The PseudePigraPhicaL corresPondence beTween
seneca and PauL: a reassessmenT
ilaria L. e. ramelli
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy
and Durham University, Durham, UK
in the present contribution i set out to show how new, remarkable discov-
eries, especially in the linguistic and intertextual fields, which stem from
intensive research i have been conducting for over two decades into this
Pauline pseudepigraphon, lead to a profound reassessment of this docu-
ment and its composite nature. Let me begin from the linguistic point
of view. here, the most interesting discoveries concern the nature and
distribution of graecisms in this pseudepigraphon and its bilingualism.
The pseudepigraphical correspondence between the stoic philosopher
seneca—the preceptor and counsellor of emperor nero, later forced by
nero himself to commit suicide—and st. Paul has been handed down
in Latin, in many manuscripts of seneca. The two purported authors are
seneca, whose mother tongue was Latin, but also knew greek very well,
and the apostle Paul, who normally spoke greek and whose surviving lit-
erary production, all of which is collected in the new Testament, is in
greek. Paul likely knew Latin to some extent, given at least his perma-
nence in rome and his preaching there (for two whole years according
to acts 28:30–31).
in the pseudepigraphon at stake, Paul is supposed to have been in rome
for a few years by the time of the correspondence.1 it is Paul’s weakness in
Latin that induces seneca to send him a handbook de copia verborum, in
hopes that it will help him to express his thoughts, in order, not to adorn
them with rhetorical embellishments, but to endow them with some lin-
guistic dignity.2 erasmus from rotterdam, who devoted specific reflections
to this pseudepigraphon, already asked the following question, against the
backdrop of his objections to the authenticity of the correspondence: why
should seneca and Paul have written to one another in Latin, given that
1 see ilaria ramelli, “Le procuratele di Felice e di Festo e la venuta di Paolo a roma,”
RIL 138 (2004): 91–97.
2 Vellem itaque, cum res eximias proferas, ut maiestati earum cultus sermonis non desit
[.. .] rerum tanta vis et muneris tibi tributa non ornamento verborum, sed cultu quodam
decoranda est (Epp. Vii; Xiii).