Clivedurdle

I seriously propose that Jesus is a character invented by Seneca, in the model of heroes and gods. INRI was probably invented by Seneca as part of the central scene in the plot of the play.

What happened is that Seneca was killed before the character in the play was turned into the founder of a religion.

Paul had been going around telling of a christ crucified, but it was all very vague. The genius of Seneca was to pick up on a classic plot and turn it into a major hit!

Some non Roman viewers saw the play, misinterpreted it, one non Roman worked on the script, and the result now is a major religion.

To accept this we must drop the assumption that we have any fixed points - like when the birth and crucifiction are meant to have happened. The tales of Jesus' works and similar are later fictional add ons to fill in the story - the greatest story ever told!

Magdlyn

I find this theory very interesting! I want to read the whole exposition when I get some more time on computer.

BTW, this line you quoted:

If you set him free, that means that you are not Caesar’s friend!
Anyone who claims to be a king is the Caesar’s enemy.

-would rhyme if we switched a phrase.

You are not Caesar's friend if you set him free.
Anyone who claims to be king is Caesar's enemy.

hehe, call me Shakespeare.

Amaleq13

I can see where this play could be understood as the alleged Passion Narrative upon which the author of Mark (and John, I think) relied but that seems to be about all you can place at the feet of Seneca.

Are you arguing that the entire Gospel story derives from this play?

Sandslice

I'd think that, by the "Gospel of Seneca" argument, that the ministry of the itinerant Jesus would very well be distinct and separate from the passion-play argument.

Paul suffices for support here: there is most certainly an argument from silence on Paul's part concerning the ministry... but most certainly not when it comes to Passion events.

Even more to the point, Paul is distinct from the (other) apostles, in that those (others) had lived and breathed the itinerant ministry. It was on this fact that they cast the lots and added Matthias to their number, to replace Judas Iscariot. On the other hand, Paul did not have such credentials, only a special revelation (perhaps, having seen the play?) which caused him to launch forth a message, intentionally distinct from that of the eyewitnesses to the ministry, and "superior" to those on that regard.

Why "superior?" Because Seneca's passion play was more accessible to "the people" than were the laws of Judaism, and who could know that better than a Pharisee? Thus, Paul could wrap his ministry around the play, liberally borrow (and liberally interpret) OT prophecies, and paint the picture of original sin and vicarious atonement. And, being a rather skilled orator, he could deliver this message powerfully.

After the fall of Jerusalem, the primary competition to Paulian theology fell, and joined Paulism when the memories of the ministry blended with the play-revelation, becoming the Gospels.

This can explain AMatt's efforts to synchronise his gospel with OT prophecies, as well as the apparent parallels between the Odyssey and GMark.

Just idle speculation on this.

Amaleq13

What "Passion events" do you find Paul describing?

There is no indication of that in Paul. You have to wait until the first Gospel story before this claim is made. But the overall point holds true that there does not appear to be any basis for a ministry in Seneca's play. At least not in the parts we've seen so far.

Paul claims there was NO distinction between the basis for his status as an apostle and those who came before him. There is also no indication from him that there ever was a ministry, let alone eyewitnesses to it.

Not according to Paul:

"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (2 Cor 10:10, KJV)

I find it interesting and entertaining.

Utu

Instead of misinterpreting it, they could have interpreted it allegorically. Hellenistic Jews could have done the same. Here are some links:

Allegorical Interpretation of Greek Myths

Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 9)

Also, try looking up "allegoresis" in a search engine of your choosing.

From this review of Margaret Beissinger, Jane Tylus, Susanne Wofford, “Performing Interpretation: Early Allegorical Exegesis of Homer,� Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World. The Poetics of Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.:
This may be of interest:

Qumran Commentaries in Graeco-Roman Context

Some other stuff I found a while ago and haven't had a chance to look at:

Most, Glenn, "The Fire Next Time: Cosmology, Allegoresis, and Salvation in the Derveni Papyrus," Journal of Hellenic Studies 117 (1997), pp. 117-135.

Obbink, Dirk. 2003. “Allegory and Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus: The Origin of Greek Scholarship.� In Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions, 177-88. Ed. G. R. Boys-Stones. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

I hope no one minds the reference dump.

Last edited by Utu : Today at 10:32 PM. Reason: better word choice: "interpreted it allegorically" instead of "read it allegorically"

Toto

Thanks for the references, Utu, and welcome to BCH.

(I just made a small edit on the Amazon URL.)

Utu

Thanks for the welcome, Toto.
Thanks, I was pretty sure I messed it up a smidge.

Clivedurdle

Can we take things very slowly and carefully and step by step here?

What level of agreement do we have to the hypothesis that the PN is a Roman Play?

If the entire gospel story is a play can probably be shown by asking would a Roman drama have had the various set pieces of the birth, baptism, temptation, mission, exhortation bits and passion or would this have been too long? Were dramas serialised as we do now? Did people extend other people's work?

If I were a famous playwrite who knew some Jewish history and wanted to do a sequel to Hercules - I needed another hit - would this make sense?

What happens if we ask could the gospels have been originally written in Latin?

Do we need someone wandering around Palestine or could it all be an invention of Seneca?

Did Paul know Seneca?

Clivedurdle

There are some superb story boards in this plot, the Gadarene swine, the flight to Egypt, the intellectual discussions with pharasees etc, the woman by the well, walking on water, storms at sea, feeding five thousand, the Sermon on the Mount. Spielberg couldn't have done a better job!

Remember the Romans did import elephants and hippos for their spectaculars and did amazing technical feats like Ceasar's bridge across the Rhine.