In a well-researched and articulate essay, Paul Rhodes Eddy has recently examined the question of possible links between and Cynicism. 1 Eddy surveys current debate on the matter and concludes that, regard the ongoing search for a viable model for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, one must look elsewhere than at Cynicism (p. 469). Below I consider Eddy's treatment and argue that, although probing in certain ways, it is not quite so definitive as he suggests. Eddy begins by noting that Imperial Cynicism. . . is . . . eclectic mix . . , making the Cynic difficult define (p. 459). But most students of antiquity would recognize as a Cynic one who: (a) was itinerant;2 (b) lived and preached a life-style of poverty;3 (c) criticized social norms-notably, ties;4 (d) advocated reliance on God's power,5 (e) especially as that power is seen in natural processes;6 and (f) inhabits and invites others into a divinely established realm.7 Comparisons can be made with regarding each of these items.8 It does remain true that Cynicism was an eclectic mix, as Eddy calls it. Indeed, F. G. Downing has already made this point at length.9 But so too were first-century CE Jewish ideas and practices, a fact that gives Eddy himself pause in using the singular Judaism (p. 460 n. 59). Were there really more differences among Cynics than there were between, say, Philo and the Qumran community? If not, then in principle we should be as willing advert the one tradition as the other. In any case, the best approach both is probably not demand the uniform presence of certain specific elements but rather seek family resemblances.10 This method looks for a critical mass drawn from a cluster of attributes. For example, many unrelated people have large ears or a small nose or blond hair or green eyes or a square jaw. But when several individuals are encountered with most or all of these attributes, one can reasonably suspect a resemblance. can even gather a group together, without any two of its members sharing every attribute. By this criterion, the above list offers substantive grounds for thinking that some connection existed between and Cynic tradition.11 Such a connection does not, however, mean that was a Cynic. According Eddy, to claim that Jesus' use of aphoristic and biting wit is best understood within the context of Hellenistic Cynicism is miss the most plausible context: Jewish wisdom (p. 460). But no one has said that Jesus' use of Cynic thought kept him from using Jewish thought as well. Downing says that fashioned a marriage of Cynic ideas his own native Judaism,12 and that Jesus the Jew must also be seen as the Cynic.13 Burton Mack says that Jesus' speaking style is very similar the Cynics' way with words.14 To be similar one thing still allows for being similar something else. In fact, Mack has explicitly stated that he sees as using Jewish wisdom: One might imagine doing at a popular level what many Jewish intellectuals did at a more sophisticated and conceptual level, namely, combining Jewish and Hellenistic traditions of in order make critical judgments about the times and propose a religious ethic held be in keeping with Jewish ideals.15 Eddy implies that Downing really has simply and straightforwardly identified as a Cynic per se, but he offers no citation from Downing's work in support. 16 He also says that, while John Dominic Crossan and Mack may speak in terms of analogy, they actually suggest a much stronger linkage (p. 458 n. 49). Again, however, he provides no citation, and so it is impossible know precisely what statements he has in mind. In my own reading of Downing, Mack, and Crossan, I have found no place which identifies as a Cynic in such a way as rule out continued association with his Jewish heritage. …