“CALQUES” are words or phrases translated literally from one other language. Sometimes they’re hard to identify because the interpretation gets naturalised within the destination language, just like the Hebrew phrase “fruit of the womb”, which I even have mentioned before.
At other times, the translated phrase stays unfamiliar, and shouldn’t be naturalised through listening or reading. One such calque, still jarring in English, is “running dog”. In my mind it’s indivisible from the adjective “capitalist” — not because I follow Marxist ideology but because I still benefit from the 1988 radio comedy, Lenin of the Rovers.
A Chinese friend explained that, in his language, “running dog” may be very insulting. It refers back to the fawning behaviour of dogs, running about after their owners to grab unwanted scraps, grovellingly obedient (evidently the beagle was an unknown breed in Mao’s China). Calling Tony Blair “Bush’s poodle” has the same resonance.
The relevance of this calque to the Gospel is coming into focus. A related tackle the people-dogs-scraps triangle — this time social satire, not Communist contempt — comes from Oliver Twist: “I wish some well-fed philosopher . . . could have seen Oliver Twist clutching on the dainty viands that the dog had neglected. I wish he could have witnessed the horrible avidity with which Oliver tore the bits asunder with all of the ferocity of famine. There is barely one thing I should value more highly; and that might be to see the Philosopher making the identical form of meal himself, with the identical relish.”
Canine domestication began so way back that it shouldn’t be surprising to search out elements in common between dogs and humans, each species adapting itself to the opposite. Yet, although dogs reflect many human emotions, pride shouldn’t be one in all them. They could be loving or indignant, jealous or grateful, but they appear to not display that hallmark of humanity. By having a conscious sense of self, we — unlike dogs — are prey to self-delusion concerning our true nature, while they continue to be free from such follies.
From their first mention in scripture, dogs get what is simply too revolting for human consumption. Exodus 22.31 states: “You shall not eat any meat that’s mangled by beasts in the sector; you shall throw it to the dogs.” They are scavengers by nature, which makes the leap to seeing them as unclean a simple one. Any dog-owner witnessing the disgusting things which their pampered fur-baby will happily scoff must concede this point.
The last reference to dogs in scripture evokes Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island, given the black spot — written on the last page of a Bible — by John Silver: “Without are dogs . . . and murderers”, Jim reads (Revelation 22.15). Dogs are still at the underside of the hierarchy.
Was Jesus’s response to the Gentile woman offensive, when he compared her, and her people, with dogs? Dogs and humans are separate species; so there may very well be an implication that she and her race are in some way sub-human. This could be a really uncomfortable reading for us who’re sensitised to racism and anti-Semitism.
One commentator suggests that the Jewish “children” have been fed already (Mark 6.41-44); so it’s now the Gentiles’ turn. But the girl shouldn’t be asking for food. She wants Jesus to heal her daughter. How could he even consider not responding to her need, which (we may imagine) would cost him nothing and mean a lot to her?
Asking the query this fashion is like reading the Gospel backwards. It is the Christian faith — instituted and embodied by Jesus Christ — that has taught us this “siblinghood of humanity”. Difficult reading it might be, difficult our view of Jesus as all-generous, all-loving; nevertheless it is undoubtedly a real snapshot of his considering at that moment.
One clue is within the “the”. The Lord’s analogy shouldn’t be a generality. Jesus speaks of particular children, particular dogs. Both alike are members of their family. Though dogs (standing for non-Jews) are lower within the family hierarchy than children (standing for those of Jewish descent), each kinds belong throughout the household, albeit on a special level, inside a wider familial and social structure that’s hierarchical. Dogs can live socially because they co-operate in a hierarchy.
I believe of the human hierarchy as one in all time, not status: the Jews will not be a lot “higher” as “earlier”. The great Christian message that’s Paul’s vision in Galatians (3.28-29) is yet to be declared.
