Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-24-2004, 09:40 AM

A google search led to this.

The commentary starts to the effect that "this is obviously a forgery".

Why is that so obvious? I really think when trying to work out what happened at this central point of the Roman Republic and Empire that nothing is thrown out until we are completely sure.

History is written by the winners - some of this is is very disturbing to them!

Paul and Seneca

Toto · 07-24-2004, 10:01 AM

Previous thread

In which Peter Kirby stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

What is the evidence that this was a forgery?

To start with, the earliest reference to them is in Jerome at the end of the fourth century. Cornelia Romer writes, "Today the 4th century A.D. is generally assumed to be the period of their origin. In favour of this are not only linguistic and stylistic considerations (on which see E. Lienhard in Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 11, 1932, 5-32), but above all the mention of the correspondence by Jerome in 392 (de Vir. Ill. 12, see below), whereas it is clear from the Divinae institutiones of Lactantius (VI 24.13-14) of the year 324 that these letters did not yet lie before him." (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, pp. 46-47)

Another thread on the same topic

From this site, which tries (ineffectively IMHO) to argue for their authenticity,

Quote:

THE LETTERS OF PAUL AND SENECA by J. B. Lightfoot (1890).

. . .

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.

I see these letters as part of a long pattern that tries to link Paul with priminent Romans, as a strategy for pumping up his importance. I don't believe the stories in Acts about Paul being a Pharisee or a Roman citizen, or about him talking to various official, or being shipped to Rome to stand trial, or having some rubes try to worship him and Barnabas as gods.

Clivedurdle · 07-24-2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

obviously for the purpose of improving his Latin.

Someone writing a language they do not know is more than enough reason for poor style. This correspondence is the sort of thing that would have been dictated quickly - am I right Seneca was no 2 in the Empire at certain points?

I agree the church would have wanted to make themselves look like they were in touch with important people, but what if it is the other way round?

Seneca for various reasons had taken a personal interest in these funny Jews and their sects, had not converted at all to xianity, but studied them out of curiousity, and as a game wrote a play about it? Nero's wife being Jewish is more than enough reason to keep up to date with these sects!

I would be very careful about dating as well. What happens if we assume the alleged early dating is correct, but for a different reason than a historical record of Jesus, but because of the personal interest of Seneca in this funny lot.

There is still no evidence of a historical Jesus - Seneca writing about kings getting crucified could have been third hand reporting hearsay!

Has anyone done a detailed study of who is meant to be where when and crucially, what languages they spoke and wrote in?

Clivedurdle · 07-24-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

RENEWED DEBATE OVER ALLEGED LETTERS BETWEEN SENECA AND ST. PAUL
New Findings Could Support Letters' Authenticity
MILAN, OCT 14 1999

"I like the letters you have written to the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Acheans. But, you must watch the style, lest in some way its brilliance fails to measure up to the sublimity of the thought." Could it really be Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, who wrote these lines to St. Paul, in a benevolent attempt to simplify the Apostle's prose? There are manuscripts of letters that could have been exchanged between the Apostle and the pagan philosopher between 58-64 A.D, during Paul's stay in Rome, under house-arrest, while awaiting trial. These letters were known as early as the 4th century. St. Jerome quotes them for the first time. St. Augustine alludes to them but, until the present, this correspondence has been considered apocryphal.

Maria Grazia Mara, professor emeritus of the History of Christianity in the Roman University "La Sapienza," affirmed that "precisely around the 4th century, the forged letters reflected an ongoing debate: the need for Christians to improve their writing, so that the roughness of the Latin translations of the Scriptures would not be considered vulgar to educated pagans,".

Currently, in a congress entitled "Seneca and the Christians," organized by the Catholic University of Milan, experts are debating whether it is a simply a forgery created to stir controversy, or an authentic letter of Seneca to St. Paul.
Participants in the congress include those who believe in the authenticity of the letters -- at least 12 out of 14 --, who are offering with new arguments to support their claims.

"Research carried out by Ilaria Ramelli, one of my students, is inclining me toward belief in their authenticity," Marta Sordi, said. Sordi is professor of Ancient History at the Catholic University of Milan. "Examination of the texts reveals that in the letters allegedly written by Paul, Greek sayings are more copious than in Seneca's letters," Sordi said. "For example, Paul says 'sophist' instead of 'sapiens'; and for 'incoherence' he uses the word 'aporia.' This is obviously true, given the fact that Paul spoke Greek, the universal language of the Mediterranean, and not Latin." "As regards Seneca," Sordi continued, when he wishes to express "'fear of God,' he writes the word 'deorum' (of the gods). A Christian forger would never have used that expression but, instead, 'timor Dei' (fear of God)."

Other proposed proofs include "an inscription that was found in Ostia. It is the funerary dedication by someone called Marco Anneo Paulo to his own son, called Paulopetrus. Obviously, they were converts, if they called themselves by the names of the two first apostles. And they are members of Lucius Anneo Seneca's family, given that they have the same surname -- Anneo. Perhaps "libertos" (freed slaves) of Seneca. In any case, the inscription of Ostia -- the place where Paul was martyred --, confirms the presence of Christians, perhaps converted by Paul himself, among those who associated with Seneca."

But the new evidence doesn't end here. "In the fifth letter, the alleged Seneca writes to the alleged Paul, alluding with reservation to a certain 'lady' who was indignant with Paul 'because he has left the ancient worship and converted others.' The unidentified lady can only be Poppea, Nero's wife. We know that the empress was pro-Jewish, and her hostility toward Paul might have been suggested by the Jewish atmosphere surrounding her that tried to influence Nero himself. A dangerous hostility, and that is why Seneca only alludes to the lady but does not give her name." "However, a 4th century forger would have no reason to be so reluctant," Sordi insisted. No doubt the two letters are false," Sordi admitted. The last one, in which Paul speaks to Seneca as though to a convert, and the twelfth, where the alleged Seneca writes about the fire in Rome ... although the date is wrong."

"In fact, St. Jerome, who believed in the authenticity of these letters, was unaware of this one, dated 64 (A.D.), Sordi explained.

When asked if history coincides with the letters, Maria Grazia Mara continues to disbelieve. "If Seneca was that close to the faith, as it seems from the letters, the first Christians would have 'exploited' his figure for propaganda ...," Mara said. And she does not see differences in social classes as an obstacle for people to get to know one another. "They could very easily have known one another. There is no lack of examples of contacts between Christians of a very modest social level and converts belonging to the elite," Mara said.

Sordi added: "As evident in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was very enterprising in making himself known at higher levels. In Ephesus, he befriended Exarchs, powerful dignitaries adept at the imperial cult. Cyprus' consul, a very wealthy industrialist, called him to hear him speak. And in Corinth, Paul met the consul of Acaya, Anneo Novato Gallione, who was Seneca's brother."

Arguments both for and against the authenticity of the letters continue to surface but, as one scholar suggested 'off the record' during a coffee break in the formal academic proceedings: "whether or not Paul and Seneca were friends during their lifetime, we'd like to think that they are now."

I think Seneca was sympathetic to the views of Paul, which remember at the time had not been formalised into a doctrine of Jesus Christ. I understand Paul as basically gnostic and all this literal stuff as later additions.

Is there any evidence about Paul meeting Seneca's brother?

Toto · 07-24-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

. . .

Is there any evidence about Paul meeting Seneca's brother?

Only in Acts. There is no non-Christian evidence of Paul's existence. We only assume that he exists because we have letters that appear to have been written by him, and there are legends about someone named Paul that may very well go back to some historical core.

Really, this is pious fraud.

Edited to add: I read that article about the 1999 Milan conference the last time I looked into this question, and still nothing has come of it. None of the participants has published anything in English (perhaps there is something in Italian). The letters are so widely considered to be forgeries that I would expect any solid attempt to rehabilitate them would be news, and every apologist would have the details. The story would be almost as big as the Ossuary.

07-24-2004, 09:40 AM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Paul and Seneca A google search led to this. The commentary starts to the effect that "this is obviously a forgery". Why is that so obvious? I really think when trying to work out what happened at this central point of the Roman Republic and Empire that nothing is thrown out until we are completely sure. History is written by the winners - some of this is is very disturbing to them! Paul and Seneca

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.