Ben C Smith

Tacitus, Annals 15.9:

Many years before this, Agrippina [mother of Nero] had anticipated this end [that is, being murdered by her own son] for herself and had spurned the thought. For, when she consulted the astrologers about Nero, they replied that he would be emperor and would kill his mother.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

In a long ago thread I suggested something with some similarities

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=109462.

That Nero did persecute Christians after the fire but not on a charge of arson.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

Quite possible. The point is that focusing on a purported error by Tacitus in the passage at issue seems a thin reed on which to base the interpolation claim, given the fact that, like any writer, he made plenty of factual errors through his works.

judge

Yes but we have many ancient mss without that scene, so the situatuion with annals is weak by comparison.

Malachi151

I'm not claiming to have evidence, that is just what I think makes the most sense given all of the surrounding facts and the nature of the passage.

aa5874

Factual errors? What factual errors are there in Tacitus' works? How did you establish those facts?

Gamera

All the typical ways: archaeology, comparison with other texts, internal consistency.

You seem to be carrying on a debate with me from another thread relating to establishing historicity. That's a related but a vastly different issue. One thread at a time, aa, one thread at a time.

spin

Dumb. That "yes but" is our means of knowing such a thing happened. Your comparison misses the point. The example shows "someone was (a) in a position to do so and (b) confident they would not be found out via other existing copies. , or others who may have frowned on such dishonesty."


spin

judge

Unnecessary, information about you not me. Take your own advice

Although the fact I'm telling you this probably says as much about me :P :devil1:


You are no doubt going to be surprised when I tell you you still haven't answered the question though. The question was about annals.

This is a slightly different situation.


Secondly, don't you agree though, that your example is is weak by comparison. Oh so conveniently for your theory ..none of the original readings survived.

*It doesn't really get us very far, in the absence of contrary readings (which I assume is the case) to merely suggest some anonymous christians at some unknown times in unknown places managed to change all the texts.


*Thus the point of my original post, where I suggested it would not suffice to just blame "bloody christians". To blame some unknown person or persons in some unknown place or places at some unknown time or times does not make for a strong theory.

*A strong theory would have details which might be tested.

When this kind of argument is used all sorts of theories can be proposed (nothing wrong with that), but they are not very strong, but as we can see that doesn't stop people believing them.

Let me put it to you directly. Do you think that annals was changed in the passage discussed?
Presumably from this post you must be proposing it.

Can you really conclude that from "following the evidence", or merely propose it?

emporda

Tacitus has written this text at the dead of Nero, so it goes.

However, at that time he was about 12 years old and certainly has written nothing. By copying someone has added it for hist own purpose.