Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©

 

Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)

 

Created 5927± 06 19 2023 [2007-09-02]

Updated 5928± 08 12 2024 [2007-10-25]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What values can be gleaned from the apocryphal book

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca’s to Paul

?

      

 

 

Abstract:

 

Apocryphal books are not generally considered reliable as many of them are believed to be fabrications authored for the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I believe one may be wise to assess each one of these books on its own merits such that one does not risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thus the following are considerations that must be taken with a fair grain of salt and with a thorough consideration of the merits of the details being described:

 

The first items in this apocryphal book that arouses my attention are first of all the exact dates given at the end of the last five chapters of the book:

 

Dated the fifth of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala.

Dated the xth of the calends of April, in the consulship of Aprianus and Capito.

Dated the fifth of the calends of April, in the consulship of Frigius and Bassus

Dated vth of the names of July, Leo and Savinus consuls OR Given on the day before the nones of June; Leo and Sabinus consuls

Dated on the Calends of August, in the con­sulship of Leo and Savinus.

 

Secondly, Seneca’s references to the fires in Rome are of interest as are his references to Jews and Christians being blamed for and punished as a result of those fires. Seneca’s not so subtle hints at Caesar being the real culprit are also of interest as is of course the dating provided in the letter referencing these fires in the city of Rome, i.e. “Dated the fifth of the calends of April, in the consulship of Frigius and Bassus.

 

Thirdly, I find it quite interesting to note that Seneca was apparently given a copy of a book of epistles written by Paul, apparently for the purpose of having them read before the Emperor as part of the Emperor’s assessment of Paul.

 

All things having been carefully considered I find that this particular apocryphal book, “The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca’s to Paul” in every detail considered has a strong ring of truth to it and that the findings there discovered may be, when supported by other sources, quite helpful in adding more precision to my chronology for a period of time where I have previously been lacking sufficient source material.

 

Specifically, these letters of Paul and Seneca have been instrumental in helping me find a more correct date for the fires in Rome [July 19-26, 49 CE] and for the earthquake destroying Pompeii [February 5, 48 CE] according to the within chronology findings.

 

 

 

Considerations:

 

Dates:

1.      Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is being referenced in Chapter VII. I have dated its authorship to Elul, 45 CE, such that it was probably begun before and concluded subsequent to Paul’s release of bondage, which date I believe is rather firmly based on the facts and upon the Scriptures.

- The subject matter of Chapters VII through IX fits very well indeed with the above dating, does it not? – Perhaps this is evidence of the authenticity of these letters between Paul and Seneca, or isn’t it?

 

2.      In my list of 1st century Roman Consuls I do not find “the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala.” However, I do find “the third consulship of Nero, and Messala” in 44 CE (conventional AD 58,)  and I find “the fourth consulship of Nero, and Cornelius Cossus.”

– Could it be that both those Nero’s 4th consulship was joined first to one and then to the other among Messala and Cossus?

- If so, then which one would come first in time?

- Considering that “the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala” is further “Dated the fifth of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala. [June 27,]” (Chapter X) isn’t it highly likely from the context of these epistles in conjunction with the above referenced date of Elul, 45 CE that the correct year for Nero’s 4th consulship is no earlier than 46 CE?

- And isn’t it true that Nero’s 4th consulship may be exactly correlated with Tacitus’ statement for the year of that consulship: “A comet meantime blazed in the sky, which in popular opinion always portends revolution to kingdoms” (Tacitus, Annales XIV:22.) The one and only comet elsewhere recorded during Nero’s reign, and between the comets in 39 CE and 54 CE is the comet “Beginning in the lunar month between December 17, 46 CE and January 15, 47 CE (as thus far understood) and “visible for 20 days” or else for “six months” ” (Samguk Sagi (1145), p. 149; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 149; I. Hasegawa (1980), p. 66.” (Excerpt from volume 1 of Gary W. Kronk’s Cometography series.)) The only possible exception being the comet referenced in this passage of Tacitus. However, a careful study of the Latin original of that passage indicates that what happened at the end of the year is that the “people talked much” about events noted over the past few years, and including also the comet above specified:

“XV:47. At the close of the [Julian] year people talked much about prodigies, presaging impending evils. Never were lightning flashes more frequent, and a comet too appeared, for which Nero always made propitiation with noble blood.” (Tacitus XV:47)

- The comet was seen beginning some time within said lunar month, whether before or after January 1 I do not know. However, Tacitus is making his comment re this comet within the first few paragraphs of his history of that consulship so it stands to reason that this comet event was not something beginning at the tail end of that consulship.

- Nero had himself from the beginning of his reign specifically defined that the beginning of the year should continue to be January 1: “The emperor in the same year asked the Senate for a statue to his father Domitius, and also that the consular decorations might be conferred on Asconius Labeo, who had been his guardian. Statues to himself of solid gold and silver he forbade, in opposition to offers made, and although the Senate passed a vote that the year should begin with the month of December, in which he was born, he retained for its commencement, the old sacred associations of the first of January.

- Accordingly, there can be little doubt but that the consulship of “Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus IV & Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Cossus” began on or before January 1, 47 CE and that it did not end at that date, regardless of whether or not Paul’s and Seneca’s epistles are authentic, albeit the latter would both confirm, and be confirmed by, this fact!

- Suetonius makes it clear that Nero’s 4th consulship lasted six months: “The first of Nero's four consulships lasted for two months, the third for four, the second and the last for six. He let a year elapse between the first and second, and between the third and fourth; but not between the second and third... It became his practice to appoint Consuls for a period of six months; and should a Consul die before 1 January he made no substitute appointment, to mark his disapproval of Caninius Rebilus's one-day consulship.” (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, p. 217, 218.)

- Accordingly, it may initially seem as though Paul’s letter (Chapter X,) “Dated the fifth of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala. [June 27,]” if indeed it is authentic, should be dated in 47 CE. However, looking more closely at Tacitus text I recognize that during that 4th consulship of Nero the Quinquennial games were performed for the first time during Nero’s reign. But those games are performed in October, not in the spring. If as Suetonius claims, Nero’s 4th consulship lasted six months it cannot very well have lasted from October through the next June 27th, can it? However, if for some reason Nero began his 4th consulship a few days before July 1 then that consulship may still be considered “six months” while yet lasting until the end of 46 CE when the comet was first seen. Accordingly, I find it reasonable to conclude that such was indeed the case.

 

3.      I do find “the consulship of Aprianus and Capito” in 45 CE (conventional AD 59,) albeit Tacitus in his Annals places it prior to Nero IV & Cossus.

– This particular consulship is being associated with the consulship named “Vipstanus and Fonteius” [C. Fonteius Capito & C. Vipsanius Apronianus] by Pliny the Elder and a detailed description of a solar eclipse that almost certainly did occur on April 30, [59 CE] as recorded by Pliny the Elder.

- But that astronomical fact doesn’t prove that said two consulships are one and the same, does it? Pliny the Elder is addressing his book to Titus, who “began his reign on June 23, 66 CE, and died September 13, 68 CE,” and said astronomical event accordingly does fit Pliny the Elder’s words “not many years ago” much better than if his reference would have been to an event referring to Nero, five Emperors and at least fourteen years, but more likely twenty plus years, prior to Pliny the Elder’s authorship!

- The exact date here given by Seneca, chapter XI, “Dated the xth of the calends of April...  [March 23,]” when considered in relationship to the context of the events as recorded in these letters of Paul and Seneca, again provides for us a most likely year: I.e. certainly no earlier than the year following the date of chapter X, i.e. 47 CE, does it not?!

- The main problem I see with this solution is that if Tacitus is correct in his placement of the Aprianus and Capito consulship prior to Nero IV, and if also Pliny the Elder is correctly associating the consulship of Vipstanus and Fonteius with the solar eclipse in 59 CE, and if these same consular names are associated with the consulship in Seneca’s letter to Paul in Chapter XI is also correctly placed subsequent to Nero’s 4th consulship, we then end up with three consulships using the same or nearly the same names for the Consuls. Is this a viable solution? Is there an answer to this dilemma? There is:

- Tacitus’ words:

“IN THE year of the consulship of Caius Vipstanus and Caius Fonteius, Nero deferred no more a long meditated crime…”

associates said consulship with Nero’s matricide and all the intricacies therewith associated, not excluding the three women in Nero’s life figuring at that time most prominently in this drama, i.e. Agrippina, Nero’s mother and mistress, Octavia, Nero’s married wife, and Poppaea, Nero’s mistress who was unable to achieve her desired position while Nero’s mother was still alive. Cf. Tacitus, Annales XIV:1.  Perhaps this threesome competition between three women is somehow being reflected in three separate consulships competing for much the same names? [Cf. also Revelation 16:13 and 17:5!]

- Is there anything in Tacitus’ record of Nero’s 4th consulship that confirms that the matricide events of the consulship of Aprianus and Capito had already taken place and did not follow Nero’s 4th consulship? Reading Tacitus’ Annales XIV:20-29 I do not see any reference to Nero’s matricide or indeed to anything re the women in his life. Is it possible that, as also implicated by Josephus re the historians of Nero, the sequence between “the consulship of Aprianus and Capito” and that of Nero’s 4th consulship have been somehow interchanged? Or are there indeed three similarly named consulships?

- Considering carefully the exact words of Tacitus I find that, albeit the fact that it seems generally that Tacitus are recording the events in a sequential manner from one consulship to the next, I see no reason why his reference to the prior consulship of Nero IV (Book XIV:20…) could not be placed in his book subsequent to the events relating Nero’s matricide, perhaps even by so doing indicating a certain causal relationship between one event and another. Or is it even possible that the purpose is to hide such a causal relationship in the life of Nero? Be that as it may, it seems unlikely that Nero would be in a mindset of initiating those games within the six months immediately following his matricide, especially considering what Tacitus is telling us about Nero’s mindset and his whereabouts following his matricide.

4.      I do find “the consulship of Frigius and Bassus” (chapter XII) as “Frugi” and “Bassus” in 49/50 CE (conventional AD 64.)

- Considering the events described in Chapter XII that apparently had not even begun by the time Chapter XI was written it seems impossible that there is a mere five day difference (March 23 – March 28) in time between the authorship of these two chapters, does it not? After all chapter XI and XII are both authored by Seneca. Thus, I believe we are on fairly safe ground to conclude that Chapter XII was authored in 50 CE, which places “the consulship of Frigius and Bassus” in 50 CE and the burning of Rome at July 19, 49CE, if indeed that fire began on July 19? – thus confirming my prior placement in time of that event.

- A major problem here is that Tacitus places the fires in Rome during, and after the beginning of, “the consulship of Caius Lacanius and Marcus Licinius” aka. “C. Laecanius Bassus and M. Licinius Crassus Frugi.” It doesn’t seem very likely that that consulship would extend from July 19 in one year through March 28 of the next, does it? So, where is the error? Are these letters between Paul and Seneca a clever fabrication by someone other than Paul and Seneca, are we dealing with a poor translation, or is Tacitus in error re the dating of various events, has some editor of consular lists incorrectly combined consular names, or am I misunderstanding something? What is the basis for the July 19 date? It is: “Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 19th of July, the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days.(Tacitus, The Annals, 15:41.) (Cf. WordReference Forum discussion (deleted post.))fuere qui adnotarent xiiii Kal. Sextilis principium incendii huius ortum, et quo Senones captam urbem inflammaverint. alii eo usque cura progressi sunt ut totidem annos mensisque et dies inter utraque incendia numerent.Is this a reference to July 19 a reference to another historical event or to this one???

- In the end I find that it may not be impossible that, due to the destruction of Rome in consequence of Nero’s fire, the sitting consulship was allowed to remain for some time until other more pressing matters could be taken care of, i.e. even past March 28 of the subsequent year, i.e. 50.

 

5.      I do find “Sabinus consul” in 54, 56, 66, and 68 CE (conventional AD 70, 72, 82, and 84 respectively,) however I do not find any consul named Leo.

- Nevertheless, re “Leo,” there is a consul named “L. Valerius Catulus Messalinus” with “T. Flavius Domitianus Caesar II” in 57 CE (conventional AD 73.) – Highly unlikely candidate for this consulship though!

- Also I have no doubt but that there are a number of consulships missing out of the generally available lists of consulships, especially for the duration of the reign of Nero who is said by Suetonius to have had a new set of consuls every six months whereas most consulship lists have only one consulship for each calendar year for that time period.

- Considering the exact dates provided for Chapters XII, XIII, and XIV, i.e. March 28, July 3, and August 1, plus my finding that Seneca died in October 50 CE, I would consider each and all of those chapters most likely authored in one and the same year, i.e. in 50 CE.

- Accordingly, I will tentatively introduce the consulship of Sabinus and Leo subsequent to Nerva and Vestinus in 50 CE.

- Consistent with all the events referenced by Tacitus and in the letters between Paul and Seneca I find that Seneca most likely died in October 50 CE. - However, per Tacitus XIV:22 & XV:22 and more, I find that the 1st eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (if there was an eruption at the time of the earth quake that occurred at that time) must be moved from my prior assessment of 46 CE to 48 CE – the year prior to Nero’s fires in Rome!

 

Obsolete considerations:

 

Summary of unresolved problems/questions re these epistles of Paul and Seneca:

 

1.      Are we dealing with a correct translation from the original Latin text of these epistles, especially re the date of chapter X?

2.      Are the consulships 1) “Aprianus and Capito,” 2) “Vipstanus and Fonteius, ” and 3) “C. Fonteius Capito & C. Vipsanius Apronianus” correctly named in each source, especially in the consular lists, and if so are they representing the same or different consulships in time?

3.      Where can I find original sources for the Roman consulships? Are the names as given by Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, etc. sufficient? Is it possible that so long as the names are different it does not matter whether the owners of those names are the same and that it is then ok to have the same pair of living beings being the consuls for two distinct and separate consulships?

4.      How are the 46/47 comet and Nero’s fire in Rome placed in time relative to the above named consulships?

5.      Is it possible that Tacitus is referencing a 2nd comet during the reign of Nero, i.e. after the ones in 39 and 46/47 CE?

 

 

Summary:

 

I find that these epistles of Paul and Seneca may well be authentic, considering that all the dates and consulships there named do fit into the present chronology findings and that they do so without disregarding the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius, or even Pliny.

 

 

 

 

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca’s to Paul:

 

 

CHAP. I. 

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

4 We  were much  delighted with your book of many Epistles, which you have wrote to some cities and chief towns of pro­vinces, and contain wonderful instructions for moral conduct:

5 Such sentiments, as I sup­pose you were not the author of, but only the instrument of con­veying, though sometimes both the author and the instrument.

6 For such is the sublimity of those doctrines, and their grandeur, that I suppose the age of a man is scarce sufficient to be instructed and perfected in the knowledge of them.   I wish your welfare, my brother. Farewell. 

 

 

CHAP. II.

paul to seneca Greeting.

 

3    I reckon myself very happy in  having the judgment of so valuable a person, that you are delighted with my Epistles:

4    For you would not be es­ teemed a censor, a philosopher, or be the tutor of so great a prince, and a master of every thing. if you were not sincere. I wish you a lasting prosperity.

 

CHAP. III.

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

I  HAVE completed some vo­lumes, and divided them into their proper parts.

2 I am determined to read them to Oesar, and if any favourable opportunity happens, you also sha11 be Presmt, when they are read ;

3 But lf that cannot be, I wl11 appoint and give you notice of a day when we wl11 together read over the performance.       

4 I had determined, if I could with safety, first to have your opinion of it, before I published it to Csesar, that you might be convinced  of my affection to you. Farewell, dearest Paul.

 

 

 

CHAP. VII.

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

I  PROFESS myself extremely pleased with the reading your letters to the Galatians, Corin-tians, and people of Achaia.

2  For the Holy Ghost has in them by  you  delivered  those sentiments which are very lofty, sublime, deserving of all respect, and beyond your own.invention.

3    I could wish therefore, that when you are writing things so extraordinary, there might not be wanting an elegancy of speech agreeable to their majesty.

4    And I must own my bro­ther, that I may not at once dis­honestly conceal anything from you, and be unfaithful to my own conscience, that the emperor is extremely pleased with the senti­ments of your Epistles;

 

5    For when he heard the be­ginning of them read, he declared, That he was surprised to find such notions in a person, who had not had a regular education.

6    To which I replied, That the Gods sometimes made use of mean (innocent) persons to speak by, and gave him an instance of this in a mean countryman, named Vatienus, who, when he was in the country of Keate, had two men appeared to him, called Castor and Pollux, and received a revelation from the gods. Fare­well.

CHAP. IX.

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

I KNOW that my letter, where­in I acquainted you, that I had read to the Emperor your Epistles, does not so much affect you as the nature of the things (contained in them),

2  Which do so powerfully di­vert men's minds from their for­mer manners and practices, that I have always  been surprised, and have been fully convinced of it by many arguments here­tofore.

3  Let   us    therefore    begin afresh ; and if any thing hereto­fore has been imprudently acted, do you forgive.

4  I have sent you a book de copia verborum.    Farewell, dear­est Paul.

 

 

CHAP. X.

paul to seneca Greeting

.

A s often as I write to you, and place my name before yours, I  do a  thing  both  dis­agreeable to myself, and con­trary to our religion:

2 For I ought, as I have often declared, to become all things to all men, and to have that regard to your quality, which the Roman law has honoured all senators with; namely, to put my name last in the (inscription of the) Epistle, that I may not at length with uneasiness and shame, be obliged to do that which it was always my inclination to do. Farewell, most respected master. Dated the fifth of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of Nero, and Messala. [June 27 / ToL]

 

CHAP. XI.

Annaeus seneca to paul  Greeting.

ALL  happiness  to  you,  my dearest Paul. If a person so great, and every way agreeable as you are, become not only a common, but a most intimate friend to me, how happy will be the case of Seneca!

2    You therefore, who are so eminent, and so far exalted above all, even the greatest, do not think yourself unfit to be first named in the inscription of an Epistle;

3    Lest I should suspect you intend not so much to try me, as to banter me; for you know yourself to be a Roman citizen.

4    And I could wish to be in that   circumstance   or   station which  you  are,  and  that  you were in the same that I am. Farewell, dearest Paul. Dated the xth of the calends of April, in the consulship of Aprianus and Capito.  [March 23 / ToL]

 

CHAP. XII.

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

ALL happiness to you, my dear­est Paul.   Do you not sup­pose I am extremely concerned and grieved that your innocence should bring you into sufferings?

2    And that all the people should suppose you (Christians) so criminal, and imagine all the misfortunes that happen to the city, to be caused by you ?

3    But let us bear the charge with a patient temper, appeal­ing (for our innocence) to the court (above), which is the only one our hard fortune will allow us to address to, till at length our misfortunes shall end in un­alterable happiness.

 

4    Former ages have produced (tyrants) Alexander the son of Philip, and Dionysius; ours also has produced Caius Caesar; whose inclinations were their only laws.

5    As to the frequent burnings of the city of Rome, the cause is manifest; and if a person in my mean circumstances might be allowed to speak, and one might declare these dark things with out danger, every one should see the whole of the matter.

 

6    The Christians and Jew are indeed commonly punished for the crime of burning the city; but that impious miscreant who delights in murders and butcheries, and disguises his yillanies with lies, is appointed to, or reserved till, his proper time.

7    And as the life of every excellent person is now sacrificed instead of that one person (who is the author of the mischief), so this one shall be sacrificed for many, and he shall be devoted to be burnt with fire instead of all.

8    One hundred and thirty-two houses, and four whole squares or islands) were burnt down in six days: the seventh put an end to the burning. I wish you all happiness.

9    Dated the fifth of the calends of April, in the consulship of Frigius and Bassus. [March 28 / ToL]

 

CHAP. XIII.

Annaeus seneca to paul Greeting.

 

ALL  happiness   to you, my dearest Paul

2 You have wrote many volumes in an allegorical and mys­tical style, and therefore such mighty matters and business being committed to you, require lot to be set off with any rhetorical nourishes of speech, but only with some proper elegance.

3  I remember you often say, that many by affecting such a style do injury to their subjects, and lose the force of the matters they treat of.

4 But in this I desire you to regard me, namely, to have re­spect to true Latin, and to choose just words, that so you may the better manage the noble trust which is reposed in you.

5 Farewell.   Dated vtl[ of the names of July, Leo and Savinus consuls.  [“names” = “nones”? č July 3 / ToL]

 

 

CHAP. XIV.

paul to seneca Greeting,

YOUR serious consideration requited with these discov­eries, which the Divine Being has granted but to few.

2 I am thereby assured that I sow the most strong seed in a fertile soil, not anything mate­rial, which is subject to corrup­tion, but the durable word of God, which shall increase and bring forth fruit to eternity.

3 That which by your wisdom you have attained to, shall abide without decay for ever. 

4 Believe that you ought to avoid the superstitions of Jews and Gentiles.

5 The things which you have in some measure arrived to, pru­dently make known to the emperor, his family, and to faithful friends;

6 And though your sentiments will seem disagreeable, and not be comprehended by them, seeing most of them will not regard your discourses, yet the Word of God once infused into them, will at length make them become new men, aspiring towards God.

7 Farewell Seneca, who art most dear to us. Dated on the Calends of August, in the con­sulship of Leo and Savinus. [August 1 / ToL]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments and donations freely accepted at:

 

Tree of Life©

c/o General Delivery

Nora [near SE-713 01]

Sweden Republic© in Adamah Republic©

 

 

eMail: PowerOfChoice@delta.se

 

 

 

 

 

Invitation to Tree of Life Chronology Forums©:

 

You are hereby warmly invited to join Tree of Life Chronology Forums© where the within historical paradigm and more is the focus of an ongoing dialogue.

 

Please come to Tree of Life Chronology Forums© and share your valuable points of view such that we may all grow in knowledge and wisdom! 

 

 

 

 

 

Nedstat Basic - Free web site statistics
Personal homepage website counter
Free counter

 

 

A Sampling of God’s Wonderful Free Gifts

The GateWays into Tree of Life Chronology Forums©

Home

 

 

Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©