"In their external symbols and in much of what they expressed verbally some early Christians seem to have maintained stronger observable links with Cynics and Cynic tradition than with more conformist fellow-Christians. It may be that even more important than such diversity was a common core of commitment to Jesus ... Yet those whose commitment to him included a commitment to his lifestyle also went on more closely resembling non-Christian Cynics than they resembled their fellow Christians of the other more socially conformist or quietist strands."
The methodological preliminaries and the prima facie case having been made out, Downing gives a good overview of the cultural environment of various aspects of early Christianity, very up to date and nicely nuanced. From p. 98 on, on the socially pervasive oral culture, he argues forcibly for a cultural continuity from the top to the bottom of (urban) society (some of this material has been published elsewhere). He then turns to a detailed analysis of the varied early Christian sources for material likely to have been interpreted as Cynic or that shows evidence of a response to Cynic positions. He is searching not for isolated motifs but for clusters of motifs, and he finds them.
"Q", the shadowy but broadly definable common source underlying Matthew and Luke, is mined to great effect. The (presumed) original literary form of "Q", the denunciations of opponents, and the ascetic, peripatetic lifestyle expected of missionaries are all usefully compared with Cynic material. Less effective are the claims about what is missing from "Q". We can define what in Matthew and Luke probably comes from "Q" with some confidence, but to say that x or y saying or attitude is not present in "Q" is far harder: that which is in Mark is not thereby excluded from also being in "Q". We simply cannot know. But the conclusion Downing draws is clear and forceful. "If Paul could · mostly distance himself from Cynic attitudes, so we must presume that the "Q" Christians could have distanced themselves from Cynics had they wanted to. That they shew no effective sign of any such distancing can only suggest that they were entirely content that the similarities should stand and be perceived." (p. 142)
Despite the force of the parallels, however, it is in this section on "Q" and in the following section on the historical Jesus himself that Downing's argument faces its greatest hurdle. He can show that a variety of the teachings of Jesus have strong Cynic parallels (take, for example, Matthew 19.17, which Downing provocatively translates "Why do you ask me about 'the Good'?": cf. Dio 13.12!)1. He draws the conclusion that "this amalgam (of Cynic and Jewish forms) is most plausibly accounted for as going back to Jesus' own original mix of the two strands, but a mix made possible by an existing Cynic influence among ordinary people in the Galilee of his own day" (p. 161). Downing knows the central weakness of this case. It has been pointed out many times that Cynicism is an essentially urban phenomenon. Yet the people behind "Q" are, on Downing's own argument, rural groups (p. 93); likewise Jesus himself seems to have avoided the cities in favour of rural towns and villages. It will not do to argue that Cynics must stop somewhere in the villages on their way from town to town (p. 93), or that "Cynics might well live out in practice their rooted opposition to the artificiality of urban life" (p. 149); we have precious little evidence that any of them did so. Cynicism was always a parasitically urban protest movement, dependent on the very structures it criticised. The evidence for Cynicism in Gadara may indeed be better than for any other ancient city except Athens (p. 148), but the question is not thereby resolved. The question of city-village relations, raised recently in the case of Sepphoris and Nazareth, will need to be resolved before Downing's proposal can be adequately evaluated.2 The argument that our only prima facie evidence for Galilean culture in the twenties is the Gospels themselves (p. 146) treads a dangerous path towards circularity.
Downing is well aware of other contrasts between Christianity and Cynicism, but his treatment of them is uneven. Cynicism is the philosophy of the rugged individualist triumphant; Christianity forms communities. Cynics tend to wander; Jesus and the "Q" missionaries likewise travel, but they form support communities that do not. Do the Cynics? Some Cynics encouraged a robust philosophical piety; Christianity fostered vivid religious experience. Christianity was millennial: Cynics, though they occasionally used such imagery ("such ideas are not entirely foreign to the Cynic repertoire", p. 141) have no interest in millennial ideas for their own sake.
None the less, given the force of the parallels, Downing sees only two alternatives: either the parallels are original to Jesus himself, or they have been imposed on the tradition by a later Cynicising, widespread in different strands of early Christianity. This second option he does not find credible. A third alternative to consider is that many non-conformist cultural movements will of necessity have numbers of similar attitudes, dictated by the mainstream culture against which they are in reaction, while maintaining their individual peculiarities. To this Downing might reply, with some force, that "they ("Q" Christianity and Cynicism, C.F.) are more like each other on a number of distinctive issues - issues their contemporaries see as distinctively Cynic - than either is like anyone else" (p. 141).
Downing now turns to the non-Christian and sub-apostolic evidence. By now the main lines of his case will be apparent, but there are still surprises in store. On pp. 171-2 he argues that the Tacitean flagitia with which Christians were charged cannot actually be well parallelled among other "subversive" cults: they actually look, he claims, like criticisms of Cynic positions. His treatment of the second century Christian evidence is variable: the case for Cynic affiliations in Tatian looks good (pp. 186-7), but for the Pseudo-Clementine literature, less so. He claims that "Diognetus" puts forward the gentler variety of Cynicism. Downing makes great play of Tertullian's use of "Cynic critiques", but one wonders whether it would not be fairer to argue that Tertullian, in a syncretistic age, made use of whatever tradition would provide a handy weapon. The argument from Tertullian's willing recognition of ascetic style is much more convincing (pp. 205-6). The conclusion to the discussion of Lactantius is worth quoting: "Overt, radical Cynicism of the oldest tradition is known from books, and repudiated. A gentler Cynicism is totally and anonymously naturalised as inherently and integrally part and parcel of a Christian life-style." (p. 220)
For the later period Downing deals provocatively with the origins of Augustine's asceticism, and indeed with the rising asceticism of the early Christian tradition more generally. Personally I have no doubt that Early Christian asceticism has, if not Cynic origins, at the very least a common ancestor with Cynicism. The evolutionary parallel is, I think, a good one. Downing's point that "to philosophise" came to mean "to take on askesis" both in Christianity and in Cynicism seems well made. (Pp. 243-5: compare p. 249, on Origen's "philosophic life".) The case for Clement (pp. 246ff) seems overstated; Downing recognises, however, the limits of the parallels with Origen, with his Platonic view of contemplation of the divine (p. 253). To no-one's surprise, he finds clear Cynic elements in Anthony's desert asceticism, but he also notes the important differences: most monastics eschew the towns (p. 261). For the later eastern tradition, Downing admits to working outside his own area of expertise (pp. 271ff.).
Downing's style varies between a "chattiness" that may sometimes annoy, a more standard, and generally lucid scholarly thoroughness, and occasional simple repetitiveness. The book may be at risk of falling between two stools: classicists may find its treatment of Cynicism unsurprising, and New Testament scholars may be suspicious of its all-encompassing claims to parallels with a pagan philosophy. But it would be a pity if merely stylistic questions or disciplinary boundaries stood in the way of an appreciation of the considerable merits of this book. It puts its over-arching case with considerable force, and well represents the developing intersection of New Testament and Classical studies.
The book is well edited: one unfortunate proof-reading error mars the table of contents, where Index Two proclaims itself as a list of "Modem Authors". On p. 317 the index note to H.I. Marrou substitutes "Patrisque" for "Patristique". On p. 100 the footnotes appear to be out of synchronisation with the text.
Macquarie University