Comments on: Was the Gentile woman who persuaded Jesus to heal her daughter Syrophoenician or Canaanite?

By: Timothy Rice

Timothy Rice — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:45:29 +0000

Impressed that Canaanite is suggested. Maybe even more distant, a Zidonian! There is far more to that little story, far beyond the scope of a comment here. I’m already on about 50 pages in an essay on this one… awesome journey! I enjoy the feeds.

By: WisdomLover

WisdomLover — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:57:06 +0000

The main point, that a Syro-Phoenician is a type of Canaanite stands whether or not Canaan was being confused with Cana, and regardless of the history of the boundaries of Canaan.

But FWIW, it appears that the big question is whether it’s Tyre or Sidon that is the oldest city of Phoenicia. These cities are both to the north of Galilee. And since Phoenicia is part of the land of Canaan, at least part of the land of Canaan has been to the north of Galilee for quite some time.

By: Errancy

Errancy — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:38:07 +0000

I don’t think that the problem confuses Canaan with Cana, but it might confuse two uses of “Canaan”.

As I understand it, “Canaan” first referred to a small region south of Galilee, but then became a more general term for a much wider area which included Tyre and Sidon.

The problem assumes the first usage, but in NT times that would be anachronistic.

By: WisdomLover

WisdomLover — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:46:19 +0000

This problem confuses Canaan with Cana (I think). “Canaanite” is the term that the Phoenicians and Punics referred to themselves as. If the woman were from Carthage, it would still be correct to refer to her as Canaanite. The Greeks and Romans are the ones who referred to them as Punic or Phoenician.

Tyre and Sidon are part of the region called Lebanon, but would also have been considered part of the region called Syria, just as Saint-Tropez and Nice are part of France and part of the Côte d’Azur. The region of Tyre and Sidon was well to the north of Galilee.

Thus it would be as if Matthew had said that Jesus was traveling near Glasgow and was approached by a British woman from the area, and Mark had said that Jesus was approached by a Scot. Clearly, no contradiction at all.