You have not supplied proof, you have supplied evidence. Evidence of the writings of a single 'historian'. I cannot say that what he said was a true and objective record or that it was a record tinged with the promotion of his own agenda. No one can possibly know that.
Tacitus records of England can be, to some extent, substantiated by archeology but I doubt (I do not know for certain) that the same weight of evidence exists for anyone to accept that Tacitus proves the existence of any single and named person save for his emporers. It is not even certain that he was a Roman!!
My main point and one which I do not believe can be refuted, is that history serves several purposes and the recording of objective, verifiable truth seldom appears at the top of the list. My goodness look at your own history of WWII !!!! Tacitus would have been no different.
And so we must all come back to our own faith or interpretation. If you choose to believe one thing and I choose to believe something else then that is the way it is and that is the way it must be. There are no winners and no losers.
He wrote what we understand to be recorded histories and they have been published as historical records of his time. He was an employed historian recording "facts" that transpired during his time and how those events may have related to other events i.e. the prosecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. The records of Pontious Pilate were likewise recorded legal events... Whatever Tacitus's personal opinions of those events may or may not be has nothing whatsoever to do with if the actual events happened-
Last edited: