¹ The hypotheses that this pericope may have originated from Matthew and been included in the Gospel of Mark by its later editor (W. Buβmann) or that Matthew used an older version of Mark (Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels [London: Macmillan 1924; 3rd ed. 1930] 260)Google Scholar are speculations lacking any external evidence. A review of the discussion is given by C. Focant, ‘Me 7.24–31 par. Mt 15,21–29. Critique des sources et/ou étude narrative’, in: Focant, C., ed., The Synoptic Gospels (BETL,110; Leuven: University/Peeters) 39–75Google Scholar, esp. 39–50.

² Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie, 1957) 267Google Scholar, etc.

³ Bultmann, R., Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 4th ed. 1958)38.Google Scholar

⁴ For the structure see also Focant, ‘Me 7.24–31’, 62–3; for the general orientation in this pericope see Burkill, T. A., ‘The Syrophoenician Woman. The Congruence of Mark 7,24–31’, ZNW 57 (1966) 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ See Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 3rd ed. 1988) 543ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Luz, U., ‘Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie’, ZNW 56 (1965) 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ See the summary of the discussion in Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2/1; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978) 167–72Google Scholar and Pokorný, P., ‘Das Markusevangelium. Literarische und theologische Einleitung mit Forschungsbericht’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25.3 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1985) 1969– 2035, esp. 2009–12Google Scholar. According to J. M. Robinson, ‘Gnosis im neuen Testament’ (1978), recently in: idem, Messiasgeheimnis und Geschichtsverständnis (ThB 81; München: Kaiser, 1989) 115–25, esp. p. 124, the Messianic Secret has been revealed in the second part of Mark's Gospel (since 8.32); Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium 1 (Herder 2/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1976)Google Scholar ad loc. and Räisänen, H. H., Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium (SFEG 28; Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1976)Google Scholar, put the redactional intention in question. See the criticism of Räisänen's position in: Fendler, F., Studien zum Markusevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991)Google Scholar ch. 3.

⁸ This feature of Markan narrative strategy was described by Dewey, J., ‘Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience’, CBQ 53 (1991) 221–35Google Scholar and by Malbon, E. S., ‘Echoes and Foreshadowings in Mark 4–8’, JBL 112 (1993) 211–30.Google Scholar

⁹ Fander, M., ‘Frauen in der Nachfolge Jesu. Die Frau im Markusevangelium’, EvTheol 52 (1992) 413–33.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Matthew calls her a Canaanite woman (the Aramaic name for Phoenicians). We need not speculate about possible text corruption in Mark 7.26 as in G. Schwarz, ‘ΣΥΡΟΦΟΙΝΙΚΙΣΣΑΧΑΝΑΝΑΙΑ (Markus 7.26/Matthäus 15.22)’, NTS 30 (1984) 626–8Google Scholar, since the designation of the woman is logical in both versions. Nevertheless logical only from the ‘Western’ point of view (Rome etc.), since in Syria ‘Syrophoenician’ would be superfluous, see M. Hengel, ‘Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums’, in: Cancik, H., ed., Markus-Philologie (Tübingen Mohr-Siebeck, 1984) 1–45Google Scholar, esp. 45, note 164; see also Focant, ‘Mc 7.24–31’, 41.

¹¹ Theissen, G., The Gospels in Context (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992 [ET]) 70–2.Google Scholar

¹² For the later evidence see R. Haardt, ‘Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die auβerbiblischen Herrenworte’, in Schubert, K., ed., Der historische Jesus (Vienna: KBW, 1962) 257–87Google Scholar, ad loc.

¹³ E. L. Leutsch-F. G., Schneidewin, ed., Corpus paroemigraphorum graecorum 1 (Göttin-gen, 1839Google Scholar, reprint Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965) 363.

¹⁴ According to Burkill the sentence about preferring of children to dogs (verse 27a) may also have been a proverbial saying similar to ‘Charity begins at home’: Burkill, T. A., ‘The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman’, NovTest 9 (1967) 161–78,Google Scholar esp. 176.

¹⁵ Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ad loc., supposed that κυνάριον may be a euphemism, but the regular diminutive of κύων is κυνίδιον see C. H. Turner, ‘Marcan Usage’, last edition in: Elliott, J. K., ed., The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark (Leiden, etc.: E. J. Brill, 1993) 1–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 124.

¹⁶ Burkill, ‘Historical Development’, 172; Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 1.2 (Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1990) 435–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Burkill, ‘Historical Development’, 176 cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium 1.390.

¹⁸ See Garnsey, P., Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Response to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Univ., 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ We can see a shift in the theory of metaphor in the last two decades. The metaphor is no longer considered to be only an adornment (Aristotle); it may be a discovery of a new relation, a new information which cannot be replaced by a ‘rational’ expression: Ricoeur, P., ‘Stellung und Funktion der Metapher in der biblischen Sprache’, in: P., Ricoeur-E.Jüngel, , Metapher (EvTh Sonderheft; München: Kaiser, 1974) 45–70Google Scholar; English: ‘Philosophical Hermeneutics and Theological Hermeneutics’, Studies in Religion 5, 14–33, esp. 49, 119 (GT); Perrin, N., Jesus and the Language of Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 30–3.Google Scholar

²⁰ Gnilka, Markusevangelium, 1.293. Only after the Edinburgh Meeting did I learn of the article by Downing, F. G., ‘The Woman from Syrophoenicia and Her Doggedness: Mark 7:24–31 (Matthew 15:21–28)’, in: Brooke, G. J., ed., Woman in the Biblical Tradition (Studies in Woman and Religion 31; Lewinston, etc.: Edwin Mellen, 1992) 129–49Google Scholar. Downing mentioned the possible background of this story in a setting influenced by Cynics who called themselves dogs (e.g. Diog. Laert. 6.10).

²¹ W.A. 17.2, 200–4.

²² Theissen, Gospels in Context, 61–80.

²³ I cannot discuss arguments for the contemporary consensus about the Kingdom of God as the core of Jesus' proclamation. For the problem see my Genesis of Christology (ET -Edinburgh: Clark, 1987)Google Scholar ch. 2. Those who put the eschatological dimension of Jesus' teaching in question, like e.g. Mack, B., A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988)Google Scholar ch. 13, do not distinguish between the future dimension of the Kingdom in Jesus' proclamation (e.g. Mark 1.15; Lord's Prayer) and post-Easter apocalypticism.

²⁴ See e.g. Roloff, J., Die Kirche im. Neuen Testament (NTD Erg. 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 28ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See Focant, ‘Mc 7.24–31’, 49–50.

²⁶ For the historico-critical method see E. Troeltsch, ‘Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie’, in: idem, Gesammelte Schriften (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1913) 729–53.

²⁷ R. Bultmann, ‘1st voraussetzungslose Exegese möglich?’ (1957), in: idem, Glauben und Verstehen 3 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 3rd ed. 1965) 142–50.

²⁸ Berger, K., Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1988) 121–2Google Scholar. Even the new document of the papal Biblical Commission on Bible interpretation of 18 November 1993 deals with this problem, see Kremer, J., ‘Die Interpretation der Bible in der Kirche’, Stimmen der Zeit, 212 (1994) 151–66Google Scholar, esp. 154.

²⁹ Symptomatic is the book of Tate, W. R., Biblical Interpretation. An Integrated Approach (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991).Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus’, in: idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd ed. 1965) 31–68, esp. 67. According to G. Ebeling the earthly Jesus is the hermeneutical key of christology: Ebeling, G., Theologie und Verkündigung (HUTh 1; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1962) 52.Google Scholar

³¹ Lämmert, Eb., Bauformen des Erzählens (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 3rd ed. 1968) 22ff.Google Scholar

³² To the anti-fatal impetus of the biblical tradition see Balabán, M., ‘Virá nebo osud (Glaube oder Fatum)’, in: The State and Perspectives of Religious Studies in Czechoslovakia (Brno: Society for Religious Studies, 1990) 17–23.Google Scholar

³³ See Ricoeur, ‘Stellung’, 69.

³⁴ Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der historische Jesus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 160Google Scholar, note 200; cf. Schmithals, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTK-NT 2/1; Gütersloh: Mohn/Würzburg: Echter, 1979) 355.Google Scholar

³⁵ Feldmeier, R., ‘Die Syrophönizierin (Mk 7,24–30) – Jesu “verlorenes” Streitgespräch?’, in: R., Feldmeier-U.Heckel, , ed., Die Heiden (WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994) 211–27Google Scholar, esp. 223.

³⁶ See Schweizer, E., Das Euangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970)Google Scholar ad loc. and Ernst, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 5th ed. 1963)Google Scholar ad loc.

³⁷ See Annen, F., Heil für Heiden. Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5.1–20parr.) (FTS 20; Frankfurt a.M.: J. Knecht, 1976) esp. 199Google Scholar. According to Schenke, L., Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974) 71, 406Google Scholar etc., the Markan miracles of Jesus help us to understand Jesus' teaching and are intended to help the mission.

³⁸ Cf. Focant, ‘Mc 7,24–31’, 48.

³⁹ Feldmeier, ‘Syrophönizierin’, 219.

⁴⁰ Tannehill, R. C., ‘Types and Functions of Apophthegms in Synoptic Gospels’, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25.2 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 1792–829Google Scholar, esp. 1812.

⁴¹ See Roloff, Kirche, 56–7 and K. Donfried, P., ‘The Feeding Narratives and the Marcan Community’, in: FS G. Bornkamm (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980) 95–103.Google Scholar

⁴² Mánek, J., ‘Mark VIII.14–21’, Novum Testamentum 7 (1964) 10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Betz, O., ‘Jesus and the Temple Scroll’, in: Charlesworth, J. H., ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, etc.: Doubleday, 1992) 75–103Google Scholar, esp. 77; this is also the correct thesis of J. B. Gibson, ‘The Rebuke of the Disciples in Mark 8,14–21’, JSNT 27 (1986) 31–47. However, his opinion about the disciples' intention not to feed the pagans across the sea (p. 36) is an over-interpretation.

⁴³ Cf. Focant, C., ‘La fonction narrative des doublets dans la section des pains Mc 6,6b–8,26’, in: The Four Gospels 1992 (FS F. Neirynck; Leuven: University/Peeters, 1992) 1039–62Google Scholar, esp. 1053ff.

⁴⁴ An indirect argument in favour of a sacramental connotation is the allusion to our pericope in the Gospel of Philip, where the ‘dogs’ do not have full access to the sacrament of ‘bridal chamber’ (NH 11.81.34–82.26).

⁴⁵ For the specific features of Jesus' table-fellowship see J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran’, in: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (see above note 12) 254–72, esp. 256.

⁴⁶ See Pesch, Markuseuangelium 1.389; the christological meaning is denied by Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 82.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See e.g. Lang, F., ‘Sola gratia im Markusevangelium’, in: Rechtfertigung (FS E. Käsemann; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 322–37.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Söding, Th., Glaube bei Markus (SBB 12; Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1985) 550–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. Kirchschläger, W., ‘Bartimäus – Paradigma einer Wundererzählung’, in: The Four Gospels 1992 (FS F. Neirynck; Leuven: Univ./Peeters, 1992) 1105–23,Google Scholar esp. 1122.

⁵⁰ See Söding, Glaube, 309.

⁵¹ G. Ebeling, ‘Jesus und Glaube’ (1958), in: idem, Wort and Glaube (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2nd ed. 1962) 203–54, esp. 238ff.

⁵² This is the positive contribution of E. Güttgemanns in his articles concerning Biblical Theology: ‘Gegenstand, Inhalt und Methode einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments’, Linguistica Biblica 66 (1992) 55–113Google Scholar, esp. pp. 92–3; cf. idem, ‘Semiotische Methode und “Darstellung” einer “Theologie des Neuen Testaments”’, Ibid. 68 (1993) 5–94.

⁵³ See Ricoeur, ‘Philosophische und theologische Hermeneutik’, in: Ricoeur-Jüngel, Metapher, 24–44, esp. 27–8. He speaks of a ‘Textwelt’.

⁵⁴ Ricoeur, ‘Stellung und Funktion der Metapher’, 51ff. cf. Russel, M. Gerhard-A., Metaphoric Process. The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, 1984) 184ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ P. Ricoeur, ‘Symbole et mythe’, Le Semeur (1963, No. 2) (accessible to me only through a Czech translation). It was already F. Overbeck who realized that ‘allegory’ in biblical exegesis is a substitute for myth (Über die Christlichkeit unserer heutigen Theologie (Leipzig: Naumann, 2nd ed. 1903) 36.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ So Berger, K., Exegese des Neuen Testaments (UTB; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1977) 251–3Google Scholar and idem, Hermeneutik, 218–19 cf. 205–6 in polemics against Gadamer's theory on Horizontverschmelzung; see Gadamer, H. G., Wahrheit und Methode (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2nd ed. 1965) 289.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See P. Tillich's theory of revelation taking seriously the analogia entis, however not in the sense of natural theology, but as a means of expressing the experience of faith: Systematic Theology 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1951)Google Scholar ch. 2.A.4.

⁵⁸ Keck, L. E., A Future for the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1971) 244Google Scholar; Jüngel, E., Gott als Geheimnis der Welt (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2nd ed. 1977) 491Google Scholar; Schillebeeckx, E., Jesus (Freiburg i.Br. etc.: Herder, 3rd German ed. 1976) 555ffGoogle Scholar. However, such a concept of revelation is theologically valid (non-docetic) if we draw the necessary consequence, namely that through faith in Jesus as Kyrios, all the world (the creation) as the realm of his incarnation becomes in its full reality a parable of openness toward God. This is implied already in the hymn in Philippians 2, esp. in verses 10–11. In systematic theology it was W. Pannenberg in his book Christentum und Mythos (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972) 73ff.Google Scholar, who described this dimension of Christian theology. Unfortunately his comprehensive definition of myth is not helpful.

⁵⁹ Greimas, A. J., Sémantique structural (Paris: Larousse, 1966) 96.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Hofrichter, P., ‘Von der zweifachen Speisung des Markus zur zweifachen Aussendung des Lukas’, in: Hainz, J., ed., Theologie im Werden (Paderborn, etc.: F. Schöningh, 1993) 143–55, esp. 145–8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ricoeur, ‘Stellung …’, 49.

⁶² Weinrich, H., Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt (Stuttgart, etc.: Kohlhammer, 2nd ed. 1971) 191.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Berger, Hermeneutik, 51,105,232 etc.

⁶⁴ ‘L'hérmeneutique du témoignage’ (1972), ET: ‘The Hermeneutics of Testimony’, in: idem, Essays on Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1981) 119–54, esp. 123ff.

⁶⁵ The School of Constanz stressed the significance of the effect and reception of every text for its interpretation (H. R. Jauss, ‘Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft’, in: Literaturgeschichte als Provokation [Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1970] 144–207Google Scholar, esp. 183ff.), but it does not deal with the problem of reference and testing (see excursus 2 above).