Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?