Loading...Isn’t it better to have no possessions at all than to have millions of them and then lose them? According to ancient Cynic philosophy: Absolutely Yes!
I’ve been discussing how this view comes to be embodied in Lucian’ of Samosata’s humorous dialogue Downward Journey, about a rich tyrant who abused his power and wealth and then ended up completely miserable in the afterlife. I begin here with the paragraph that ended the last post, to provide a bit of context for the humorous passage that follows. (All this is taken from my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, with Yale University Press, due out in April)
******************************
The dialogue shifts then to another of the deceased, an impoverished cobbler, Micyllus. He too is upset, but not for being removed from the world of the living but for being delayed from crossing the Styx. He cannot get to the underworld fast enough, and is perturbed that Charon’s boat has filled up without him and he has to wait on shore. Clotho is surprised that Micyllus does not welcome the delay, but he replies by referencing Homer: unlike Odysseus in the cave of the Cyclops he is not at all pleased by the promise that “I will devour ‘Noman’ last” (πύματον ἐγὼ τὸν Οὖτιν κατέδομαι; Odyssey 9.369; quoted in Cataplus 14). That is, Micyllus sees no advantage to being the final one to cross, and he says so with a striking witticism: ἄν τε γοῦν πρῶτον, ἄν τε πύματον, οἱ αὐτοὶ ὀδόντες περιμένουσιν: “Whether [I am] first or last, the same teeth are waiting.” Yes indeed.
He then explains why he has no qualms about going on to his destiny. People like him are not “like the rich”; on the contrary, their lives are “poles apart.” He explains: this tyrant, Megapenthes, seemed happy his entire life, feared and respected by all, having everything a person could desire: gold, silver, wardrobes, horses, feasts, beautiful servants, and gorgeous women. It is no wonder he was distressed and vexed when dragged away from it all. People like that get attached to such things like “birdlime” (ἰξός) (glue) and it is very difficult for them to break away. It is as if they that are bound by an unbreakable chain (ἄρρηκτός…ὁ δεσμός) but are taken away by force, wailing and begging. Bold about everything in life, “they are found to be cowards on the path that leads to Hades.” The rich simply cannot help clinging to their possessions and pleasures: material birdlime and chains (Cataplus 14).
He himself stands in sharp contrast: a cobbler who
Christians, too, often argued that people should not be concerned about material things. But for different reasons, perhaps? To get a fuller take on this non-Christian perspective, join the blog so you can keep reading! Click here for membership options
I think the cynics miss the mark. It’s true that abundance doesn’t make you happy, but neither does poverty. True wealth is not in having much but in wanting little – but sleeping out in the cold, never knowing when the next meal comes around… that’s not a happy life. I’m a big fan of the golden mean, not too much but not too little either.
I don’t think they would say poverty makes you happy. They’d say it makes it possible to be happy.
I like the old saying that being wealthy does not MAKE you who you are, it merely REVEALS who you are. (That may be less true for inherited wealth, which does often seem to doom people to being terrible jerks.)
Dr. Ehrman – you’ve mentioned over the years, perhaps most notably when discussing Misquoting Jesus in the Bible, that transcription mistakes appear to be either unintentional or intentional. I understand the importance of analyzing texts without bias, but how have you handled analyzing conclusions made by past scholars who perhaps have shown themselves to be motivated to produce an intentional mistake? For example, Albert Schweitzer’s work analyzing the quests for Jesus speaks to the anger that seems to be commonly present among those who quest, leading often to anti-Jewish scholarly writings. How do you handle contextualizing perceived motive when analyzing works from the times of early Christianity and other scholars?
Thank you,
Noah
My view is that we cannot psycyoanalyze people from the past to determine their psychic states, so I don’t try to do that with scribes or authors. It is easier to talke about the outcome, or the effect, of a textual change, for example, than about the motivation or desire of the scribe who made it.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve been reading through many of your books recently and have recently decided to move into the wider world of NT scholarship and am currently on vol. 2 of ‘A Marginal Jew’. John Meier is moving through the gospel accounts of exorcisms and illustrating which stories he believes go back to a historic event in Christ’s ministry. Knowing a little of your thoughts on the historians ability to access miracles or the supernatural. How do you find these kinds of analysis and deductions? Sound? Fairly sound? Not at all sound?
Meier is a very high level scholar, one of the best. He and I disagree on the miracles, completely, but otherwise I’m with him most of the way.
its the trying to be successful materialistically that the satisfaction comes from.
Or as Townes Van Zandt said “ where you been is good as gone; all you keep is the gettin’ there”
Hello professor hope you are doing well! I have some questions I hope you could answer.
1. Some quote as internal evidence for the authorship of Mark, that he uses either “Simon or Peter” and not his full name “Simon Seter” to suggest familiarity (conveying the teachings of peter)? Does this support their claim of authorship for Mark?
2. Some say that that the known forged gospels like to attribute to high class characters, so if Mark was a forgery they would have put it on Peter’s name instead, is this true?
3. A person wrote something of a refutation called ‘On Bart Ehrman and the authorship of the gospels’ by “lydia’s webpage (Lydia McGrew)”, have you read their arguments, what do you think of them?
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this!
-Nas
1. No, I don’t see the logic of that; it would have some force if they showed that this is typically how authors with two names wrote, but I don’t of others. 2. No, it’s not true. Mark isn’t a forgery, because the author does not call himself Mark. He wrote anonymously. 3. No, I’m afraid I haven’t.
I can’t help thinking of the old joke: wealth may not bring you happiness but at least you can be miserable in luxury 🙂
The question that springs to mind is, did any of these cynics who practiced what they preached actually achieve happiness. It’s hard to imagine a person who is cold, hungry, and in constant discomfort to be walking around happy and content with life.