In my forthcoming book Journeys to Heaven and Hell (Yale University Press; due out in April) I will be devoting a chapter to discussing how tours of the afterlife functioned sometimes in order to promote certain ethical views. If you know what life after death is really like, it can be incentive for how you live now.
One of the sections of this chapter deals with ancient “Cynic” philosophy – a radical stand on the importance of giving up everything, all one’s possessions, in order to attain to true happiness. That is not easy to do, as Jesus’ followers discovered later, even though they stood in an entirely different ideological tradition (apocalyptic Judaism).
The Cynic view is embodied in a very humorous fictional “Journey” to Hades by one of my favorite writers from antiquity, Lucian of Samosata. Here is how I will be describing Cynicism in my book – to be followed in the next two posts with a discussion of Lucian’s account.
******************************
It is not a simple task to summarize ancient Cynicism: the Cynic movement extended over two discrete periods of antiquity, the bulk of the Cynics’ own writings have not survived, and as a result most of the ancient discussions of Cynic views are filtered through non-Cynic perspectives, either vituperative or assimilating.[i]
Unlike other philosophies, especially in its Roman phase, Cynicism cannot appropriately be considered a “school.” There was no formal instruction, no classes or lectures, and no doctrines or detailed philosophical justifications for them, for example, in a well-thought out physics. On one level, of course, a good deal of philosophy in the period was moving toward the “practical,” with advice about how one should live in order to maximize happiness and satisfaction. For Cynics, however, that was virtually all that mattered. It was all about practice. As such, being a Cynic required no education or, indeed, mental labor. The later Stoic Apollodorus famously called it “a shortcut to virtue” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 7.22). It was a way of life, one that denied the values and worth of virtually everyone else. The Cynic life entailed abandoning all the trappings of life to live without possessions and therefore without needs that could be frustrated. Cynics did not pursue or even abide human comforts or conform to traditional human social standards.[ii] And so they lived like κύνες (CYNES) “dogs.”
In the Cynic view, most people are miserable precisely because they locate their ostensible happiness in matters outside themselves: their possessions, status, reputation, position, influence, health, even families. But these things do not provide true happiness. Look at those who have them in spades: the wealthy and powerful; the major athletes and social elite – are they happy? No, most of them are miserable, always wanting more, endlessly complaining about their investments, enemies, workloads, struggles, losses, and occasional failures. Possessions and social position are not keys to happiness; it does not reside in anything outside of ourselves that we can “acquire.”
Moreover, anything acquired can be lost: you may
Interested in seeing more about this view? It is actually relevant to understanding early Christianity! Why not join the blog and see? Click here for membership options
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Could you recommend any credible documentaries on the historical Jesus or Judaism or early Christianity?
Thank you!
A lot of people enjoyed From Jesus to Christ some 25 years or so ago.
Good morning Dr Ehrman. I’m a new member and this is my first comment!
I’d like to know if you think the philosophy of Cynicism directly or indirectly affected the teachings of Jesus or the writings of his followers? Or are the similarities only surface level naturaly following from different ideologies? I have a book on my shelf Fabricating Jesus by Evans I’ve been meaning to read which I believe had some opinions on this.
Also off topic I’ve only read one of your books, the Triumph of Christianity, so far. Wondering if you have a recommend rearing order of your books for someone who grew up fundamentalist christian.
It’s a great question, and scholars have asked it; for some years there some books came out on it, especially by G. Downing and J. D. Crossan. But I really don’t think there could have been any influence. Jesus was raised in a rural and remote Aramaic speaking part of the empire; he never would have had any contact with Greek philosophical traditions. There are some broad similarities, but they are the sorts of things that various people in various cultures with spiritual instead of material values would share.
That’s a really interesting point. I used to be fond of the Crossan/Borg view of Jesus as itinerant Cynic philosopher. Now I find your explanation of an apocalyptic 1st century Jewish teacher much more persuasive.
But couldn’t Greek ideas in the Hellenistic period have permeated to even Aramaic-speaking rural Galilee? Is there any evidence either way about whether such thoughts could have influenced the historical Jesus’s milieu – even if he didn’t have the language or formal learning of Cynic traditions?
In this day and age they certainly could/do; but there’s almost nothing to suggest that they did back then, when small villages were isolated and people didn’t trvel much if at all.
Prof Ehrman, in your opinion what is the latest century in which there would have still been people worshiping the Roman pagan gods at least in secret? Or in other words when do you think the pagan religions went fully extinct among the general population in Italy and became fully Christian?
The 21st! (Seriously)
Interesting! I always had the impression that by the Middle Ages worship of the ancient Roman gods and goddesses at least in the heart of Italy had essentially died out.
Yup, the key word is “essentially”
Bart,
If you mean your response in a continuous, passed-down way, as opposed to some New Age revivalism (see: Druids at Stonehenge), I’d like to hear about these enclaves or subpopulations through history!
Unfortunately we have almost no records of them. Losers don’t write the history.
So, George Carlin was an ancient Cynic. Who knew? (For those not in the know, Carlin had a whole routine about “stuff,” our obsession with it and all of the complications it brings with it.)
Any man who claims he can live a full life on the streets, with not even “a bed, cloak, or furniture” is welcome to try that in winter-time Minnesota.
Are the connections between cynic thought and christian poverty a coincidence, in the same way it reminds me of some Hindu/Buddhist thought, or is there a more direct connection?
This is a slightly different thing, but it seems like Paul’s churches, as described in his writings, didn’t emphasize communal living as much as it is described in Acts, where I think God even miraculously kills people for not sharing their wealth communally. I’m thinking about Paul talking about the different classes of converts not treating each other fairly in his letters. Is that accurate or does he tell them to give up their money communally like in Acts?
I think they represent views that would emerge independently among people in different cultures who value spiritual instead of material things.
It might be noted, of course, that those of us who do not really possess much wealth, or the possessions they can acquire, would like to assume that they bring with them burdens that outweigh the benefits. And those who do have wealth would prefer that we think so too, so that they get to keep them..
Yes indeed!
Just on a personal note, my Classics teacher at school, Kenneth Kilburn, translated Volume 6 of the 1959 Loeb edition of Lucian’s works. I still have the copy he signed for me 🙂
Whoa!!! I’ve used it. I hope he taught you Lucian!
Mr. Ehrman, I’m curious, with your life experience and wisdom, what is your opinion on wealth? On money in particular? How do you perceive it? What goes through your head when you think about it? And if you have any advice for a younger person, I would love to hear it!
I think it can be a good but usually is not. People who live for wealth without a concern for others and for spreading it around create enormous suffering in the world, which for me is contrary to the purpose of our existence. On the other hand, it would be nice if everyone had enough to have their needs met, which, of course, requires at least a modicum of wealth. But my view is that those of us who have it should devote more effort to helping those with nothing.
( no need to post) but… THAT was a fascinating post! Thanks
Cynicism sounds to me like a radical form of “if you lower your expectations far enough, you’ll never be disappointed.” I don’t see the attraction of such a view.
I”m with you. But, well, prepared to be disappointed.
How interesting! That logic of the Cynics sounds positively Buddhist. So there truly is nothing new under the Sun – probably not even that saying!
I see some similarities between the words of Jesus and Cynic ideas. Do you think that Jesus was influenced by the Cynics?
I don’t. I think they represent views that would emerge independently among people in different cultures who value spiritual instead of material things.
In practice, the state of happiness is difficult to sustain by the mind. Happiness is a result of a process that starts in the mind and often involves directly our senses and the inner body functions. I think the Cynic approach to avoid attachment to potential sources of suffering may have origins in extremely adverse surroundings. In such conditions, avoiding contact with elements of a disgraceful reality becomes a shield. It would be interesting to know how the world looked like at the time the Cynic movement emerged.
Dr Ehrman,
Do you think Paul thought of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord from the Old Testament?
I”m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
About the wise men, there is no mention of their number.
Three gifts are mentioned, or types of gifts; but not the number of magi.
Can the month of the nativity be deduced from clues in the gospels?
I”m afraid not.