Geoff Hudson

[ ] Read out

{ } Read in

THE 11TH LETTER OF SENECA TO [PAUL] {JAMES}

Greetings, [Paul] {James}, my beloved. If a man as [great] {PURE} as you, and LOVED BY ALL, is to be joined in some ways to me – then your Seneca would be entirely satisfied. Since you [occupy] {have} the highest [mountain peaks] {PURITY}, do you not think that I should rejoice to be considered as associated with you, and even second to you? Wherefore, do not think that you are unworthy to place your name in the first place ON YOUR LETTERS. Otherwise, I shall suppose that you are only jesting with me, and not praising me. You are fully aware of this because you are a [Roman citizen] {RECHABITE}. On the other hand, I should wish that my [position] {PURITY} were yours [, and that yours were mine]. Farewell, my beloved [Paul] {James}.
*****
This letter becomes entirely appropriate if James the lord, the shepherd of shepherds, is its writer. Seneca then holds James in the greatest respect for the latter's purity. He says that James is loved by all, and is happy to have his name in the second place on James’ letters. The reason is because James as Rechabite maintains the strictest purity with regard to wine, food and sexual relations – exactly what the Stoic Seneca would admire. The strict purity did not exclude marriage, since James was married.

If Sosthenes and Silas are pseudonyms for Seneca, then his name is indeed in second place in some of [Paul’s] {James’s} letters:

1 Cor. 1:1 – [Paul] {James}, called to be an apostle [of Christ Jesus] by the [will] {Spirit} of God, and our brother [Sosthenes] {Seneca}, to etc.

1 Thess. 1:1 [Paul] {James}, [Silas] {Seneca} and [Timothy] {Titus} to etc.

2 Thess. 1:1 [Paul] {James}, [Silas] {Seneca} and {Timothy] {Titus} to etc.

Celsus

Eh? I thought this was a forgery... Hm.

Joel

Tristan Scott

This has always been a mystery to me. What is the evidence that this was a forgery? It seems that they were seen as authentic earlier.

If there was a relationship between Seneca and Paul, it would be a significant historical revelation when one considers the unique position Seneca held in Rome at the time of these alleged letters. He was after all, running the show; the de-facto Emperor of Rome. The Bible also intimates a relationship between Paul and Seneca's brother Gallio in ch. 18 of Acts.

This would also be tantalizing when one considers that Seneca's falling out of favor with Nero coinsides roughly with Paul's trip to Rome, a trip in which the purpose never appears to be fulfilled in Acts, almost like there is something missing.

Peter Kirby

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)

best,
Peter Kirby

Geoff Hudson

It is not "clear". Some explanation might help. Absence of letters is not exactly proof of non-existence.

Geoff

Tristan Scott

Thanks for the info, Peter.

Geoff Hudson

If you understand it, perhaps you would interpret Mr Kirby's post which to me appears as "clear" as mud. Its one thing to drag information from a data base, and another to present it clearly.

Geoff

Tristan Scott

I first read about these letters quite a few years ago along with a commentary that was published centuries ago by either Jeremiah Jones or Bishop Walke (I can't recall which), which stated that one of the Early Church Fathers had spoken highly of their authenticity. Well, I had read several books before that had the writings of Seneca; letters and the such, and thought it was interesting. As I looked into this further I kept finding that modern scholarship had deemed the letters to be not authentic, but I could never find out why. Peter has at least shown me some places I can look for this information. I will read what they say and find where their studies lead me and in the end I will draw my own conclusions.

I have always found the late fifties and early sixties to be a fascinating era in Roman/Middle Eastern history. A few of the Seneca/Paul letters give a hint that if they were forgeries of a few centuries later that the forger must have had a good knowledge of the history of Rome at this time (which would not be unexpected!). The letters speak of the Emperors wife mentioning her distate for the Christians because they have turned away from their parent religion or something to that effect. In reality Judaism had become somewhat of a fad among the elite in Rome at the time of the late 50's and Nero's wife was known to have been among those participating in this. So anyway if the letters were indeed forgeries, the forgers would at least have had to have knowledge of this as well.

Geoff Hudson

If the letters were later wanton forgeries, why do they contain only one solitary reference to Jesus, and none to the Son of God or the cross? Surely, a forger of the third or fourth century would have tried to convince readers otherwise by frequent such references. The extant words are appropriate to Spirit theology which would have interested Seneca as a Stoic. [Paul's] {James'} theology, in my view, was of the Spirit. It is no wonder then, that some theologians might have a problem with "style".

Geoff

Celsus

Perhaps the forger also noticed Paul's strange silence about Jesus (as the pseudo-Paulines do), and not mentioning Jesus would have added to its "authenticity."

Joel