I may not have much to add, Daniel, to what I said about the Cynic
hypothesis in BofC 334-335, but here goes.
First, my first engagement with any connection between Cynicism and/or Q
and/or the historical Jesus was in 1990 and it was by invitation of others.
My initial response, with my own work on the historical Jesus well on its
way to completion, was this. If anyone wants to talk about a "Cynic Jesus,"
then they better imagine what a Jewish peasant Cynic would look like. I did
not want, then or now, to get entangled on questions beyond proof or
disproof: Was there Cynicism in urbanized Galilee (for example Sepphoris)
and, if so, might Jesus have known about it? I could explain Jesus, to my
own satisfaction, without even a mention of any Cynic hypothesis. The
subtitle of my book was, therefore, "A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" and not
"A Mediterranean Jewish Cynic."
Second, I did find parallels between Cynicism and Q and between the Cynic
"dress code" and the Jesus "dress code" (in Q and Mark) extremely useful for
my own understanding. I did not see the importance, for example, of the
no-knapsack and no-staff (disallowed in Q, but allowed in Mark) until I read
the Cynic parallels (in Leif Vaage's doctoral dissertation). You point quite
accurately to the major difference with this: "The former [the Cynics]
express independence of material things, while the second [Jesus/Q]
expresses dependence on communal support." That major difference answers
your following question: "what can we learn by the comparison?" The other
major difference is between the staff of Cynicism and the no-staff of Q
(revoked by Mark). I would not argue that the staff of Cynicism indicates
violence since it could equally well indicate itinerancy, on-the-way-ness,
no fixed abode, etc. But I do think the shift from no-staff in Q to staff in
Mark (let alone to sword in Luke as he revokes that whole itinerant past)
indicates the programmatic nonviolent resistance of Jesus and Q.
Third, as I said in BofC, that made the Cynic parallels comparatively
useful, but not constitutively necessary for my own understanding of both
the historical Jesus and Q.
Fourth, something very strange happened, however, in the general discussion
of Cynicism and Jesus/Q. We began to hear that those who advocated a Cynic
connection were denying the Jewishness of Jesus. I found that argument, and
still find it, dirty, in the most basic sense of the word. It is, however,
only a small part of the recent shift from academic argumentation (I will
make your case as accurate and strong as I can before I demolish it) to
political argumentation (I will make your case as dumb and silly as I can
before I demolish you). I am not too happy with that aspect of the recent
Jesus Wars. If Jesus were deliberately and knowingly "Cynical," he would
not, by that fact, have been any less firmly Jewish. I reject the current
game of: my Jesus is more Jewish than your Jesus!
Fifth, we are very used to talking about Jewish eschatology and/or
apocalypticism. Both those themes are also found in pagan sources. Over
against the realized eschatology of Augustan triumphalism stands the
alternative realizable eschatology of Cynic anti-materialism. Even if Jesus
or Q would have never existed, it would still be worthwhile to study that
eschatological battle within first century paganism. It is still alive and
well by different names today.
Finally, anyone who thinks that Burton Mack and I are saying the same thing
in general or even when we mention Cynicism has not read us very carefully.

----------
>From: Daniel Grolin <grolin@...>
>To: hjmaterialsmethodolgy@egroups.com
>Subject: [HJMatMeth] The Cynic Jesus
>Date: Wed, Mar 1, 2000, 4:05 AM
>

>
> Dear Prof. Crossan,
>
> Thank you for your lucid answer regarding the Didache. I
> would like to turn to another question altogether. Much
> has been made lately of the similarities between the Q
> community and the Cynics.
>
> My first question has to do with your own position
> regarding a "Cynic Jesus". Last year Daniel Marguerat in
> "La 'Troisieme Quete' du Jesus de l'histoire" (in
> "Recherches de Science Religieuse" Juillet-Septembre 1999
> tome 87 numero 3 page 405) groups you together with
> Mack. My impression, however, is that particularly in BofC
> you distance yourself from the import of similarities
> between Q and Cynicism. Did writing BofC change your
> attitude towards the "Cynic Hypothesis" at all?
>
> My second question is about the significance of similarities
> between Cynics and the Q community. It seems to me that
> you point to a rather significant difference between the
> statement behind the lifestyle of these two communities:
> The former express independence of material things, while
> the second expresses dependence on communal support.
> Seeing this rather fundamental difference between theses
> two communities, what can we learn by the comparison?
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel Grolin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To Post a message, send it to: hjmaterialsmethodolgy@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> hjmaterialsmethodolgy-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WANT FREE MAGAZINES?
> Sample over 500 magazines in 30 categories-- all for FREE at
> FreeShop.com, your source for thousands of free and trial offers!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1610/4/_/295551/_/951961632/
>
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/?m=1
>
>