Puppies and Pejoratives: Did Jesus Insult the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7.24-30)?

Abstract

Jesus' response to the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7.27 is sometimes seen as sexist, racist, or abusive. The force of his response depends in part on the diminutive form κυναριον, which is often dismissed as a faded diminutive that lacks true force. But a statistical, semantic, and contextual analysis of the word indicates that it does, in fact, have diminutive force in Mark 7:27. Because of this, the pejorative force found in direct insults employing the word ‘dog’ is lacking in Jesus' response. In addition to failing to recognise the diminutive force of κυναριον, interpreters sometimes assume a social context in which Jews routinely referred to Gentiles as dogs. Finally, the analogy that Jesus makes is often read allegorically, assuming that ‘children’ and ‘dogs’ have direct counterparts in ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’. These assumptions are found to be dubious. The point of Jesus' analogy is about the proper order of events: children eat before the puppies; Jews receive the benefits of his ministry before Gentiles. The Syrophoenician woman outwits Jesus by arguing that the puppies may eat simultaneously with the children. The interpretive upshot is that Jesus' saying is unlikely to be misogynistic or abusive, but simply asserts Jewish priority, a priority that admits of exceptions and change.

Misogynistic, racist, abusive… These words are not often associated with Jesus.¹ But in Mark 7.24–30, Jesus encounters a Syrophoenician woman whose daughter is beset by an unclean spirit, and her plea is initially denied by Jesus with language that many readers find harsh. He defers her request with a proverb that seems to liken the woman and her daughter to dogs. One interpreter bluntly asserts, ‘Jesus’ answer is morally offensive’.² A Jewish scholar, mindful of the history of anti-Semitism in biblical scholarship, asserts that ‘[Jesus’] answer was so brusque and chauvinistic that if any other Jewish teacher of the time had said such a thing, Christians would never have forgiven Judaism for it.’³

The precise rhetorical force of Jesus’ response depends in part on the term κυνάρια, which is translated as ‘dogs’ in many English versions. The word is clearly a diminutive in form, but it is debated whether it should be understood as a true diminutive.⁴ If the diminutive force can be established, it might soften the harshness of Jesus’ words and possibly call for a different interpretation of the passage.⁵ Diminutives, particularly those that describe living things, sometimes express affection and endearment.

On the other hand, many have pointed out that diminutive forms often lose their force over time.⁶ It is said that Koine Greek, in general, and the Gospel of Mark in particular, given its lower literary register, have a fondness for diminutive forms.⁷ In contrast, diminutives were relatively rare in Classical Greek, especially the higher style of epic and tragedy, although more common in the colloquial language of comedy.⁸ So is κυνάρια in Mark 7.27–8 an endearing diminutive, or is it simply a faded form equivalent to the non-diminutive word, κύων, from which it derives?

In fact, the possibilities are fourfold.⁹ (1) The usage in Mark could be a faded diminutive form with no real diminutive force. (2) It might be a diminutive with reference to size/age, i.e., referring to small or young dogs. (3) It might be a diminutive of affection or endearment, what linguists, both ancient and modern, call a hypocorism.¹⁰ Or (4) it could be a derogatory diminutive that demeans the person or thing.¹¹

Recognition of the diminutive force of a word is intuitive to native speakers, but for ancient languages, criteria are needed by which to judge. Relevant considerations include the frequency of the terms, the thing denoted, the distinction between meaning and referent, the usage of the term in a broad array of writers, and, most importantly, the cultural and literary contexts of the specific instance in question. Each of these criteria will now be examined.

1. Frequency of the Terms

Grammarians and linguists recognise that diminutives that are frequently employed tend to lose their diminutive force.¹² Sometimes the diminutive simply overtakes the non-diminutive word and becomes synonymous with it. A good example in biblical Greek is δαιμόνιον, the diminutive of δαίμων. Δαίμων appears only once in the LXX (Isa 65.11) and (Matt 8.31). The diminutive form appears over 80 times in biblical Greek. Δαιμόνιον has clearly usurped the semantic field of δαίμων.¹³

At other times, both the diminutive form and the regular form are well represented. In such cases, the distinction between a true diminutive and a faded diminutive becomes difficult and may even vary from one author to the next. In biblical Greek, the words παῖς and παιδίον are both very common (493 vs. 220 times respectively). The non-diminutive form is far more common in the LXX than in the NT (469 vs. 24 times respectively). (The larger size of the LXX does not account for all of this difference.) The diminutive form is about equally distributed between the LXX and the NT when one takes into account the relative sizes of the two corpora (168 LXX vs. 52 NT). This may reflect a movement toward the replacement of παῖς with παιδίον, but in the NT the diminutive form still seems to be preferred when one wishes to denote an infant or a very young child.¹⁴ Philo, drawing upon Hippocrates, says that παιδίον refers to the first stage of a person's life up to seven years of age. The second phase is denoted by παῖς and demarcates the next seven years up to puberty at age 14 (Opif. 105). This suggests that there was a distinction between the two terms at one point in time. How long and how consistently this distinction was maintained is unclear. Jairus’ daughter, whom Jesus raises from death, is referred to by Mark as a παιδίον but is also described as twelve years of age (Mark 5.39–41). Perhaps it is significant that both Matthew and Luke avoid παιδίον in their versions of the story.¹⁵ Twice Luke substitutes the word παῖς (Luke 8.51, 54). Elsewhere, we see that Luke refers to the 12-year-old Jesus as a παῖς (Luke 2.43). This suggests that Luke (and possibly Matthew) may regard παιδίον as inappropriate for a 12 year old, while Mark seems to be expanding the semantic field of παιδίον at the expense of παῖς.¹⁶

What relevance does the criterion of frequency have for Mark 7.27–8? The regular form of the word ‘dog’ (κύων) occurs 46 times in biblical Greek (LXX 41; NT 5). The two occurrences of κυνάρια found in Mark 7.27–8 and their parallels in Matt 15.26–7 are the only four in biblical Greek. In the Philonic corpus, κύων occurs 16 times; the diminutive κυνάριον never appears.¹⁷ In Josephus, κύων occurs 21 times; the diminutive is absent. These facts alone suggest that the diminutive word has not replaced the regular form. If that were so, we would expect lopsided statistics like those for δαίμων / δαιμόνιον. If κυνάριον were advancing on the semantic territory of κύων, we would at least expect a more even distribution like that of παῖς / παιδίον.¹⁸

2. The Thing Denoted by the Diminutive

Some words, by the very nature of the things that they designate, are more likely to have diminutive forms that retain a diminutive sense. The foremost category here would be living things, both human and animal. Because humans and animals pass through stages of life, diminutives are naturally coined to denote the early stages. A variety of words was needed for animals that were born in households or on farms and grew from newborn to adult size. Hypocoristic words (pet names) are naturally coined for the young of domestic animals. Walter Petersen observes that a diminutive suffix may be an exponent of endearment, expressing affection for the person or pet. ‘The ease with which endearment is associated with small size in the case of a child or pet animal is too familiar in all languages to need illustration.’¹⁹

In Mark 7.27–8, the diminutive form is associated with domestic dogs. These dogs are inside the house, perhaps in v. 27, but explicitly in v. 28.²⁰ They are under the table, a fact that suggests small size and/or young age but certainly indicates their permitted presence in the house. These dogs implicitly eat after the children (v. 27) or may even simultaneously eat small morsels that the children drop or intentionally feed them (v. 28). So the thing designated by the diminutive form and the figurative setting of the words of the Syrophoenician woman are conducive to a genuine diminutive, either of size/age and/or of endearment.

3. The Distinction between Meaning and Referent

Linguists distinguish between meaning, which one finds in a dictionary, and referent, the thing, either in the real world or in the literary world, to which the word points.²¹ Two words that have different meanings may still have the same referent. That does not imply that the two words are synonymous. It means that the referent can be designated by more than one lexeme.

This linguistic distinction has relevance to the question of diminutive words. A small person, animal or thing may be referred to by both a regular word and the corresponding diminutive. This may occur even within the same short context. It does not necessarily mean that the diminutive has lost its force and become synonymous with the regular word. It means that the person, animal or thing belongs to a subset within a larger category and can simultaneously be designated by words that highlight either the subset or the category. Words that refer to the subset are called hyponyms.

In Greek, a puppy can be referred to as either a κύων or by the hyponym κυνάριον since puppies are a subset of the larger category of ‘dog’. That does not mean that κυνάριον has lost its diminutive force. In simple terms, puppies are still dogs; κυνάρια are still κύνɛς. One will occasionally find scholars who observe that a word and its diminutive form are used of the same referent in the same paragraph and then suggest this indicates that the diminutive has faded. While this may be case, it is not necessarily so.

Mark 7.24–30 contains a good example of this phenomenon of two words (one regular, one diminutive) having the same referent. The Syrophoenician woman has a daughter who is designated by both the standard term θυγάτηρ (vv. 26, 29) and the diminutive form θυγάτριον (v. 25). We learn at the outset that the daughter is little. Thereafter she can be referred to simply as a daughter. This does not indicate that θυγάτριον has lost its diminutive force. The girl is both. She is the female offspring of the woman, and she is the young female offspring of the woman.

A similar collocation of these words occurs in Josephus' account of the assassination of the Emperor Gaius Caligula. Josephus refers to Julia Drusilla, the offspring of Caligula and Milonia Caesonia, as their daughter (θυγάτηρ) in Ant. 19.195. Just a few paragraphs later, he speaks of Drusilla as their ‘little daughter’ (θυγάτριον, Ant. 19.200). The Emperor, his wife Milonia, and their daughter Drusilla were all killed on the same day. We know from other sources that Drusilla was an infant at the time.²² The use of the diminutive in the summation of Josephus' account is intentional. As Petersen notes, sometimes a diminutive ‘results from pity, from the desire to console’.²³ The age of Drusilla, her innocence and the pathos of the scene all call for the use of the diminutive.

It remains the case that there will be instances in which the precise meaning of diminutive forms will be unclear. A biblical example would be the words for ‘boat/small boat’ (πλοῖον / πλοιάριον). The regular term occurs 109 times in biblical Greek (LXX, 42; NT, 67). The diminutive form occurs only in the NT and only five times. These statistics initially suggest that the diminutive may be deliberately chosen, but the NT data are perplexing. The context of the diminutive form in Mark 3.9 is virtually identical to that of the regular word in Mark 4.1: Jesus embarks in a boat/small boat in order to address a crowd seated beside the lake. One could argue that a small boat (πλοιάριον) is still a boat (πλοῖον), and so the diminutive is genuine. But in this case, other NT uses muddy the water. A πλοῖον in John 21.3, 6 becomes a πλοιάριον in John 21.8. The Johannine story of Jesus walking on the water and its aftermath similarly fluctuate between the regular word (John 6.17, 19, 21, 22, 23) and the diminutive form (John 6.22, 23, 24). In the case of John 6.23, the manuscripts are divided between the two words. (The same textual variation occurs in Luke 5.2.) It was undoubtedly the case that in the Sea of Galilee, all boats were small in comparison to large merchant vessels that plied the Mediterranean.²⁴ (It may be significant that all five occurrences of πλοιάριον in the NT are found in the Gospels. Πλοῖον is used consistently of Paul's Mediterranean journey in Acts 27.) So the case of πλοῖον / πλοιάριον is hard to decide. One might argue that πλοιάριον is a faded diminutive, but the NT evidence is not conclusive.²⁵

What relevance does this criterion have to the specific question of dog vs. puppy in Mark 7.27–8, since this passage does not use both κυνάρια and κύνɛς? It is relevant in that one cannot appeal to other texts that use both terms to designate the same animals and thereby conclude that the diminutive has faded. In this way, attention to the distinction between meaning and referent may not positively identify true diminutives, but it may prevent us from dismissing a true diminutive based on the occurrence nearby of the corresponding regular word.

4. The Usage of the Diminutive Form in a Range of Authors

An important criterion in determining the meaning of any word is a survey of the word's usage in a variety of contexts. How do authors use κυνάριον? Does it seem to have true diminutive force or has it faded? This is not a matter of playing the odds, as if a word in a given context must mean what the word usually means. But usage reveals a word's range of meanings and may provide guidance in discerning its meaning in a given context. The massive database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae contains 263 instances of κυνάριον.²⁶ Only a small number of these are pre-Christian. The overwhelming majority of post-first-century examples are found in Christian writers who are commenting on the Gospel texts. Here, I will survey a few examples that antedate or are roughly contemporary with the Gospel of Mark.

4.1 Aesop preserves a fable (#346 ‘The Blacksmith and the Puppy’, χαλκɛὺς καὶ κυνάριον) that is somewhat similar to the Gospel story.²⁷ A little dog (κυνάριον), clearly an indoor pet, sleeps while his master, the blacksmith, is working, but wakes and expects food when the blacksmith pauses for a meal. There are multiple versions and textual variants for this parable. Sometimes, another diminutive word, κυνίδιον, is used instead of κυνάριον. The blacksmith throws the dog a bone and chides him as, ‘You miserable, sleepy pup!’ (Ὦ ταλαίπωρον κυνάριον ὑπνῶδɛς) The banter may be playful but obviously acquires a derogatory tone from the accompanying adjectives.

4.2 In the Platonic dialogue Euthydemus (298 D), Euthydemus claims that his father is the father of all living things. Ctesiphon challenges him and asks if Euthydemus is the brother of puppies and piglets (diminutive words in both cases). When Euthydemus responds in the affirmative, Ctesiphon infers, ‘Then your father is a boar and a dog (using the words that designate the grown animals).’²⁸

4.3. In Xenophon's Cyropedia 8.4.20, Cyrus is advising Chrysantas regarding the kind of woman that would be a suitable wife for him. Cyrus says, ‘In the first place, she must be short; for you, yourself are short. And if you marry a tall woman and wish to kiss her when she is standing upright, you will have to jump up for it, as puppies do (κυνάρια).’ The point of Cyrus’ humour obviously depends on the diminutive size of the dogs.

4.4 The Cyranides is a compilation of magical texts from the first or second centuries ce. In a discussion of the healing powers of various animals, there is a section (2.20) entitled ‘Concerning a small dog’ (Πɛρὶ κυνὸς μικροῦ). The text begins, ‘That which we call a κυνάριον is a dog (κύων) that is small, newly born, still nursing.’²⁹ The diminutive sense of the word is clear, as is the fact that a κυνάριον can be referred to as a κύων.

4.5 Plutarch (Aratus 7.3) is a text that requires special comment because the standard lexicon cites it as an example of how κυνάριον is ‘used with no diminutive force at all’.³⁰ When carefully examined in context, this claim is seen to be mistaken.³¹ In the larger context (5.3–8.1), Aratus sent a reconnaissance team to determine the vulnerability of an enemy's fortified post. The report came back that the wall was scalable, but a certain gardener's dogs (κυνάρια) made it hard to enter the grounds undetected for, although the dogs were small (μικρῶν), they were ‘very aggressive and unmanageable’ (ἐκτόπως…μαχίμων καὶ ἀπαρηγορήτων). Aratus decided to proceed with the attack. A scout failed to secure the dogs (κυνάρια, 7.3) in advance of their arrival, and Aratus had to promise his men that they would retreat if the dogs (κύνɛς, 7.3) became too troublesome. Presumably, the editors of BDAG first read κυνάρια and then κύνɛς referring to the same animals in two consecutive sentences and concluded that the former had lost its diminutive sense. But the previous description of these dogs as small rules out that possibility. Moreover, in 8.1 Aratus’ men encounter a watchdog at a tower that is described as a ‘large hound’ (κύων μέγας) that was roused to action by the noise of the small dogs (κυνάρια) and thereby supplies an implicit contrast. So, in this case, κυνάρια remains a diminutive of size, though not in an endearing sense. The pack of small dogs can be described as either κυνάρια or κύνɛς, although the large hound in 8.1 can only be described as a κύων.

4.6 A final example actually gathers up a number of ancient references. Maltese dogs were popular in antiquity and are mentioned frequently in the literature.³² The adjective ‘Maltese’ (Μɛλιταῖος) occurs a few times with κυνάριον (e.g., Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.16; Ptolemaeus VIII Euergetes, Frag. 8; Theophrastus, Char. 21.9) and even more often with another diminutive form, κυνίδιον (e.g., Plutarch, Tranq. an. 472C; Lucian, Symp. 19; Philops. 27; Strabo 6.2.11; Philo, Praem. 1.89). Rarely, if ever, does the adjective modify the non-diminutive form κύων. Even if examples of the latter could be adduced, it would not disprove the diminutive force of κυνάριον since Maltese miniature dogs are still dogs.³³

Before moving on to the final criterion, I must comment on the alternative diminutive form that was mentioned above in 4.1 and 4.6, namely, κυνίδιον. The literature on Mark 7.27–8 sometimes points out that Phrynichus, a second-century grammarian, asserted that κυνίδιον was to be used rather than κυνάριον. He tersely advises, ‘Say κυνίδιον. But Theopompus, the comic poet, somewhere once said κυνάριον.’³⁴ But this is by no means a denial of the diminutive force of κυνάριον. Phrynichus was simply asserting that κυνίδιον was, in his opinion, the more proper Attic form.³⁵ Moreover, Phrynichus’ testimony is divided against itself. In another work, he is quoted as saying that both κυνίδιον and κυνάριον are accepted (δόκιμα).³⁶ Another ancient lexical authority agrees with the latter quote and asserts that ‘κυνάριον, not only κυνίδιον [is correct], so Alcaeus, the comic poet’.³⁷ It is clear that κυνίδιον was understood as a diminutive. This strengthens the case for κυνάριον. If Greek distinguished between the regular form ‘dog’ and a diminutive form, there could easily be more than one diminutive form. Some modern languages also have more than one diminutive: Spanish, perrillo and perrito, and German, Hündlein or Hündchen.

The relevance of this brief survey for our consideration of Mark 7.27–8 is clear. The diminutive force of κυνάριον was recognised in the classical era (Plato, Xenophon) and persisted into the Hellenistic age (the Cyranides, Plutarch, etc.). The existence of a second diminutive form, κυνίδιον, only confirms the need for such a term. This usage in ancient Greek writers does not prove the diminutive meaning in Mark 7.27–8, but it creates the possibility that the word has this force in Jesus’ saying unless contextual clues indicate otherwise.

5. The Context(s) of Mark 7.27–8

Before turning to the immediate literary context, the broader cultural context must be noted. In Jewish literature, dogs were often spoken of disparagingly. ‘While in the West the dog has regularly been regarded as a symbol of faithfulness and “man's best friend”… such was not the case in the Old Testament.’³⁸ Dogs were often regarded as scavengers, eating blood, carrion and corpses (Exod 22.31; 1 Kgs 16.4; 21.19; 21.23; 2 Kgs 9.10; Jer 15.3; Matt 7.6; Luke 16.21). They were usually thought of as wild predators (Ps 22.16; Ps 59.6, 14). ‘Dog’ became a generalised pejorative for someone who was insignificant or contemptible (1 Sam 17.43; 24.14; 2 Sam 9.8; 16.19; 2 Kgs 8.13; Prov 26.11; Phil 3.2; 2 Peter 2.22; Rev 22.15).³⁹ There are, however, positive references to dogs in Jewish literature. They are occasionally mentioned as pets or service animals.⁴⁰ Ulrich Luz sums it up well: ‘House dogs were as widespread and beloved at all social levels in antiquity as at any other time… . Nor was there in Judaism a special hostility to dogs, although there was an obvious fear of the numerous stray dogs. …it was taken for granted that people fed house dogs with table scraps.’⁴¹

Greco-Roman culture provides a greater number of positive images. From the earliest times, dogs were used for hunting and guarding livestock. More importantly, for our purposes, they were kept as pets, often inside the house, as is well attested by literary sources, vase paintings, and gravestones.⁴²

What clues, if any, can be found in the immediate literary context to shed light on the force of κυνάρια? As I have already noted, these κυνάρια are inside the house and under the table. The dogs are either eating after the children (v. 27) or simultaneously with the children (v. 28). Adela Yarbro Collins opines that κυνάρια in Mark 7.27 ‘probably refers to the scavenging dogs of the street’.⁴³ While one might with difficulty infer that from Jesus’ remark in v. 27, it becomes impossible in the woman's response in v. 28. Moreover, if the Markan Jesus had meant scavenging street dogs in v. 27, it is hard to explain why he would not have used κύνɛς.⁴⁴

The preceding discourse in Mark 7 is also quite telling.⁴⁵ Jesus is portrayed as rejecting the notion that eating unclean foods defiles a person. The evangelist, in a parenthetical comment, interprets this as Jesus’ declaration that all foods are clean (v. 19). If eating something unclean does not defile, then a fortiori, coming into close proximity to something unclean is not defiling. The juxtaposition of the discourse on foods with the encounter with the Syrophoenician woman weighs against the possibility that Jesus is calling the woman an unclean, defiling presence. The diminutive force of κυνάρια accords with this interpretation.

The five criteria discussed above offer principles for evaluating the force of diminutive forms. It is not enough to say that Hellenistic writers used diminutives frequently and, therefore, they have lost their diminutive force. The observation is true, but such a sweeping conclusion is not warranted. To say that Mark 7.24–30 contains several diminutive forms and, therefore, they must have faded, is a non-sequitur.⁴⁶ Writers are quite capable of discourse that includes numerous diminutive forms, some of which are faded, while others retain their diminutive force. Native speakers of the language easily distinguish between the two.⁴⁷

6. Results of This Study: Diminutive Force and Function

The primary result of this study is that κυνάριον in Mark 7.27–8 has diminutive force and should be translated with a diminutive expression: ‘little dogs’ or ‘puppies’.⁴⁸ Although English readers are familiar with the translation ‘dogs’ in standard versions like the NRSV and the NIV, there are, in fact, dozens of translations in modern languages that render the term with a diminutive. A second and more difficult question is the precise function of the diminutive. I mentioned above that a true diminutive, i.e., not a faded one, may refer to size or age. It may express affection or derogation. As household pets, the κυνάρια of Mark 7.27–8 are small and probably young. Whether the diminutive expresses affection, i.e., is hypocoristic, is difficult to determine. The dogs’ location (in the house under the table) allows for this. The literary context in Mark 7 (purity vs. defilement, ministry in the Decapolis) favours a neutral or positive connotation. The cultural context (Jewish perspectives on dogs) is complex but is by no means as uniformly negative as is often assumed. The use of κυνάριον in Aesop (4.1 above) was derogative, but this function derived from the accompanying adjective and was not inherent in the word.⁴⁹ There are no such indicators in Mark 7.27–8 that κυνάριον should be taken pejoratively.

The more important question is how this contributes to the interpretation of the passage.⁵⁰ If κυνάριον in Mark 7.27–8 is diminutive in force, it softens the harshness of the metaphor.⁵¹ Some interpreters would argue that there is still an implicit and unfavourable comparison between children and puppies, but it is not a harsh repudiation of the woman as a scavenging street dog.⁵² Stefan Schreiber accurately describes the significance of the diminutive: ‘It evokes the image of the dog, but it significantly mitigates the disparagement in that it speaks of small housedogs that are not perceived as foreign and hostile but as members of the household. The element of savageness is eliminated in favour of belonging and familiarity. …The diminutive possesses semantic force. It denotes, in contrast to the wild street dog or fierce watchdog, a housedog or even a lapdog.’⁵³

Unlike Paul's vituperative language in Phil 3.2, the Markan Jesus does not actually call the woman a dog. He uses an analogy that contains an animal metaphor.⁵⁴ Analogies usually imply one point of comparison, but they should not be expanded into allegories with multiple point-for-point correspondences. When Paul says that ‘day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night’, he is comparing the suddenness and unexpectedness of two events. He is not calling Jesus a burglar. When Paul quotes the injunction of Deut 25.4 about not muzzling the ox while it is treading out the grain, and analogises it to the right of apostles to be compensated, he is not calling apostles oxen.⁵⁵ And when Jesus likens the healing of the woman's daughter to the feeding of children and puppies, he does not necessarily imply a correspondence between Gentiles and dogs.

Too often, this saying of Jesus has been read against the backdrop of a supposed Jewish habit of routinely characterising Gentiles as dogs. But the evidence for this often alleged claim is meagre and only found in later rabbinical sources if at all.⁵⁶ What the Markan Jesus is doing is deprioritising Gentiles in terms of the focus of his ministry. At this point in the Gospel narrative, Gentiles do have a lower priority in Jesus’ ministry.⁵⁷ But the exchange between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman is a matter of duelling proverbs (a duel which the woman wins), rather than an ethnic slur followed by grovelling self-abasement.⁵⁸ The point is the chronological order of two events (the Jewish mission vs. the Gentile mission), not the hierarchical order of two different kinds of mammals (humans vs. dogs).⁵⁹

Some readers will, of course, find the prioritisation of the Jews offensive enough, but it accords with the view held by Jesus and early Christians regarding Israel.⁶⁰ That priority is explicit in the Matthean parallel (Matt 15.24; cf. 10.6) and in Paul's letters.⁶¹ But there is a counterpart to the priority of Israel, and that is the fact that a categorical rejection of the Gentile mission is not to be found in the NT.⁶² Jesus’ response to the Syrophoenician woman is more of an ad hoc refusal of her request than a blanket rejection of the Gentile mission. In fact, in Mark's account, it is more of a deferral than a refusal. He insists that the children be fed first.⁶³ There is no indication about when the little dogs are to be fed, so the deferral might seem indefinite when Jesus speaks it.⁶⁴ But because of the woman's shrewd rejoinder, the deferral of her request was short-lived.

Finally, the suggestion is sometimes found in the literature that Jesus is making a sexist remark, using a pejorative that likens the woman to a female dog. It is true that this is an ancient slur, not one originating in modern times.⁶⁵ But to attribute this meaning to Jesus runs aground on several points. First, κυνάριον is neuter, suggesting that the gender of the puppies is irrelevant. The language could have explicitly targeted the woman and her gender by using the noun ‘dog’ marked with a feminine article: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβɛῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῇ κυνὶ (or ταῖς κυσὶν) βαλɛῖν. Second, the diminutive force for which I argue also undercuts the sexist interpretation. T. Alec Burkill's comment that ‘to call a woman “a little bitch” is no less abusive than to call her a “bitch” without qualification’ is sensationalistic.⁶⁶ More importantly, it begs the question that Jesus’ words are sexist to begin with. Third, the woman does not respond to Jesus’ statement as if it were a sexist insult. Her demurral addresses the issue of timing: the puppies can eat at the same time as the children by retrieving their crumbs. Finally, Jesus is portrayed elsewhere in Mark as responding to women in need, not insulting them (e.g., Mark 1.29–31; 5.21–43).⁶⁷

The point of Jesus’ analogy is one of proper sequence: the children eat first, then the puppies. Likewise, there is a proper sequence in Jesus’ mission. But the Syrophoenician woman objects: the puppies may eat simultaneously. This objection portrays the woman as resourceful and shrewd rather than portraying Jesus as racist or sexist. By winning the battle of wits, she gains healing for her daughter and indirectly advances the cause of all Gentile supplicants.