In a previous section I noted that Canaanites, Syrians, and Phoenicians were banned as 'dogs'. In Matthew's gospel, Samaritans are, of course, included on the list of banned ‘dog-type' peoples.

"These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew Chapter 10 verse 5)

      This would be a good time to point out once again the inconsistencies in Matthew's account. In the opening chapters of Matthew's gospel he follows Mark in opening the ministry in Gentile territory, and then goes so far as to suggest that the sending of the Messiah to the Gentiles was in fact the great fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah.

"And leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned." (Matthew 4:13)

      We are told in Matthew's gospel that Gentiles were 'dogs' that he could not bother even talking, too, much less heal. Then again we are told that,

"And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan." (Matthew chapter 4 verse 23)

     You might note that Syria, Galilee ('of the Gentiles'), the Decapolis, and the lands 'beyond the Jordan' are Gentile territories.

      We are told in Matthew's gospel that the Torah is infallible, and that the Torah requires reform. We are told in the Matthew gospel that the gospel is for the Jews only, and that Gentiles and Samaritans are 'dogs' who must be avoided. Then again we are told that Gentiles are to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and that it is the Jewish people who will be cast out (presumably into hell, where they will 'weep and grind their teeth'). In Matthew Chapter 8:5-13 we are told the story of a Roman (Gentile) centurion who received a miracle, and furthermore is presented as holier than the Jewish people.

"As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it." When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west (ie. Gentiles) and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom (ie. the Jewish people) will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."" (Matthew Chapter 8 verse 5)

      If we assume that the original Matthew was 'pro-Jewish' then the parable of the Centurion, which is pro-Gentile, would be a later interpolation by the church fathers. Another possibility is that the parable was original to Matthew, and the 'Gentile dog' and other reactionary material were later interpolations by certain reactionary elements in the Jewish congregation that inherited the manuscript. This seems to me to be the most likely scenario since it would then be the original ideological outlook that the Matthew gospel was being critical of Jewish reaction and rejection of Joshua as Messiah, was for Torah reform, against the Pharisees, and was employing this 'pro-Gentile' parable as a means to shame and pressure the rest of the Jewish people. It would also explain the presence of 'master-slave' parables in the gospel (the Jewish people were being invited to consider themselves slaves who being taking beatings for the rejection of Christ). The reactionary elements that were then found in the gospel which introduce such complexities and inconsistencies into the manuscript could then be considered the polemical response of that segment of the Jewish community who had to live with the reaction Matthew's original gospel provoked in the Jewish community (they backed off Torah reform by asserting the infallible inerrancy of the Bible, they tried to downplay the criticism of the Jewish community by introducing strong anti-Gentile polemics, all this in response to the the dynamics of a changing situation).

      Whatever the actual explanation may be, Matthew's gospel proves to be very complex. Previously I held to the theory that the bigoted reactionary elements in this gospel were 'original Matthew' and that anything inconsistent was 'added by the church fathers'. However this simple model is an inadequate explanation for the inconsistencies in thought that are found in the Matthew gospel. It is a complex work. These anti-Gentile elements are uniquely Matthew, and in the gospel of Luke it is my (preliminary) analysis that Luke attempts to reconcile and harmonize the divergent accounts that emerge when comparing Mark's account with Matthew's account, and when considering the inconsistencies in the Matthew account itself. For example, in line with the thinking found in Matthew's 'Gentile dog' parable, Luke retells the story of the Centurion in such a way that Christ needs to be convinced to help the Gentile. Luke's version sounds like more like the Matthew who forbids contact with Gentiles and will not help Gentiles than the gospel of Matthew does itself. In the Matthew gospel Christ simply responds to the plea for help by saying, 'I will go.' The 'Matthew-like" addition to this parable found in Luke reads as follows:

"And they, when they came to Jesus, besought him earnestly, saying, He is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him; for he loveth our nation, and himself built us our synagogue." (Luke Chapter 7 verse 4)

      In Luke's version then, Luke sounds more 'Matthew' than Matthew himself, and this is a good example of what I mean by Luke's attempts to 'harmonize' both the internal inconsistencies in the Matthew gospel itself, and Matthew with the Mark account (by disagreeing with Mark and sending Joshua to Judea at the beginning of his gospel, for example).

      In Mark's version, naturally, no ban on Gentiles is mentioned. In Matthew, complicated as the manuscript proves to be, Gentiles and Samaritans are both banned (or maybe they are the righteous ones). In John's gospel, Joshua, as in Mark, ministers to a whole town full of Samaritans, who become believers. One Samaritan, makes note of the fact that the Jewish people, like those in the Matthew gospel who were responsible for these anti-Gentile polemics, refused to have anything to do with Samaritans, but Joshua was different, not sharing the bigotry that might be found among others Jews of that time, and the woman finds this quality of his quite remarkable and worthy of note.

"The Samaritan woman said to him (Joshua), "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans ... Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did." (John Chapter 4 verse 9, John Chapter 4 verse 39)

      So this reactionary element in Matthew sits in isolation from Mark, and in isolation from John, and who can forget Luke's memorable parable of ‘the good Samaritan.' On the one hand, Luke attempts to out Matthew Matthew himself by 'harmonizing' Matthew's centurion parable with Matthew's 'begging Gentile dog' parable. But Luke clearly distances himself from the Matthew gospel bigotry in this matter. As In Mark's gospel, Joshua ministers to Gentiles and heals Samaritans in Luke's version, and Luke also puts some distance between himself and Matthew by specifically sending first disciples to Samaria, and then Joshua himself.

"And he (Joshua) sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him ... Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan." (Luke Chapter 9 verse 52, Luke Chapter 17 verse 15)

"(Note: A number of Jewish religious authorities pass by an injured man by the side of the road.) But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back. Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke Chapter 10 verse 33)

      We can see that not only is this reactionary stream of tradition found in Matthew isolated from the radical stream of tradition in the early church, it is also isolated in its bigoted viewpoint against Gentiles and Samaritans (and the incongruous ‘harmonization' attempted by adding his dog parable to Mark's Gentile gospel, only serves to draw attention away from their isolation, at least, until the parable is recognized for what it so clearly is (an obvious editorial interpolation) and disposed of, leaving the gospel of Matthew alone on this matter, as it was in the beginning, and as it should be. (I really am opposed to this ‘harmonizing' done by the church fathers, particularly in the fourth century.)

      It should be noted that the Samaritans split off from the rest of the Jewish people and to this day, maintain a distinctive culture in Israel. Samaritans are distinct from the rest of the Jewish people only by the fact that their religion is different from mainstream Judaism, but there was a propaganda assault made against them that suggested that they were ‘half breed Jews.' The source for this erroneous belief was a propaganda story composed against them and included in the book of Kings. Samaritans, we are told, came into being when a bunch of Gentiles were brought into Israel and then a priest was sent to teach them the ways of God since they were ‘defiling' the land. As time went by, these Gentiles then interbred with true Israelites, producing a race of ‘half breeds'. (This story is political and religious polemic against the schismatic sect of Samaritans, and should be recognized as such, but since it bears on the discussion at hand, I bring it to your attention since it was a prevalent belief during the time of the early church that Samaritans were a kind of ‘half breed Jew'.)

"And the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities. And at the beginning of their dwelling there, they did not fear YAHWEH; therefore YAHWEH sent lions among them, which killed some of them. So the king of Assyria was told, "The nations which you have carried away and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the law of the god of the land; therefore he has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing them, because they do not know the law of the god of the land." Then the king of Assyria commanded, "Send there one of the priests whom you carried away thence; and let him go and dwell there, and teach them the law of the god of the land." So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear YAHWEH." (2 Kings Chapter 17 verse 24)