Was Cornelius Tacitus's record on Jesus authentic?

[theCardinalbird]

Was Cornelius Tacitus’s record on Jesus authentic?
Is there anyway in refuting that his account of Jesus was forged?
Why didn’t the early church Fathers make reference to his works if it were authentic?

 

[midori]

The historian was not much read in late antiquity, and even less in the Middle Ages…[34] His antipathy towards the Jews and Christians of his time—he records with unemotional contempt the sufferings of the Christians at Rome during Nero’s persecution—made him unpopular in the Middle Ages. He was rediscovered, however, by the Renaissance, whose writers were impressed with his dramatic presentation of the Imperial age…

Although his work is our most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned. The Annals are based in part on secondary sources, and there are some obvious mistakes, for instance the confusion of the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, who are both called Antonia.[38] The Histories, however, are written from primary documents and intimate knowledge of the Flavian period, and are therefore thought to be more accurate.

So, if Tacitus died c. AD 120, and “Late Antiquity” covered c. 235-284 through the 7th or 8th centuries, that gives about a window of 100 years for his work to survive him/be widely distributed.

But have you read Tacitus? What do you think the Church Fathers should have referenced?

 

[midori]

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. 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. 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.

There’s a bit more, but that’s pretty much it.

If you’ve ever read your Tertullian or other ancient works, they’re far more intriguing and detailed than what you get from Tacitus, if you use your grains of salt where appropriate. Even your Scillitan Martyrs is more interesting, just with its terseness.

 

[BlackFriar]

Lets not forget who hand copied the ancient manuscripts which originals are lost - Christians.
Plenty of room for biased changes in that process.

 

[KJW5551]

There is no reason to think Tacitus account is not authentic. Of course he makes only a very short reference to Jesus, but it’s the fact that he himself was not Christian that makes it so important.