No he mentioned Christus who suffered the extreme penalty under pontius, and whose followers were called Christians, and the reference is considered authentic and authoritative by the vast majority of scholars, but I am just going to go ahead and take your word for it.....
As I pointed out before Remsberg who felt that things were just on the Jesus existed side of the fence pointed out there was a LOT WRONG with Tacitus:
"This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2.
Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3.
Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4.
Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian
Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation."
The Tacitus passages require that EVERY Christians who knew or used Tacitus to miss it for about
14 centuries 
Also it has been noted there is a strange temporal jump in this part of the Annals in that it goes back from the time of Nero to the time of Tiberius and returns back to Nero again.
As noted by Jay Raskin "Tacitus would have had to explain more about the suppression of the new superstition if it died out in the 30’s and started again in Rome around in the 60’s. (The Fire was in 64). If the outbreak of the superstition happened in the time of Nero, as Josephus reports, there would be no need to explain what happened."
He theorizes that the passage originally read as follows:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called
Chrestians by the populace.
Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of
Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius
Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
Change four words and presto chango you have evidence for Jesus and we KNOW the "Chrestians" was tampered with.
In fact, the above fits very well with Josephus book 20:8.10:
"Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire.
So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also."
More over it was stated by Epiphanius in
Panarion 29 in the 4th century that "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but "
Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called
Jessaeans for a time.
In fact, Chrestians only appears in one place in the entire Bible as we know it: Acts and there is evidence that Act was using Josephus's
Antiquities as cliff note to flesh out events meaning it could not have been written any earlier then c 94 CE. So the original movement could have been still calling itself Natzraya or Jessaeans clear up to 93 CE.
Raskin makes a good point about the whole Chrestians-Christ thing:
"It seems ridiculous to say that Chrestians (the good ones) came from Christ (the anointed one). It is like saying that the followers of Lenin are called Lenenists or the followers of Stalin are called Stalenists, or the followers of Jefferson are called Jiffersonians or the followers of Woodrow Wilson are called Welsonians. It is not an easy thing to get the letters “i” and “e” mixed up in this way. Nobody refers to the founder of Mormonism as Joseph Smeth when they mean Joseph Smith."
