contrary to what i said, i will devote a little more of my time to this. since you keep asking so politely. or should i say, "manging like a bitch"
I) "There IS a difference between "Exegis" and "Hermeneutics.": "Exegis" is the STUDY of texts, primarily Biblical. "Hermeneutics" is the STUDY of the METHODOLOGY OF STUDY of texts, primarily Biblical. So, on one hand you have the "study," on the other you have the "study OF the study." YES, there IS a difference. However, outside of community college classrooms and commons there is no real distinction worth making (sarcasm to a point). I will resist the urge to call you out and move onto the next Point.
^you have such a nice way of admitting a point, then covering it all up in sophistry, just to save your pretty ego. you already started doing this in your previous reply to my previous post. the sly 'community college' ad hom just to top it off. marvellous.
a few more appalling sophisms:
-reiterations of my words with subtle, and sometimes less then subtle difference as to what i say. eg. putting words in my mouth. quote them in my own words please (seeing as you make so much effort to be objective?).
-breaking up your argument in little pieces. in which you offer little more then sidestream commentations, sophistry, sly and less sly ad homs. hide the substance of your argument in wall of text and endless essentially trivial points, as to make the core of your argument as comfortably numb as possible. divide and conquer, i guess. what did you exactly say on my position, besides that it is 'empty'? or refute the site's take on matthew 15,21 only by saying its "made up".
subtle..
also, i make 1 strict ad hom remark (clearly notifying you that i will frankly tell you how i feel about your argumentation style), and 1 calculated wager, based on your initial reception of my mention of the hermeneutic circle, and you call me out on it? count the dozen you made. especially that plethora at the end of your previous reply was really begging for it.
pertaining fundamentalism: ad verbatim is an expression used to denote a classic characteristic of fundamentalism. it is not its definition. in fact, the reality is circular. in case you haven't noticed; words by themselves also change in nuances and meaning over time. there is no single atemporally univocal linguistic word in the universe. an ad verbatim interpretation will still not be univocal by means of the words themselves. fundamentalism is taking 1 possible interpretation, and make it THE ONLY TRUE interpretation possible, to put it in first grader wordings. or more elaboratly: it means closing off an interpretation inside the word. neither the word or the interpretation are normally closed. a fundamentalist closes off both the words themselves in the text and the interpretation of a text as a whole in an artifical atemporal stasis. it becomes no longer dynamic, and as such the operative hermeneutic circle becomes a solidified, closed-off foundation.
now lets see what i turned up in less then half an hour of personal research on matthew 15,21.
the Byzantine Majority Greek New Testament:
15:26 o de apokriqeis eipen ouk estin kalon labein ton arton twn teknwn kai balein tois kunariois
15:27 h de eipen nai kurie kai gar ta kunaria esqiei apo twn yixiwn twn piptontwn apo ths trapezhs twn kuriwn autwn
as you can see; kynarion, κυνάριον (dog, household dog, little dog) does not equal kyon, κύων ((stray) dog, bitch (in both technical and pejorative senses), offensive person). the text clearly uses the diminuitive form, which is traditionally used by the Greeks for referring to their beloved dogs.
here is another (random exegesis) note how strange it is they (this one and the one i posted earlier) come to wholly different conclusions on the same basis as you do.
VERSES 21-28: THE CANAANITE WOMAN
21Jesus went out from there, and withdrew into the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22Behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders, and cried (Greek: ekrazen –– cried out, clamored, screamed), saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, you son of David! My daughter is severely demonized!" (Greek: kakos daimonizetai –– badly or wickedly demon-possessed). 23But he answered her not a word.
His disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away; for she cries after us."
24But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25But she came and worshiped him, saying, "Lord, help me."
26But he answered, "It is not appropriate to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
27But she said, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you even as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that hour.
"Jesus went out from there, and withdrew into the region of Tyre and Sidon" (v. 21). Jesus moves from Gennesaret, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, to Tyre and Sidon, respectively 25 and 50 miles north of Galilee on the Mediterranean shore. This is Gentile country.
"Behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders" (v. 22a). "The term 'Canaanite' has inevitable associations with the pagan inhabitants of Palestine displaced by the Jews and thus contrasts the woman all the more with the people of God" (Hagner).
The woman "came out from those borders, and cried (ekrazen –– cried out, clamored, screamed) saying, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, you son of David" (v. 22b). The woman addresses Jesus both as "Lord" and "son of David," words that a Jew might use for the Messiah. We are surprised to hear such words on the lips of a Canaanite woman. Only once before has Jesus heard such words, even from his disciples (14:33).
"My daughter is severely demonized" (kakos daimonizetai –– badly or wickedly demon-possessed) (v. 22c). This is an issue that we would expect Jesus to address quickly and gladly, and he does exorcise demons elsewhere (8:28 - 9:1; Mark 1:21-28; Luke 8:2).
"But he answered her not a word" (v. 23). This is hard to imagine!
"Send her away; for she cries after us" (v. 23). The disciples, offended by the woman's screaming, ask Jesus to send her away. The woman has addressed Jesus as Lord, but the disciples fail to do so as they tell Jesus to send her away.
While Jesus does not send her away, he answers the disciples (not the woman), "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (v. 24). Jesus cannot allow himself to be distracted. He has a whole nation to save. But Jesus disappoints us here.
But the worst is yet to come! She kneels before him and begs, "Lord, help me" (v. 25). But Jesus responds, "It is not appropriate to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (v. 26). Surely those words did not come from Jesus' mouth!
"It helps to recognize that this is a story told from a Jewish point of view…. The recurring theme of Matthew's narrative (is) that the gospel belongs first to Israel" (Brueggemann, 449).
It also helps to remember that Jesus tries to slow the pace of disclosure (see John 2:4). He is pacing himself. After the resurrection, Jesus will open the door to the Gentiles (28:18-20). Until then, he must give the Israelites every chance.
"Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table" (v. 27). The woman notices that Jesus used the word, not for stray dogs that wander the streets (Greek: kuon), but for household pets (Greek: kunariois). Pets are not outsiders but insiders. She calls Jesus on it! We can almost see the gleam in her eye as she senses the power of her comment. While acknowledging her modest place, she claims her rightful, if modest, privileges.
Jesus responds exuberantly, "Woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you even as you desire" (v. 28). After parrying hostile religious leaders and prodding balky disciples, Jesus finds this faith-filled woman a joy! He delights in allowing her to best him –– a truly remarkable contrast to the high-powered men who fail time after time to do so.
"And her daughter was healed from that hour" (v. 28b). Hallelujah! We are almost as pleased as she is!
source
by now i became curious as to how your interpretation came to be.
an author notes in The Sage Journals
here:
so it appears we have Greek translated text, and a Jewish tradition. we do not have the original Hebrew text. even if we did, it is highly unlikely the gospel of Matthew was written by an eye-witness. the text is thus certainly not a simple penned down version of Jesus his (historical) words. this is the first uncertainty. furthermore: Did Jesus actually say 'dog'? being a Jew, that would be in the in the Jewish sense. or did the translator use his own greek term to denote the nuances of the dialogue? even if we take it literally as written in the greek text
and take in the Jewish traditional interpretation of 'all dogs' when Jesus speaks the word, Jesus may very well be teaching his disciples
not to fall prey to the Jewish habit of disdain to outsiders, seeing as how he sets himself up for the woman to best him (cf. the first exegesis i referred to on the previous page).
now, its seems we are very far from a univocal, objective
historical interpretation based on historical sources, don't we?
Requoted for spiritual truth (perhaps its no coincidence you chose this passage?):
Jesus responds exuberantly, "Woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you even as you desire" (v. 2. After parrying hostile religious leaders and prodding balky disciples, Jesus finds this faith-filled woman a joy! He delights in allowing her to best him –– a truly remarkable contrast to the high-powered men who fail time after time to do so.
you sure make a lot of racket when voicing your doxai.
