Published on 16 Feb 2016
Speakers Corner Hyde Park London: Muslim vs Christian Debate, was Jesus a racist? what was the purpose of Jesus’s mission, Jesus in the Quran, Jesus and the Canaanite woman, did Jesus call a woman a dog? Is that equivalent of calling a black woman a nigger?
Categories: Bible, Speakers Corner
Blogging Theology 
I just want to point out that we can’t determine if Jesus is racist by one verse. We have to look all of his engagements with the gentiles. At many times, Jesus pointed to the faithfulness of gentiles and contrasted it to the faithlessness of the Jews. A good example is Matthew 8:5-10.
LikeLike
Allan, that is true, but that is precisely why that verse cannot possibly be authentic since it contradicts other verses. Its a well known fact that the Gospels frequently contradict each other.
The offensive nature of the dog verse explains why the author of the Gospel of Luke did not include it in his gospel. His audience was primarily made up of non-Jews.
LikeLike
Hello Faiz, thanks for your input. Regarding the verse I supplied, I didn’t say it contradicted Matthew 15. I meant to say that Matthew 15(guess I didn’t say it, sorry) was ambiguous and we have to look at other verses like Matthew 8. Remember, Jesus is using a metaphor. He refers to his help as crumbs and her as a dog? Is this negative? Maybe yes, maybe not. If you or me called a woman a dog, it would be an insult, no doubt. But we live in the 21st Century Western World. Maybe it wasn’t an insult in the second temple period in palestine. After all he referred to his helping her as the “bread of the children”(DRV). Is Jesus’ power to do miracles compared to bread. I guess so. All I’m saying is that its ambiguous. Since it’s ambiguous we have to interpret it with other passages like Matthew 8. You say its a contradiction but I disagree. It’s using clear statements to interpret ambiguity. Whether we read the Bible or the Quran, we have to use this method.
You said:
The offensive nature of the dog verse explains why the author of the Gospel of Luke did not include it in his gospel. His audience was primarily made up of non-Jews.
This is based on huge assumptions. You can make it if you like but I’m not going to. After all, I have never talked to Luke or know what he had in front of him when writing the gospel. We don’t even know the order that the gospels were written in. We have theories but they’re just that.
Anyways, thanks for your input and God Bless.
LikeLike
Hi Allan. From the usage of the word “dog” in both the Old and New Testament, it seems pretty clear that to refer to a person like that was meant to infer a feeling of inferiority. For example, see Matthew 7:6:
““Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
From this, it is clear that a dog was considered a pretty lowly animal. Thus, to refer to a person that way would be a clear insult.
Regarding the absence of the story in Luke’s Gospel, I don’t think its an assumption at all. Scholars have recognized that Jesus’ use of the word “dog” was a reference to Gentiles, and that it was indeed an insult. For example, Stephen G. Wilson states:
“…Jesus’ refusal [to help the woman] is harsh, since the term ‘dog’ was an insult” (“The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts”, p. 11).
Wilson does state that there is uncertainty if “Luke” even knew of the passage, but if he did, he acknowledges that the reason for omitting it was “understandable”. He writes:
“If we assume, for the sake of argument, that they were in Q and that Luke knew of them [Matt. 10:5b-6, 15:24), then their omission is understandable” (p. 50).
True, these are “theories”, but it is almost certain that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew. In fact, no scholar (whether conservative or liberal) thinks that Luke may have been written before Mark or Matthew.
Thanks for your input.
LikeLike
Hello again,
I would say that even the verse you quoted isn’t a slam dunk that dog is pejorative. Don’t give the dogs what is sacred or else: “If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
I would say that it doesn’t refer to them as being bad but not necessarily ready or prepared to receive something good and may have bad consequences if it did. I would say that a Bible should not have been giving to Martin Luther because it has disastrous consequences like him cooking up doctrines like sola fide and others. It doesn’t mean that the Bible was bad or Luther was a bad person. That’s just my view on the subject.
It could be pejorative but I’m saying its not as clear as one would seem.
Regarding the chronology and speculating of what sources Luke had, like I said, it doesn’t bother me if others do it but I won’t do it myself. Just a personal thing.
God Bless,
LikeLike
Was Jesus cruel to the Canaanite woman?
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/was-jesus-cruel-to-the-canaanite-woman-mark-724-30-matthew-1521-28/
LikeLike
yes she was…
LikeLike
Allan Ruhl
You said;
the chronology and speculating of what sources Luke had, like I said, it doesn’t bother me if others do it but I won’t do it myself. Just a personal thing.
God Bless,
I say;
It is not about others doing it but is fact. When one reads the gospels, Jesus person keeps changing from gospel to gospel not only on this instance of calling a woman dog but so many instances like the death on the cross, resurrection etc.
Most NT scholars whether conservatives or liberals admit this. And even if they do not admit it, reading the gospels will reveal to the reader that Jesus person is being elevated by the later gospels. Have watched the post where Bart Ehrman had dialog with Michael Bird?
If that is the pattern, then Luke appears to have dropped the “dog” part of the story to elevated Jesus Christ because that was the pattern.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hello,
This is 100% speculation. It may be educated but I don’t want to go there. I’m just saying they’re first century documents, no more. You speak about “later gospels”. Yes, scholarship has a particular order for the writing of the gospels but when you ask important questions, it all boils down to educated guesses. Regarding Luke removing the dog portion, scholars often stress that we don’t know who the authors are of the gospels since they don’t contain names. That is true. We don’t know who it is yet we’re going to climb into his head and hypothesize what source material he has on his desk and why he’s adding this verse and excluding another. I just can’t bring myself to do that. Regardless, if one wants to do it, I don’t have a problem with it. After all, its very popular in academic circles.
I have not watched the Ehrman vs Bird debate but I have read 14 of Ehrman’s books so I have a pretty good idea where he stands on these issues.
God Bless,
LikeLike
ostrich-like syndrome
LikeLike
I wrote two blog posts attacking modern liberal scholarship. If you want, you can have a look.
http://allanruhl.com/scripture-study-no-liberals-allowed/
http://allanruhl.com/dating-the-gospels-refuting-the-liberals/
LikeLike
Allan Ruhl
You said;
Regarding Luke removing the dog” portion, scholars often stress that we don’t know who the authors are of the gospels since they don’t contain names. That is true. We don’t know who it is yet we’re going to climb into his head and hypothesize what source material he has on his desk and why he’s adding this verse and excluding another.
I say;
When scholars apart from highly believers in Christianity says “Mark”, “Luke”, “John” etc. they do not mean saint Mark or any original disciples of Jesus are the ones writing the gospels as some Christians believed.
When the NT scholars says “Mark” for instance, they mean the “writer of Mark” but not Mark himself writing Mark and you agreed no one knows the authors of the gospels, so, Luke did not write Luke but scholars just use “Luke” to refer to the writer of Luke but not Luke himself as some Christians might believe.
In conclusion, the pattern of elevating Jesus remains regardless of the writers of the gospels. It is something visible by the reader and scholars of NT acknowledges that. It is not only one instance, but many instances to prompt questions.
Adding and excluding verse is evident when the reader, reads other gospels especially one gospel has Jesus crying for help from his God but another gospel has Jesus accepting the death on the cross. The pattern shows, who the writer of Luke is or “Luke” as some scholars may say is deleting a crucial information to elevate Jesus just like in the other Gospels.
If dogs are good, why did Jesus not call himself dog? or call Jews dogs? or call his disciples dogs? The writer of Luke might have realized that and omitted the “dog” to elevate the person of Jesus as the pattern goes in the whole NT
Thanks.
LikeLike
Allan Ruhl,
having read your article on so-called ‘liberal scholarship’ it appears you have no understanding of the historical critical method and how it can offers students profound insights into the nature of the gospels. I have benefited greatly from critical works, as produced by scholars of all persuasions.
Retreating into fundamentalism is no longer a viable option I’m afraid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allan Ruhl
you complain:
‘In the modern era, many people…have been led astray by liberal scholars such as Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer and others. It is very important for every Catholic to reject these men and their heretical scholarship.’
You write of how, ‘Brown and Fitzmyer had spread their filth.’
I am willing to bet that you have not read a single book by Rev Professor Brown or Rev Professor Fitzmyer. Catholic fundamentalists rarely read outside of their comfort zone.
I had the privilege of meeting with Brown for 20 minutes before he gave us a lecture at the University of Oxford. It was a wonderful occasion.
Much of Brown’s work was given a Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur – the “nihil obstat” is a statement by an official reviewer, appointed by a bishop, that “nothing stands in the way” of a book being given an imprimatur; the “imprimatur,” which must normally be issued by a bishop of the diocese of publication, is the official endorsement — “let it be printed” — that a book contains nothing damaging to Catholic faith and morals.
Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI was personally complimentary of Brown and his scholarship, and has said that he “would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown”.
Saint Pope John Paul II personally appointed Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
I suggest Allan Ruhl that you are out of touch with even the most conservative popes in their positive appreciation of a great Catholic New Testament scholar and priest.
source
LikeLike
Hello Mr. Williams, I responded to your blog posts on my blog so I’ll just link to them.
http://allanruhl.com/scripture-study-no-liberals-allowed/#comment-114
http://allanruhl.com/dating-the-gospels-refuting-the-liberals/#comment-113
The books
http://allanruhl.com/photos/
God Bless
LikeLike