Team 1 Question 1

Posted on by under birth narrative

In Matthew’s birth narrative, Matthew tells the lineage of Jesus through 3 sets of fourteen generations. The first set  (v.2-6) begins with Abraham and ends with David. The second set (v.6-11) begins with David and ends with Jeconiah. And the last set (v.12-16) begins with Jeconiah and ends with Jesus. Clearly in retelling a birth narrative, Matthew is trying everything he can to make a connection between Jesus and the office of the Jewish Messiah. Matthew intentionally starts and stops each section of generations with prominent figures in the Jewish community. The effect of this is that it personally connects Jesus directly to Abraham, David and Jeconiah. This is important because as the narrative continues we learn that Jesus is not the son of any man in actuality but sent directly from God by the Holy Spirit. Because Jesus was not “born of man” so to speak, Matthew demonstrates that his human father Joseph is from direct lineage of David and Abraham.

Also something I found interesting in this particular section is the strong emphasis to make sure that he pointed out fourteen generations even though there are not fourteen generations. Several times in the genealogy, Matthew omits people in the genealogy on purpose to keep the fourteen generation theme consistent. I think this is important because fourteen is a multiple of seven, and seven in Jewish culture represented completeness. Once again pointing to the case that everything is complete through Jesus because he is from God. Genealogies were very important in establishing a proper aretalogy. In this section, both Luke and Matthew are trying to demonstrate that Jesus is from God. Luke even takes his genealogy of Jesus further all the way to Adam! It is clear form the genealogy stories that the important thing that Matthew wants us to understand is that Jesus is from God.

In the birth story, Matthew tries to make as many parallel to Jesus and the Jewish people as possible. Just as Moses’ mom and to predict him from a king trying to kill all the male infants, so Mary must protect Jesus from being killed as an infant. Just as God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, so he brings Jesus and his family out of Egypt. Matthew tries to use as many parallel as possible to prove the Jewishness and Divinity of Jesus. No one man could have this much in common with huge figures such as Moses and David unless he was from God, seems to be Matthew’s whole premise.

Team 6: Question 2

Posted on by under birth narrative

Before the two panels are examined I think that it’s important to note Luke’s prologue which addresses his writing to Theophilus as an account concerning the truth after Luke’s careful investigation of oral tradition. L material of the intertwined birth stories that Luke implements to Mark’s plot begins with the annunciations of John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ birth. John’s annunciation happens at the beginning of Luke when an angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah in the sanctuary, telling him that his prayer has been heard and that his wife Elizabeth will bear him a son and he will name him John. That even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit and thus imposing his divinity. Luke goes directly to Jesus’ annunciation when Gabriel, an angel from God goes to Nazareth but in this case appears to the mother, Mary. Gabriel tells her that she has found favor with the Lord, that she will conceive and bear a son, that he will be named Jesus. He continues and tells her Jesus’ importance, how he will be called “Son of the Most High(God)” and will give him the throne of his ancestor David. Both of these stories come full circle when Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and John “leaped” in her womb, expressing how even John felt Jesus’ presence, so it’d be pretty safe to say that he’s the real deal. Luke continues on into the actual births, illustrating Jesus’ birth more but both John and Jesus are circumcised on the 8th day. White makes the comparison in 251 and tells how Jewish scripture shapes the narratives with the relationship of Jesus and John, and that of Isaac’s (Gen 18.1-15) and Samuel’s birth (1 Sam 1.1-2.10).
The background information at the beginning of Luke is used to make sense of John’s role but putting him side by side with Jesus, but eliminates any implications that may have arisen in thinking that John the Baptist was the Messiah as in some cases many people favored John over Jesus. But it is clear that even before birth, John knew from the womb knew his purpose and that he would only prepare the world and its people for Jesus’ mission. This is a way of implicitly stating how the book of Mark starts, when John the Baptist is at the river baptizing and says “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 1.7-1.8)
Luke’s material doesn’t necessarily have to be true, but the purpose of it is to make his story sound better than Marks, to appeal better to a reader at the time and fill in the blanks that Mark left with the birth story and genealogy. These two components are key of an aretalogy and the narrative could even be compared to the ancient aretalogy of Apollonius of Tyana. Being and honest and truthful didn’t necessarily make a good writer, making it sound good and as close to perfect is what made a story sound good. Luke follows the outline of an aretalogy to make his story near perfect for whom he’s addressing it to in the name of Theophilus. Luke implies from the beginning that his version is the true version, so why not make the true version sound great and add elements that would make it a great piece?

TEAM 4: QUESTION 2 (ROJ 5/3)

Posted on by under birth narrative

The author of Luke draws almost parallel birth and genealogy narratives for Jesus and John the Baptist. It begins with the virgin pregnancy of Elizabeth, then while John is in the womb, he kicks when Mary arrives at their home, showing that pre-birth John the Baptist has predicted Mary’s own divine pregnancy. Then the naming of Jesus closely follows that of John’s and then they both circumcised. The Gospel of Luke creates a much more expansive birth narrative than Matthew and focuses more on Mary than Joseph. While the author consciously advances the reputation of John the Baptist, later in Luke there is an obvious divide between the divinity of John and that of Jesus. Luke also hones in on the John the Baptist’s mother, Elizabeth who is unexpectedly pregnant like Mary. The entire foundation of Luke seems to be built upon relationship of Jesus and John and that of Isaac’s (Gen 18:1-15) and Samuel’s birth (1 Sam 1:1-2:10 Luke’s author makes a point of using the word favor, “for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant” (Luke 1:48) to create a connection with “O Lord of hosts, if only you will look with favor on the lowliness of your servant, and remember me, and not forget your servant” (1 Sam 1:11 LXX). In Samuel, Hannah who had been barren was finally blessed by god with child, similarly in Luke, Elizabeth and her husband Zachariah who were much older were also blessed. Also Hannah promises “he shall drink neither win nor intoxicants, and no razors shall touch his head.” (1 Sam 1:11) This same announcement is made by an Angel in regards to John in (Luke 1:15)

By creating such a detailed background story, Luke’s Author wants to show the tight and undeniable connection between John the Baptist and Jesus. On the other hand, the audience should also know that events didn’t just occur by accident. Because, “even before his birth he will be filled with Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:15). John the Baptist is already a holy baby within the womb, and then upon Mary’s arrival he kicks, showing his own divine significance and simultaneously warning of Mary’s own divine pregnancy. Further down the line, this intertwined narrative creates the building blocks for Jesus receiving a baptism from John, and the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.

While Matthew shows little Greco-Roman literary influence, The Gospel of Luke creates a birth narrative similar to Apollonius of Tyana, following aretology guidelines. In a sense, The Gospel of Luke is trying to fill in the blanks left by mark, while also polishing up some of the semi-divine or human like traits. By creating a birth and genealogy narrative, the Gospel of Luke cohesively shifts from “the birth narrative and continues right through to the Passion narrative and into Acts” (White 255). It needs to be obvious to the readers that these scenes haven’t just been predicted, they’ve been divinely prophesized. Out of all the gospels, it is Luke that creates the best ‘divine-man’ narrative, using ancient aretology methods to both compare and out due its literary predecessors like the Life of Apollonius and the Life of Moses. Luke creates the true son of god, the ultimate savior.

Team 3 Question 1

Posted on by under birth narrative

a. Gospel stories of Jesus’s youth appear only in Matthew and Luke. In this, there is no underlying oral tradition behind it at all which makes each set functionally specific to each Gospel. In Matthew 1:1-17, he specifically discusses the genealogy of Jesus and formats it in 3 sets of fourteen. Many argue that this represents Jesus as the Messiah as a blood relative of David (which in Hebrew means 14). Other theories for this include the idea that this is a poetic approach symbolizing Joseph’s and Herod’s dreams which were sent from the Holy Spirit to tell of the process of the coming of the Messiah (White 242-243). Matthew’s genealogy section one of Jesus begins with Abraham and ends with King David of Israel (Matthew 1:1-6). The next section included fourteen generations between David and Jechoniah which is when the deportation to Babylon took place (Matthew 1:7-11). Last, after the deportation to Babylon, the generations between Jechoniah and Joseph were listed which would make Jesus the fourteenth generation of section three (Matthew 1:12-17). Matthew does this in a way to highlight Jesus’ deep roots and lineage with Israel and the Jews. Because this lineage exposes that Jesus is the son of both David the king and Abraham the patriarch, he is now shown to be royal and a true Israelite. As shown in ancient aretalogies, lineages become very important in validating and convincing a following that an individual, in this case Jesus, is divine if it can be tied back to a powerful historical figure(s) such as David and Abraham.

b. Verses 1:18-2:23 are all included by Matthew with the purpose of providing proof and reason of Jesus being the Messiah who has come to fulfill Jewish prophecy. Matthew explains the forthcoming of the holy spirit, the rising star which led to Jesus, and the Messiah’s extraordinary birth. All of  these serve as Matthew’s literary evidence of prophecy. Joseph’s, Mary’s and baby Jesus’s flight to Egypt is unique to the Gospel of Matthew, as is Herod’s slaughter of the children. Raymond Brown refers to this as verisimilitude, or a story that gives the appearance of being real when it is not, especially if it is based off of some other legend or event. In this case, he argues that Matthew’s story is based off of the story of Moses’s birth and the pharaoh’s attempt to kill all of the male children of the Israelites (White 240). The Matthew birth narrative also ties directly with the Moses-Joshua/Egypt-Exodus tradition, especially in Matt 2:15 when he says “Out of Egypt have I called my son.”. The parallel to this is shown in Exodus as it quotes “When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son (II:I). Furthermore, it is stated that Matthew’s story of Jesus’s return from Egypt to Nazareth is based on the wording of Isaiah II:I. All of this points to the theory that Matthew is collecting Jewish scriptures and combining them to develop his literary story of Jesus’s birth and further prove that he is truly the Messiah, son of God.

RoJ 5/3 Team 2, Question 1

Posted on by under birth narrative

The birth narrative of Jesus does not appear in the book of Mark, the first written gospel, and surfaced at first in the book of Matthew. It is speculated whether there was oral tradition regarding Jesus’ birth before the writings of Matthew, however as Matthew has such a specific theme in telling and composing the birth story, it is easiest to understand that in it’s earliest form the story is carefully and intentionally crafted by Matthew.

Matthew’s main theme regarding the birth narrative is the clear emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah being a part of the Davidic bloodline, and also being fully Jewish. His genealogy is separated into three, roughly fourteen generation parts. A theory for this arrangement is that the numerical value of the name David in Hebrew is fourteen. Another potential reason is the flow or the rhythm of the literary structure as crafted by Matthew; there are three parts of generations, and three different dreams given to Joseph.

The first part of the genealogy begins with Abraham and leads to David, claiming strong ties to his role as a Jew (from Abraham,) and as royalty and “messiah,” or “anointed one,” (from David.) The second is David to Jechoniah at the deportation of Babylon. And the third is from the deportation of Babylon to Joseph, the father of Jesus “who is called the Messiah.” (1:16) Matthew’s intention for this genealogy is largely to emphasize the identity of Jesus as a true Israelite, and to show his ties to the important figures of Abraham and David. This is Matthew’s way of stating the divine parentage (or lineage) of Jesus, which often are tied to birth stories in aretalogies. Matthew focuses on these main figures and ideas to support his claims of Jesus, as there was little circulation of information about his lineage.

The book of Matthew has a strong theme of prophecy and fulfillment, especially from Jewish scriptures. Matthew uses scriptures that aren’t necessarily referencing Jesus, and shapes them to the story of the birth of Jesus. His use of Hosea 11:1 “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” originally speaks of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. It is purposed by Matthew to be prophetic for Joseph in his dreams to move out of Egypt. He further related the birth story of Jesus to the Moses tradition by referencing Jeremiah 31:15, “Rachel weeping for her children.” Matthew related this verse to the slaughter of the children found in the Moses story, and then ties it to the order of Herod, which put Jesus in the same circumstances as Moses. Matthew uses these Jewish scriptures, as well as other prophecy fulfillments, to further shape the image of Jesus as divine and set apart by God. Through the line of Abraham and David he is seen as royal and a part of God’s chosen people, and through the references to Exodus and the Moses tradition he is seen as a similar savior to God’s people; a figure with divine purpose as seen in his birth story, or the “anticipated prophet like Moses” (White, 248)

Parables // TEAM 5, QUESTION 3

Posted on by under words

There are substantially more details included in Matthew’s Parable of the Weeds, recorded in verses 24-30 of chapter 13, than in Mark’s Parable of the Seed Growing. Both begin by comparing the Kingdom of God/Heaven to a man sowing seed/scattering seed on the ground of a field. Matthew goes another direction with his parable, though, and makes the distinction that the seed is good. Mark makes no distinction between the quality of the seed because, it seems, the point of the parable is not to address the quality or lack thereof.

The point of Mark’s parable seems to be, in contrast to expectations that the last judgment (sickle and harvest) would come soon, instead that the commencement of the Kingdom of God would inconspicuous and its growth would be slow (first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear) but come to fruition in due season (when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come), and then the Kingdom of God will come. Matthew’s parable, on the other hand, draws a distinction between good and bad seed. With the bad seed (sons of the evil one) come weeds, sown among the good seed of wheat (sons of the Kingdom). The bad seed are sown by the enemy (the devil) of the man (Son of Man). At early growth, the weeds and the wheat are indistinguishable, but as they reach maturity you can tell them apart. Attempting to gather the weeds would harm the wheat, so they are allowed to grow together (in the world) until harvest (the end of the age, Day of Judgment). The prolonged coming of the Kingdom of God isn’t the point here, but the fact that there are good and bad seed, and the explanation for why the bad seed are allowed to continue. This could be seen as an expansion on Mark’s parable, but the clearest reason for Matthew’s parable being different is that the point the parable is making is different. The two parables are both talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, but they’re making completely different points.

Matthew’s account of Jesus explaining the Parable of the Weeds has a much more explicitly elevated view of Jesus than Mark’s parable. Jesus is the Son of Man, and he is the one sowing sons of the Kingdom and the one inaugurating the Kingdom of God. Clearly this is a portrayal of the scene in Daniel 7, after the Ancient of Days gives everlasting dominion over the Earth, glory, and a Kingdom to one like a Son of Man. Matthew, in his account, is clearly identifying Jesus with this Son of Man figure.

Matthew’s Parable of the Treasure continues the theme of talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. Here another point is made as to the inconspicuous or hidden nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, the main thrust of this parable seems to be more about the surpassing worth, as treasure, of the Kingdom of God compared to any sacrifice one could make to get it. Matthew’s Parable of the Pearl of Great Value is also talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, but unlike the man who stumbled on hidden treasure, this man was is a merchant is earnestly searching for fine pearls. But when he found the pearl of great value (the Kingdom of Heaven), he has the same reaction as the man in the field and sacrificed all he had to get it. Matthew’s Parable of the Net is essentially making the same point as his parable of the weeds. Making the same point that good and bad fish won’t be sorted until the final harvest, and evil won’t be totally removed from the world until the end of the age. Making these points about the Kingdom of Heaven would do well to explain Jesus’ rejection by the Jews and his movement’s seeming defeat at his death.

RoJ Team 3 Question 2

Posted on by under words

The Q material is simply a list of words and sayings by Jesus. These sayings are typically about Jesus giving wisdom or teaching some universal truth. Even large sermons like the sermon on the mount and plain derive from the Q source that Matthew and Luke had while writing their gospel. A large portion of this material is apocalyptic in it’s nature. It announces the coming of a new age. We see this most clearly in the beatitudes in Mt 5:1-12 and the blessings and woes in Lk 6:17-26. There is a lot of overlap in these passages due to them both coming from the same Q source. We see the commonalities in “blessed are those who mourn, and you when you are hated, the poor, the meek, the merciful, the hungry.” This displays the new age where hierarchies are somewhat upside down. Those who are considered lowly, weak, marginalized will be exalted and promised good things. The way Matthew and Luke go about it is differently. Matthew mainly focus on personal piety “blessed are the poor in spirit” while Luke has his attention on those who do not get physical needs met “blessed are the poor.” Luke makes the fate of the marginalized and the well off have an even starker contrast than Matthew with his addition of the woes (Lk 6:24-26). Overall this is good news for those who are persecuted, poor, and pious because a new age where they are exalted is coming.

A major similarity I see between the cynic philosopher and the teacher Jesus is, is that they are not exempt from teaching their hometown. In both Mark and Luke Jesus teaches back in Nazareth and he is not well received. He says that a prophet is not accepted in their hometown or even in their own family (Mark 6:4). We not only see this aspect of teaching family from Jesus but from Epictetus as well. He says “Why should he not be bold so as to speak openly to his own brothers, to his children, succinctly, to his kin?” (Epictetus 95). Luke changes Jesus’ interaction with the people from Nazareth a bit. Jesus only says that a prophet is not accepted in his country, but says nothing about his family or kin (Lk 4:24). In Luke Jesus also reads from Isaiah where good news is proclaimed to the poor, blind, captive, and oppressed, which is reminiscent of Lucian as well (Lucian 8). But he doesn’t heal people and in response they people of Nazareth try to throw him off a cliff. Jesus talks about how Elijah and Elisha (prophets in the kingdom era) healed only a gentile when there were many that were sick in Israel and Judah. The people become upset when they hear that this good news is not exclusive to Go’s people but to the entire world as well. This sets the stage for Luke as a recurring theme, Jesus as a world savior.

We see that Jesus has a critique of the world. It was currently upside down from Jesus had intended it to be. Instead of the rich, full, and well off, it is the poor, hungry, and oppressed that get the good news (Mt 5:1-12/Lk 6:17-26). Jesus’ envisioned world is one where there is no hate for the enemy, no resistance from them, and even being generous to them (Mt 5:38-48/Lk6:27-36). What we learn from these passages is that the world is backwards from what God’s will is.

Team 4: Question 2 (ROJ 4/28)

Posted on by under words

The teachings of Jesus are an important part of the gospels. From oral tradition, these sayings were unique and separate traditions from other part of the gospels, as were the “miracle stories”. Before examining specific gospel passages, it is beneficial to look once again at the authors intended goal of interpretation and the context of the book. To review, Matthean is written for a Jewish audience. According to White the Jewish tradition was one that tied teaching with prophets with parables(190). When Jesus speaks in parables “he was being cast” in light of older prophets(190). The audience relates their older tradition with this new teacher. The portrayal of Matthew’s Jesus is one with a “prophetic image”. This, by definition, of prophecy, means that the saying has both application for the present and the future. On the other hand, the Lukan gospel is aimed at a Greco-Roman audience. In order to relate to them more, he expands the oral tradition into a Jesus that aims at philosophical sayings. Luke’s audience is familiar with the philosophy akin to Socrates or Pythagoras (White 191). While these philosophers, or sages, were quite similar to prophets, the former is said to distinctly stand for “betterment of individuals and of the society as a whole,”(191). Now, one can look at the parallels between the gospel synoptic’s “sayings”, and witness how each author expands on oral tradition as needed.

The Matthean and Lukan gospels have similarities because they probably come from the same oral tradition and source (Q). This means that the sayings that show up in each have very similar themes at a basic level, but each author takes the interpretation to a new level for their intended audience. The relevant theme of the sayings is instructional saving, or sage advice. For example in Mt 5:1-12 & Lk 6:17-26, also known as the Beatitudes, Jesus speaks on the blessedness of certain actions or feelings. The meaning behind the bulk of this famous saying differs in Matthew and Luke. Though, they are both apocalyptic “sayings”. They provide a future reward, or punishment, if on does not follow that is in the scope of heaven. Matthew’s gospel addresses a list of desirable ethics in order for a spiritual being to “enter into the kingdom of God”(NSRV p1752, Mt 5:10). But, the Lukan gospel is more focused on the social and economic well-being of its audience, while also still inserting the part about the entrance into heaven (NRSV p1840). This is wisdom for the philosophical “betterment of society”, and is less specific on the same rules of Matthew’s gospels. Similar themes of following commands to be right with God (through being like him) and found in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. This passage includes the famous “Golden Rule”. Matthew’s Jesus quotes Hebrew scripture, then actually changes the saying to fit the moralistic point he is trying to make. Jesus is re-interpreting this idea to his followers: to love your enemy or risk not being a child of God (v.45). This is prophesying for the future through reinterpreting, and also changing, the old scriptures. A real life implication of this radical saying, was that loving those who persecuted them, was extremely relevant, and difficult, for the persecution of the Christian church. Jesus is seen as a moral philosopher, and a prophet (sometimes radical) depending on the context. ”

The tradition “sayings” are split into four categories. One of these categories is called a “pronouncement story”, which is exactly what it says, a narrative(White 193). Now, a subset of this type is a chreia (White202). Simply put, a chreia is a biography followed by a quick “punch-line of a moral anecdote”(Costa p152). Examples of chreiai show up in multitudes. They can be seen throughout the gospels; Lucian’s discourse on Cynic Philosopher, Demonax; and Arrian’s discourse on stoic philosopher, Epicletus. There are also a few parallels that can be drawn between the sayings attributed to Jesus, and the sayings attributed to these other philosophers. For example, Epicletus says that in order to be part of the Cynic’s “you must completely change everything about you from your current practices…turn your tendencies toward moral consideration(v13). One can compare with Jesus’ radical saying to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”(Mt 5:44). While the idea of loving an enemy is hard, both Jesus and Epicletus cite this change of natural tendency as a way to enter into a greater group. Another example can be seen in Lucian’s works: “[it is] best exercise authority with calmness and a lot of listening,”(Demonax 51). Calling upon the beatitudes where the meek are called righteous (Mt 5:5) one can see this same principle, one of a gentle spirit getting them further, applied in the gospel of Matthew. Another example of a Cherai, but in contrasting two gospels, is the “Rejection of Nazareth” story in Mark6:16 and Luke4:16-30. Mark’s is a very concise narrative and teaching. Luke’s on the other hand is much longer. While he has all the same basic elements of Marks (the earliest), Luke expands a lot in ways that are actually not typical of his style or purpose. For example, Luke has Jesus quote Hebrew scripture and read the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue (Lk4L16-17). In this gospel, this provides a way for the Nazarene’s to accept Jesus. Mark’s gospel makes no space for anyone liking Jesus, because part of the punchline of the Markan Cherai is that Jesus won’t be accepted by his people (Mk 6:4). This is added to the Lukan gospel, only after the Jewish community is seen getting upset with Jesus continuing on with recalling scripture.

Jesus is portrayed as offering an alternative way to live in order to live by God’s will. The sayings of Jesus are offered as hope to many. For those who hunger, thirst, or are persecuted- they may listen to the words of Jesus and believe their suffering is for a greater purpose. While the ailments of society cause these things, they also allow for entrance into the kingdom of God. This may be why in the “golden Rule” narrative Jesus asks his audience to turn the other cheek. Jesus does not seek retaliation. He wants these followers to be set apart from what the normal person would do. He also connects living ones enemies as offering mercy similar to that of God’s. Not only are these sayings suggesting a superior moral code, they are also supposing the chance ot be perfect like God (Mt5:48).

 

Team 2, Question 1

Posted on by under cynic philosophy

The times of oral tradition brought two forms of cynicism. These forms came from Greece and Rome. In Greece, the ideal cynic, as described be Epictetus was a man who was “separated from God” and “obliterates yearnings”. A Cynic must have turned their tendencies toward moral considerations alone. They should not have ever felt warmth, anger, envy, or pity. They also weren’t supposed to find any woman desirable. Essentially what Epictetus idealized as the perfect Cynic philosopher was someone who was willing to end all desires. Epictetus believed that they should only live off of what was essential for living, no more than that. As a scout the Cynic philosopher was responsible for “spying” and figuring out what is harmful and what is beneficial to men. As it relates to God, the Cynics looked to him for counsel. Epictetus also brought up the ideas of Greek gods multiple times which makes it confusing whether they were monotheistic or polytheistic.

Demonax seemed to have many of the same ideals as Epictetus. Although Demonax came from a wealthy and reputable home, he gave it all up because those blessing were “illusory and brief” (154). Demonax believed in the same main ideas of the Cynics like living a simple life (only using the necessities to live, figuring out what is good and bad for mankind, and living life only focusing on his moral compass. In those three was the Cynics were practically identical. Where they were different was, to be frank, in passing people off. It is written on page 161 of Demonax that at the time of his death he was revered and loved by many. The Cynics believed more in being social outcasts and going against whatever the norm was.

I see many similarities between Epictetus, the Demonax, and the Gospels’ depiction of Jesus. Nearly his entire life Jesus is portrayed as a teacher. Early on in one of the Gospels he is even teaching in the temple when he is just a kid still. Jesus preached about how it was unnecessary to show your wealth or to even be wealthy in general. Both Demonax and the Cynics gave up all of their belongings in order to live a simpler life, just like Jesus taught. Just like Jesus, Demonax forgave sinners, bringing up the example of doctors who, “heal sickness but do not get angry with the sick. I think Demonax lived the most similarly with Jesus although there were many parallels with Cynics as well.

Skip to toolbar