Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:04 pm
Jax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:15 pm
Does it seem reasonable that Tacitus had not read Josephus?
It's widely believed (by historians) that Tacitus read Josephus, for some of his reporting / knowledge of the Jewish revolt.
I have definitely seen it posited that Tacitus had read Josephus, but a common source is often posited, as well:
Louis Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), pages 840-843:
27.2: Josephus and Tacitus
....
Since Tacitus is the somewhat later contemporary of Josephus (his 'Histories', which covered the events of 69—96, was issued about 104—109, and the 'Annals' about 115—117, whereas Josephus' 'War' dates from 75—79, and the 'Antiquities' from 93-94) and parallels him in a number of points, particularly in the account of the 'Jewish War', a number of scholars have considered whether Tacitus used Josephus as a source. WEBER (3320), pp. 50, 103, concludes that Tacitus did not use the 'War' but that both had a common source.
RAPPAPORT (3321), pp. 87—91, comparing the accounts of Tacitus (Histories 5. 13) and Josephus (War 6. 300ff.) of the prodigies that accompanied the destruction of the Temple, argues that there was no influence of one upon the other, since the motifs are frequent in ancient pagan and Jewish Hellenistic literature generally.
At a number of points in the later books of the 'Antiquities' Josephus and Tacitus parallel each other in their accounts of Parthian affairs. DEBEVOISE (3322) argues that Josephus must regularly be preferred to Tacitus, who is here, he says, as confused as he is exact for the events at Rome. SCHUR (3323), especially pp. 2010—2011, on the other hand, follows Tacitus, especially when supported by numismatic evidence, against Josephus.
HOSPERS-JANSEN (3324) maintains that Josephus was only a "Jewish historian" and thus not accessible to Tacitus, though she is forced to concede that Josephus was an officially recognized author in educated Roman circles. Moreover, Tacitus, as an orator, apparently knew the writings of the grammarian Apion and of the historian Lysimachus, whose account of the origin of the Jews as lepers is closely followed by Tacitus (Histories 5.3). We may, however, suggest that perhaps because Josephus was in favor with Domitian, whom Tacitus despised because of his treatment of his father-in-law Agricola, he may have detested Josephus.
BRIESSMANN (3325) asserts that there are a number of phrases in the 'War' which are closely paraheled in Tacitus and in Dio. For example. War 4. 602 is paralleled by Tacitus, Histories 2.74 and Dio 65.8,3a in their accounts of Vespasian's hesitation to seek the throne, Simharly War 4. 697 is paraheled by Tacitus, Histories 2. 5. BRIESSMANN explains these similarities by postulating a common source, either Pliny or Cluvius Rufus. We may comment that there is, to be sure, a close resemblance between Phny (Naturalis Historia 7. 65), Tacitus (Hist. 5. 6) and Josephus (War 4. 476—485) in their descriptions of the Dead Sea; and it is, indeed, interesting that Tacitus states that he has compared both the detailed accounts given by earlier writers (presumably Pliny would be one of these), as well as the narratives of those who knew the locality personally. Inasmuch, however, as Cluvius' account is lost, the matter, we may comment, cannot be proved; but it seems unlikely that Josephus possessed a sufficient knowledge of Latin to make good use of Pliny and Cluvius, though, as we have noted above, some have argued that he was influenced stylistically by Sallust, If a common source is sought, we may here suggest the memoirs of Vespasian (Life 342) or those of Titus (Life 358), which Josephus at least does cite.
SCHRECKENBERG (3326), p. 69, suggests that Annals 15, 44, which tells how Nero fastened the guilt for the fire in Rome on the Christians, "a mischievous superstition", so called from Christus, who was punished by Phate, may be dependent upon the 'Testimonium Flavianum', or both may draw on a common source. We may comment that because the passages in both Josephus and Tacitus are so short, are in different languages, and have no striking facts in common, the burden of proof must rest on those asserting dependence. We have already commented above on the discrepancy between Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts of the terms of office of the procurators Cumanus and Felix, Even if we say that Josephus and Tacitus complement each other to some degree, as ABERBACH (3327) suggests, certain puzzles remain, SMALLWOOD (3328) notes that elsewhere (e,g., Ann, 12,23) Tacitus shows confusion about Judaism, and Josephus is generally much fuller. SAUMAGNE (3329), noting that Josephus' accounts vary in each of the three places where he mentions Felix, prefers Tacitus, whose sources, he thinks, were more exact. But, we may comment, the discrepancies in Josephus' accounts are minor, and it seems hard to believe that Josephus, who came from Judea, would have been less weh informed than Tacitus on matters concerning which there was no reason for him to misrepresent the facts.
SADDINGTON (3330), pp. 117—121, as we have remarked above, notes that on the two occasions when Josephus and Tacitus refer to the same auxiharies, once Josephus (War 2. 236) supplies clearer detail than Tacitus (Ann, 12, 54, 3), whereas on the other occasion it is Tacitus (Hist, 5. 1.2) who is more precise than Josephus (War 5. 47ff.). Both, he concludes, are describing the situation as it was in the early principate.
BAER (3331) suggests, but hardly proves, that for the very last days of the siege and fall of Jerusalem, Josephus and Tacitus used a common source written by a Roman military expert, but that Josephus has distorted and falsified this source.
Louis Feldman, Josephus, the Bible, and History, page 389: It is certainly possible that Josephus and Tacitus (in Histories 5) used each other's accounts, inasmuch as they are almost exact contemporaries and, as intimates of emperors, presumably had access to the same official archives; but neither mentions the other, and there are numerous contradictions between them.
IIRC, S. C. Carlson argued a few years ago that Tacitus depended upon Josephus, but Ken Olson thought that both depended upon the lost
Memoirs of Vespasian.