Minimalist

And the most likely reason for that is that he was forger.

ynquirer

I regret to correct you, dear Roger.

Stephen and Ben have noticed that Tacitus used Josephus as a source for the vision many Jews had just before the war against the Romans; compare Histories 5:13 with WJ 6:297-298. Actually, Tacitus followed War of the Jews for the whole narrative of the siege of Jerusalem: Histories 5:11-13 quotes different passages of Books 1, 5 and 6 of WJ.

Tacitus, beyond any doubt, also read the second decade of Antiquities of the Jews, as attested by his quoting Vonones’s history; compare Annals 2:1-4 with AJ 18:39-52. Take notice, in particular, of facts and circumstances, and the order in which they are told, and take notice, too, how the appearance of Silanus makes a turning point at which Annals changes to follow Roman sources.

In other words, Tacitus quoted Josephus as a default source for events in Palestine and beyond - places in which Jewish communities of either the homeland or the Diaspora could make more or less reliable informers - whenever a Roman source was lacking.

Roger Pearse

I ought to add that I was referring to quotations, about which there can be no argument. Source-hunting tends to be a speculative, subjective game otherwise. From where do you derive your comments?

It is certainly possible for Tacitus to have known and used Josephus -- why not? -- but he never quotes him or names him as a source, which leaves it all rather open.

But perhaps others would care to comment? This idea that Tacitus used Josephus is new to me, and, while I am sceptical that this can be shown, I am certainly interested to hear about it.

Here is the passage from Annals 2:1-4.

I was unable to find online which passage corresponds to Ant. 18:39-52. Perhaps you would add it, and we can compare the two.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ynquirer

In William Winston's translation it is AJ 18.2.4:

A comparison of both narratives throws light on two issues. In the first place, Tacitus borrowed most, if not all, of the information on Vonones from Josephus; next, Tacitus penned the information in such a shape as to suit his own political agenda, which was fairly different from Josephus’.

The story begins with king Phraates of Armenia, who sent several of his sons to Rome. According to Josephus, they were sent as hostages under the instigation of a woman with whom the king was in love; this woman gave Phraates another son, by name Phraataces, whom she wished to see in the throne. Tacitus ignores the gossip explanation and gives another, typically Roman one: the king distrusted his barbarian countrymen. This initial divergence sets up the different approach of both narratives. Josephus focuses on the preponderance of domestic affairs, while Tacitus emphasizes the role of Rome - actual or perceived - as protector of its civilized friends worldwide.

A crisis starts at the moment Phraates dies. Josephus quite clearly affirms that he was assassinated by the son and his mother. Tacitus just takes notice of the death without any comment, instead. A detailed account of how Phraataces was expelled by the Parthians, and of how Orodes, a brief-reigning king, was assassinated on his turn, is reduced by Tacitus to a summary of a few words. Then, Vonones appears in the narrative. Desiring to be ruled by a member of the legitimate dynasty, the Parthians sent envoys or ambassadors to Rome so as to get the apparent heir, Vonones, back in Parthia.

Very soon, however, the Parthians decided that they did not want to be ruled by one that had been a slave. This is a climax in the narratives by both authors. Josephus parenthetically explains that the Parthians called those that had been hostages, “slaves.” Tacitus quotes what seems to be a popular argument, and within the quotation he also calls hostageship, a “slavery.” In addition, Tacitus enumerates what might be the standard preferences of a Roman patrician - litters, educated conversation, and expensive furniture and cutlery - and compares them with the standard preferences assumed in barbarians - chase, horses, and indulgence in brutal activities during festivals - as a further explanation of Vonones’ divorce from the Parthians. (This is one of the infrequent passages in which Tacitus dwells in a detailed account that exceeds of the source rather than summarizes it.)

Next, the Parthians called for Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, for he belonged to the Arsaces or Arsacids, the royal bloodline in Armenia. To this basic account, Tacitus adds that Artabanus had grown to manhood among the Dahae - a detail he could have learnt from another source, since Artabanus ruled for a very long time and the Romans had occasion to get acquainted with him.

A clash between Vonones and Artabanus followed in which the former had the latter beaten. In returning to his homeland in Media, Artabanus rallied a greater army, challenged Vonones again, and this time won. Leaving Artabanus the master of Parthia, defeated Vonones first fled away to Seleucia, and then to Armenia. (Tacitus adds a geopolitical remark about the condition of Armenia as a buffer kingdom between Parthia and Rome, which rendered the former an easy prey to either of the latter.)

Close to the end of the story the first name alien to Josephus’ narrative appears in Tacitus’. While Josephus just says that Vonones intrigued to be given the crown of Armenia, Tacitus explains that his wishes were fulfilled on account of the previous failure of a queen, by name Erato. This name Tacitus must have borrowed from another source, and its mention at this point heralds Tacitus’ subsequent substitution of alternative sources for Josephus, so as to go on in the description of the increasing trouble as between Rome and the emergent power consisting of the union of Parthia and Media.

The last act of the drama begins with Vonones’ asking his former hosts for protection, while Tiberius refuses on account of threats by Artabanus. Finally, we see Vonones kept under surveillance by the Syrian legate, Silanus. In Josephus’ account, Vonones delivers up himself to the Romans; in Tacitus’, Silanus sents for him. Again, a difference of interpretation is explained by diverse political agendas as entertained by Josephus and Tacitus.

Despite of such differences of interpretation, the succession of the facts is identical. Not only do events coincide in the two narratives, but also the chronological order is the same in both. All the names mentioned by Tacitus - but for Erato, the queen of the Armenians previous to Vonones last attempt to become a king - are mentioned by Josephus, and the latter still mentions a few more - like Thermusa, Phraataces, and Orodes - that Tacitus omits. On the whole, Tacitus’ narrative appears as a summary of Josephus’.

The significance of Vonones’ story for a history of Rome in the first century is fairly clear. While Phartia was an independent kingdom, ruled by a superficially Hellenized aristocracy, all went good for its relationship to Rome; Parthia was strong enough to defeat Roman attempts, like in Carras, but it paid for it to keep in good terms with a stronger power. At a moment, however, the Parthian nobility had to choose as between civilized Rome and barbarian Media. They chose to be barbarians. Media compounded Parthia to make up a very strong power, quite able to challenge Rome in that part of the world. According to Tacitus, Tiberius described, before the Senate these affairs as “the commotions in the East” - motum Orientem (Annals 2:43). Josephus’ narrative afforded a reasonable account (for a Roman) of how the commotion came to happen.

Vonones’ story might also be of some import because he took a part, though marginal and possibly involuntary, in the death of Germanicus. Tacitus records his friendship to Cneius Piso, governor of Syria, - charged with Germanicus’ assessination, - who felt as an affront the removal of Vonones to Cilicia (Annals 2:58).

It is of note that no sooner was Vonones put under surveillance in Syria, Tacitus’ narrative remarkably departs from Josephus’ - another source is borrowed from. Thus, Tacitus says that Germanicus crowned Zeno, a client of Rome (Annals 2:56). Josephus instead says that it was Artabanus that gave the kingdom of Armenia to Orodes, one of his sons. Nor is a major coincidence of Tacitus with Josephus to be found in the subsequent narratives of the Parthian/Armenian affairs. After the Senate was presented with trouble in the East, Romans began regularly to take notice of what was going on there. Even the rest of Vonones’ life as an exile is accounted for by Tacitus’ borrowing from sources other than Josephus. Thus, for instance, so as to satisfy Artabanus request in exchange for an alliance with Rome, Vonones is removed from Syria and placed at Pompeiopolis, a city in the coast of Cilicia (Annals 2:58), of which Josephus says absolutely nothing.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for this list.
I was just following the list given by S.C. Carlson given in an earlier post.

Are you sure that these are actual quotes of the Testamonium or are they just references? Can you give the book titles and/or original text or translations? References could just suggest familiarity with Eusebius' Church History. While actual quotes would suggest, more probably, familiarity with Josephus' text.




Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Stephen was not claiming to be exhaustive (and in fact explicitly limited his list to Greek witnesses), whereas the point you made seems to require that the list be exhaustive.

Sure. Here is the list again:

1. Gregory, century IV.
2. Pseudo-Hegesippus, century IV.
3. Jerome, century V.
4. Sozomen, century V.
5. Isidorus, century V.
6. Scripta anonyma adversus Iudaeos, century V or VI.
7. The Religious Dialogue, century V or VI.

Stephen gave Gregory, Isidorus, and the scripta anonyma. The rest can be found on one of my Testimonium pages. Please note that a couple of these are paraphrases or even abridgements; but they are certainly more than mere references.

Actually, I disagree. I think even actual quotes sometimes owe themselves entirely to Eusebius. Such is the case, I tend to be persuaded, with Jerome; I tend to think he is dependent almost entirely on Eusebius, not directly on Josephus.

To be fair, there are some (many?) who doubt that Tacitus ever read Josephus. They suppose that where Tacitus overlaps with Josephus it is because both are dependent upon the memoirs of Vespasian.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the reference page. It is quite helpful.

I agree that Jerome appears to take the Testamonium from Eusebius. It also appears to me that Pseudo-Heggesipus, Sozomen and Isodorus are dependent on Eusebius for their knowledge of Josephus and the Testimonium. So who is the first writer that seems to have knowledge of the text of Josephus, independent of things that he could find in Eusebius' Church History?

We have thousands of pages of writings of dozens of Church Fathers from the 4th-9th centuries. If copies of Josephus' Antiquities were in circulation, as the only Jewish description of the time of Christ, we should be able to find some, if not a multitude of quotes.

So who can we be reasonably sure knows the Testimonium and/or the text of Josephus independent of Eusebius?

If we cannot find anybody, it seems that the logical conclusion is that copies of Josephus were not in circulation for a number of centuries after Eusebius.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ynquirer

That there was of the Jewish War a memorabilia by Vespasian appears quite clear from Josephus himself - Life 342. Also there must have been another one by Titus - Against Apion 56. Most probably, Vespasian wrote, while commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in Judea, a report for Nero, and Titus wrote, while in the same post, another for Vespasian. When one talks of the siege of Jerusalem and a possible Roman report, the obvious writer must have been Titus, because Vespasian at the time was far away in Rome. No-one with a little knowledge of the topic may think that Josephus, who was a prominent actor of the siege drama - according to his own deposition - would have followed a hypothetical narrative of Vespasian, who was not there.

Titus’ report quite probably was followed by Cassius Dio’s Roman History, written in 200-220, that is, almost one and a half centuries after the War. One can find Dio’s summary in the Book 65 of his History. It is a sketch of the siege of Jerusalem very different from Josephus’ - and Tacitus’ btw. While Tacitus says that the Jews soon “were driven within the walls by continual defeats,” and that “the Romans then prepare for an assault,” the only dilemma for them being whether “to await the result of famine,” Dio speaks of a protracted preparatory phase during which “the Jews were assisted by many of their countrymen from the region round about and by many who professed the same religion, not only from the Roman empire but also from beyond the Euphrates.” Dio goes on in the same mood:

While Josephus and Tacitus’ account of “continual defeats” emphasizes the perfidy of the insurrects, who were being punished by the Jewish god, Dio’s account highlights the difficulties of the campaign - and, accordingly, the merit of the commander-in-chief. Titus’ personal pains and contribution are several times mentioned. The source most probably is a report penned by Titus himself.

Tacitus’ account does not at all resemble Dio’s and tightly follows Josephus in many passages, instead.

I’m ready to grant, however, that the fact that Vespasian’s and Titus’ reports are missing furnishes a good pretext for loose thinking.

On the other hand, I must apologize for saying you have supported the notion that Tacitus took Josephus as a source, if you really don't support it.

Ben C Smith

I think you are mistaken about pseudo-Hegesippus. He obviously gets a lot more from Josephus than Eusebius provides. The story of Paulina and Mundus, for example, in 2.4. That did not come from Eusebius, did it?

If you mean the text of the Testimonium in Josephus, that would be pseudo-Hegesippus, who has modelled much of his work on the Jewish War and also imported certain episodes from the Antiquities, including the Testimonium. Of course, he could still have conceivably gotten the Testimonium from Eusebius; but with all that Josephan material in his text that is quite independent of Eusebius, how would you go about showing it? It is far easier to suppose that he got it from Josephus, just like all the other fodder for his text.

Your expectations may be too high.

Nevertheless, I think that Eusebius was far more popular than even Josephus, at least among the church historians. That is why so much information about Josephus during this period may have come through Eusebius.

But so far on this thread we have discussed only one Josephan passage. How can one extrapolate from quotations of that single passage how far and wide the works of Josephus were known at this time?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Agreed. In fact, I had thought I mentioned the memoirs of Vespasian and Titus. I see now that I mentioned only Vespasian.

Vespasian started out as commander for the war, and you yourself wrote about Tacitus using Josephus for events that had actually occurred a bit before the war.

Those are excellent points, and well worth looking into.



No, I do support it. I think that is where Tacitus got a lot of his information about the war. I was just trying to let it be known that there is another side to the issue.

Ben.