Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-23-2009, 11:33 AM

I would like to see more discussion of Seneca - especially did he write the Gospel of Mark - Nazarenus.

Boris Johnson, degree in classics and current Mayor of London has pointed out the many "coincidences""no they can't be" between the Emperor cult and Xianity.

Seneca would have every reason to satirise the emperors by using a Jewish Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Fascinating stuff here including

Quote:

Bauer also concluded "that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle .....

n a revised edition of his work on the Gospels, published in 1850–1851, Bauer favoured a 2nd-century date for all the epistles and concluded that Jesus had not existed. Bauer's own explanation of Christian origins appeared in 1877: the religion was a synthesis of the Stoicism of Seneca the Younger, whom Bauer viewed as having planned to create a new Roman state based on his philosophy, with the Jewish theology of Philo as developed politically by pro-Roman Jews such as Josephus.[31][32] Mark, according to Bauer, was an Italian, influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy.[31] The movement developed in Rome and Alexandria, and was not attested until Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan in the 110s, but over the following fifty years Mark and his successors developed the myth of a much earlier foundation.

I would simplify this by looking more closely at Seneca.

Clivedurdle · 07-23-2009, 11:43 AM

Just to clarify what I am arguing.

Seneca was extremely rich and powerful, he was both in with the Emperors and not.

He was a brilliant playwrite.

He had very powerful political and social views.

He had motive, the required philosophy, the understanding of the politics and superb skills of rhetoric - result - a replacement for the Roman Empire?

Did he light the blue touch paper with his character Jesus?

Maybe it was not intended to be a religio.

show_no_mercy · 07-23-2009, 12:04 PM

He was also unfairly killed by the "anti-Christ" Nero.

Clivedurdle · 07-24-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Roman philosopher, statesman, orator, and tragedian. He was Rome’s leading intellectual figure in the mid-1st century ad and was virtual ruler with his friends of the Roman world between 54 and 62 during the first phase of the emperor Nero’s reign.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...Annaeus-Seneca

Clivedurdle · 07-24-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

The Roman world failed to revive tragedy. Seneca (4 bc–ad 65) wrote at least eight tragedies, mostly adaptations of Greek materials, such as the stories of Oedipus, Hippolytus, and Agamemnon, but with little of the Greek tragic feeling for character and theme. The emphasis is on sensation and rhetoric, tending toward melodrama and bombast. The plays are of interest in this context mainly as the not entirely healthy inspiration for the precursors of Elizabethan tragedy in England.
The long hiatus in the history of tragedy between the Greeks and the Elizabethans has been variously explained. In the Golden Age of Roman literature, roughly from the birth of Virgil in 70 bc to the death of Ovid in ad 17, the Roman poets followed the example of Greek literature; although they produced great lyric and epic verse, their tragic drama lacked the probing freshness and directness fundamental to tragedy.
With the collapse of the Roman world and the invasions of the barbarians came the beginnings of the long, slow development of the Christian Church. Churchmen and philosophers gradually forged a system, based on the Christian revelation, of the nature and destiny of man. The mass, with its daily reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, its music, and its dramatic structure, may have provided something comparable to tragic drama in the lives of the people.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref504802

Tristan Scott · 07-24-2009, 11:46 AM

There were some interesting connections between Seneca and St. Paul as well. There were the letters, which are controversial. They were considered to be possibly authentic by Lightfoot, although there is some doubt. What makes them compelling is the later letters talk about the two looking forward to Pauls trip to Rome which is really the drama of the second half of Acts. The mystery of Acts has always been what happened when Paul got to Rome. Acts ends very abruptly without explaining the meeting that is anticiapated for many chapters. It is also compelling that Paul's trip to Rome is the last he is heard of anywhere in the NT, and would have coinsided with Seneca's fall, and suicide.

Also to consider Gallio who is mentioned in Acts as a high official in Achaia, when Paul travels to that city, and as usual gets in trouble with the Jews there, it is Gallio who comes to his rescue. Gallio was Seneca's brother.

andrewcriddle · 07-24-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

There were some interesting connections between Seneca and St. Paul as well. There were the letters, which are controversial. They were considered to be possibly authentic by Lightfoot, although there is some doubt. .

IIUC Lightfoot was quite certain the Paul-Seneca correspondence was spurious. Lightfoot on Philippians

Quote:

THE spurious correspondence between the Apostle and the philosopher ...This correspondence was probably forged in the fourth century,...As they are now universally allowed to be spurious, it will be unnecessary to state at length the grounds of their condemnation. It is sufficient to say that the letters are inane and unworthy throughout; that the style of either correspondent is unlike his genuine writings ; that the relations between the two, as there represented, are highly improbable ; and lastly, that the chronological notices (which however are absent in some important MSS) are wrong in almost every instance. Thus, independently of the unbroken silence of three centuries and a half about this correspondence, internal evidence alone is sufficient to condemn them hopelessly.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 07-24-2009, 01:24 PM

The alleged correspondence between Paul and Seneca is not controversial. It is a forgery, without a doubt, except to a few true believers.

Seneca

Quote:

...
Bringing Seneca on Message
The lack of any reference to Jesus Christ or Christians by Seneca was an embarrassment rectified during the 4th century by a forger familiar with Seneca's letters to his life-long friend Lucilius. What emerged was a correspondence purporting to be friendly exchanges between the eminent Roman philosopher – at the height of his fame and political influence – and an unknown itinerant preacher we now call St Paul.

The catalyst for the fabrications appear to have been remarks by Tertullian, in the early 3rd century. Tertullian, aware that Seneca had articulated sentiments suited to a "great moral teacher" referred to Seneca as "often our own." By the time of Constantius II (337-361), Seneca had been taken captive by the Christians, his fidelity to the cause vouched for by a lively exchange of letters (in Latin!) with the Jewish Christian apostle. We are asked to believe that Seneca wrote eight letters to Paul and received six replies. . .

Tristan Scott · 07-24-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

There were some interesting connections between Seneca and St. Paul as well. There were the letters, which are controversial. They were considered to be possibly authentic by Lightfoot, although there is some doubt. .

IIUC Lightfoot was quite certain the Paul-Seneca correspondence was spurious. Lightfoot on Philippians

Quote:

THE spurious correspondence between the Apostle and the philosopher ...This correspondence was probably forged in the fourth century,...As they are now universally allowed to be spurious, it will be unnecessary to state at length the grounds of their condemnation. It is sufficient to say that the letters are inane and unworthy throughout; that the style of either correspondent is unlike his genuine writings ; that the relations between the two, as there represented, are highly improbable ; and lastly, that the chronological notices (which however are absent in some important MSS) are wrong in almost every instance. Thus, independently of the unbroken silence of three centuries and a half about this correspondence, internal evidence alone is sufficient to condemn them hopelessly.

Andrew Criddle

Thank you Andrew, I couldn't check your link here for some reason, but will check it later, I'm probably wrong about Lightfoot, I'm working off memory-sometimes he speaks of Early Church fathers so it's possible I just remember him saying someone else considered them authentic, so I'll check my facts again.

Tristan Scott · 07-24-2009, 09:54 PM

Andrew,

I found my copy and must apologize for my sloppiness in my post, I was working from memory which is never very reliable. The translation I have is from Jerimiah Jones, and the commentary is a composite of his and Archbishop William Wake and William Hone who claim that Jerome was favorable to the authenticity of these letters as well as Salmeron who cites them, and in the 17th century at least there were several Church scholars who didn't like them including Baronius, Ballermine and Spanheim.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2009, 11:43 AM	#2
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Just to clarify what I am arguing. Seneca was extremely rich and powerful, he was both in with the Emperors and not. He was a brilliant playwrite. He had very powerful political and social views. He had motive, the required philosophy, the understanding of the politics and superb skills of rhetoric - result - a replacement for the Roman Empire? Did he light the blue touch paper with his character Jesus? Maybe it was not intended to be a religio.

07-23-2009, 12:04 PM	#3
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	He was also unfairly killed by the "anti-Christ" Nero.

07-24-2009, 11:46 AM	#6
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	There were some interesting connections between Seneca and St. Paul as well. There were the letters, which are controversial. They were considered to be possibly authentic by Lightfoot, although there is some doubt. What makes them compelling is the later letters talk about the two looking forward to Pauls trip to Rome which is really the drama of the second half of Acts. The mystery of Acts has always been what happened when Paul got to Rome. Acts ends very abruptly without explaining the meeting that is anticiapated for many chapters. It is also compelling that Paul's trip to Rome is the last he is heard of anywhere in the NT, and would have coinsided with Seneca's fall, and suicide. Also to consider Gallio who is mentioned in Acts as a high official in Achaia, when Paul travels to that city, and as usual gets in trouble with the Jews there, it is Gallio who comes to his rescue. Gallio was Seneca's brother.

07-24-2009, 09:54 PM	#10
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	Andrew, I found my copy and must apologize for my sloppiness in my post, I was working from memory which is never very reliable. The translation I have is from Jerimiah Jones, and the commentary is a composite of his and Archbishop William Wake and William Hone who claim that Jerome was favorable to the authenticity of these letters as well as Salmeron who cites them, and in the 17th century at least there were several Church scholars who didn't like them including Baronius, Ballermine and Spanheim.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.