Dan McClellan has this to say about the story of the Gentile woman who asked Jesus to heal her daughter...
Overall, I don't have much of an issue with McClellan's fairly standard interpretation of the text.
What puts me off looking at more of his stuff is he clouds as much as he clarifies:
1:51 "Gospel of Mark ... might be representing Jesus as talking about taking the food that belongs to the children and throwing it out into the street to the dogs that roam the streets ...
2:22 "However we perceive it though the notion that because the Greek word for dog is diminutive it is a loving reference to a family pet, or something like that, is not really supported by the data.
In the Koine Greek of this time period the diminutive was used most commonly to refer generically to dogs and usually to the dogs out in the street, rather than the pets that might be in someone's household, a part of one's household, loved by the household, so the argument that the diminutive means Jesus is talking about a loved member of the household doesn't really work ..."
McClellan makes this point, but does not offer any evidence, nor any sufficient reason why we should accept his claim about 'data', without any reference to what data he is referring to.
So I look at the verses in my DBH translation (Mark 7 and Matthew 15), and Hart translates the term as 'puppy' and explains the diminutive as 'little dog' or 'puppy'.
Looking a but further, I found Larry Hurtado's Blog. I know of Hurtado, but he's not a go-to reference for me. However ...
Dogs, Doggies, and Exegesis – October 11, 2012
"I’ve intended to comment on what appears to me a surprisingly widespread mis-reading of the passage. Essentially, the “dogs” (who Jesus says here must wait till after the “children” have eaten before they can be fed) are taken with an extremely pejorative connotation as feral mongrels, and the scene is read as if Jesus is pictured insulting the woman and treating her with contempt."
"The term used here is κυναριον, not the more common term, κυων ('dog')... the latter term is often used in sentences that give it a clear pejorative sense (Matt 7:6; Philip 3:2; Rev 22:15). But κυναριον is never to my knowledge used in such a sentence. Instead, all uses are in sentences that rather clearly refer to household pets.
"A check of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows further that in wider Greek usage it and the other diminutive form appear always and only in statements about family pets or household dogs: e.g., Philo, Spec.Leg. 4.91, (c41-50AD) referring to household dogs (κυνιδιων) hanging around banqueting tables looking for scraps dropped to them, and Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, (c200AD) Vol. 2,2 p. 78, line 19, referring to “Maltese lapdogs” (κυναρια Μελιταια), here also in a setting of dining.
"Moreover, the dated-but-valuable lexicon drawing precisely on colloquial usage illustrated in papyri and other non-literary souces, J. H. Mouton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (1930), p. 364, translates several non-biblical uses of κυναριον and κυνιδιον as “lapdogs”.
So, in point of fact, it looks like Otto Michel’s little entry on κυναριον in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:1104, is correct after all in judging that the choice of κυναριον in the Markan passage pictures Jesus as referring to “little dogs which could be tolerated in the house,” not wild scavengers in the street.
I repeat: A search of references to the diminutive forms in the TLG gives no instance of usage to refer to “wild” dogs or street “scavengers”. So, it looks like the use of the term in the Gospel scene was deliberate, a choice, of a “marked” term (in linguistics parlance), intended to connote household pets, not the “unmarked” term κυων."
So McClellan's claim
is not supported by the data as far as my brief search has shown.
+++
His 'qualified racism' through the 3.00-4.00 minute mark is reason enough to keep the volume low so my wife doesn't overhear – he'd get a sharp and well-deserved rebuke from her!
+++
Finally this
4:22 an unusual and in many ways a troubling and problematic story. I don't think it is as bad as some folks make it out to be but it certainly cannot be rehabilitated by suggesting that Jesus is referring to the Syrophoenician woman as a dog who happens to be loved by the household"
There may well be some ignorant commentaries that do that, but they're wrong, but McClellan's exegesis is little better ...
+++
The second video makes some good points, but is just too schlocky for my taste ... sorry!
+++
Read in context with the parallel in Matthew 15, I take this:
Jesus leaves Israel and seeks anonymity in nearby, but a woman who knows His reputation seeks Him out to heal her daughter. She begs, not just once but is insistent (as the Greek explicitly implies). In Mark, she's come into the house in which Jesus was resting. In Matthew the disciples complain that she's following them and crying out, telling Jesus to send her away.
Jesus says (Matthew 15:24): “I was not sent forth except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
His mission is to the Jews.
v25: "But she came and prostrated herself to him, saying, “Lord, help me.”
v26: "But in reply he said, “It is not a good thing to take the children’s bread and throw it to the puppies.”
An analogy – The bread is for the Children of Israel. 'throwing it to the puppies' could mean street-dogs, but as Mark's is set in a domestic situation, it's more likely a reference to household dogs. She certainly treats it that way –
v27: "And she said, “Yes, Lord; for the puppies also eat, from the crumbs that fall from their lords’ tables.”
v28: "Then in reply Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great... " and her child is healed.
So I would read it as a petition from a gentile is refused because Jesus' mission is to the Jews. She, however, sees that God's grace is for all, even if the Jews take priority – and here's the key as I read it – Jesus responds in the first instance in a sociological context, marking the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. She responds from a soteriological context, that God's grace transcends all relative distinctions – from an Hellenic viewpoint (I'm not suggesting she's a philosopher) if God is Good then God's goodness is for all.
Jesus remarks on her faith, she does not know, but she trusts in God, as she understands God to be ... which suffices for Him.
