Is a hostile witness more credible?

in this instance:

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote in regards to the great fire of Rome in 64 A.D. :

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite ******** 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 Judæa, 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.

Annals 15:44


Tacitus is a non-christian and is obvious in his hostility towards Christianity, yet confirms the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and that he was crucified by order of their procurator in Judea Pontius Pilate. And even acknowledges the pernicious superstition (the resurrection) going around amongst Jesus' followers.
 

Premium Content

This thread contains exclusive content for our premium community members.

What you're missing:
  • Full discussion and replies
  • Community interaction and voting
Already have an account?
✨ Unlock exclusive discussions and premium features
Premium Benefits:
Exclusive content • Priority support • Advanced features • Full thread access
Top