The absence OR PRESENCE of current consensus is not proof of historical accuracy. Correct details are also not proof, unless some recognized fictional novels are historically accurate because they properly describe known historical figures and locations.
When historic records contradict about a given point, how do you determine which is accurate? Personally, I look for other evidence, such as archeology, numismatics, even logical reasons as to why the records differ. Group "A" does not want to look like the bad guys, do other historical factors indicate that while they were most likely to preserve the accounts of the incident, does the "official" record accord with their actions in other cases?
I noted that Tiberius went back and forth in the records as to whether he was fit to rule or not. If you take the time to look at the historic events, he was ruling Rome from Rome and was great. He went into semi-retirement away from Rome and let Sejanus run the day-to-day things, even though Tiberius had easy, reliable access to what was going on, and he was terrible, never should have been emperor. Sejanus latched onto those comments and was apparently plotting a coup when Tiberius came out of semi-retirement and deposed Sejanus and thus returned to greatness. Crassus, as I noted earlier, was a great military leader after he saved Sulla in one battle and served well in some other conflicts, and was praised for his financial knowledge as well, when it benefited Rome. Then he engaged in a military action, following what were at the time standard Roman military tactics but was defeated by an enemy who tried a new tactic designed to give them a chance against known Roman tactics. According to a surviving inferior officer, subsequently promoted, Crassus displayed horrible judgement, attempted to surrender and was killed by having molten gold poured down his throat. Independent surviving accounts imply that it was a very close battle and immediately following this incident Roman tactics changed. Now was Crassus competent, incompetent or what? The official record is incompetent, the unofficial record differs, but by all means, the official record must be true, the same standard applied to traditional understandings of the NT, even when prominent scholars say that a different, very logical and more coherent understanding has arisen.
Remember, in the 1890's the consensus among respected physicists was that the field of physics was about to be closed, with all that could be learned having been learned. There were just two, very small, things to be finished. Today those two things are called "Relativity" and "Quantum Physics" and have given birth to other fields related to physics and nowhere near understood. But today traditional knowledge of the New Testament is almost complete, with just a few issues remaining. Who wrote Ephesians, Paul or someone else; what was the issue about women's hair in Corinthians; what exactly did Paul mean to say about scripture (literally writings) in 2 Timothy 3:16; why is John so much different that the Synoptics; what "classic" works or styles did the four gospels and Acts follow so that they would be accepted as decent literature. And on that final point, hint, hint, look at Greco-Roman biography style, Greco-Roman adventure-romance style, and look for hints of Euripides, Plato, Augustus, Virgil and Phrygian legend among others, unless what look like parallels to all those are just random chances in contrast to what most biblical scholars think about many of the possible connections.
