partial plate

I just discovered that there were purported letters exchanged between Lucius Seneca and Paul. I hear that these are thought by some or many to be 4th century forgeries. I have also come across some kind of theory that Seneca had written a historical drama centered on the figure of Jesus, but that may be a fabrication.

Anyway, my question is this: whether the correspondence is a forgery or real, has anyone seriously pursued the idea that Luke/Acts got it's author's traditional name from Lucius Seneca or from his nephew "Lucilius", even if it was by misplaced attestation. I undestand Luke was supposedly a physician that traveled with Paul, but he may not have started out that way - perhaps he started out as a denizen of Rome and philosopher/playwrite who was friendly with Paul? Am I way off base here?

Vorkosigan

For the play, see www.nazarenus.com. There is no way to demonstrate that Senaca did any such thing, but the idea that the Passion is based on a Roman play has a certain merit.

Toto

A former poster here named Geoff Hudson proposed this, about half way down this thread. But I don't think that anyone took him seriously.

gLuke/Acts is attributed to a certain Luke the physician mentioned in Paul's letters. Are you suggesting that Paul hung out in Rome and created a fictional physician in his letters, borrowing Seneca's name - perhaps in anticipation that a century or so later, church fathers would decide that the anonymous gospel and Acts of the Apostles must have been written by this Luke? And that someone else would forge letters between himself and Seneca? The mind boggles.

The Seneca connection has been discussed here before.

Letters are a forgery

Letters are still forged

No, Seneca did not write a gospel

partial plate

Heavens no... I was suggesting that I don't know very much about it, but if there was a Lucius (Seneca)/Luke connection, then perhaps Paul's mention of "Luke" was a later redaction based on that connection. I'm about as ignorant as they come on the early church documents and what historical methods are used to make sense of them. I just noticed the coincidences around the names, places, and stories, and couldn't help but wonder how thoroughly a possible connection had been explored.

P.S. - I appreciate the links... I will read, but probably will not understand.

partial plate

I had actually already read the first & third links... I figured I had better do a few searches on IIDB before I posted my question, so I wouldn't get roasted. Geoff's theories were one approach at looking for a connection between Lucius & Luke (and Stecchini's theory might be the same, or a second approach)... I didn't give Geoff much credence because he seemed to want to argue by assertion, and he seemed out of his depth. Stecchini's theory seems a little bit fantastic, especially to one who accepts Markan priority for the synoptics (like myself). If Stecchini is close in his theory, then I would suspect Seneca was one of those who adapted the Markan story, and added the nativity and Paul's role separately, not that the three synoptics and John all borrowed from Seneca.

I did notice that Geoff got the last word in your first link, and (not knowing anything about it), I wonder if his final comments (or similar arguments) might serve to shore up the theory that at least some of the letters between Paul and Seneca were authentic... How far off am I on that?

Toto

source for Geoff's long quote on RENEWED DEBATE OVER ALLEGED LETTERS BETWEEN SENECA AND ST. PAUL

This is the only notice I can find on the net of this "Seneca and the Christians" conference. The description there leads me to think that the whole idea is wishful thinking on the part of Catholic academics.

Marta Sordi, the professor mentioned there, is mentioned here as a "Catholic apologist." In the first link, she uses some fictional parts of Acts to try to show that Paul might have met Seneca. The article ends with Which hardly suggests a dispassionate academic quest.

In short, forgeries of letters by Paul are common. There is no reason to think that the Paul-Seneca letters are other than forgeries.