Law in the New Testament: The Syro-Phoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum

Author(s): J. Duncan M. Derrett

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 161-186
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560339 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 09:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
THE SYRO-PHOENICIAN WOMAN AND THE
CENTURION OF CAPERNAUM
BY

J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT
London

Synoptic studies have not explained these episodes. We must

trace out what parts go back to Markor Q, but we should also know
why each evangelist made of them what he did. The meaning of
each nucleus must be understood first, before the literary and
theological quests are embarked upon. The deficiencies in existing
studies are soon apparent 1). No one has realised, for example, that
the Centurion reminded St. Luke of Jethro, proselyte and maker

1) W. GRUNDMANN, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2nd. edn. (Berlin,

I959), I52-5; Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (Berlin, I968), 249-54, 375. K.
H. RENGSTORF, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 5th edn. (G6ttingen, 1949),
42-5 E. KLOSTERMANN,Das Markusevangelium, 4th edn. (Tiibingen, 1950),
7I-2. E. LOHMEYER, Das Evangelium des Markus (Gottingen, I963), 145-8.
E. SCHWEIZER,The Good News according to Mark (London, I97I) I37, 151-
3. V. TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1963), 347-5I.
R. BULTMANN, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, I968), 38-9.
P. GAECHTER, Das Matthius-Evangelium (Innsbruck, I963), 50I-4, 265-9.
H. J. HELD in G. BORNKAMM,G. BARTH, H. J. HELD, Tradition and Interpret-
ation in Matthew (London, S. C. M., 1963), I65 ff., I93-200. T. A. BURKILL,
'The historical development of the story of the Syrophoenician woman',
N.T. 9 (1967), I6I-I77; 'The Syrophoenician woman, the congruence of
Mk. 7.24-31', Z.N.W. 57 (I966), 23-37; L. WALLACH, ed., The Classical
Tradition ... H. Caplan (N.Y., I966), 329-344 ('Mark 6:31-8:26: the context
of the story of the Syrophoenician woman') (Valuable articles, but extremely
sceptical). JOACHIMJEREMIAS, Jesus' Promise to the Nations (London, 1958),
I2-71 (the leading study: see later editions of the German original); New
Testament Theology I (London, I97I), I63-4. H. VAN DER Loos, The Miracles
of Jesus (Leiden, I965), 328-333, 4II-414, 530-550. E. HAENCHEN, 'Johan-
neischen Probleme', Z.Th.K. 56 (I959), 20, 23-8. B. FLAMMER, 'Die Syro-
phoenizerin', Theol. Quartals. I48 (I968), 463-478. J. KLAUSNER, Jesus of
Nazareth (N.Y., I959), 294-5. The 'Son of David' and the Canaanite woman
are dealt with by J. M. GIBBS at N.T.S. IO (I963-4), 446 f.f, at 458-9. S.
SANDMEL is of the view that St Mark made a mistake to allow the Syro-
Phoenician woman to say 'the tolerant thing' instead of Jesus (in R. BATEY,
ed., New Testament Issues, London, 1970, 54). But the whole point of these
passages is the coming of Jesus to a variously-prepared and unprepared gent-
ile world, and the irony of the woman's quotation of scripture was lost on
Sandmel.

Novum Testamentum, Vol. XV, fasc. 3 II

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

of proselytes -Jethro who came to Moses and said, 'Don't trouble

yourself so much. Place yourself between the people and God (cf.
Deut. v 27) and delegate authority which you have from him to
CSvr7x6vTacpXoL and exoc6vTocpXoL (Exod. xviii I3-27, MT, Pal. Targ.,
LXX)'. He was reminded also of Naaman. Furthermore we must
ask whether there was an historical episode behind each, from which
reminiscence1) might supply such summaries. Or are they products
of the church's legal problems, a discussion of Apartheid (Burkill)?
C. G. MONTEFIORE found the conversation with the woman 'quite
incredible'. Could Jesus have done, or pretended to do, 'absent
healing' (a main point the two 'gentile'passageshave in common)? 2)
The absent healing of the 'Far off' (gentiles as well as repentant
Israelites), and by word of mouth alone, seems to have been prom-
ised in Is. lvii 19 3). Or is it the case that an abstract generalisation
is to be drawn from each case, crystallised in the dialogue? 4)

THE SYRO-PHOENICIAN
WOMAN

(Mk. vii 24-30, Mt. xv 21-8).

It is usually thoughlt (though not by EDERSHEIM)that Jesus, dis-
appointed in his own flock, was rude to her to test her faith (or
allowed her to overheara tart remarkto his disciples)! St. Matthew,
here for once enlarging upon Mark, writes for a community beg-
inning to be out of touch with oral tradition: clues have to be
written out in full. He developed Mark's succinct, tantalising

1) JOHANNESJEREMIAS,Der apostolische Ursprung der vier Evangelien

(Leipzig, 1932), I25, would have Mk. vii 28 a literal report of the woman's
speech.
2) It is possible to exaggerate (as Bultmann) does, the similarity between
the episodes: their special value lies in the difference. Jeremias, Promise, 35
emphasises that these are the only cases where Jesus deals with the gentiles
(possibly the Gadarene demoniac is another). A synoptic study of the texts
appears at F. W. BEARE,The Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford, 1962), 74-5,
I32. A reconstruction of Q on the Centurion appears at A. HARNACK, The
Sayings of Jesus (London, I908), 74-7, I3I-2. The story of the woman is dis-
missed as anti-Jewish polemic by A. LOISY, Origins of the New Testament
(London, 1950), 86 (original edn., I936, p. 92).
3) Cf. b. (= Bab. Talmud.) Ber. 34 b (R. Johsua b. Levi.).
4) DIBELIUS, LOHMEYER, and BULTMANN take the dialogue, the nucleus
of each passage, as more important then the healing. Bultmann, 390. T. W.
MANSON, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1963), 30-I; The Sayings of
Jesus (London, I949), 62-6. V. TAYLOR,The Formation of the Gospel Tra-
dition (London, I953), 76 (were they once pronouncement-stories ?). R. H.
LIGHTFOOT, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, I935), 114.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I63

writing. We might not have gone his way in every case (perhaps
we should not emphasise the disciples' pessimism: Mt. xv 23 recalls
xv 33; cf. Lk. ix 54) 1). But he also wrote for a community that
could take much for granted. Did it require to be told that faithful
gentiles had a right to admission, as has been suggested? 2) Our own
study must concentrate on Mark,noting the rich allusiveness of
his vocabulary: o'xLi = a self-contained, exclusive domain as
illustrated at iii 25 (cf. 20), developed by Matthew at xv 24-- so
oixov ocauT at vii 30 implying the abstract sphere of paganism;
while the unnecessary word xX[v7vat that verse not only witnesses
the healing (PsPXq,vov, lying abandoned by the demon) but re-
calls I K. xvii I9-22.
Such rediscoveriescause resentment in some minds. We must rem-
ember that the earliest Christians had a verbal knowledge of the
Old Testament not common now; their tastes and their abilities
differed widely from ours. When the plain story holds incongruities
(such as Jesus' pronouncement about the 'puppies') or dissonances
(such as the Centurion's manner of showing what 'power' he is
under) we should expect a midrashic explanation, whereas others
would excise words as interpolations or suspect a mistranslation
from a hypothetical Aramaic original. By Midrash I mean, in this
context, the interaction of Old Testament text and first-century
event, so that the formerseems to be illustrated or revivified by the
latter, and the former explains and illuminates the latter: the duty
of the evangelist is not merely to tell a tale, but also to develop its
contextuality with the Hebrew bible. To him Jesus's life was a re-
presentation of familiar Old Testament narratives 3).
The setting of the story of the woman seems to be an appendage4).
'Tyre' may be stimulated by the identification of the woman as
Syro-Phoenician 5) in the nucleus of the tradition. Such women

1) P. BONNARD,L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (Neuchatel, I963), 232

n. i, continues the common view that they urged Jesus to satisfy her, which
fits well with his comment, if it is a reply; but the contrary view is that they
took the then conventional view, with which he partly agreed.
2) Held's suggestion.
3) B. LINDARSappositely, 'Elijah, Elisha and the Gospel Miracles', in
C. F. D. MOULE,ed., Miracles (London, I964), 6i-8o.
4) The result of all synoptic studies of the episode.
5) The usual explanation, 'Syro-' to distinguish her from 'Lybo-' (Justin,
dial. 78; Strabo XVII.I9) does not convince. C. G. MONTEFIORE,The Synop-
tic Gospels (London, I909), I, I77; II, 656. P. WERNLE, Sources of our Know-
ledge of the Life of Jesus (London, I907), I23. Naaman was a Syrian.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i64 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

must have been known in Jewish districts; but Markwishes to show

the Messiahvisiting Tyre, for the daughter of Tyre would sue for the
Lord's favour (Ps. xlv 12; cf. Ps. lxxxvii 4). In the Old Testament
Tyre is proud and inimical to the Israelites 1); but mention of Tyre
automatically recalls Sidon (Is. xxii; Jer. xlvii 4; J1. iii 4-8; Zech.
ix 2). Matthew shows the woman coming from both regions, reg-
ions he understood to be typically wicked: xi 21-2. The crux in
Mk. vii 24 cannot be solved conclusively, since, irrespective of
geography, the woman is a Sidonian (v. infra). Jesus' alleged ap-
proach 2) to the borderlands with Tyre is enough to make the
contact between the God of the Hebrews and the nations long
threatened with punishment. Jesus's vision of eschatologicalpunish-
ment included joy, cosmic concomitants, obverse and reverse of
the same coin. Joachim Jeremias says 3) that vengeance is removed
-probably too optimistic, this opinion rightly places vengeance in
a wider perspective. Gentiles share in resurrection (Mt. xi 22 = Lk.
x I4) and &xSx7nqSat Lk. xviii 7 is double edged! 4).
Jesus attempted to remain hidden, like Elijah, from God, whom
no one escapes 5). A Syriac version recognisesthe woman as a widow
(becauseof the Sarefat episode) 6). She appeals to Jesus, dramatised
by Matthew as 'crying after' him (an action referredto in Psalms) 7).
She cleaved to the righteous, an obligation of those that cleave
to God 8). Let the demon, demon of death (suicidal?-cf. Mk. ix
22) 9) be cast out of her daughter! Matthew sees her as asking
for help for herself,biblically as well as psychologically apposite (Q.
cxvii; Is. i 9). Esther's protest is hidden in her words (iv 17): but
it is Matthew that uses the Esther vocabulary. 'Let the children be

1) A reputation she retained: Josephus, c. Ap. I. 13.

2) The journey is neither chronologically nor geographically significant.
We need not be sceptical of St. Mark's geographical knowledge as many are
(K. NIEDERWIMMER, Z.N.W. 57, I966, I80-I) since he was guided by midrash-
ic, not literal, considerations. The coast must be visited: Zeph. ii 5!
3) Promise, 41.
4) Promise, 45-6; DERRETT, N.T.S. I8 (I972), 178 ff., at p. I86.
5) Job xxxiv 21; LXX Is. xl 26.
6) P.-L. COUCHOUD,J.T.S. 34 (I933), I2I. GRUNDMANNinclines to support
the identification, allowing she may have been a widow. Keim quoted Volk-
mar as suggesting that the episode was a free composition on the basis of the
Elijah story.
7) Ps. xvi (xvii) 6; xvii (xviii) 6, et alibi.
8) Sifre on Deut. xi 22; b Ber. io b. Pes. 22 b, Mishnah, 'Avot 1.4.
9) An unclean spirit, riuah tdme'ah, is a spirit of death and tombs: b.
Sanh. 65 b = Soncino Trans. 446.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I65

sated first !' Scholars would excise 'first', even the whole sentence 1).
But 'children' is not a retrodevelopment from 'children' in the
next sentence2). Matthew omits the phrase perhaps because
his hearers took Jewish priority for granted, perhaps because
he is not mainly concerned with the Sarefat episode (withits
emphasis on 'priority'), but with the psalm (to which we come)
with its double midrash. St. Mark represents Jesus' ideas in an
order approximately as follows: (I) help for gentiles must be
authorised or it is impossible; (2) a gentile's cry for help resembles
the behaviour of a dog, for gentiles are dogs in scriptural terms 3);
(3) alternately savage and fawning, dogs roam and scavenge 4); (4)
God's 'help' is part of his sustenance, salvation: 'dogs' may have
it when brought to God when he is glorified by the children of
Israel (Jn. iv 22; Rom. xv 7-9; Gal. iii 23 ff.), who belong to
him 5); (5) in previous dealing between the 'children' and gentiles
the 'children' were fed first, so that the children of the gentile
could eat afterwards.The Sarefat story must be studied in detail 6).

1) BULTMANN, KLOSTERMANN,SCHWEIZER,Other views are discussed by

Taylor (who thinks 'first' original) at 350. L. GOPPELT,Christentum und
Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert (Giitersloh, 1954), 39-40 :-Mt. xv
24; x 5 is correct; Rom i I6, Acts xiii 46 would be anachronistic for Jesus;
Mk. vii 27 a is an error, Jesus would not rob the Jews of their due. J. M.
ROBINSON, The Problem of History in Mark (London, S.C.M., I957), 64-5,
takes the opposite view-the whole episode is only intelligible in the pattern
'first the Jew and then the gentile'.
2) Similarly the supposedly harsh saying was supposed by T. R. GLOVER,
Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (London, I909/I918), I27
n. i, quoted by KLAUSNER and BURKILL, to have been derived from the
woman's answer, the true (supposedly) nucleus of the passage.
3) Ps. xxii I7 (Targ.); Midr. on Psalms, Ps. 22, para. 26 (gentiles). Is. lvi II
(Targ.).
4) Ps. lix 6-9 (5-8), I5-I6 (I4-I5). Is. lvi II. The suggestion that 'dog' in
such passages has a sodomitical overtone (BURKILL'S use of D. W. THOMAS,
'Kelebh', V.T. Io, I960, 41 ff., "'bitch" indeed!') is otiose.
5) Exod. iv 22; Deut. xiv I; Is. i. 2; Hos. xi. I, Lk. xv. 3I; Rom. ix. 4;
I QM XVII.3; Acts iii 25; Mishnah, 'Avot III.14 (R.'Aqiba), Shab. XIV.4.
P. BILLERBECK at STRACK-BILLERBECK,Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch I (Munich, I924/196I), 476-8. Cf. Mt. xxiii I5.
Rom. ix 6-8. expresses the idea of universal salvation through faith, fitting
the Centurion probably better than the Syro-Phoenician woman. Grundmann
thinks 'children' means disciples. R. L. LINDSEY'S translation of Mark
(Jerusalem, N.D.) is the only one to distinguish between 'sons' in Jesus's
words and 'children' in the woman's reply (most satisfactory).
6) J. GRAY, I and II Kings (London, S.C.M., I963). Recognised as relevant
by CRANFIELD, SCHWEIZERand others. The splendid article by L. C. CROCKETT,
'Luke 4.25-27 and Jewish-Gentile relations in Luke-Acts', J.B.L. 88 (I969),

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I66 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

I K. xvii symbolised God's need for Jewish-gentile reciprocity.

Manygentiles, unknownto themselves, know him. The ancient world
was concerned about reciprocity 1), which could endure, as an
obligation, over generations 2). The wanderer from mountain to
mountain could receive hospitality from gentiles, and this had a
significance for the church in referenceto proselytism (Lk iv 26) 3).
God ordered the widow (an unlikely person) of Sarefat (S. of Sidon
and N. of Tyre) to feed Elijah, who insisted upon being fed first, so
actually as to threaten to deprive her and her children. He cries
after her 4), and she is rewarded with infinite bread. He dwells (for
seemliness' sake) 5) on her roof, but she is his landlady; hence when
her son appears to be lifeless 6) she blames him, and he appeals to
God as if to one in duty bound to look after the widow as she had
looked after him 7). After Isaac, say the rabbis, the boy is the first
instance of resurrection. The Sarefat story is about the power of
charity 8). Did reciprocity now lean in favour of God, whose
'child' Elijah was, especially since the son who was revived was
Jonah 9), a notable servant of God? Non liquet. Though Jonah,

I77-I83 establishes the background (reconciliation) and the currency of the

Elijah stories (Sir. xlviii; Ps. Philo, Bibl. Ant. xlviii; Rev. xi 6). Asc. Is. ii I4.
It has not been noticed that the principle behind Mt. x 4Ia is applied in our
incident and in that of the Centurion.
1) See DERRETT, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), index, 'reci-
procation', also my treatment of the Friend at Midnight in the Daube
(theological) Festschrift, ed. Barrett and others (forthcoming).
2) Midr. R. Exod., IV.2 = Sonc. 78. Our passage is referred to.
3) W. FAIRWEATHER, Jesus and the Greeks (Edinburgh, 1924), 249-275.
W. ELTESTER, ed., Jesus in Nazareth (Berlin/N.Y., De Gruyter, I972).
Jeremias's ideas on the Nazareth episode in Promise have not commanded
universal acceptance, but this does not detract from his most acceptable
conclusions.
4) i K. xvii
ii. Ep36oaev60Law auocr?.
5) See G. FRIEDLANDER, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (N.Y., 1965), ch. 33,
pp. 239-240.
6) Whether he actually died remains an open question: b. Nidd. 70 b,
HIul. 7 b.
7) God revived the boy through Elijah: Midr. R. Num XIV.I = Sonc. 56I.
Note that the food he ate was hers: the famous discrepancy between the
written and the recited text of i. K. xvii 15. The Qere, LXX (BL only),
Targum, Syr. have hiy' wa hi' (she and he) (preferred by Kittel), but the MT
and Vulg, followed by versions including the N.E.B., have the reverse. He
as guest ate first, but it was for her that the miracle was performed, so that
both readings make sense. Midr. R., S.S. II, 5, para. 3.
8) Midr. R. Gen. L. ii = Sonc. 441-2; Midr. R., S.S. II, 5, para. 3. Pirqe
de Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 33.
9) E. G. HIRSCH, Jew. Encycl. VII (1904), 226. Midr. R. Gen. XLVIII.I =

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I67

despite his Sidonian background, served God, the destitute widow

received her son (Heb. xi 35; cf. Lk. vii i3-I5) so that God is no
more obliged (as it were) than she is. Hence Sidonians can hardly
claim that their far-off hospitality to Elijah (a heritable asset) entit-
les them to help on the principle alleged by Elijah at I K. xvii 20.
That reciprocity figures in such a question is shown by the 'elders"
speech to Jesus (Lk. vii 4-5): the gentile has done something for
our nation, and we collectively (includingJesus) must do something
for him.
Now Elijah's gift of a livelihood to the widow and her children 1),
and of life to her son, depended from her faith, tested by the demand
to be fed first (I K. xvii I3). First feed the children of Yahweh 2)
and then the gentiles are to be fed: in exchange for a perishable
cake an imperishable sustenance was given. Cakes provided by
Yahweh give unfailing strength (I K. xix 6-8). The Syro-Phoenician
woman had no claim on the basis of reciprocity, but the work of
Elijah might supply a precedent. Jews certainly thought in terms
of authorisation, the right to act and to abstain from action. Jesus
could not legitimately help the woman unless reciprocity required,
or a precedent supported it. Matthew places here the saying found
at x 6 too that Jesus' mission is exclusively to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. Gentiles must have an individual claim before he
may use the power God has given him. Elijah had required of the
woman such faith as is implied in her feeding a stranger first. When
the woman makes the correct reply, Matthew comments directly
on her faith.
The words urging her to yield precedence to Jewish suppliants
(was he on the way to heal such?) allude to Ps. xvii 14. The psalm
is unique in ending with the assertion that the psalmist, protected

Sonc. 959-60. The boy was resuscitated as a reward for her hospitality:
GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews IV, 243-4. Yer. Sukk. 5.55a; P.R.E. (cit.
sup.); Jerome, introd. to comm. on Jonah. FIELD, Origen's Hexapla I, 632
n. 29. GINZBERG,318. Seder Eliyahu Rabah we Seder Eliyahu Zuta' (ed.
FRIEDMANN, Vienna, I9oo) i8, 97-8 shows the son of the widow as the
'Messiah of the tribe of Joseph'. The statement that Jonah was the Messiah
is derived from Elijah's saying he should receive his portion first and after-
wards her son should receive his. The Shunammite was the mother of
Habakkuk.
1) God says there will be enough for all: xvii 14. The LXX had a different
text from the MT, in which, for 'son', 'children' was read. Further evidence for
this reading is awaited.
2) i K. xvii 13, 15.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i68 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

from his enemies (gentiles, sinners?) will be sated on waking with

God's form (or glory) (the attribute of Moses: Num. xii 8), for in
righteousness (or through charity) he will see his face. We learn
from Tob. xii 9 that through acts of charity one will be sated with
[owSq)1). The previous words in the psalm read
life (XopTa0'6ovTao'L
in modern versions as if more curses on the 'enemy'. 'Men of the
world' are referred to, the unregenerate, and a prophecy is made
that their belly should be filled with God's hidden things, or
treasure, that 'children' (the children or their children) should
be sated, and that they should leave their remains, or residue, to
their babies.
:iJr1~l1 awn' ~nri~la~n1~s:1t..
Alternative renderings are possible. 'Thy treasured ones shall fill
their belly' is possible, but no surviving version so takes it 2).
yisbe'w bdniym, which means 'children shall be sated', is so taken
by Symmachus, the Targum, Midrash on Psalms, and many older
translators as by some modern; it can be rendered 'they shall be
satisfied with children', as if that were an inferior promise-adopted
by some modern translators to an unimpressive result 3). We may
rather take the verse to mean that Israel shall be satisfied (a word
of prophetic significance) 4) and so shall their issue, contrasting with
the gentiles, whose overthrow is in the psalmist's mind. There shall
even be a residue which passes to the Israelites' issue. Satisfaction
is shown by there being remnants (cf. Mk vi 43, viii 8, emphasised
at I9-2I). Divine help will be superabundant, to the children first
rather than to the babes and sucklings, the ones that, but for a
miracle, would understand little (Mt. xi 25, xxi I6; Lk. x 21) 5). In the
Asian household fully weaned children eat roughly in order of
seniority. Thus the words put into Jesus's mouth by Mark reflect

1) Cod. Sin. (adopted by BROOKE-MCLEAN-THACKERAY, I940). The

Midrash on Psalms says (para. I4), quoting Is. xl. 5, that by practising
charity all flesh should see the glory of God on the authority of this verse.
2) sefnejychd; cf. Ps. xxxi 20.
3) R.S.V. and N.E.B., for example. The translation 'their sons are (or
shall be) sated' is adopted by J. CALES,Le Livre des Psaumes I (1936), 209;
E. A. LESLIE (Psalms, N.Y., I949), 353: H.-J. KRAUS, Psalmen (NEUKIRCHEN-
VLUYN, I966), I28, I33; M. DAHOOD, Psalms I (N.Y., I966), 93; M. BUTTEN-
WIESER, The Psalms (Chicago, 1938), 480, 484-5. See Symmachus ad loc., and
especially Midr. on Ps., Braude I, 217-8.
4) See p. I69 n. i infra.
5) S. LEGASSE,Jesus et l'Enfant. 'Enfants' . . dans la Tradition Synoptique
(Paris, Gabalda, 1969).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I69

Jesus's own conception of his function: "Is it not the case that the
children, i.e., God's household, must first be fully satisfied 1), before
there can be a remnant for others (Is. xlii 5-7) ? How can you claim
divine mercy when the Jews, to whom the Messiahis sent, have not
exhausted his power?" Would it not compromise his mission if he
neglected the objects of it, God's 'household'-would this not be
disobedience to God? Jesus is not merely testing her faith-he is
represented as in a quandary.
Children of the house figure in the Elijah precedent, children
of Yahweh in Jesus's opening remark. He continues with a graphic
analogy. "It is wrong 2) to take the children's bread and throw (or
merely 'give') it to the little dogs." We have met bread in the
Elijah story, the least scrap worth talking about 3). Truly living
is conveyed by 'bread'. The 'demonized' daughter, if saved, will
be given this bread. The word xuvapLov is a diminutive, not as a
mitigation of the harshness of the saying 4), nor as an insignificant
variant of xuov 5), but in allusion to Ps. xvii I4: unless the children
are fed full they will not 'drop', or 'let fall', bits of bread for the
puppies to snap up. The Jewish family collected bits of bread
1) sabac. i. xxxvi I9, civ 4o, cvi (cf. Hos. iv IO, Mic. vi 14, J1. ii I8-I9,
Am. iv 6-8); Exod. xvi 3, 8; Lev. xxvi 5; Ezk. xvi 48. Note the Messianic q.
cxxxi II, I5-I7. Is. lviii 7-II. Targ. Is. xxxiii I6.
2) ou xaoX6vhas shades of meaning, so has lo'-tov. Here it recalls I Sam.
xxvi i6; Neh. v 8; Is. lxv 2; Ezk. xviii I8 (cf. Prov. xxiv 23) rather than
Gen. ii i8; Exod. xviii I7; 2 Sam. xvii 7; Prov. xxv27. Cauqcpept is not the
synonym for xao6v here.
3) i K. xvii 17 (v. infra).
4) J. SCHNIEWIND, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 6th edn. (G6ttingen,
I952), 107-8. Jeremias at Promise, 29. Jeremias doubts the original use of a
diminutive. In actual fact xuv&plov (which is synonymous with xuvtLLov) is a
pure diminutive at Plato, Euthydemus 298D-E (Loeb edn., p. 474); and
fairly clearly at Xenophon, Cyropaedia VIII. 4,20 (Loeb edn., ii. 384-6).
Theopompus comicus 90 (T. KOCK,Corn.Att. Frag. I, i880, 755) is inconclu-
sive, likewise Alcaeus com. 33 (ibid. 763). At Arrian's Epictetus IV.i.iiI it is
a depreciatory diminutive, 'a paltry dog'(Loeb edn. ii, 282). XUV8LiOV is certain-
ly diminutive, 'puppy' at Aristophanes, Acharneis, 542 (Loeb edn., 52): Xe-
nophon, Oeconomicus XIII.8 (Loeb edn., 472), and Plato (supra). MICHELat
KITTEL, ThWzNT III (1938/1957), II03-4 (pet dog of any age) appears to
have missed the point. When fully grown dogs would scavenge or be fed at
their post (if guard dogs), they would not scramble 'under' (i.e. round about)
the table. Whether Jews had pet dogs, toy dogs in our sense is not known;
and whether Greeks were more friendly to house-dogs than Jews were is also
unknown.
5) So BURKILL, consistently with Michel (supra). The number of diminut-
ives in our passage is interesting, but is not conclusive of a 'devaluation' of
vocabulary in 'popular' Greek.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I70 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

worth identifying as such 1) (a frugal people, they retained a

superstitious veneration for bread, and remnants had magical
potency), and threw out crumbs or pieces not worth collecting.
Children would toss scraps, especially if they had wiped their fin-
gers on them, to their favourite puppies. Jesus is not thinking of
infants, but of the metaphorical 'children' of scriptural jargon.
The gentiles are like roaming dogs. The Sidonian and presumably
Tyrian peoples were still, in scriptural terms, little better than
dogs, as severalpassagesin scriptureand rabbinicalsourcessuggest.2)
The 'Son of David' will think of the psalm, even when speaking
to an illiterate gentile. She knew nothing of Jewish scripture.
A reference to a psalm would be lost on her. But, technical as the
Jewish law is on this as on other subjects, even illiterate Greeks
recognised that to take from A the asset of B destined for A and
to cause it to be consumed by C, in whom B has a minor or no inter-
est is a species of theft. In Jewish law this was somehow brought
within the concept of stealing3). It was not necessary for the
wrongdoer to keep the object or derive profit from it himself. If
he were entrustedwith the asset we should say it was a breach of
trust. In Greek laws the injury inflicted on B would be an offence
and both compensation and punishment were thinkable 4). Even a
layman sees that to depriveA of property destined for him by B is an
offence, whether or not the offender derives benefit from so doing.
The sharpJewish mind could calcu'ate the loss in monetaryterms to
B if his fine bread, the table bread, were given to dogs for whom
an inferior bread was certainly a diet (if, as house dogs, they
had a diet) 5). To feed dogs with children'sbread would mean a cal-

1) b. Ber. 52 b = Sonc. 317. Billerbeck IV/2, p. 626 (d).

2) BILLERBECK I, 724 ff. I En. lxxxix 42-9. Midr. on Psalms iv 8. b. Meg.
7 b. J. BOWMAN,The Gospel of Mark (Leiden, 1965) I71-2 refers to the
Samaritan Passover Liturgy, but I was unable to verify the reference.
3) B. S. JACKSON, Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford, 1972), 72, 94-99.
The law relating to 'sacrilege' expounded there is particularly relevant to our
enquiry. Property notionally belonging to God (as in Jesus's metaphor) would
be subject to this.
4) R. TAUBENSCHLAG, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of
the Papyri (N.Y., I944), 343 ff. I am not saying that any Egyptian Greek
would start proceedings on facts such as suggested in our metaphor! It is the
principle which is of interest.
5) It is not true that dogs actually kept by a family are carnivorous. I
know of Asian dogs who are fed on coarse bread. Dogs' dough as a particular
kind of bread is mentioned at Mishnah, Hull. I. 8 (H. DANBY, The Mishnah,
Oxford, 1933, 84).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I7I

culable financial loss to the householder. For householders had

inferior diets even for their table servants, who were glad of scraps
from the guests (a kind of tipping), a practice about which the
thoughtful rabbis had more than one opinion. If gentiles are dogs,
and Jews are children, and bread is life, Jesus cannot, prima
facie, as a master of righteousness, give life to a gentile, until
the Israelites are sated and have a surplus, all the Jews having
first turned to him for the life-giving gift. Jesus is not, as Loh-
meyer and Grundmannsay 1), the householder in our metaphor-
God is; and similarly there is no eucharistic overtone to this story in
its original shape. Jesus must have thought of the Last Days when,
all needs having come to an end, the demands of righteous gentiles
could be attended to. Has that time come? Only a real life crisis
can supply the solution.
The woman's answer is regarded as persistence, wit, readiness
of Syrian repartee (cf. I K. xx 32-3) 2). Sharpwittedness aided her
response, but how prompt was it? She reinterpretsthe same psalm,
the same verse! She takes up the Elijah story. She alludes to a
maxim Jesus evoked, having a genuine Jewish application. And she
utters (without knowing it) a warning. 'Because of that word' Jesus
cured her daughter. She provided the authority he needed. As we
shall see, she did not declare herself content with a crumb of what
was really meant for Israel (Jeremias)-a breach of trust on
Jesus's part-but declared that the householder (God) intended to
feed both Jews and gentiles!
If we take Ps. xvii I4 to mean children literally, the 'Babes'
are smaller creatures. 'Weaned babes' could fancifully apply to
puppies. The contrast between the diners and dogs who have no
right to be fed from their meal, a contrast obvious to all 3), was
deftly turned, and the puppies become the little creatures to whom

1) GRUNDMANN, Markus, I54-5.

2) So TAYLOR. KLOSTERMANN: 'Jesus wird gewonnen... durch die
Schlagfertigkeit der Frau'. P. CARRINGTON,According to Mark (Cambridge,
1960), 156-8. B. W. BACON,Beginnings of the Gospel Story (New Haven, I909),
80, correctly: her answer 'was received by Jesus as an enlargement of his
own point of view'. I see no connection with Gen. xxxii 24-32.
3) See Midr. R. Levit. IX, para. 3 = Sonc. Io8-9: 'a dog has eaten of
Jannai's bread (piysta' = bit of bread)'; the dog then quotes scripture to the
host's astonishment! Could this have been inspired by our passage? Mt.
vii 6 is relevant. Holy things must not be redeemed and then thrown to dogs
(which makes sense of the saying at last): b. Shev. I b = Sonc. 48 (a propos
of the Red Heifer). To throw a noble thing to dogs humiliates: b. B.Q. 85 a.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I72 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

'left-overs' are promised in the psalm. The crumbs that are let drop
(as Matthew puts it) are fragments which no one bothers to collect,
and which puppies snatch up: indeed, if they are not kept out they
will greedily snatch at the children's food. It was such crumbs that
were brought by the crows to Elijah 1), from the table of the righte-
ous king Jehoshaphat 2). Elijah was himself fed like a crow or a dog.
A'crumb' is the smallest morsel: and it is that which Elijah begged
from the woman of Sarefat 3). A crumb, bit, or scrap: it is all the
same 4). Though she did not realise it, the Syro-Phoenician woman
re-quotes scripture, with a common-sense midrash. If her daughter
may 'eat', the demon must be expelled; for a table cannot be laid
for demons (Is. lxv ii)!
She repeats consciously what must have been a common maxim 5).
There is Hellenic evidence for a similar saying: dogs will clean up
every scrap of what diners leave, a model of scavenging 6). God
provides, as the Jews knew, for all creatures, even dogs and crows 7).
The principle at Ps. cxlvii 9, Job xxxviii 4I, Ps. Sal. v 8-II, Mt. vi
26, Lk. xii 24 is well attested in rabbinical literature, and is relied
upon in the oft-quoted but seldom understood passage at Baba
Bathra 8a 8). A rabbi, masquerading as an ignoramus, seeks, and
1) Crows: see the discussion at L. GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews IV. 196-7,
VI. 3I7. The theory that they were Arab merchants is interesting since it
enhances the 'gentile-reciprocity' theme. With i K. xvii 4-5 cf. Is. xxxiii I6.
2) b. Sanh. 113 a = Sonc. 780; Hul. 5a; Midr. R. Num. XXIII. 9 = Sonc.
875; Midr. R. Gen. XXXIII. 5 = Sonc. 265. Tanhuma (Buber) IV, I65;
Ginzberg, 317 n. 7. Elijah was provided with bread and meat (cf. LXX,
influenced by Exod. xvi 8, 12, with MT). The meat cannot have been offal.
Were Ahab's slaughters orthodox? Could E. have eaten remnants from
Ahab's table (tainted with unrighteous gains, cf. Naboth)? Therefore the
bread came from Jehoshaphat's table. Crows are a lesson on God's pro-
vidence: Midr. R. Num. XXIII. 9, Job xxxv ii; Midr. R. Lev. XIX. I =
Sonc. 235.
3) I K. xvii ii: pat lehem. LXX 4c0)6oq. Actually crumb at Q. cxlvii 6.
Cf. I Sam. xxviii 22, Job xxxi I7; Prov. xvii I, xxviii 21.
4) pat, piystd', perusah, peririyn (crumbs) (the last is used by translators
of our passage into Hebrew). See the begging incident at b. Ber 3I b =
Sonc. 192. JASTROW, Dict. II7I. At Yer. Pes. VI, 33 c, 'one must remove
crumbs' uses piysata' (sic).
5) D. SMITH, Exp. T. 12 (I90I), 319-321. J. MUNCK, Paulus und die Heils-
geschichte (Aarhus, I954), 257.
6) Philostratus, Vita Apollonii Tyan. 1.19 (Loeb. edn., i, 54) (cited by
most commentators, ancient and modern): ToZqxuat . . . TO'i aLTouL6voL rT
T7^ acLT*6*...
EXTMTTOVToa
7) Why dogs and crows? Because of their services to Adam. Pirqe de
R. Eliezer, ch. 21 (trans., 156-7) (citing Job xxxviii 41 and Ps. cxlvii 9!).
8) Midr. R. Lev. XIX. I = Sonc. 235 on the Job passage (the DSS targum

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I73

obtains a 'crumb' 1) on the basis that he is to be fed like a dog or a

crow. The woman says: though there be no obligation upon you, and
I have no claim on the basis of reciprocity (the case is different
from Rahab's: Josh. ii II-I8; and from Hiram's servants: I K. v 9;
and the principlein Ezra iii 7 does not apply), you should feed me by
way of charity. The psalm says 'in charity I shall behold your (God's)
face'. Refusal of charity would thus be unthinkable. God shows com-
passion to all creatures, irrespective of race 2), as Jesus contended
in another context 3).
Further 'the puppies under the table eat of the crumbs' amounts
to a lightly veiled warning. Adonibezek, though nothing of a king
in himself 4), had seven kings under his table gathering crumbs, each
with his thumbs (or hands) and his big toes (or feet) cut off. They
were utterly humiliated. For treating fellow humans thus he himself
had his thumbs and toes cut off-retribution from Yahweh 6). He
was a Canaanite, and this (not antiquarianism) is why Matthew
describes our woman as a Canaanite. Adonibezek, in his brief
appearance in history, saw himself as gathering crumbs from Yah-
weh's table, because he had forced other gentiles to gather crumbs
beneath his. The relevance of Jdg. i to our story was discovered
recently 6), the finder modestly leaving it to others to show how it
fits into the midrashic frameworkof our passage.

on Job does not include this verse). b. B.B. 8 a = Sonc. 33-4. Billerbeck, I,
726. Mishnah, Qidd. IV. I4 illustrates the proposition that all who are created
to serve their Maker are entitled to sustenance without care (covert al-
lusion to Ps. clxvii 9). The psalm is referred to at b. Ket. 49 b = Sonc. 284
(a fortiori parents must feed their children). Ps. Sal. v i is especially inter-
esting as it shows kings, people, and beggars equally 'fed' by God. Note that
Xoprac' and cognate words properly fit foddering and fattening animals! On
Job xxxviii 41 see N. H. TUR-SINAI, The Book of Job (Jerusalem, I957),
537-9. In Ps. cxlvii 9 behemah includes dogs according to R. Meir (c. I50):
Mishnah, Kil. VIII. 6.
1) patiy: 'my bread', literally 'my morsel'. See above, p. I7I n. 3.
2) Deut. x 18 discussed with Gen. xxviii 20 at Midr. R. Gen. LXX. 5 =
Sonc. 638, and Midr. R. Num. VIII. 9 = Sonc. 235. The separation from the
Canaanites was deep-rooted: Gen. xxiv. 3. Could the second Isaac ignore it ?
3) Mt. v 45; Lk. vi 35b-36.
4) Yalqfit Shimconi on Jdg. i 7 (ed B. LANDAU, Jerusalem, I960), ii, 704.
5) Jdg. i 5-7 melqetiym = pick or glean (?oav auXXEyovTsE7T UTroxacoC
[Targ. lahma' tehiit] Tiq Tpa0irg Lou); see Ps. civ (ciii) 28: the action of
animals.
6) W. STORCH, 'Zur Perikope von der Syroph6nizierin.. .', B.Z., N.S. 14
(1970), 256-7. For the passage: C. F. BURNEY, Book of Judges (N.Y. I970),
3-6.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I74 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

It is worth noting that the woman does not ask for 'absent heal-
ing', though this was known in her cultural environment 1), nor does
his use of this method imply any reluctance on Jesus's part to visit
her daughter.
THE CENTURION'S 'BOY'

(Mt. viii 5-I3; Lk. vii I-Io; Jn. iv 46-54).

The story contrasts with the woman's. Scripture authorised
Jesus's charity towards her. The Centurion's profession of faith
gives him his title to help. Gentiles can quote scripture (even
Satan does: Mt. iv 6). God speaks to gentiles, and may inspire them
as well as Jews 2). The Centurion'sstory has many other ironies: we
have seen how St. Luke thought Jethro reappearedhere; and there
are other scriptural allusions notably to Naaman (2 K. v).
From the discrepancies between the Matthaean and the Lucan
versons we gather that Matthew stands closer to Q, the additions
and modifications having been introduced by Luke for motives we
can begin to reconstruct. The many textual puzzles may yield to a
new interpretation: thus Lk. vii 7a (omitted by Mt. and by D, etc.)
may well be Luke's own conception. The query as to whether the
suffererwas the centurion'sson or servant/slave remainsunsolved 3).
We were intended to be in doubt! The intense concern of the Cen-
turion for the boy suggests a deep emotional attachment 4); if it was
a son he might have been illegitimate (were Herodian centurions
allowed to marry?); if it was a slave he could have been a 'dolly boy'
whom the centurion loved the more deeply for having conquered
desire. We do not know. The adolescent or youth was highly
disturbed with a complaint thought to be susceptible of spirit
healing. Matthew says he was paralysed, Luke that he was near

1) DITTENBERGER, Sylloge, 803, I ff. (citedby KLOSTERMANN, GRUNDMANN,

and others).
2) Josephus, Bell. IV. 366, 370; VI. 40, 4 1. H. GUTTMANN, Die Darstellung
der jiudischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus (Breslau, I928), 45-6. Acts x 1-3,
34, 44-7.
3) BULTMANN says certainly son, Gaechter servant. T. KEIM, History
of Jesus of Nazara iii (London, I877), 219: son (such zeal for a servant was
impossible!). H. F. D. SPARKS, J.T.S. 42 (I94I), I79-80 (certainly son).
A. PLUMMER, Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Edinburgh, I900), 196
(servant). H. J. CADBURY in F. J. FOAKES JACKSONand K. LAKE, Beginnings
of Christianity I/v (London, 433), 365.
4) GRUNDMANN suggests that instead of 8o5Xo;he called him rac out of
affection: not verifiable, unfortunately.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I75

death. Which really knew what was the matter with him? If the
boy was afraid of being sent to be sold, as a result of his master's
'withdrawal'from him, that would account for hysterical symptoms:
pure speculation on my part-we were intended to be in doubt.
The Centurion must have met Jesus personally, perhaps after
some introduction by respectable Jews (the word elders Luke
caught up from Exod. xviii I8 Pal. Targ.). Luke makes much of
reciprocity. The Centurion was evidently a God-fearer1), had a
place in public esteem (virtually a -rpoara'q of the community),
and (we may be sure), if the story which St. Luke gathered was
correct, he had a seat in the synagogue 2). He will have heard the
Law and the Prophets, will have spoken Aramaic as well as Greek;
indeed he may well have been a native Palestinian 3). He will have
obeyed the Noachide Laws, if no more 4), for which Jethro sug-
gested a competent system of administration (for the laws referred
to in Exod xviii were prior to the Decalogue!). Luke's double send-
ing of messengers and afterwards 'friends' does not appeal, be-
cause, apart from the awkwardness of the request to come, and
the stopping in the road, the Centurion wanted to hear the word
personally, since even messengers trained to repeat messages ex-
actly will not have been a substitute for personalhearing. Luke has a
motive for making out that there remained a distance between the
man and Jesus (cf. 2 K. v Io).
Did Jesus volunteer to go and cure the boy? It is plain that if
he considered going it was to see the patient. Many, suspecting a
refusal 5), would point the Matthaean words with a question-mark,

1) Therefore as good as a Jew for most purposes: Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 2II.
J. KLAUSNER,From Jesus to Paul (London, I942 ?), ch. 3. Josephus, c. Ap.
Io, 123. Acts x 2, xiii I6, 26, xvi 14, xviii 7, xvii 4. Jeremias, Promise, I5-I6.
W. G. BRAUDE,Jewish Proselyting in the First Five Centuries of the Common
Era (Providence, I940), 40-I, I37-8.
2) M. HENGEL,Z.N.W. 57 (I966), I45 (o40ut)a and seroTei?o). B. LIF-
SHITZ, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Paris, Gabalda,
I967).
3) Jos., Ant. XIX, 354-365. He was most unlikely to have been a Roman
(delegated to supervise customs), and was an officer of Antipas. A. N. SHER-
WIN-WHITE,Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford,
1963), 123-4, 156; S. Buss, Roman Law and History in the New Testament
(London, I90I), 343-4, 347.
4) See J. H. GREENSTONE, J.E. VII (I904), 648-50. b. Sanh. 56a-b, 57 b.
A.Z. 26 a.
6) So KLOSTERMANN, BULTMANN (Jesus's scruples were overcome),
JEREMIAS, VAN DER Loos.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I76 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

'Do you mean that I should go and heal him?' and there would be a
consequential differenceof tone in the Centurion'sreply. This is im-
plausible: the point in the story lies in a willing Jesus being stop-
ped in his tracks 1). Since the Centurion was a God-fearer,though
not a proselyte 2), there was no reason to hesitate to visit his
house even if one had been concerned for ritual purity (Mishnah,
'Ahalot), which Jesus was not. Luke explains, as it were, why the
Centurionwas entitled to sympathetic treatment, as an exception in
a life dedicated to service of the Jews; but Q probably did not have
this feature, assuming that its hearers would already have known
that a centurion who addressedJesus as 'Lord'3) would have been
favourably received-perhaps a large assumption? Whatever his
reasons for not being a full proselyte (he was too humble?) the
point of the story lies in his remaininga gentile (which St. John, if it
is indeed the same incident, was content to obscure) 3a).
The climax is Jesus's approval of the man's faith, greater than
he had found in Israel, and Luke may well be right in placing the
emphasis so, 'not even in Israel'. Was his faith in Jesus's power
of absent healing, or in Jesus personally? 4) Q has retained a verbat-
im account of the man's protestation of faith. It appears literally
Jewish, and implies that Jesus was God's representative as Moses
was. It is not true that for 'under authority' we should read 'in
authority' 5). There is no basis for this 6). It is because he is under
authority that he has his own authority. Because Jesus is 'sent',
1) So HOOKE (infra).
2) As Keim thought. KLAUSNER correctly refutes this. On the Sebomenoi
(gentiles favouring Judaism) there are good references at A. D. NOCK,Essays
on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, I972), I, 5I.
3) F. J. FOAKES JACKSON and K. LAKE, op. cit., I/i (1920), 413-415. R.N.
LONGENECKER, Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London, S.C.M.,
1970), I29-I30. I. de la Potterie at Melanges B. Rigaux (Gembloux, I970),
II7-I46. G. BORNKAMMat W. D. DAVIES and D. DAUBE, ed., Background
of the New Testament and its Eschatology ... C. H. Dodd (Cambridge, 1956),
251 (on Mt. xv 22).
3a) E. F. SIEGMAN, C.B.Q. 30 (1968) 183-98.
4) VAN DER Loos, 539.
5) T. H. WEIR, The Variants in the Gospel Reports (Paisely, I92): see
Exp. T. 32 (1921), 284; C. J. CADOUX thereon, ibid., 474; Weir replies at
ibid., 33 (1921-2), 280. G. ZUNTZ, J.T.S. 46 (I945) 183-190. M. BLACK,
An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn. (Oxford, 1967),
158-9. Jeremias, Promise, 30. Manson, Sayings, 65.
6) FAIRWEATHER (p. 251) understood it correctly. E. V. RIEU's trans-
lation is correct: 'for I too am a man who derives his power from above . .'
(marvellous recreation of double entendre!). Jeremias, in both studies, is
persuasive, but he cannot see Jesus as a subordinate!

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I77

'commanded', possessed (if that is correct)1) by the power 2)

of God he is enabled to effect cures as he does-and is authorised
to teach what he teaches. Scholars have noted this 3) in obscure
places and it accords with the constitutional proposition which the
Centurionmakes, and must be accepted.
'But speak with the word, and my boy shall be healed. For I too
am a man under authority (or 'power'). I have soldiers under me
and I tell one to go and he goes, and another one to come and he
comes, and my servant (or 'slave') to do something and he does it'.
The implication is that one vested with power (&Kouoao is equivalent
to potestas, which implies unlimited, not legally circumscribed,
power) can issue orders which will be carried out on the principle
qui facit per alium facit per se. It was on this principle that the
success of the Roman army was built, as the world knew 4): devo-
lution of command and strict discipline.Asians admired this, and
Antipas must have conducted his administration on the principle
of potestas5) since his predecessors se dederant in potestatem. Not
only the soldiery 6) but the magistracy in these 'kingdoms'operated
on the principle of devolution of 'power' from the emperor, with
his tribuniciapotestas (3[apXlx-xsieouCa)7) and personal authority
1) S. V. MCCASLAND, By the Finger of God (N.Y., I95I).
2) The Father's commandment: Jn. v 19-20, 30, 36-7, 43; vi 57; viii 28;
x i8, 25, 37; xiv io, 3I; Xv io; xvi I5; XX 2I.
3) A. E. GARVIE, Exp. T. 20 (I909), 377; H. H. STAINSBY, ibid., 30 (I919),
328-9; C. J. CADOUX,ibid., 32 (I92I), 474. The most powerful refutation of
the 'in authority' mare's nest is the splendid article of S. H. HOOKE,'Jesus
and the Centurion', Exp. T. 69 (I957-8), 79-80.
4) Polybius VI. 39, ii. On discipline in the Roman army see G. WEBSTER
Roman Imperial Army (London, 1969), 31, 262; G. R. WATSON, Roman Sol-
dier (London, 1969), 117-126. Josephus, surely a first-class witness, testifies
to the devolution of command as a factor in the Romans' success: B.J. II,
577-80.
5) 'Dominion' (subject only to the ultimate responsibility to a superior, if
any), rather than 'authority' (which, wrongly, suggests legal restraint). For
the word eiouaia see F. PREISIGKE, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyrus-
urkunden I (Berlin, 1925), 520-1(1) and E. KIESSLING, Wort. der gr. Papyrus-
urk. IV/4 (Marburg, I97I), 830-I, 11. 52 ff. A full discussion is at U v. LUB-
TOW, Pauly's R.E. XXII, 1040 ff., but the neatest and most perfect account
for our purposes is E. Bund, 'Potestas', Der Kleine Pauly IV, 1093-4. Potestas
is slightly wider than imperium, according to many. See, for its use, 2 Mac.
iii 6; Lk. xxiii 7; Jn. xix Io-iI.
6) On discipline see above, n. 4. Justinianus, Digesta XLIX. I6, 12, 2;
ibid., I3.4. I am obliged to Mr. A. N. SHERWIN-WHITE for a card dated 7
March 1972 on this subject.
7) P. Lond. 1178.9; B.G.U. I074.I (both of the ist cent.); B.G.U. 74.3
(2nd. cent.) and seven further examples are quoted. A title of Caesar.
12

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I78 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

which the grovelling Agrippa acknowledgedin the Petronius episode

(v. infra). The Centurion'swords imply components of the Jewish
faith (which had no creed as such), and imply it more by conduct
than profession (whichis impressive). Jethro said, 'Now I know that
the Lord is greater than all the gods' (Exod. xviii II). God is one 1);
he is the source of all power 2); he is the supreme ruler 3); his com-
mand is a 7tp6ocay?ao4); he provides for the universe 5); it is to him
we must cleave 6); we must love him and fear him 7); we must
serve, i.e. be subservient, to him 8) and therefore to his represent-
atives; we must walk in his ways 9); he rules Jews and gentiles too
and to him gentiles also must turn1?).God acts by wordalone"). Jesus
cures with a word (as at Ps. cvii I8-2o)12). He does so as God's sub-
ordinate. God tells men to go, and they go13); to come, and they

1) The Shemac: Deut. vi I-6; xi I3-2I; Num. xv 37-4I. For propositions

regarding the Jewish faith at the period readers will naturally consult
Bonsirven's Textes Rabbiniques and G. F. MOORE'S Judaism. R. A. STEWART'S
Rabbinic Theology (Edinburgh and London, I96I) is also helpful.
2) Master of the Universe: b. Ber. 4 a. The Shemda implies malkfit. S.
SCHECHTER, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, (London, 1909) ch. 6.
3) J.-B. FREY, 'Dieu et le monde d'apres des conceptions juives au temps
de Jesus-Christ', R.B., N.S. I3 (I916), 33-60: a massive collection of refer-
ences at pp. 47-8. Eccl. xlvi 5; En. i. 4, lxxxiv 2; 2 Macc. xiii 4; 3 Macc. v 35,
vi 2. Mekilta on Exod. xx 2: God like a king whose decrees are worth nothing
unless his sovereignty is accepted by his subjects. Nock, op. cit., I, 74-5 gives
references to the oriental use of kyrios and despotes in respect of kings or gods.
4) Jos., c. Ap. II, 231; Ant., II, 29I. I Clem. I 5. Hermas, simil. V, I. 5.
5) Philo (Loeb edn., i, p. I36). Josephus (Loeb edn., i, pp. 368-70). K.
KOHLER, Jewish Theology (N.Y. 1918).
6) Deut. x 20, xi 22.
7) Deut. vi 2, I3; x 20. Mt. iv 10; Lk. iv 8 (B. GERHARDSSON, The Testing
of God's Son, Lund, I966, 62 ff.). Obedience is better than sacrifice: I Sam.
xv 22; 2 Chron. vii I4, xii 7.
8) Exod. xxiii 25; Deut. vi 13, xi 13, xiii 5. In the ancient world subser-
vience and service were essentially connected, the dis-connection (even in
Asia) is quite modern.
9) Deut. x 12, xiii 5, xxvi 17, xxviii 9; Lev. xix 2.
10) Jer. x 7, xxxii 27 (' . . . is anything too hard for me ? ). Is. xlv 22-24.
11) Gen. i 3, 9, II, I4-I5, 24, 30; Exod. xx I; Deut. v 4-5, 22. Frey, supra,
citing Wis. ix i; Jub. xii 4; Test. Napt. ix 5; cf. Ps. xxxiii 9, cxlviii 5; Jdt.
xvi I4; En. xxxiii 4; Wis. xii I8. See also Exod. xx I9; Deut. viii 3.
12) Mt. viii I6. The method, according to St. Matthew (I7) was transference
of sickness to the healer, known to students of magical healing.
13) Exod. iii IO, iv 19-20, 27, vii 26 (viii i), xix IO, 14, xxxii 7; Deut. v 13;
Josh. i 2; 2 Sam. vii 4-17; I K. xviii 1-2; Is. xxxviii 5; Ezk. iii 24. And not to
go: Num. xxii 12. The 'way of the Lord': Ps. xxxiii 8, c 8, cxviii I, 3, cxxvii I;
Prov. xxviii 6, i8, 26. The notion of 'going' = death (Eccles. v 15-16, xii 5;
Ps. xxxix I3; Job xvi 22) is probably absent here.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I79

come 1). He orders his servants and they obey. 2). Disobedience leads
to destruction. The Centurionby 'servants' thinks not of demons of
disease (as some have thought)3), but angels, since angels are God's,
and so Jesus's, intermediaries and assistants 4). St. Luke probably
was put in mind of the apostels.
Why was the Centurionapprehensiveabout Jesus's coming under
his 'roof'? Luke took pains to visualise his position, and produced
an incongruous result. If a holy man enters a house to perform a
service for the owner the question arises whether he will accept
hospitality there. Most spirit-healers would watch what they could
gain (the Naaman story shows what was usually expected). No
hospitality could repay an especially holy healer, nor could one
offer him payment or create a situation whereby the healer would be
under obligation to entertain his formerhost. Dining was reciprocal,
an aspect of solidarity. An 'untouchable' which both our gentiles
remained 5), could not presume to inflict upon a Jewish holy man
the humiliation of accepting an obligation or alternatively refusing
his compromising offer of hospitality. Jesus was a special case,
but it was up to him to choose his host, as we know from the
Zacchaeus episode6). Moreover,there was the feeling of awe, which
Luke elaborates. The approach of the extremely venerable person
progressively increases awe, and fear supervenes that the house
(in giving shade) would diminish the 'power' of the comer. Jewish
law makes much of the concept of overshadowing ('dhalot) (hence
'roof') in connection with death-pollution (and the boy might be
1) Gen. vii I; Exod. xxiv I-3, I2-I3, Xxxiv, 2, 4; Deut. x I, 3, xxxi 14. J1.
iii 12. Ps. lxv 2, 5; Is. lx 5; lxvi 23.
2) I K. xvii 5, o1; Num. xxxii 20-27. Exod. xxxv I; Lev. xviii 4-5, 19-31,
xx 8, 22, xxii 31, xxv I8; Num. xv 39-40; Deut. xii 14, 17-19, xxvi I6, xxvii
10, xxxii 45-6, and infinite other examples. Ps. cxlviii 5. Obedience to God
through Elijah: I K. xvii I5. Devolution of orders is common: Exod. viii
I-2 (5-6); Num. xxvii 8, 20, 22-3; Deut. xxxi 7-8; Josh. iv 15-18.
3) JEREMIAS (evil spirit). FAIRWEATHER (p. 252). SCHMID and GAECHTER
on the passage. GAECHTER rightly implies that there could not be a silent
contradiction of Mt. xii 25-27. On expelling demons cf. Jos., Ant. viii 2, 5;
b. Meila I7 b.
4) K. BORNHAUSER, Das Wirken des Christus (Giitersloh, I92I), 71. Mk.
xiii 27; Mt. iv Ii; xxiv 31; xxvi 53. Cf. Lk. xvi 22. IS. vi6-7 may be in point.
J.-B. FREY, 'L'Ang6ologie juive au Temps de J6sus-Christ', R. Sc. Phil. et
Theol. 5 (I9II), 75-IIO. J. BONSIRVEN, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of
Christ (N.Y., I965), ch. 2. Exod. xxiii 23; xxxii 34; Num. xxii 20-23, 32, 35.
5) J. I. HASLER (a writer with Asian experience), Exp. T. 45 (I934),
459-46I.
6) DERRETT, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), 278-285.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I80 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

about to die!), but the concept is relevant even outside the pollution
of death. A holy man's shadow will itself have 'power' (Acts v I5).
Under the roof one supersensorilycontacts its limitations (e.g. had
it been bought out of 'pure' wealth?) and holy men's reactions are
unpredictable. This, rather than fear that the house might be
ritually impure, is the reason behind the protestation that he was
not 'xocv6s.
The Centurion transfers by analogy the concept he is proud to
operate in his secular life (that of souiaoc, potestas) to the spirit
world, and catches the spirit of Judaism as Jesus knows it. Even
as a mere gentile he knows that kings, supreme holders of potestas,
are life-givers, or are believed to be by the simple 1). When St. Luke
read the Q account he must have been struck by the irony it con-
tained. The man exercised potestas, but here seemed to have been
frustrated. The spirit world was full of potestates of various kinds 2).
In the secular world his word was law: but here was a servant who
could not go! By contrast he asks Jesus to help, and Jesus went; he
asked him to stop, and he stopped. By a kind of collegiality he
applied to Jesus for potestasin the spirit world; and Jesus complied.
Was it Jesus's function to comply? That was the potestas 'given'
to him 3). The relationship between military officers and the
secular power on the one hand and the spiritual power on the other
had, before St. Luke wrote, been explored twice-in ancient times,
and in A.D. 39-40 in the episode of Petronius and the Images which
gives us a documentation of the subject.
Within the Elijah story (2 K i) there is the story of Ahaziah, son
of Ahab, a virtual apostate, which explains the power of Elijah
vis-a-vis earthly potentates. We read it carefully since Luke recol-
lected it at Acts xx 9. The king orders Elijah to come; he refuses

1) A. M. HOCART, Kings and Councillors (ed. R. NEEDHAM) (Chicago and

London, I970). 2 K. v 6-8 is most relevant (A. FINKEL, Pharisees, 1964, ioo)!
2) Frey, cited at p. I78 n. 3 supra, at p. 93. G. B. CAIRD, Principalities
and Powers (Oxford, 1956). H. SCHLIER,Principalities and Powers in the
New Testament (N.Y., 1962). Thus 'power over them' is logical: Mk. iii I5,
vi 7, 12. C. K. BARRETT, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (I947),
69 ff., 78-82; HANS CONZELMANN,The Theology of St. Luke (London, I960),
181 ff. D. DAUBE'Sarticle on eiouata a propos of Mk. i 22, 27 at J.T.S. 39
(I938) 45-59 has impressed lexicographers but is contradicted by A. W.
ARGYLE at Exp. T. 80 (I968-9), 343, and discussed by BARRETT at 80-I.
3) God gives this eiouaia: Mt. ix 8! The power can be delegated: Mt. x I.
Delegation there must be: Mk. xi 28, Mt. xxi 23 = Lk. xx 2. So Mt. xxviii I8;
also Mk. xiii 34; Jn. xix i .

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

twice and would have refused a third time had not God orderedhim
to go. Apart from the saints and Nebuchadnezzar this is the most
striking example of prophetic disobedienceto a king. The king orders
his captain of fifty (revr-x6vroCpXoS) to go, and he goes (to his death),
and the next to go (similarly), and the third; the last too goes but
begs his life to be spared, twice using the plea that he should be
dear (vtLro0Qr, cf. Lk. vii 2, `vTc.Loqs) to Elijah. Elijah respects his
humility. In the face of the coming of divine power no one can stand,
no one is sufficient (ixxv6q)1) and humility is religiously as well as
socially appropriate2). The king died because he consulted Baal-
zebub, not Yahweh; Elijah would have cured him had he 'enquired'
of Yahweh. Our Centurioncombines the two features of obedience
to his secular superior with humility before the representative of
Yahweh and rejection of evil spirits. The theme of sending inter-
mediaries (two kinds of ayysXoS)is very prominent in the Ahaziah
story, and this (I submit) is why Luke modified Q as he did. Q told
of a gentile who knew Judaism through his ears as a God-fearer,was
admitted to social intercourse with Jews, and knew Judaism with
his heart, since he turned to God and not to heathen deities in a
crisis (cf. Mk. iii 23-24). In his concern for his servant he already
resembled a Jewish master 3). The story of Ahaziah is a warning to
kings and their officiers, promisinglife to those, who, irrespective of
their submission to secular potestas, can preserve themselves by
spiritual submission to a greater potestas. Were the soldiers of the
centurion positively affected by the event, more or less as he was?
Just as kings appoint centurions, so the spirit world (he believed)
had its hierarchy, its devolution of 'power', as Jethro recommended
and Moses accepted: for the 'judges' instituted at that time were
both secular and spiritual authorities.
The intellectual position was already established. Caesar exer-
cised the highest potestas 4). All Greek words for 'Lord' applied
to him. When God's commands were likely to be violated by the
commands of Caesarthe Jews protested that they would give their
lives 'to a man': more than rhetoric, as Petronius discovered. The
latter, orderedto instal Caesar'sstatue in the Temple, arguedthat he
must carry out Caesar'sorders or forfeit his life. He actually said,
1) K. H. RENGSTORF at ThWzNT III, 294 ff.
2) J1. ii II; Mal. iii 2; Rev. vi I5, 17. The &pXcovNaaman had great
struggles with humility (2 K. v 9-II, 15) but ended up echoing the words of
Jethro (cf. 2 K. v I5 with Exod. xviii ii).
3) Job xxxi I3-I5. b. Gitt. 37 b. 4) See p. 177 n. 7 supra.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

if we are to believe Josephus 1), that he too was under orders, as the
Jews were under God's orders to the contrary. The rhetorical ac-
count given by Philo emphasises the Jews' irony when they spoke
of their Lord and Master. Petronius was expected to think they
meant Caesar,but they meant God 2). Yet Petronius was as know-
ledgeable about Judaism as he was about potestas! 3) An irresistible
force approached an immovable object. The quality of Caesar'sim-
perium was like that of God: but, implied the Jews, Caesarcan kill
the body but he cannot take away the world to come (Lk. xii 4-5:
Eouaoa again!). Thus everyone who retained acquaintance with a
notorious piece of Jewish history knew that our Centurion (more
perspicacious than Petronius), without deserting his duty as a
soldier, could admit that the God of the Hebrew nation was the
universal master in spiritual matters, and Jesus his appointed
subordinate. Jesus healed by will alone: but he did this through
the power conferredupon him by God 4).
I have already drawn attention to the appropriatenessot Jethro
in this story, and surmised that St. Luke must have consulted it
when drafting his version of this episode. It is believed that the
Haftarah read out in the synagogue with the 'Jethro' sederwas Is.
xxxiii I3 ff 5). Some words in that haftarah are certainly relevant
1) The whole passage, Ant. XVIII, 261-288, is fascinating. The crucial
words are at the parallel passage in Bell., II, I92-202, at I95 (Loeb edn., ii,
399): xocl 9{oI cpuXzaxTroS 6 'To'oi o 8ar6rTOu
v6Lou ... xal yap auToz6, 4asrcp
6UL.Sq,7rVLT0rCTo,[L.E. SCHURER, History of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus Christ I/ii (Edinburgh, 1890), 99-105 (the parallel not noticed). It is
of value to understand the emperor's intentions. The andrias (as of a king or a
hero) was to be placed in the god's (i.e. Yahweh's) temple as a votive offering,
and not as an insult (the word andrias differs from agalma, whereas eikon is
indifferent). The position is fully documented by A. D. NOCK,'EYNNAOE
?EOE', H.S.C.P. 41 (1930), 1-62, reprinted at Essays (supra), I (I972), 202-
5I; see especially p. 346 n. 8.
2) Philo, Leg. ad. Caium, 218, 233-9. For the vocabulary, e.g. 8aeor6z-,
8uv&macr-see rich references at FREY, R.B., N.S. 13 (1916), 33 ff., at
p. 48 nn. 6-7.
3) Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 245. Josephus also shows Petronius as a devotee
of the Temple!
4) The text does not support W. Manson's idea that Jesus merely guarant-
eed a cure: Gospel of Luke (London, 1930) 76. The famous and rare case of
distant healing by a holy man, b. Ber. 34 b (FIEBIG,Jiidische Wunderge-
schichte, 20) (R. Hanina b. Dosa) is not a parallel, since he did not purport to
be God's agent, but only suppliant, and Jesus does not operate by mere
prayer (Jn. xi 4I-2!!). And H. was not a notable in other respects: SCHECHTER,
Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 7.
5) See J. MANN, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue I
(Cincinnati, I940), 446-52.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT i83

to the theme: 'Hear (or 'they shall hear'), those that are far off,
what I have done; and know (or 'they shall know'), those that
are near, my might ... the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our ruler,
the Lord is our king: he will save us ... the sojourner shall not say
'I am ill', the people that dwells in her (Jerusalem) whose inquity
has been taken away ... Draw near, O nations; hearken, O peoples
(otherwise 'rulers', 'kingdoms') ...' It is not known whether St. Luke
intended his gospel to fit into any existing lectionary, but if he did
the Torah and Prophets lections would seem to be sufficiently ap-
propriate. But the question must be approached on a comprehensive
basis.
CONCLUSION:TEACHING AND FACT
The stories tell upon what footing gentiles might participate
in the life-giving force at the Messiah's disposal. The Centurion's
boy and the woman's daughter were both cured as a free gift: in
neither case did he act by way of reciprocity. The faith (if any)
of the two young people was irrelevant. In both cases the Name of
God was hallowed amongst the heathen, plainly a command in-
cumbent upon Jesus as upon every Jew. That the conversations
took place can hardly be doubted: the intellectual and literary as-
pects must have had a factual peg from which to hang. The charac-
teristic appearance of a legal debate certifies the inherent Jewishness
of each episode, since Jews had a great taste for such debates with
gentiles in which the former invariably worsted the latter 1). It is
significant that, in appearance only, the gentiles have the upper
hand in these two instances. Gentiles could claim Jesus's attention
either on the basis that they accepted his Father as Master of the
Universe and him as his delegate, or on the basis that they came to
him as objects of charity. In the latter case all allusion to 'Jewish
legalism' is irrelevant. The Centurion's secular experience brought
him to this act of faith (rather like the Unjust Steward), and he
took upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom (as if he were reciting the
Shema'). The woman's human need was enough. Whether this was
understood by the apostles can be left open, since the problem with
which they were faced was different. The relevance of the Syro-
1) An impressive list is given at Bultmann, op. cit., 42 n. 2. A gentile
quotes scripture at Tanhuma, Terumah ioo quoted by Billerbeck at p. 725
(a story of R. cAqiba). The pagans could sometimes be more successful:
Yahweh against Serapis in P. Oxy. 1242 (dated in the time of Caracalla
according to VON PREMERSTEIN, Philol. Suppl. xvi/2 (I923), 64 ff.).

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I84 J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT

Phoenician woman to Rom. i I6, ii 9, 10; Acts iii 26, xiii 46 is ob-
vious.
Why did St. Luke omit the story of the woman? 1) Parts of her
tale are scattered elsewhere in his gospel, verbally or by implic-
ation (Lk. xi I3; xvi 2I). And I K. xvii 23 reappears at Lk. ix 42.
In the eschatological scheme inaugurated by Jesus there is no dif-
ference between Jew and Greek, both being entitled to the same
benefits. The notion 'Jew first and then the Greek'2) is scripturally
accurate3) and logically and historically unexceptionable. But
once the gentiles come to Jesus because they know he is God's
deputy or because they believe he will aid them in charity, they
are upon as good a footing as if they were actually born to the ex-
pectation of the world to come 4). St. Luke is (in my view) unlikely
to have been offended by the 'first' aspect, or by the humble
position of one content with 'crumbs'; for in his story of the Cent-
urion he combinedthe themes of reciprocity,charity, and (emphatic-
ally) humility (Prov. xxii 4) as well as the praise of a gentile who
literally fulfilled Zech. viii 20-23.
Could there have been a historical event behind each healing?
Could reminiscencehave played a part (as the crisp texts suggest) ?
Or was this merely an assurance that gentiles had nothing better,
and they might afterwardslook for nothing less? After the Ascens-
ion, one might reply, Jewish Christians too were as remote from
Jesus as Greeks! Many writers deny the historicity of the healing 5).
Little is known of spiritual healing (for it is chiefly in primitive
societies that one now finds the necessary naivity and self-sub-
mission). To dismiss the miracles out of hand is unjustified. In the
last two decades strides have been made in child and adolescent
psychiatry. The old approach to miracles, viz. that the intent

1) CROCKETT, cit. sup., shows at 179-I80 the exploitation of the Elijah

and Elisha stories in Lk. and Acts, seemingly rendering the Syrophoenician
woman unnecessary.
2) Rom. i. i6, ii II-I6, 26-9, iii. 9, xvi 26.
3) Is xlii 5-7.
4) BRAUDE,Jewish Proselyting, 41, refers to b. Shab. 3I a and Pesiqta
Rabbati ch. 35, para. 3 (trans. BRAUDE,I968, ii, 674). Note the mention of
Jethro there.
5) Keim, following Strauss, 'wish uttered in the imperative'. Burkill
(originally Mk. vii 27 b was a downright rejection of gentiles). Many regard
it as unimportant relative to the teaching about faith being fulfilled in
experience through Jesus (Schweizer). Even Lindars speaks of the miraculous
element as requiring 'agnostic reserve'.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I85

of the evangelist is best understood if one eschews factual invest-

igation, no longer matches with our information. It is accepted
that acute distress amongst children, especially schizophrenia, is
due to open or hidden disturbance in their guardians, usually their
parents. Acute symptoms, such as eneuresis and encopresis, are
caused by home conditions which yield to psychiatric treatment not
primarily of the child but rather of his family. In some cases, which
appear miraculous to the layman, the psychiatrist can detect that
much of the trouble lies with highly disturbed parents or gu-
ardians, whose symptoms are traceable to their own parents 1), and
in many cases the accurate diagnosis of the origin of the trouble,
combined with effective treatment of the adult, will cure the
child. The release of pressure on the child may have what in retro-
spect can be described as an immediate cure, especially where the
neurosis originates in anxiety. What is remarkable in these New
Testament cases is that the cure of the adult, who may well have
been the real patient, rather than the cure of the child, who was
the ostensible patient, took place so quickly. It is unnecessary
to imagine that Jesus sent messengers or that the children were
already cured by learning that their guardians were on the way to
Jesus, or some telepathic awareness on his part (Cadoux). The
guardians were (if I am right in this guess) cured after what pur-
ports to be a discussion. Mark and Q give only an edited summary

1) N. W. ACKERMAN, The Psychodynamics of Family Life (N.Y., I958),

chs. I4, I5, 19, 2I. A. H. BOWLEY, Problems of Family Life, 2nd edn. (Lon-
don, I948); The Natural Development of the Child (Edinburgh and London,
I957), I37-9, I42-3; D. W. WINNICOTT, The Child and the Outside World
(London, 1959), 98 ff.; E. H. ERIKSON, Childhood and Society (N.Y., 1956),
ch. 5; E. J. ANTHONY, 'Effects of training under stress in children', in J. M.
TANNER, ed., Stress and Psychiatric Disorder (Oxford, Blackwell, I96o), 34-
46; R. D. LAING, The Divided Self (London, 1959), ch. I ; The Politics of the
Family and other Essays (London, I97I), esp. pp. 36-8. C. G. JUNG, Structure
and Dynamics of the Psyche (Works, vol. 8) (London, 1960), 304: the psychol-
ogical after-effects of parents can lead to a systematised cult, e.g. ancestor-
worship. Laing's ideas (above) relate especially to schizophrenics, who, in the
ancient world, must have been classic 'demonized' cases. Laing has aband-
oned the concept of 'schizophrenia' as a specific condition. His ideas arouse
scepticism amongst 'orthodox' psychiatrists, but they command very wide
respect. R. D. LAING and A. ESTERSON, Sanity, Madness and the Family2
(London, 1970), 12: 'We set out to illustrate by eleven examples that, if we
look at some experience and behaviour without reference to family inter-
action, they may appear comparatively socially senseless, but that if we look
at the same ... in their original family context they are liable to make more
sense'. Their evidence impresses.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I86 DUNCAN M. DERRETT, LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

of what took place, but it seems very short. Modernexperts would

require several months' therapy to help the adult and so relieve
the child; and the modern therapist would need to see the child. But
let us look at these conversations more closely. Modern therapy
would use suggestion, a kind of hypnosis, free association, and
other techniques enabling the hidden past to come to the surface
of the mind. What (for example) is this talk (in psychiatric terms)
of 'puppies'? How are they related to the woman's relationship to
her child? What aggression does her make-up contain? She was
divorced, deserted, or a widow, and her child lived in a classic
situation for disturbance. The centurion actually initiates a talk
about discipline and absolute obedience. He seeks submission to an
absolute ideal: his secular experience evidently lacks this quality (as
well it might). His servant or slave was in a state of complete
disobedience, perhaps as a defensive response. What do we know
of a slave's mentality; how would their contemporary counterparts
to our psychiatrists deal with disturbed ex-dolly-boys, for example ?
But we do know that both adults were convinced, to the point of
utter want of self-consciousness,that a 'man of God' held their ans-
wer. The eliciting of this fact could have relieved those adults of the
burden they carried, and this could have at once paved the way for
the children's cure. I say it is possible: I go no further. Denials
of the reality of the events are premature. They would, at those
times, have been regarded as miraculous. Gentiles going to a 'man
of God' in those two fashions would, of course, be very much more
suggestible than Jews, for whom direct access to God in prayer was
an everyday experience.

In both stories we find Jesus enacting what is said of God at Ps. cvii I7-20:
'Fools, because of their rebellion and due to their sins, are afflicted. Their
soul abhors all food; they draw near to the gates of death. They cry to the
Lord in their trouble; he saved them out of their stresses. He sent his word
and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction.'

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:09:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions