The pro-dog Bible

Biblical Archaeology Review has an article, summarised here, arguing that dogs generally get a pretty positive treatment in the Bible, and from Jews:

Throughout the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, domesticated dogs served as companions, hunting dogs, sheep dogs, and guard dogs. Dogs filled similar roles in the Bible (e.g., Job 30:1; Isaiah 56:10–11). Although dogs sometimes appear in negative contexts in the Bible, such as in insults, they are not listed as ritually “unclean” animals. Strong clarifies that at least by the second century B.C.E., Jews viewed dogs positively:

If the dog was ever considered ritually unclean by the Israelites, it had shed this taboo by the time of the second-century B.C.E. Book of Tobit. When the author narrates Tobias setting off on a long journey, he depicts Tobias’s pet dog exiting the Jewish home to tag along on the adventure, presumably as a companion and co-guardian with the angel Raphael (Tobit 6:2; 11:4).

Dogs as healers has old roots:

Dogs also filled the interesting role of physician in the Greco-Roman world. Strong explains how this developed:

Ancient authors noted, for example, that the dog knows that it should elevate an injured leg, following what Hippocrates prescribed. Alongside other evidence, the ancient observer saw that the dog knows what plants to eat as medicine to induce vomiting if it has eaten something that upsets its stomach, that the dog knows to remove foreign bodies, such as thorns, and that the dog knows to lick its wounds to ensure that they remain clean, understanding that clean wounds heal more quickly.

In the role of physician of the animal kingdom, dogs appear in the cult of Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine. Sacred dogs, living in the god’s temples, would lick visitors’ wounds. Their tongues reputedly soothed and healed.

Given the surprising ability of dogs to sometimes warn their owns of serious disease, the ancients were not completely off the mark.

And also, this puts a different slant on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:

In the parable, dogs lick the wounds of Lazarus. Viewing the dogs as healers, we can see this was a benevolent action. Strong explains that this corrects a previous interpretation of the dogs as malevolent characters: “The function of the dogs licking Lazarus has traditionally been understood by scholars to be a signal of extreme misery. Lazarus must be so disabled that he cannot drive away these ‘unclean’ dogs who are making a meal of him, so the old interpretation goes. But, as we can see now, this act would have been perceived by a first-century audience as a sign of sympathy from the dogs, who have been caring after Lazarus as though his nurses.”

Yay for dogs.