Seneca’s invective against the sexual misconduct in the Roman Empire as part of his decline narrative is a neglected parallel to Rom 1:26-27. Its resonances, however, give more support to Ben Witherington’s comment about specifically situating Romans 1 within the context of Seneca’s castigation of the lechery in Rome. Moreover, the parallels with Epistle 95 reinforce an excessive lust view of Rom 1:26-27.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1478 | 151 | 18 |
Full Text Views | 857 | 10 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 767 | 27 | 8 |
Seneca’s invective against the sexual misconduct in the Roman Empire as part of his decline narrative is a neglected parallel to Rom 1:26-27. Its resonances, however, give more support to Ben Witherington’s comment about specifically situating Romans 1 within the context of Seneca’s castigation of the lechery in Rome. Moreover, the parallels with Epistle 95 reinforce an excessive lust view of Rom 1:26-27.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1478 | 151 | 18 |
Full Text Views | 857 | 10 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 767 | 27 | 8 |