[1] Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (London, 1890)Google Scholar; Dill, S., Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (London, 1905)Google Scholar, Bk. III ch. II, ‘The Philosophic Missionary’; Halliday, W. R., The Pagan Background of Early Christianity (London, 1925)Google Scholar; Dudley, D. B., A History of Cynicism (London, 1937).Google Scholar

[2] Theissen, G., The first Followers of Jesus (Munich, 1977) ET London 1978Google Scholar; ‘Wanderradicalismus …’, ZTK 70 (1973)Google Scholar; cf. also his collection The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Edinburgh, 1982).Google ScholarMalherbe, A. J., The Cynic Epistles (Missoula, Montana, 1977)Google Scholar; also Attridge, H. W., First Century Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus (Missoula, Montana, 1976)Google Scholar, and parts of his ‘The Philosophical Critique of Religion’ in Aufstieg und Niedergang (Berlin, 1972–), II 16, 1 pp. 45–78.Google Scholar A. J. Malherbe, in his The Cynic Epistles, op. cit., refers to an article of his in Aufstieg und Niedergang III (sic) 1977. I have not been able to find any contribution of his to match that reference. (Cynic Epistles, op. cit., p. 5, n. 11)Google Scholar

[3] Cynic Epistles, op. cit. (‘C.E.’); Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Diog.L.), Loeb ed., Hicks, R. D. (1925)Google Scholar; Dio (Chrysostom) of Prusa, Discourses (Dio, Disc.), Cohoon, J. W., Loeb. ed. (1932–)Google Scholar; Epictetus, Discourses (Epict. Disc, etc.), Loeb ed., Oldfather, W. A. (1925)Google Scholar; Musonius Rufus, Discourses (Musonius), Lutz, C. (Yale, 1947)Google Scholar; Lucian of Samosata, Loeb. ed., A. M. Haroon etc.; Seneca, Moral Essays (M.E.), Moral Letters (M.L.), Loeb ed., Basore, J. W. (1928)Google Scholar, Gummere, R. M. (1917)Google Scholar, respectively; S. Dill, W. R. Halliday, D. B. Dudley, as in (n. 1) above; Hoïstad, R., Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala, 1948)Google Scholar (and for links with Christian thought e.g. p. 221); Paquet, L., Les Cyniques grecs (Ottawa, 1975)Google Scholar; H. W. Attridge, as in (n. 2). D. M. Scholer in a paper at the SNTS meeting 1983 drew our attention to The Tabula of Cebes, Fitzgerald, J. T. and White, L. M. (Chico, 1983, forthcoming), as a possible further source for Cynic-Christian comparison.Google Scholar

[4] Dio, Disc. 32.9; 13.9–11; cp. 1.50 f.

[5] Diog.L. VI 103.

[6] Josephus, , Antiquities XVIII 4, 23; War II 118; cf. Ant. XVIII 116–118, on John the Baptist.Google Scholar

[7] C.E. p. 121; cp. Luke 3. 7, etc.; cf. Dio, Disc. 8 & 9; and Lucian's portrayal of Cynics, passim, e.g. Peregrinus 3; contrast Seneca, M.L. XIV 14.

[8] Diog.L. VI 72; cp. Lk. 3. 8; cf. also Diog.L. VI 1; C.E. p. 211; Dio, Disc. 15.29; Epict. Disc. I ix 7, etc.; Seneca, M.L. XLIV 1.

[9] Seneca, M.L. LXXXVIII 25; cp. Luke 3. 9 and 6. 43; cf. Epict. Disc. II xx 18; Seneca, again, M.E. de ira II x 6; and, without the imagery, C.E. 211 again; Musonius XIIIB p. 91.

[10] With baptism – for born Jews – compare e.g. Diog.L. VI 36; Dio, Disc. 9. 10–12; Epict. Disc. II ix 20 f.; but also the symbolism of cloak, staff, beard, passim (n. 18 below).

[11] Dio, Disc. 4.75–end.

[12] Diog.L., VI 42; Dio, Disc. 4. 41; Epict. Disc. IV vii 20; cf. III xxii 56; Seneca, M.E. XCV 50.

[13] With Luke 6. 20–22, cf. Dio Disc. 3. 1–3; Epict. Disc. III xx 15; Musonius, VII p. 59 14 f.; Seneca, e.g. M. E. de beata vita, passim.

[14] Seneca, M.L. LXXI 7; cf. Lucian, Demonax 10; cf. Peregrinus 4, 12, 18; butalso Dio, Disc. 9.9; 37.32; Epict. Disc. II xix 24; etc.

[15] Epict. Disc. III xxii 53–4; Diog.L. II 21 (of Socrates); Dio, Disc. 34.43, and Discourses 38–41, on reconciliation; Seneca, M.E.de ira, passim; eg. II xxxiv 5; also de otio 1.4; with all of which cf. Lk. 6.27, 28, 35.

[16] C.E. p. 43 (Anacharis); with Luke 6. 30, 38; cf. also Musonius XVII, p. 109; Dio, Disc. 7. 52–3; and 4. 22, 32, 40–41; Seneca, M.L. LXXXVIII 30; Diog.L. VI 51; Epict. Disc. I xiii 3 (generosity and/or godlikeness).

[17] With Luke 6. 37, 41–2 comparing Diog.L. VI 29; Epict. Disc. III xxii 93 (and e.g. ibid. 98; IV viii 28–32); Seneca, M.E. de ira I xiv 2; Musonius, fragments XXIII and XXXII.

[18] With Luke 7. 25–6, 9. 57–60, 10. 1–11, compare Diog.L. VI 21 f., 36; C.E. 43, 59, 67, 93, 103, 119, 131, 163; Dio, Disc. 1.50, 6.13, 22, 33; 69.1–4; 72. 16; Epict. Disc. esp. III xxii; cf. III i 24; IV viii 34; Seneca (of Demetrius) M.L. XX 9; Lucian, Demonax 5; Musonius XIX p. 123; compare G. Theissen, ‘Wanderradicalismus …’ op. cit.; and Hengel, M., The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (Edinburgh, 1981), pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar

[19] With Luke 7. 31–2 compare e.g. Dio, Disc. 4.47, 9.7; C.E. 47, 171; Epict. Disc. I xxiv 20, xxix 31; II xxiv 17; III xix 6; Seneca, M.E. de constantia XII 1.

[20] With Luke 7. 35 etc. compare Diog.L. VI 64; C.E. 113, 143; Seneca, M.L. LXXXIV 12 f.; LXXXIX passim; Epict. Disc. IV xi 24.

[21] Luke 16. 16, general; 9. 59 in particular: Diog.L. VI 52, 72, 79; C.E. 57, 115, 117; Epict. Disc. IV i 158; Lucian, Demonax 59, 66; Dio Disc. 75; 76.4; 80.5. Compare Hengel, M., Charismatic Leader, op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar

[22] Lk. 10. 21, 11. 2; cited, C.E. 145; Epict. Disc. III xxiv 16; Dio, Disc. 36.36; compare Dio Disc. 2.75; 4.20–22; 12.74; Epict. Disc. I xiii 3; ix 6 f.; Seneca, M.E. de beneficia II xxix 4; IV xix 3; Musonius VII p. 65; XVI p. 107; etc.

[23] With Luke 11. 13 compare Diog.L. VI 89; C.E. 47, 68, 79, 121, 195, 211; Dio Disc. 6.25, 17.2; Epict. Disc. II xxii 16; Seneca, M.L. CXII 9; contrast, though, Musonius II.

[24] Cited, Dio Disc. 10.16; with the passage Luke 12. 22–31, compare among many instances Diog.L. II 27; VI 22, 29, 31, 37, 44; C.E. 43, 47, 63, 109, 151, 169, 213; Dio, Disc. 6.31–4; 12. 35 f.; 32.15; 40.40 f.; Epict. Disc. I i 14, ix 9, xiv 3–9, xviii 15–18; II xiii 11; IV i 82, 102 f., x 26–8; Musonius XV p. 99 etc.

[25] Prof. Eric Osborn stressed in conversation the importance of this qualification, the dependence of ‘meaning’ on context. I think the point is sufficiently allowed for, as it was initially. My argument here concerns much more the prior but very significant issue of how this early Christian preaching would sound. I do also suppose that with this quantity of similarity a similar context of meaning is assured. But see further, below (n. 33).

[26] For the Lukan writings see my own pieces, ‘Ethical Pagan Theism and the Speeches in Acts’, NTS 27.4 (07, 1981)Google Scholar, and ‘Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus’, NTS 28.4 (10 1982)Google Scholar; for Paul, e.g. Betz, H. D., Galatians, (Hermeneia, Fortress, 1979).Google Scholar

[27] With Matthew 5.27–30 compared here Epict. Disc. II xviii 15–17 (cf. II iv 1–5; III xxv 7); and Seneca, M.E. de constantia vii 4 (cf. de beneficia I vi 1; M.L. XLVIII 9); cf. Musonius XII, XIII A, B.

[28] With Matt. 6. 34, compared here Seneca, M.L. XIII 10, cf. 5; also V 8, CI 9; Epictetus Disc. I vi 38.

[29] With Matt. 7.13f., compare C.E. 131–3; Dio, Disc. 1.66–end; Epict. Disc. III xxii 26;Cebes' Pinax (n. 3, above); Seneca, M. E.de beata vita I 1–3.Google Scholar

[30] Matt. 11. 28–30; cited here Epict. Disc. IV viii 28 f.; cf. C.E. 223; Dio, Disc. 4. 66; 27. 9; 72. 11; Seneca, M.L. XVII 2 f.; (n. 20 above, also).

[31] Lucian, ,Peregrinus 12, 15.Google Scholar

[32] Justin, , Second Apology 3.Google Scholar

[33] Origen, contra Celsum VI xxviii contrasts the good life of the ‘doggish’ Cynic Diogenes, with the unacceptable‘therionymic’Ophites; compare also Aelius Aristides iii 663–693; S. Dill and others cite also Julian, and note a tale of Maximus coming to his consecration as bishop of Constantinople still wearing his Cynic cloak, as told (with approval) by John Chrysostom. Professor E. Osborne queried these and other references; Dill cites only Bernays, J., Lukian und die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879)Google Scholar, missing from the library I depend on. Chrysostom in Homily LXIII on Matthew 19. 16 does refer with approval to Cynic teaching on riches; Augustine in de civitate dei xiv 20, xix 1–2 seems to allow the Cynic quest for ‘the good’ as valid. I have not managed to find anything for Tatian or Clement or Themistius. Professor Osborn also recalled that men like Justin, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement opposed much of the philosophy they found, insisting on the distinctiveness of Christian teaching. For the doctrine of God this is surely true: the best pagans, they said, had only a dim apprehension (and that borrowed from Jewish scripture). I do not find any suggestion that resemblances to pagan ethical teaching are held to be spurious or otherwise suspect. The issue is only marginal to my main case, to wit, that the early Christians seem happy to have allowed major apparent similarities to stand. That others in later centuries were also happy to acknowledge this adds only small confirmation. Romans 12. 17, 1 Peter 2. 12 show early Christians happy enough with pagan ethical opinion, however critical of the practice.

[34] I would suggest that this context has considerable importance for anyone looking for political implications in the Jesus-tradition. The Cynics were clearly not a political party in our sense;but that they were seen as politically subversive at the time, especially by the Flavians, is as obvious. See further my ‘The Politics of Jesus’, Modern Churchman NS. XXV 1 (1982), p. 19–27.Google Scholar