesus’s initial response to the woman, followed by his disciples’ reaction. The text in Matthew’s Gospel is added within the events described in Mark 7:25, specifically, between the mention of the woman’s demon-possessed daughter and her falling at Jesus’s feet. Several redactions to Mark’s account imply that Matthew’s Jesus is initially unwilling to assist the woman.
Absent from Mark, Matthew’s Jesus does not respond to the woman’s opening request, and upon her plea for help, the disciples tell him to ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν (“release her” or “send her away”). It was popular among early commentators to understand this as the disciples pleading on behalf of the woman instead of urging Jesus to send her away.[35] In this interpretation, the phrase ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν would be best translated as “let it be done for her.” While not defended by many today, this view would further emphasize Jesus’s reluctance to heal the woman against his disciples’ judgment.
Jesus’s declaration, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” is also unique to Matthew. While the statement is not necessarily incongruent with Mark’s theology, it emphasizes the separation of the woman from Jesus’s earthly mission of bringing salvation to the Jews. The explicit nature of the claim undoubtedly speaks to Matthew’s inferior conception of the Canaanite people in comparison to other Gentiles.
Strikingly, Matthew omits ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα (“Let the children be fed first”) from Mark’s account. Here, the children refer to the descendants of Abraham, while the κυνάρια refer to the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman and her kin. Mark’s theology regarding the message of Jesus going first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles resembles that of Paul who states, “First to the Jew, and to the Greek.”[36] The early church took for granted the idea that it was not until after the death of Jesus that the mission of Jesus was offered to the Gentiles.[37] Although Matthew, like Mark, sees salvation offered first to the Jew and then to the Greek,[38] the removal of “Let the children be fed first” shifts the focus away from the Canaanite woman’s eventual inclusion within the Jesus movement.
Furthermore, it seems as if Matthew adds ναὶ (“yes”) to the woman’s response to show that the woman is in full agreement with her position as a κυνάριον. There is a text-critical issue here, as well. Some manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, also include ναὶ in Mark. But this variant is likely a later addition to the text, as the early manuscript P45 (among others) lacks this reading. In addition, as referenced before, it is more probable that a scribe would have attempted to homogenize the two accounts rather than produce this minor discrepancy. Matthew also changes Mark’s “table” to “their master’s table,” emphasizing the woman’s subordination to the descendants of Israel.
In both Gospel accounts, the woman is ultimately commended for her response to Jesus, and her daughter is healed because of it. But as the above redactions of Mark’s narrative display, Matthew is far more critical of the woman and her ethnic identity. Although he heals the woman’s daughter in the end, only in Matthew does Jesus initially refuse to do so. Mark 7:27 implies some resistance on Jesus’s behalf, but the silence of Jesus in Matthew 15:23 and the removal of the statement “Let the children be fed first”[39] in Matthew 15:26 indicates a lack of desire to assist the pleading woman. One could interpret Mark as Jesus resisting the woman to teach a theological truth about the salvation of Jews and Gentiles, but it stretches credulity to see it as such in Matthew’s account.
If Matthew intended for the story of the Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter to shed light on his perception of the Gentiles, he would not have used the term “Canaanite” as a descriptor for the woman’s identity. This term had a negative connotation among Jews and would have been distracting if not meant to recall the Canaanites from the Jewish scriptures. But are we to imagine that Matthew substituted “Syrophoenician” for “Canaanite” to demonstrate that even the most marginalized people (e.g. the Canaanites) had a place in the Kingdom? The pericope’s escalation of Mark’s hesitance to help the woman stands as compelling evidence against this alleged objective.[40] This leaves us with one reasonable interpretation: that the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 is to be understood in the Matthean framework as a Canaanite, rather than a Gentile more generally.
Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew
We must also consider how Matthew’s Gospel portrays interactions with Gentiles. If the Canaanite woman is to be understood as a Gentile, one would expect her to be treated similarly to other Gentiles in the Gospel. However, the Gentiles are often shown to be models of faith, are met with little to no resistance from Jesus, and are occasionally even depicted more positively than the Jews.[41] An analysis of every Gentile interaction in the Gospel of Matthew is shown below.
The first Gentiles presented in the Gospel of Matthew,[42] the magi from the East, are elevated as an example of faith in comparison to the Jews in the narrative. Upon seeing “his star,” the magi go to King Herod in Jerusalem to find out where the Messiah had been born. They are welcomed visitors by Jesus’s family, and the evangelist does not give any admonition regarding their ethnic identity. Instead, the account likely stands as a reminder to Matthew’s audience that while the Jews were routinely rejecting Jesus (symbolized by the chief priests and “scribes of the people” who do not visit him), the Gentiles (symbolized by the magi) had begun to recognize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. The magi are, therefore, seen as exercising greater faith than the Jewish elite (the chief priests, scribes, and government officials[43]).
The story of the Canaanite woman and the healing of the centurion’s servant in 8:5–13 have much in common and appear to mirror one another. For that reason, the centurion is the most important Gentile character for our purposes. In the pericope, the centurion approaches Jesus and tells him of his servant’s paralysis, begging for Jesus to heal him. The scholarship is divided over the meaning of Jesus’s response. Given that Koine Greek did not traditionally use punctuation until many centuries after our earliest manuscripts of Matthew, Jesus’s words, ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν, remain difficult to translate. Most English translations have rendered the sentence as a statement: “I will come to heal him.”[44] Many interpreters, however, have argued that it should be read as a question: “Shall I come to heal him?,” with an emphatic ἐγὼ (“I”), where Jesus is implying that it would not have conformed to Jewish purity laws for him to have entered a Gentile home.[45] While this rendering is certainly reasonable, some have used Jesus’s treatment of the Canaanite woman as the main reason for defending this sentence construction.[46] The basis for such an argument is unfounded if the story of the Canaanite woman does not serve as an insight into Matthew’s conception of the Gentiles. The centurion’s reply does not necessitate either reading, as he acknowledges his unworthiness and only requests that Jesus speak the word of healing upon his servant. Jesus agrees and insists that the centurion’s faith had outmatched anyone in all of Israel. Regardless of how one translates his initial response, it is evident that Jesus responds more favorably to the centurion than to the Canaanite woman.
The third interaction Jesus has with Gentiles is the exorcism of the Gadarene[47] demoniacs in 8:28–34. After casting out the demons and sending them into a herd of pigs, both men run off to tell others living in the area. Upon meeting Jesus, those in the city request that he leave their region. The pericope does not reveal anything substantial regarding the evangelist’s view of the Gentiles, as his account is largely an abridged version of Mark. The only omission of note is that of Mark 5:18–20, which recounts the cured demoniac[48] begging to accompany Jesus, who responds by urging the man to stay and tell his friends what the Lord had done for him. At most, the absence of this short finale to the narrative supports the premise that for the first evangelist, Jesus was not concerned with spreading the message to the Gentiles, a task that would be later delegated to his followers.[49] However, as mentioned earlier, this same view is reflected numerous times in Mark as well, even in the account of the Syrophoenician woman, where Jesus declares, “Let the children be fed first.”[50] Jesus never rebukes the demoniacs, implies that they are subordinate in any way to the Jews, nor hesitates to help them. The Gospel of Matthew is much more sympathetic to the demoniacs, like the magi and centurion, than the Canaanite woman.
Like the story of the magi and centurion, another interaction in the Gospel of Matthew places the Gentiles above their Jewish peers. Near the end of the Gospel, in chapter 27, a centurion[51] who witnesses the events surrounding Jesus’s crucifixion calls Jesus the Son of God. This statement conceivably indicates that he is renouncing his prior commitment to Caesar as the Son of God.[52] The centurion’s faith in Jesus is contrasted with the Jews[53] in 27:47–49 who mock Jesus by saying, “Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” Unlike the other Gentile interactions in Matthew, the Canaanite woman is never portrayed as being greater than the Jews.
While divorcing the Canaanite woman from the other Gentiles in Matthew may appear to be an original endeavor, this is not the case. Despite this view being neglected in modern scholarship,[54] at one time, it was taken for granted. Several Gentile Christian writers within the first few centuries of the Jesus movement discussed their forceful stance against the Canaanite woman. Origen of Alexandria states that because of her race, the Canaanite woman did not deserve an answer from Jesus.[55] Likewise, Jerome writes, “[The Canaanite woman] knew to call him ‘son of David’ because she had already come forth from her land and had left the error of the Tyrians and Sidonians by a change of place and of faith.”[56] Conversely, regarding the Gentile centurion in chapter 8, Jerome declares, “For [Jesus] saw the centurion’s faith, humility, and wisdom […] the centurion comprehended his majesty.”[57] Jerome noticed that the Canaanites occupied their own category within the mind of Matthew, one that was wholly separate from other Gentiles. Like Origen and Jerome, many in the early church spoke harshly of the Canaanite woman. Meanwhile, the centurion was praised and celebrated. The enmity shared between Iron Age Judeans and the Canaanites continued through the first century, was promulgated in Matthew’s Gospel, and was later adopted by the early church.
Conclusion
The story of the Canaanite woman stands as the only example of Jesus refusing to help someone in the entire Gospel of Matthew. While Jesus does not initiate contact with Gentiles in his Gospel, this aligns with the evangelist’s desire to keep the Mosaic Law and place the focus on the salvation of the Jews during Jesus’s ministry. Neither reason is sufficient justification for Jesus’s rebuke of the Canaanite woman. Therefore, the pericope must exist to clarify the first evangelist’s understanding of the proper Jewish Christian posture toward the Canaanite people. Given the historic animosity between the Jews and the Canaanites, as well as the continued disdain for the people group by later Hellenized Christians, it should not be surprising that Matthew, a Jewish follower of Jesus, held a lower view of the Canaanites than of the Gentiles in general.
A resident of Phoenician Syria. The Phoenicians resided in the southern portion of the province of Syria in the first century, which contained the cities of Tyre and Sidon.
Translations of biblical passages are the author’s. Similar statements regarding food being thrown to dogs are found in Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.19: “He reminded him of dogs who pick up and eat the fragments which fall from a feast” and Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 3.96f–97a: “It is the custom to throw the remnants to the dogs.”
The term κυνάριον sometimes referred to household dogs as opposed to the ravenous dogs who roamed the streets of first century Palestine. However, the diminutive use of κύων occasionally did not change its meaning at all. For an overview of the usage of κυνάριον in early Christian and Greek sources, see Frederick Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 575.
Walter Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ion: A Study in Semantics (Weimar: Forgotten Books, 1910), 201–3.
For example, κυναρίοις is taken as a term of endearment and best understood as “puppies” in Eugene M. Boring, The Gospel of Matthew (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 336. But it is interpreted as an insult in Kara J Lyons-Pardue, “A Syrophoenician Becomes a Canaanite: Jesus Exegetes the Canaanite Woman in Matthew,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 13, no. 2 (2019): 239–43 and Francis Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 342–3. In my estimation, even if the Syrophoenician woman is being equated with a “puppy,” it would not necessarily absolve the situation of ethnic superiority.
Grk Ἑλληνίς (“Greek”).
For example, Mark 1:32–34, 2:1–12, and 8:22–26.
I will continue to use “Mark” and “Matthew” as shorthand for the authors of the canonical Gospels without implying their traditional authorship. The concept that the gospel went first to the Jews is found in the text of Mark in 7:27.
Since literary dependence among the Synoptics is certain, Mark’s limited unique material, along with apparent Matthean and Lukan additions, provides evidence that both Matthew and Luke used Mark’s account as their primary source. Editorial fatigue, Mark as the “middle term,” and “harder readings” also contribute to the almost consensus among critical scholars that Mark was the first Synoptic Gospel written. For a classic defense of Markan priority, see Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Trowbridge: Cromwell Press, 2001), 56–83.
W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991–97), II, 544.
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC; 2 vols; Dallas: Word Books, 1993), I, 441.
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 338.
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, eds. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 253–4.
Num. 21:1, 21:3, 33:40; Ezra 9:1.
Gen. 46:10; 1 Chr. 2:3; Isa. 19:18; Zech. 11:7.
A similar word, Κανανίτης, is used in Mark 3:18 and Matt. 10:4. It is often translated as “Canaanite,” “Cananaean,” or “Zealot.”
Outside of these two instances, the Hebrew term “Canaanite” appears 18 times in Exodus and Joshua combined and is always translated into a form of Χαναναῖος in the LXX. The change to Φοινίσσης in Exodus 6:15 is likely intended to rid the tribe of Simeon, and therefore, the Judean lineage, of Canaanite blood. However, this proposition is tentative as its parallel text, Gen 46:10, uses Χανανίτιδος instead of Φοινίσσης in the LXX. It seems that Joshua 5:1 uses the term Φοινίκης as it refers to the kings on the coastline; “Phoenicia” would have been a more precise designation than “Canaan” for the inhabitants of the coast.
See Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, II, 558–9, where the authors argue that an early reader of the Gospel of Matthew would have been appalled with the term “Canaanite” in light of the stereotypes associated with the people group among Jews.
The word “nations” is in quotes as the Canaanites in the Iron Age would not have identified themselves as a unified nation. Rather, they existed as distinct tribes who simultaneously occupied the land of Canaan.
See Gerd Theissen, “Lokal-und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönischen Frau (Mk 7:24–30),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75.3–4 (1984): 214–21 for a discussion of the social tensions between the Jews and the inhabitants of Tyre.
For extended discussions regarding Matthew’s ancestry and the Matthean community, see John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 15–25 and Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, I, 7–58.
Also noted in Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, I, 26. See Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) for an analysis of Matthew’s typological agenda.
I am indebted to Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, I, 33, 58 on this point.
Craig Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, eds. Gregory Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1. Blomberg states that of the approximate 120 direct quotations of the Hebrew Bible in the Gospels, 55 come from Matthew.
Rom. 14:2–3.
A position defended by Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 310.
Argued in Alan H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, reprint 1980), 230. This interpretation is in opposition to the belief that ἐξελθοῦσα refers to her home.
Amy-Jill Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Social History (Studies in the Bible & Early Christianity) (Lewiston: Edward Mellen Press, 1988), 131. This corresponds with Matthew’s concern for Jesus to keep the Law of Moses.
Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus are such examples.
As expressed in Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Cary: Oxford University Press, 1996), 63.
David Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” New Testament Studies 57, no. 2 (April 2011): 178–81. See also Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), 48, which states that 97% of Mark is in Matthew.
Other texts which link the two cities include: Jer. 27:3, 47:4; Ezek. 27:8; Zech. 9:2–4.
The two cities are considered righteous for various reasons in Josh. 11:8, 19:28–29; Judg. 18:7; 1 Kings 17; Ps. 86:4–6. Additional texts that discuss their wickedness are: 1 Kings 16:31 and Isa. 23:11–17.
Glenna S. Jackson, Have Mercy on Me: The Story of the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21–28 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 44.
One example is that of Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 15.2.
Rom. 1:16.
For one of many clear examples, see Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 8:12–13.
As per Matt. 10:5–6 and 28:19–20, mentioned above.
Mark 7:27.
Again, I am not arguing that Matthew saw the Canaanite people as unworthy of the Kingdom of God, but that their inclusion could not have been the intent of the passage given the evangelist’s repeated condemnation of the woman’s ethnic identity.
The entire Gospel of Matthew should not be interpreted within the dynamic of “good Gentiles” and “bad Jews,” as cautioned by Amy-Jill Levine in “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?” in Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, eds. Paula Frederickson and Adele Reinhartz (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 90. However, the evangelist is not afraid to portray the Gentiles, on occasion, as more faithful than certain Jewish characters.
While several Gentiles are mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, they do not interact with Jesus or the disciples in the narrative, so I have excluded them from this discussion. In addition to the implication that the magi traveled from a distant land, their proclamation that Jesus was the “King of the Jews,” accompanied with their ignorance regarding where the Messiah was to be born, strongly suggests that they were not Jewish. See Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, I, 229–30 for a deeper treatment of the magi’s ethnicity.
If, that is, we take Herod the Great, who was of Idumean descent, to be a Jew.
Such as the NRSV, KJV, and NASB.
A view expressed by Peter in Acts 10:28. Texts such as Ezra 9:11–12 and Jubilees 22.16 contributed to the Jewish notion that the Gentiles were “unclean.”
Such as Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 2 and R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 310.
The presence of “Gadarenes,” “Gerasenes,” and “Gergesenes” within the manuscript tradition of this triple tradition passage is puzzling, but the earliest and best manuscripts of Matthew favor “Gadarenes.” It makes much more sense contextually for the story to occur in Gadara, as Gerasa, the favored reading in Mark and Luke, was not near the Sea of Galilee (the narrative implies that the city in question bordered the Sea of Galilee). Matthew hints that the demoniacs were Gentiles by placing the event in Gadara, a Greek city (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.320), and by introducing tombs and swine into the narrative, both of which were considered unclean.
There is only one demoniac in Mark’s account.
Matt. 28:19–20.
Mark 7:27.
Grk “the,” possibly a reappearance of the same centurion from Matt. 8.
Craig Evans, Matthew (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 468.
The bystanders were likely Jewish due to their knowledge of Elijah.
This is also pointed out by Grant LeMarquand, “The Healing of the Blind and Lame in the Temple: David, ‘Canaanites’ and the Reconstruction of Israel in Matthew 21.14,” in One God, One People, One Future: Essays in Honour of N.T. Wright (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 245, who states, “It is not so often noted, however, that Matthew is aware that not all gentiles are the same,” in specific reference to the Canaanites. Jaime Clark-Soles, Women in the Bible (Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020), 23 briefly mentions that the Canaanite woman could be seen as the most wayward of the Gentiles but does not comment on this interpretation’s effectiveness. Additionally, she stops short of questioning where the woman fits within Matthew’s conceptual framework of the Gentiles.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 11.16.
Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 15.22.
Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 8.5–7, 10.