Difference between Historical evidence

What is the difference between Suetonius in his account ( Lives of the Twelve Caesars ) about “an apparition of superhuman size and beauty . . . sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe” and the Gospel writings of the supernatural?

(Please pray for me I am going through a little doubt currently)

I’ve never heard of twelve people having the same hallucination(s) on multiple occasions at the same time.


The easy answer is “one is an account inspired by God and the other is a history written by a human writer.”

The more thorough answer goes something like this:

Suetonius may have gotten his story mixed up or deliberately created a sympathetic account of Caesar’s initiation of the civil war. The context is Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. The river was a boundary that Caesar didn’t have the right to cross – doing so was an invasion and an act of war (in modern terms, it would be like the governor of Pennsylvania mounting an armed invasion of Ohio).

Caesar was torn – should he take that step? If he did, there was no turning back; he would have crossed a line that he couldn’t “undo”, so to speak.

Suetonius says that there was an actual apparition. Plutarch, on the other hand, merely reports that Caesar was quoting from one of his favorite playwrights – Menander, who wrote “The Flute-Girl”.

Plutarch describes it this way:

Plutarch’s description demonstrates Caesar’s deliberate decision to invade. Suetonius softens it up by making it seem like there was divine intervention, and Caesar merely acceded to the will of the gods.

One doesn’t have to read into Suetonius’ account too deeply to realize that he’s not going to side against Caesar on this one. :wink:

The gospels really don’t have a special section to focus on “the supernatural”. They recognize the supernatural, but they aren’t written to impress or entertain.

They are written primarily as basic idea instruction for new Christians, or those considering. They present real life. They include examples of how we should live, Who we should have a relationship with in our own lives.

The supernatural element is there because it’s a part of real life, not some add-on to hook the readers. (Those “gospels” were left out of the NT.)


From a Christian perspective, that sounds more like a wow display by the devil. Jesus’ miracles in the gospel were always for the spiritual/corporal benefit of souls.

1 Like

Why do you dismiss the possibility that classical authors were inspired by God? Why doubt the veracity of a spirit sighting?

Wasnt turning water into wine a “wow display”?

No, it wasn’t. people thought it was odd that the best wine was saved till later on.

The purpose was to protect the family from shame, running out of wine.

And to build on this…

Ready to die horrific deaths by proclaiming it

1 Like

C.S. Lewis was open to the idea that some of what ancient pagans wrote was inspired by God (often mixed in with other stuff). He described it as God sending us “good dreams”.

Read his Reflections on the Psalms, Pilgrim’s Regress, and essays where he raised the possibility that Plato, Vergil, and others had insights that helped prepare the way for the fullness of revelation in Christ.

I’m guessing he wouldn’t rule out some supernatural manifestation, though he wouldn’t encourage focusing on it.

Hmm… maybe because it’s not a sighting of God, but of pagan elements, and is interpreted as such by the witnesses to the putative apparition? :thinking:

In any case, it seems that the argument you’re making is that God was the source of an apparition that recommended that a secular leader perform an illegal action and initiate a civil war meant to permit him to usurp power. Are you sure that’s a case you wish to make?

1 Like

Apparition versus eyewitnesses willing to suffer unto death.
No miracles, only writings.
Not predicted in prophecy.
Did not claim to be God.
Documented what were only believed to be gods.

Get yourself before Christ in the Tabernacle, or at Adoration! The light of Christ will enable you to see clearly once again.

1 Like

Or, a righteous leader who fought to save the republic from the decadence of a parasitical oligarchy which had grown fat off the proletarianization of the populus was shown a favorable omen. God is the author of history, keep in mind. Giant flute playing spirits aside, its a bit tendentious to dismiss every eyewitness account of the supernatural in history except the ones concerning Hebrews.

There is a spiritual element to the story not to be overlooked, from the obvious (Mary asking Jesus) to the less obvious (earthen jars and water being transformed, for just one probable instance).

We’re back to where we started, then. One author wishes to show that he has the approbation of the ‘gods’, so he tells a story about an omen and of Caesar’s mere acknowledgement of the will of the gods. The other author shows him making the personal decision to rebel on his own.

If the point of view is “there’s only one God, and the Roman pantheon is not real”, then what other approach might one take?

Seems a trivial reason for a “miracle” and further to record it for posterity.

First, we don’t know the whole outline of God’s plan, so it’s premature to label anything trivial. I see enough of God’s plan to know I’m falling short in my own conversion part of that plan.

Second, the 4 canonical gospels record things not obviously “impressive” such as Jesus approaching the fig tree or Jesus writing on the ground something we don’t know.

A fiction editor would have deleted these details as not advancing the plot. But the fact that the gospel writers recorded them gives credibility to other things they recorded.

1 Like

I know it’s somewhat subjective, but just read the two accounts. One comes off as mythological, fanciful, with little purpose while the other, even though supernatural, records events that seem rational, purposeful, meaningful, ordered towards love, etc, and towards a true beneficial outcome for humankind.

It shows the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry. It demonstrates that He obeyed His mother in her role as such. It points to a divine approbation of valid marriage.

That sure sounds like an occasion for a “record for posterity” and hardly a “trivial” occurrence!


It does form a “record for posterity” but so do lots of mundane incidents also recorded.

In the 1800s there was a realistic style of literature, in which details are inserted into the narrative not essential to the plot. This would be like Jesus writing something in the dirt, we couldn’t see what.

But people were not doing that 1800s technique in the time of Christ. The sense I get is the writers of the gospels were trying to record things faithfully, whether it be a miracle or something else.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.