Tacitus and Josephus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by John2 »

MrMacSon wrote:
...we are still left with the issue that Tacitus does not explicitly appear to acknowledge Josephus.
As I mentioned in your Basilides and Josephus thread:
I've been looking into Tacitus' use of sources, and Mellor, for example, notes that:

"Scholars have spilled ink for more than a century in their quixotic hunt for Tacitus' precise sources. Much can be conjectured; little can be proven ... Tacitus himself rarely mentions specific sources for particular events..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GNd1L ... or&f=false

Which is not to say that Tacitus doesn't mention some of them (Mellor goes on to say, for example, that "at the beginning of his treatment of Nero he does assert his general reliance on Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder, and Cluvius Rufus"), only that it wouldn't be unusual if he used Josephus without mentioning him.
KK wrote:
It could be also the other way around that the TT provoked the assumed interpolation in Josephus.
That a Christian used Tacitus to create the TF? I suppose it's not impossible, but how then would we explain the similarities between the TF and Luke 24? Would the latter also be based on Tacitus? in other words, how did it happen that the TF is similar to the TT and Luke 24?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

John2 wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
...we are still left with the issue that Tacitus does not explicitly appear to acknowledge Josephus.
As I mentioned in your Basilides and Josephus thread:
I've been looking into Tacitus' use of sources, and Mellor, for example, notes that:

"Scholars have spilled ink for more than a century in their quixotic hunt for Tacitus' precise sources. Much can be conjectured; little can be proven ... Tacitus himself rarely mentions specific sources for particular events..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GNd1L ... or&f=false

Which is not to say that Tacitus doesn't mention some of them (Mellor goes on to say, for example, that "at the beginning of his treatment of Nero he does assert his general reliance on Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder, and Cluvius Rufus"), only that it wouldn't be unusual if he used Josephus without mentioning him.
Previously Mellor had, on the same page, written

"For a man who serves as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is (and unnecessarily) woefully confused ..."
Mellor then says "since Josephus lived in Rome", which seems to be an excuse for Josephus not mentioning them, but is also somewhat irrelevant and thus a non-sequitur.

He then says "and Tacitus's good friend Pliny [the younger] knew something of the Christians.13" which is presumably a reference to Pliny's letter to Trajan: Epistulae X.96 (the reference is not available in that limited view allowed by Google Books)
.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

Regarding Epistulae X.96, this site says

Stylistically, Book 10 is much simpler than its precursors, largely because, unlike the first nine books of his letters, the letters of the “Correspondence with Trajan” collection were not written for publication by Pliny. It is generally assumed that this book was published after Pliny's death, and Suetonius, as a member of Pliny's staff, has been suggested as one possible publisher and editor.

http://www.ancient-literature.com/rome_ ... e_X96.html
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by John2 »

MrMacSon,

Then how do you explain these similarities between Tacitus and Josephus that I cited in the OP?
Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."
But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.
To me, if Tacitus did not know Josephus then he must have used a source that did know him.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

John2 wrote:KK wrote:
It could be also the other way around that the TT provoked the assumed interpolation in Josephus.
That a Christian used Tacitus to create the TF? I suppose it's not impossible, but how then would we explain the similarities between the TF and Luke 24? Would the latter also be based on Tacitus? in other words, how did it happen that the TF is similar to the TT and Luke 24?
There seem to be some parallels between Luke and Josephus and some parallels between Tacitus and Josephus, but not between Luke and Tacitus. Therefore I can't see a need to explain whether Luke is based on Tacitus or Tacitus on Luke.

I said “provoked” and not “used to create” (the pagan “Acts of Pilate” and the Christian “Acts of Pilate” could be a good example).

The possibility that an interpolator could have used both Tacitus and Luke to create the TF seems to me a more simple way to explain these parallels - if one does not hold the complete TF as authentic. I think the real problem to explain these parallels starts if one considers the TF partially authentic.

Note: At the end I have no opinion about that. I only said that it could be also the other way around, but I tend to think this could be one of three or four good possibilities.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by Ken Olson »

John2 wrote:
To me, if Tacitus did not know Josephus then he must have used a source that did know him.
Josephus and Tacitus almost certainly had common sources for the Jewish War. Besides their passages about the portents of the temple's destruction, Josephus (BJ 4.8.4/4.476-85) and Tacitus (Histories 5.6) also seem to be using a common source for their accounts of Lake Asphaltites (i.e., the Dead Sea). Josephus acknowledges that he and others used the commentaries of Vespasian and Titus (BJ 1.4/1.10; Life 342, 358; Against Apion 1.56). Tacitus may have known these directly or through Pliny the Elder's histories (the Natural History and the Continuation of the History of Aufidius Bassus).

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: There seem to be some parallels between Luke and Josephus and some parallels between Tacitus and Josephus, but not between Luke and Tacitus. Therefore I can't see a need to explain whether Luke is based on Tacitus, or Tacitus on Luke.
  • < . . snip . . >
The possibility that an interpolator could have used both Tacitus and Luke to create the TF seems to me a more simple way to explain these parallels - if one does not hold the complete TF as authentic ...
Another scenario is, if one follows Arthur Drews' proposition that Tacitus's Annals 15.44 is or might be based on the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 A.D.), that Annals 15.44 is based on the TF; or, that both Tacitus Annals and Sulpicius Severus's Chronicle were 'developed' together in the 4th century AD/CE, or later (see below).

Excerpt from The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus by Arthur Drews; Part 2, 'The Roman Witnesses'; Section 2, 'Tacitus': -

The expressions of Sulpicius agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness67.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2
  • Footnote 67 says

    "In his De l'Authenticity des Histoires et des Annales de Tacite Hochart points out that, whereas the Life of St. Martin and the Dialogues of Sulpicius were found in many libraries, there was only one manuscript of his Chronicle, probably of the eleventh century, which is now in the Vatican. Hence the work was almost unknown throughout the Middle Ages, and no one was aware of the reference in it to a Roman persecution of the Christians. It is noteworthy that Poggio Bracciolini seems by some lucky chance to have discovered and read this manuscript (work quoted, p. 225). Cf. Nouvelles Considerations, pp. 142-72.
Whether that means the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus may not be 4th century may be a factor, too.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
I said “provoked” and not “used to create” (the pagan “Acts of Pilate” and the Christian “Acts of Pilate” could be a good example).
  • Are you saying one of those "Act of Pilate" provoked the other? or were used to create the other?

    Which came first?
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I said “provoked” and not “used to create” (the pagan “Acts of Pilate” and the Christian “Acts of Pilate” could be a good example).
Are you saying on of those "Act of Pilate" provoked the other? or were used to create the other?

Which came first?
I *think* KK was saying that the fanciful Christian Acts of Pilate were written in reaction to the Maximinus inspired Acts of Pilate, it not really mattering whether the latter were authentic or not.

In ancient posts, I had once described the history of Christian citations of or allusions to their own version of such Acts.
Justin mentions some sort of "Acts" of Pilate in the following places in his Apology:
1:35 And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts (ἄκτων) of Pontius Pilate.

1:48 There are these words: "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.
I am not so sure he is referring to genuine published Acts (spurious or real), which Pilate would write up periodically, in Latin (where they would be called commentarii), to send to Rome for review by Tiberius' chief of staff. Instead, he may have been bluffing: "Go ahead, check Pilate's commentarii if you don't believe Christ was crucified, had his garments gambled for, or healed the lame and blind, just as sacred scripture foretold!" For all we know, Justin may have actually believed this was all on record. If it was true Jesus did these things, as he believed, how could it NOT have been reported to the emperor?

Tertullian seems to be aware of something purporting to be a fabulous report about Jesus by Pilate to Tiberius. So fabulous, in fact that Tiberius is converted to a believer in Christ's divinity, and recommends that the Roman Senate affirm it as well:
Apology 5:1 To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Aurelius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

Apology 21:1 All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word (what is the Latin word here?) of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.
Not to be outdone, Eusebius even gilds Tertullian's lilly, adding even more details to bolster its credibility:
Church History, II.ii. AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.

They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.

These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows:
"But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported (αγγελθεντος) to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians."
When Eusebius says "they say" it sounds to me like Eusebius hadn't himself actually seen this miraculous account, but is referring to the "accounts" of Tertullian and Justin.
DCH
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by John2 »

First of all, I want to thank everyone for the feedback. You're giving me a lot to think about.

Ken Olson wrote:
Josephus and Tacitus almost certainly had common sources for the Jewish War. Besides their passages about the portents of the temple's destruction, Josephus (BJ 4.8.4/4.476-85) and Tacitus (Histories 5.6) also seem to be using a common source for their accounts of Lake Asphaltites (i.e., the Dead Sea). Josephus acknowledges that he and others used the commentaries of Vespasian and Titus (BJ 1.1.4/1.10; Life 342, 258; Against Apion 1.56). Tacitus may have known these directly or through Pliny the Elder's histories (the Natural History and the Continuation of the History of Aufidius Bassus).
I've only been able to find references to Vespasian's memoirs in Life 342 and Apion 1.56.

Life 342:
Nor is it I only who say this; but so it is written in the Commentaries of Vespasian, the emperor; as also how the inhabitants of Decapolis came clamoring to Vespasian at Ptolemais, and desired that thou, who wast the author [of that war], mightst be brought to punishment...
Apion 1.56:
How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed, who undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs! who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors’ own memoirs, yet they could not be acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.
But in any event I appreciate what Ken is saying. According to Robinson (Evaluating the Healing Miracles of Vespasian and Jesus 2014), "Most of the information for the life of Vespasian comes from the classical texts of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Flavius Josephus. Of these four primary sources all but Josephus attribute healing miracles to Vespasian."

http://proecclesia.net/wp-content/uploa ... binson.pdf

So if Josephus and Tacitus were using common sources, the former must have chosen to omit those particular references in them.

As Robinson notes, "As he solidified his claim to rule, and outlasted his competitors, Vespasian's healing miracles became a key part of his campaign."

Is it not strange then that Josephus doesn't mention these healing miracles since he had access to Vespasian's memoirs?

Perhaps a clue to Tacitus' source for the oracle is in Hist. 5.13:
This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity. We have heard that the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand; there were arms for all who could use them, and the number ready to fight was larger than could have been anticipated from the total population.
War 5.13.7:
After this man there ran away to Titus many of the eminent citizens, and told him the entire number of the poor that were dead, and that no fewer than six hundred thousand were thrown out at the gates, though still the number of the rest could not be discovered.
Maybe Tacitus heard the works of Josephus (and/or Vespasian's memoirs or other pagan writings)? In any event, there appears to be considerable correlation between Tacitus and Josephus, excepting the healing miracles. If Josephus was using the same sources as Tacitus, then why would he omit the healing miracles?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus and Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

John2 wrote:

... According to Robinson ('Evaluating the Healing Miracles of Vespasian and Jesus 2014'), "Most of the information for the life of Vespasian comes from the classical texts of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Flavius Josephus. Of these four primary sources, all but Josephus attribute healing miracles to Vespasian."

http://proecclesia.net/wp-content/uploa ... binson.pdf

So if Josephus and Tacitus were using common sources, the former must have chosen to omit those particular references in them.

As Robinson notes, "As he solidified his claim to rule, and outlasted his competitors, Vespasian's healing miracles became a key part of his campaign."

Is it not strange then that Josephus doesn't mention these healing miracles since he had access to Vespasian's memoirs?

< . snip . >
Maybe Tacitus heard the works of Josephus (and/or Vespasian's memoirs, or other pagan writings)? In any event, there appears to be considerable correlation between Tacitus and Josephus, excepting the healing miracles. If Josephus was using the same sources as Tacitus, then why would he omit the healing miracles?
Besides having access to Vespasian's memoirs, wasn't Josephus also an eye-witness to Vespasian? eg. he toured with him?

From Encyclopaedia Britannica: -
Led in chains before Vespasian, Josephus assumed the role of a prophet and foretold that Vespasian would soon be emperor —a prediction that gained in credibility after the death of Nero in ad 68. The stratagem saved his life, and for the next two years he remained a prisoner in the Roman camp. Late in ad 69 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his troops: Josephus’ prophecy had come true, and the agreeable Jewish prisoner was given his freedom. From that time on, Josephus attached himself to the Roman cause. He adopted the name Flavius (Vespasian’s family name), accompanied his patron to Alexandria, and there married for the third time (Josephus’ first wife had been lost at the siege of Jotapata, and his second had deserted him in Judaea). Josephus later joined the Roman forces under the command of Vespasian’s son and later successor, Titus, at the siege of Jerusalem in ad 70 ..

Following the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, Josephus took up residence in Rome, where he devoted the remainder of his life to literary pursuits under imperial patronage.

Josephus As Historian.
Josephus’ first work, Bellum Judaicum (History of the Jewish War), was written in seven books between ad 75 and 79, toward the end of Vespasian’s reign. The original Aramaic has been lost, but the extant Greek version was prepared under Josephus’ personal direction. After briefly sketching Jewish history from the mid-2nd century bc, Josephus presents a detailed account of the great revolt of ad 66–70. He stressed the invincibility of the Roman legions, and apparently one of his purposes in the works was to convince the Diasporan Jews in Mesopotamia, who may have been contemplating revolt, that resistance to Roman arms was pure folly. The work has much narrative brilliance, particularly the description of the siege of Jerusalem; its fluent Greek contrasts sharply with the clumsier idiom of Josephus’ later works and attests the influence of his Greek assistants. In this work, Josephus is extremely hostile to the Jewish patriots and remarkably callous to their fate.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus
In Wars, 6.5.4, Josephus interprets the oracle to be a prophecy concerning Vespasian: -
...they had it written in their sacred oracles, that “then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four square.” But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian: who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate: although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure; and some of them they utterly despised: until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city, and their own destruction.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-6.html
and Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars; The Life of Vespasian refers to this:
5 6 When [Vespasian] consulted the oracle of the god of Carmel in Judaea, the lots were highly encouraging, promising that whatever he planned or wished however great it might be, would come to pass; and one of his high-born prisoners, Josephus by name, as he was being put in chains, declared most confidently that he would soon be released by the same man, who would then, however, be emperor. 7 Omens were also reported from Rome: Nero in his latter days was admonished in a dream to take the sacred chariot of Jupiter Optimus Maximus from its shrine to the house of Vespasian and from there to the Circus. Not long after this, too, when Galba was on his way to the elections which gave him his second consulship, a statue of the Deified Julius of its own accord turned towards the East; and on the field of Betriacum, before the battle began, two eagles fought in the sight of all, and when one was vanquished, a third came from the direction of the rising sun and drove off the victor.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... sian*.html
If Josephus did not mention healing miracles of Vespasian, yet later writers do, doesn't that suggest the later writers have performed artistic license? ie. embellished?


Ken's Olson's points were mostly about the Jewish War, 'the portents of the temple's destruction', and 'accounts of Lake Asphaltites (i.e., the Dead Sea)'.

Kens also said "Tacitus may have known these directly or through Pliny the Elder's histories (the Natural History and the Continuation of the History of Aufidius Bassus)."


As you note on the other thread, Mellor has said -
  • "Tacitus himself rarely mentions specific sources for particular events...",
and he referred to
  • Tacitus's "general reliance on Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder, and Cluvius Rufus"
viz. -
John2 wrote:

I've been looking into Tacitus' use of sources, and Mellor, for example, notes that:
Scholars have spilled ink for more than a century in their quixotic hunt for Tacitus' precise sources. Much can be conjectured; little can be proven ... Tacitus himself rarely mentions specific sources for particular events...

https://books.google.com/books?id=GNd1L ... or&f=false
Which is not to say that Tacitus doesn't mention some of them (Mellor goes on to say, for example, that "at the beginning of his treatment of Nero he does assert his general reliance on Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder, and Cluvius Rufus"), only that it wouldn't be unusual if he used Josephus without mentioning him.

viewtopic.php?p=65036#p65036
[edited] As I noted on the other thread, both Tacitus and Suetonius refer to the name Basilides; Suetonius also refers to Josephus [Vita Vespasian 5,6], but Josephus apparently does not refer to Basilides.
Tacticus seems to repeat aspects of Josephus's Jewish War (6.5.4.) with a Basilides (or two) inserted into Tacitus's accounts: Histories 2,78 and 4, 82; same name, same role, yet difference places; one at Mount Carmel, but the other in Alexandria.

viewtopic.php?p=64961#p64961
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply