Tacitus on historicity of Jesus - reliable source or not?

[anvi]

Tacitus' remarks in the Annals certainly aren't direct confirmation.  The entry is written some eighty years after the execution of Jesus, and, if Tacitus is relying on any kind of documentary evidence in this report, the passage does not reveal that (it speaks only of what people "call" the founder of the Christian movement, and what Christians were suspected of and "hated" for among the Roman populous.  Tacitus also refers to Pilate as a "procurator," even though this is most likely an anachronism, since Pilate was actually a "perfect" or "governor."  Tacitus also alludes to the "abominations" Christians are rumored to be guilty of, which might be an echo of Pliny's charge that Christians practiced "cannibalism" by consuming the body of Christ during their rituals.  The bulk of the passage appears, that is, to be based on innuendo, and even when it does make reference to Pilate, it refers to him with an anachronistic title.  All this does dilute the strength of the testimony to some degree.

However, Tacitus does not in any way deny, and in fact is entirely comfortable boldly asserting, the salient facts about Jesus, namely that he was executed under Pilate, who was surely a historical figure (and by that time one of immense ill-repute among the Romans).  It also corroborates other evidence to the effect that, by Nero's reign, the Christian population of the empire, and the city of Rome itself, was considerable.  

By itself, then, this passage of Tacitus' is probably only indirect corroboration of the historicity of Jesus.  But, at the same time, it does demonstrate that, by the early second century, Roman officials and historians generally acknowledged that there was a man named Jesus, who was called "Christ" by his followers, who was executed under Pilate, and so it is, when seen in the light of the balance of the other evidence we have, corroboration of Jesus as a historical figure.