For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[CleanShavenJesus]

There you go again about proof.

There you go again not having any. Situation: normal.

Read my topic

[Minimalist]

Was Tacitus's account of the fire true? I honestly can't see anyone fabricating a long and detailed account of a fire just so they could make a passing reference to Christians.

Agreed. Can you see a later xtian writer inserting a couple of lines though?

Rome was always at risk of fire. Poorly built wooden structures and no real fire-fighting capability. There was a fire in 64. There was a fire in 69 when troops loyal to Vitellius fought against troops loyal to Vespasian. There was a very serious fire in 80. Oddly, in the aftermath of 64 Nero actually decreed that buildings could not share common walls in an effort to stop the spread of fires. There is a report by Plutarch that the first century BC plutocrat, Marcus Licinius Crassus attained a great deal of his wealth by forming his own fire brigade which showed up at a burning building but would only put out the fire if the property was sold to Crassus first. So fires in Rome were hardly unknown.

Read the Annals. The description of the fire actually begins well before the single reference in #44. The actual description of the blaze and aftermath starts in #38. Tacitus manages to talk about the fire for a good long time without ever mentioning xtians....if he mentioned them at all.

Here is Annals beginning with paragraph #30

http://sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15030.htm

Hit Next at the bottom to get to the next segment.

[Confused Ape]

Agreed. Can you see a later xtian writer inserting a couple of lines though?

This is why I take the attitude that Tacitus's mention of Christians might be true even though most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic. I'm going to answer this post from the point of view that the mention is authentic, however, because it's just a trivial passing reference in what is a history of Nero's reign.

Read the Annals. The description of the fire actually begins well before the single reference in #44. The actual description of the blaze and aftermath starts in #38. Tacitus manages to talk about the fire for a good long time without ever mentioning xtians....if he mentioned them at all.

I have read the annals using the Internet Classics version and quoted part of the first line about the fire in Post #108.

Tacitus Fire Account

A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain

Tactitus isn't just reporting the fire - he's also reporting that the Romans suspected Nero of starting it. Why?

And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.

Tacitus tells us how nothing Nero did stopped people thinking that he started the fire.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Nero got fed up with all the gossip.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,

Fixing the blame on a hated class can't be a fabrication. Nero made the sickening executions a public spectacle and everyone in Rome got the message - "Shut up about the fire or else...!!"

It's possible that Tacitus's original work mentioned some other hated class and this was changed to Christians later on but, in the context of the report, the information about them isn't anything special.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,

As I said in Post #109, Tacitus had no idea that Christianity was going to be a major religion so he gave a very brief explanation of who the Christians were for the benefit of future readers. All he says is which dead Messiah they were associated with because, from a Roman point of view, there was more than one dead Messiah - Simon of of Peraea (c. 4 BCE), Athronges (c. 3 CE), the one executed by PP and Menahem ben Judah

Israelite rebel leader, son of Judah the Galilean. He led the group known as the Sicarii in the war against Rome (66-70), successfully attacking the stronghold of Masada, and gaining victory over the Romans in Herod's palace. Later he antagonized Eleazar ben Hananiah and his followers, who killed him.

As Tacitus wrote the Annals in 109 AD he would have known about Menahem ben Judah. He then has a bit of a rant about superstitious nonsense ending up in Rome.

and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

His attitude towards Christian beliefs (whatever they were at the time) reminds me of some of the posts in this forum. The mention of Judea isn't anything Earth shattering, though , because all the dead Messiah's had been Jews in Judea. (The rant about superstition is also very restrained in comparison to his rant about Nero in the paragraph before the start of the fire. See PS for the quote)

Tacitus then reports what the Romans thought of Nero's public spectacle.

there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

This is very important in the context of Nero's reign because everything was going downhill and Nero was generally detested.

Meanwhile Italy was thoroughly exhausted by contributions of money, the provinces were ruined, as also the allied nations and the free states, as they were called.

There were rumours that Nero had tried to poison Seneca.

According to some writers, poison was prepared for him at Nero's command by his own freedman, whose name was Cleonicus. This Seneca avoided through the freedman's disclosure, or his own apprehension, while he used to support life on the very simple diet of wild fruits, with water from a running stream when thirst prompted.

Meanwhile .....

During the same time some gladiators in the town of Praeneste, who attempted to break loose, were put down by a military guard stationed on the spot to watch them, and the people, ever desirous and yet fearful of change, began at once to talk of Spartacus, and of bygone calamities.

Yes, everyone was getting very fed up with Nero.

Soon afterwards, tidings of a naval disaster was received, but not from war, for never had there been so profound a peace. Nero, however, had ordered the fleet to return to Campania on a fixed day, without making any allowance for the dangers of the sea. Consequently the pilots, in spite of the fury of the waves, started from Formiae, and while they were struggling to double the promontory of Misenum, they were dashed by a violent south-west wind on the shores of Cumae, and lost, in all directions, a number of their triremes with some smaller vessels.

They were even more fed up with him after he wrecked the fleet. At the end of the year everyone was talking about ill omens. Finally -

Silius Nerva and Atticus Vestinus then entered on the consulship, and now a conspiracy was planned, and at once became formidable, for which senators, knights, soldiers, even women, had given their names with eager rivalry, out of hatred of Nero as well as a liking for Caius Piso.

So, the executions of people belonging to a hated class was reported because it's part of the build-up to a conspiracy to assassinate Nero.

PS: The rant about Nero.

Nero, to win credit for himself of enjoying nothing so much as the capital, prepared banquets in the public places, and used the whole city, so to say, as his private house. Of these entertainments the most famous for their notorious profligacy were those furnished by Tigellinus, which I will describe as an illustration, that I may not have again and again to narrate similar extravagance. He had a raft constructed on Agrippa's lake, put the guests on board and set it in motion by other vessels towing it. These vessels glittered with gold and ivory; the crews were arranged according to age and experience in vice. Birds and beasts had been procured from remote countries, and sea monsters from the ocean. On the margin of the lake were set up brothels crowded with noble ladies, and on the opposite bank were seen naked prostitutes with obscene gestures and movements. As darkness approached, all the adjacent grove and surrounding buildings resounded with song, and shone brilliantly with lights. Nero, who polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity, till a few days afterwards he stooped to marry himself to one of that filthy herd, by name Pythagoras, with all the forms of regular wedlock. The bridal veil was put over the emperor; people saw the witnesses of the ceremony, the wedding dower, the couch and the nuptial torches; everything in a word was plainly visible, which, even when a woman weds darkness hides.

[Confused Ape]

I had to make a new post because my internet connection disappeared and didn't return until my time to edit the other post had run out. I hope I'm not breaking any rules in double posting because some forums are against it. If I am breaking rules I apologise.

Can you see a later xtian writer inserting a couple of lines though?

Are you saying there were no Christians in Rome in 64 AD or there were Christians in Rome at the time but they didn't believe that the person they called Christ had been executed by Pontius Pilate? Was that bit added later? If so, when? If there were no Christians in Rome in 64 AD, when did they arrive?

All you keep saying is that Tacitus's brief mention of Christians isn't authentic but you never provide any alternative ideas about when Christianity first got started. You also fail to explain why this brief mention of somebody being executed by PP is such a terrible threat to atheism even though most modern scholars regard it as authentic. It's not like Tacitus is saying the executed man really was a divine being who rose from the dead after three days. His rant about Christianity shows that he thought it was all superstitious nonsense.

Pliny and Trajan wrote their letters between 110-112 AD. I found something very interesting when looking at the full text of the letters. At the end of section 378 and for part of 379 there's this -

Full Text Of Letters.

they had been in the habit of meeting
together on a stated day, before sunrise, and of offering in
turns a form of invocation to Christ, as to a god ; also of
binding themselves by an oath, not for any guilty purpose,
but not to commit thefts, or robberies, or adulteries, not

BOOK X. 379

to break their word, not to repudiate deposits when called
upon ;

This tells us something of what they did at their meetings. They obviously believed in somebody they called Christ and regarded him as divine.

these ceremonies having been gone through, they
had been in the habit of separating, and again meeting
together for the purpose of taking food — food, that is, of
an ordinary and innocent kind.

He doesn't say whether the Christians believed they were eating this food in remembrance of the Last Supper and thinking of bread and wine as being their Christ's body and blood. This might have been the roots of what came to be regarded as Holy Communion, though. I'm guessing he mentioned it was ordinary, innocent food because there could have been rumours that they were eating dead babies or something along those lines.

They had, however,
ceased from doing even this, after my edict, in which,
following your orders, I had forbidden the existence of
Fraternities. This made me think it all the more neces-
sary to inquire, even by torture, of two maid-servants,
who were styled deaconesses, what the truth was. I
could discover nothing else than a vicious and extrava-
gant superstition

He doesn't say what the superstition was so we can't be certain they believed their Christ had been executed by Pontius Pilate. Did they even believe that Christ had lived in Judea? It's difficult to imagine where else he could have been, though.

consequently, having adjourned the
inquiry, I have had recourse to your counsels. Indeed,
the matter seemed to me a proper one for consultation,
chiefly on account of the number of persons imperilled.
For many of all ages and all ranks, ay, and of both sexes,
are being called, and will be called, into danger. Nor
are cities only permeated by the contagion of this super-
stition, but villages and country parts as well

This indicates that Christianity was everywhere unless these letters between Pliny and Trajan were also faked.

[Minimalist]

he's also reporting that the Romans suspected Nero of starting it. Why?

Why? Why indeed? There are some people in history who we know only through the writings of their enemies. Nero is one of these. Caligula and Herod the Great come to mind as two more examples. Even Hitler does not suffer from this particular problem.

Tacitus was a member of the senatorial class. He himself also noted that he owed his career to the Flavian Dynasty ( Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) and it was the Flavians who picked up the pieces of the empire after Nero fell. All sorts of slanders are written about him by writers who came after the fact and belonged to the upper (and literate ) classes.

It is impossible to comprehend Roman history - particularly Roman political history - without understanding the centuries long battle between the patricians and plebians for power. G. Julius Caesar represented the triumph of the popular party over the senatorial class.
He founded the Julio-Claudian dynasty of which Nero was the last member. If there is one thing the Julio-Claudians understood it was that their power was based on keeping "the mob" quiet. There were no popular uprisings against even Caligula or Nero. Their opposition came from the senatorial/equestrian classes and generally had to do with the rather innovative ( read that 'extra-legal') means of extracting money from the upper classes. When the revolts came against Nero they came from Vindex in Gaul and Galba in Spain...the governors of those provinces.

So who was Nero? Even Tacitus' account indicates that Nero took steps to relieve the suffering of the poor and his own palace was destroyed in the fire. It is also true that in the aftermath of the fire he built a new palace for himself, the Domus Aurea, which was opulent beyond words ( sections of it have been found and excavated) and he no doubt financed it by extorting money from the upper classes.

What is the reality of Nero? Who knows. Did he extort money from the upper classes? Doubtlessly. As Willie Sutton noted "I rob banks because that is where the money is." Did he incur the enmity of the upper classes as a result? Obviously he did.

So in Tacitus' (and Suetonius') case we have a double motive for what they wrote. Class warfare and a desire to ingratiate themselves with the current government by pointing out the flaws of a despised enemy. We lack a favorable biography of Nero and, much as with political advertisements today, the negative ones must be taken with caution.

[Confused Ape]

Why? Why indeed? There are some people in history who we know only through the writings of their enemies. Nero is one of these. Caligula and Herod the Great come to mind as two more examples.

So in Tacitus' (and Suetonius') case we have a double motive for what they wrote.

You forgot Cassius Dio

After this Nero set his heart on accomplishing what had doubtless always been his desire, namely to make an end of the whole city and realm during his lifetime. 2 At all events, he, like others before him,13 used to call Priam wonderfully fortunate in that he had seen his country and his throne destroyed together. Accordingly he secretly sent out men who pretended to be drunk or engaged in other kinds of mischief, and caused them at first to set fire to one or two or even several buildings in different parts of the city,

At least Tacitus gives Nero the benefit of the doubt when he says - "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain,"

Cassius Dio doesn't seem to mention Nero doing anything nasty to Christians. Seutonius does although he didn't go into great detail.

Seutonius Life Of Nero

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

So it looks like Christians might have been in Rome in 64 AD. I don't think Sulpicius Severus can be relied on, though, because he was writing in the 4th century AD so probably got his information about the persecution from reading Tacitus and Seutonius. I think we can discount his idea that Nero's going to come back as well.

Nero As The Antichrist

Writing late in the fourth century AD, Sulpicius Severus recounts the reign of Nero in his ecclesiastical history: As he was the first to persecute the Christians, so perhaps he will be the last; many believe that he will come before the Antichrist. Too, given that his body never was found, there are doubts whether Nero committed suicide. Even if he did kill himself with a sword, it was believed that the wound had healed and that he will recover, as foretold in Revelation, and return at the end of the world to work the mystery of iniquity (Chronica, II.28-29).

Can you see a later xtian writer inserting a couple of lines though?

If that bit is a fake it was cleverly done because the writer managed to capture Tacitus's ranting style. He also made sure that he used the word 'superstition' to match Pliny's and Seutonius's view of Christian beliefs.

The only real argument for it being a fake that I could find for free on the internet is this -

Nero's Fire And Christian Persecution?

According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. Annals, XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE. The Fantastic details of the sufferings of the Christians - dressed in animal hides and torn apart by dogs, crucified, and used as human torches - fits the pornographic masochistic obsession of the early Church. The sordid details of flesh torn and blood copiously shed is repulsive to the modern mind. For some reason the early Church wallowed in graphic descriptions of virgins violated and gored to death by bulls, old men crucified suffering horrific tortures and not to mention the over-fed lions of the Colosseum. By the way, the Romans did not feed their lions exclusively on Christians, any old mal-content would do; and more often did.

The niggling problem with that is the faker having to mimic Tacitus's style for more than a couple of lines.

Tacitus Again

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

As Tacitus was saying that everyone got the message to shut up about the fire as part of his build-up to the assassination attempt it's likely that he did write most of it.

Aaarrgggh - I accidentally posted this instead of saving it as a draft.

Anyway, there are still two questions I'd like you to answer.

1) If Christians in 64 AD didn't believe that their Messiah was executed by Pontius Pilate, when did they start believing it? It's up to you to find the information.

2) Why is the possibility that these lines are authentic such a threat to atheism?

It seems that most modern scholars regard the suspect lines as being authentic but they don't all think that they prove Jesus actually existed.

Historical Value

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[56] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[57]

This is why I said the most sensible approach is the one about the lines telling us something about early Christian beliefs.

[Minimalist]

Dio is a further century removed from the events. Odd that he did not quote his great predecessor, though.


Suetonius:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.45 Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.46

Note how closely Suetonius' write up matches Pliny's. Yet we are asked to believe that Tacitus, who knew both of them and was writing at the same time heard the whole story about Pilate and the rest and no one else bothered to mention it.


I'm glad you found Carrington's write up on your own. Saves me the trouble of posting it.

I have to say I am not impressed with the argument about how great a forger would have to be to imitate Tacitus or anyone else. That's what forgers do. Someone who had copied scroll after scroll of Tacitus' writing to the point where he reaches Book XV, Ch. 44 had been working on it for a while. It's not that hard to tack on a couple of lines. Again, Bart Ehrman has written a whole book about xtian forgeries but it is a concept which goes back many years.

[ThomM]

Tacitus simply was not alive during the supposed era of the christ - so he is not at all proof of anything but something he was TOLD.

His mentioning the christ is no more proof of existence than would be his mentioning of Jupiter or Hercules

In fact - both Josephus and Tacitus mention Hercules in their writings

To claim that a person who was not born or lived during the supposed time of the christ is proof of existence is nonsense -it only proves the story at most.

The fact is - the story of the christ has too many contradictions and inconsistencies to be real. At most - there might have been a human jewish heretic upon which that MYTH is based - but the claims of the christ in the bible have NO basis in proven fact.

[Confused Ape]

Dio is a further century removed from the events. Odd that he did not quote his great predecessor, though.

Dio Cassius mightn't have thought that Christians from the lower classes were worth mentioning. His report about persecution under Domitian is about 'newsworthy' people. (The Romans regarded Christians as atheists because they didn't worship the 'real gods'.) Dio Cassius - Persecution Under Domitian

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. But Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and, in particular, of fighting as a gladiator with wild beasts. Indeed, his prowess in the arena was the chief cause of the emperor’s anger against him, an anger prompted by jealousy. For in Glabrio’s consulship Domitian had summoned him to his Alban estate to attend the festival called the Juvenalia and had imposed on him the task of killing a large lion; and Glabrio not only had escaped all injury but had despatched the lion with most accurate aim.

Why didn't Seutonius mention Nero's spectacular execution of Christians? These are just my own ideas on the matter. Seutonius's report is mostly focussed on Nero and how awful he was. I'm guessing he thought that getting rid of the pantomimic actors was more important news than giving a detailed account of punishing Christians because it says something about Nero.

Roman Pantomime

The pantomime was a popular form of entertainment in ancient Greece and later, Rome. Like theatre, it encompassed the genres of comedy, tragedy and sex.

Seutonius

But above all he (Nero) was carried away by a craze for popularity and he was jealous of all who in any way stirred the feeling of the mob.

My guess is that Nero put on an execution show for the Romans after the fire as yet another attempt to win popularity. He had some Christians rounded up and might have said something like "Here's the culprits who set fire to the city." Seutonius didn't bother to mention it because the entertainment was what the Romans were used to. Here's Seneca's report of what went on - the games he attended were in the time of Caligula but the format wouldn't have changed.

Seneca's Description Of Roman Games

The men had nothing with which to protect themselves, for their whole bodies were open to the thrust, and every thrust told. The common people prefer this to matches on level terms or request performances. Of course they do. The blade is not parried by helmet or shield, and what use is skill or defense? All these merely postpone death.

In the morning men are thrown to bears or lions, at midday to those who were previously watching them. The crowd cries for the killers to be paired with those who will kill them, and reserves the victor for yet another death. This is the only release the gladiators have. The whole business needs fire and steel to urge men on to fight. There was no escape for them. The slayer was kept fighting until he could be slain.

'Kill him! Flog him! Burn him alive!' (the spectators roared) 'Why is he such a coward? Why won't he rush on the steel? Why does he fall so meekly? Why won't he die willingly?

Note how closely Suetonius' write up matches Pliny's. Yet we are asked to believe that Tacitus, who knew both of them and was writing at the same time heard the whole story about Pilate and the rest and no one else bothered to mention it.

Tacitus's approach to history was more like writing a novel. He went into endless detail and seems to have reported every bit of gossip, rumour and scandal he could dig up. His life and times of Nero starts in Book XII of the Annals, continues through Book XIII, Book XIV, Book XV, and Book XVI and he still hadn't got round to recording the last two years of Nero's reign.

Going by his writing style, just mentioning Christians wouldn't be enough if he had a bit of gossip to pass on for the benefit of future readers.

I'm glad you found Carrington's write up on your own. Saves me the trouble of posting it.

I'm not doing your job again. You're the one insisting that Tacitus's bit of gossip is a fake so you can look for your own evidence from now on.

Tacitus simply was not alive during the supposed era of the christ - so he is not at all proof of anything but something he was TOLD.

His mentioning the christ is no more proof of existence than would be his mentioning of Jupiter or Hercules

That's what I've been saying. It's the most sensible approach to take.

I found an interesting article on Secular Web - JoshMcDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable? Jeffery Jay Lowder

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.

There's a very long argument about how Tacitus was just repeating gossip and his couple of lines doesn't prove that Jesus really existed.

[Confused Ape]

Double posting again because nobody told me off for the last time.

I did a bit more research in anticipation of some questions.

Tacitus also mentioned pantomimic actors after they were allowed back on the stage so I'm using it as an illustration of his writing style.

Annals Book XIV

The mention is part of an account concerning the establishment of a theatrical entertainment which was to be repeated every five years. The first paragraph is about the moral degeneracy in Rome because the nobility took to the stage as orators and poets etc.. Paragraph two is about the good old days of theatrical entertainment and the actors are finally mentioned in paragraph three.

This entertainment, it is true, passed off without any notorious scandal. The enthusiasm too of the populace was not even slightly kindled, for the pantomimic actors, though permitted to return to the stage, were excluded from the sacred contests. No one gained the first prize for eloquence, but it was publicly announced that the emperor was victorious. Greek dresses, in which most people showed themselves during this festival, had then gone out of fashion.

This is typical of Tacitus - why write one line if you can ramble on for three paragraphs? (Seutonius managed to complete his history of Nero in one book.) I'm guessing this is why scholars think Tacitus's mention of Christians is authentic - why pass up a piece of gossip if it could lead to having a rant about superstition ending up in Rome where everything shameful and degenerate was popular?

Did Tacitus mention the scandal about Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla and Glabrio? I can't find any indication that he did but this is hardly surprising. The Date Of Flavius's Death was in 96 AD. The Annals break off before the last two years of Nero's reign which just leaves The Histories

Only the first four books and twenty-six chapters of the fifth book survive, covering the year 69 and the first part of 70. The work is believed to have continued up to the death of Domitian on September 18, 96.

Dio Cassius tells us that Flavius, Flavia were condemned for drifting into Jewish ways while Glabrio was in disfavour for fighting wild beasts as a hobby. Seutonius, however, doesn't go into such details because his account is mostly about all the people Domitian had put to death.

He put to death many senators, among them several ex-consuls, including Civica Cerealis, at the very time when he was proconsul in Asia, Salvidienus Orfitus, Acilius Glabrio while he was in exile — these on the ground of plotting revolution, the rest on any charge, however trivial.

Finally he put to death his own cousin Flavius Clemens, suddenly and on a very slight suspicion

Flavia Domitilla isn't mentioned but I'm guessing she was of no interest because she'd only been banished. Maybe the charges of being Christians comes under the heading of slight/trivial suspicion. The google book I gave a link to discusses contradictions in various accounts of the scandal if anyone wants to read it.