I have been in complete agreement with the last several of Maximara's posts but the thread has been moving fast enough that by the time I had anything to say about my complete agreement with Maximara the thread had moved on.
But I thought I would comment on the above. I edited the James Ossuary Wikipedia article a bit and as a result did a little research on the subject. As a minor piece of davefoc trivia the first thread I started in the JREF forum was about the James Ossuary. It was also the first and only thread I've started that was deleted (There was already an ongoing thread about the James Ossuary).
For all practical purposes it is reasonable to assume that at least part of the inscription on the James Ossuary was faked. The evidence for this is overwhelming and straightforward. Of course, that doesn't stop miscellaneous true believers from arguing otherwise and it doesn't stop the Biblical Archeology Review from exploiting the situation to sell magazines.
But because the James Ossuary is an obvious fake doesn't mean that every ancient artifact from the middle east was faked. There don't seem to be any credible researchers seriously suggesting that the Pilate plaque was faked, there is an archeological record associated with its discovery (as Maximara mentioned), no tie in to biblical artifact dealers has been described, no tie-in to religious archeological zealots has been described, the existence of the plaque is plausible, and the existence of the plaque doesn't conflict with any secular notions about early Christian history. In short, none of the things that suggest the James Ossuary is a fake seem to be true for the Pilate plaque.
If one wanted to seriously investigate the possibility that the Pilate plaque is a fake, one might look for papers that were written about its discovery and validation. Personally, I think it's nice that anything associated with the HJ topic can be judged to be unambiguously true and in davefoc land Pilate is going to be accepted as having been a real individual until somebody finds the tiniest reason to doubt it.
ETA: I think IanS was probably pursuing this topic more as some miscellaneous musing about the limits of what is knowable about the history of first century Palestine than any particular skepticism about Pilate's existence. And that is fine, but there is another thing that might be considered about this topic. Just how easy it is to pull together a few different bits of evidence about a person of only moderate importance in first century Palestine to build a case that the individual almost certainly existed. I think it is interesting to compare this situation to the evidence for the existence of the HJ.
First, just re. the highlight - I've said several times in all these posts that I am only raising that doubt about the authenticity of the Pilate Stone because (a)the circumstances of the discovery seem to me to be quite obviously suspicious (see below), and (b)it seems that no independent experts have ever been asked to corroborate it's claimed authenticity. And in a field of religiously related issues which appears packed with erroneous claims and assumptions, I think someone has to ask whether that tablet is even authentic anyway.
However before I say anything more about that highlighted sentence, just on your other points agreeing, as you say, so completely with
Maximara -
- you are especially influenced by the fact that in the case of the James Ossuary, that object was offered for sale by a dealer, whereas the Pilate Stone was said to be discovered through an archaeological dig? You think that is a vital difference in the circumstances?
OK, well just to continue exploring that issue a bit further - you are reasonably satisfied that there is no particular reason to doubt the find of the Pilate Stone by Antonio Frova? What do you or any of us actually know about Antonio Frova? He is described as an Italian archaeologist, but with just a quick Google search I could not find any other information about him or how he came to make that expedition. If he is the usual sort of university lecturer who makes archaeological expeditions of this sort, then he would almost certainly have relied on funding from some external organisation (university lecturers do not normally fund these things themselves), in which case who funded his archaeological expedition? What, if any, connection did Frova have with any of the Israeli biblical antiquities groups who either excavate in that region or who have connections to local Israeli museums or who fund ventures like that?
I think this entire subject of anything to do with the existence of Jesus, is so fraught with quite deliberate deceptions and misrepresentation, that all such discoveries now have to be questioned at that most basic level of asking what we know about the circumstances of the discovery, about who the discoverers actually are, and what connections they may have to all interested parties in this field, and particularly the very obvious question of who actually verified the object as genuine (and how). However, in this case, none of that information seems to be known by anyone at all.
Iirc, Maximara said it was untrue that any sceptics had doubted the existence of Pilate before the tablet was discovered in 1961. Afaik, that is wrong, and prior to 1961 sceptics in general had often expressed doubts about the reliability of historical writing as evidence of Pilate, eg here are some typical remarks about that which appear on page one of even the most brief of Google searches -
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/pontiuspilate/g/PontiusPilate.htm
An archaeological find made during an excavation, led by Italian archaeologist Dr. Antonio Frova, effectively put to rest the doubt that Pilate was real. The artifact is now in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem as inventory Number AE 1963 no. 104. There had also been literature, both Biblical and historical and even contemporary with Pilate, testifying to his existence, but it is filled with religious biases, so the 20th century find was important. Pilate appears in Latin on a 2'x3' (82 cm x 65 cm) limestone inscription found in 1961 at Caesarea Maritima that links him to the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. It refers to him as prefect (a Praefectus civitatium) rather than procurator, which is what the Roman historian Tacitus calls him.
http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Inscription by Pontius Pilate
It wasn't long ago when many scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus' crucifixion. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone
The stone is significant because it is the only universally accepted[not in citation given] archaeological find with an inscription mentioning the name "Pontius Pilatus" to date.[2][3]
OK, so the point there is, I think Max is wrong if he says no sceptics had doubted the existence of Pilate prior to the discovery of the Pilate Stone in 1961.
That raises the question of why, before 1961, some sceptics thought that the writing of Philo, Tacitus and Josephus (any others?) was not very persuasive as evidence of Pontius Pilate.
The obvious answer is that our extant copies of Tacitus and Josephus (my “theme”) are so long after the original authors had died, that 11th century Christian copying is barely credible at all as a reliable source of detail on what the named authors may ever have originally written about Pilate executing Jesus. And afaik, the same presumably applies to the writing of Philo? That is - what is the actual date that we have as the earliest extant copy of whatever Philo may have originally written in the 1st century?
That is presumably one reason that sceptics have often doubted the reliability of sources like Josephus and Tacitus (and as afaik, Philo also) as credible sources on issues like this. And it should not need repeating why writing as late as that is simply too unreliable to be regarded as likely fact in a subject packed from end to end with obvious fabrications and errors.
However, just reading from paragraphs 299 up to 315 in that link to the writing of Philo - the author is recounting why the Jews in that area did not want Pilate to erect either “shields” or a statue. And if all of what Philo says there is true and to be taken at face value, and if that is what Philo actually wrote in c.40AD (not altered by any copying), then of course we should accept that Philo at least believed that the governor in question was a man named Pilate. Fine.
However, if I was to remain suspicious about that as evidence of Pontius Pilate, I might say that what is written there from 299 to 315 reads more like the author recounting a well known story which he knows as current of the time. IOW it reads as if Philo is saying
“here is what has been said about local unrest over a governor named Pilate, who was cruel and wanted to erect shields and a statue against the wishes of the local people…etc.”. I think it reads more like that sort of story being told (whether the story was true or not), rather than sounding like the author (in this case Philo) giving a factual historical account of events actually known to him personally or known to him from reliable informants. Eg does Philo tell the reader how he knows any of that story about Pilate and the local unrest over the shields and statue etc? A lot of the story involves Philo saying things like
“and the people said X, Y & Z, to which person B replied A, B & C and hence the Emperor took action G ….” etc., as if Philo actually knew verbatim what individual people had said to one another (which obviously cannot be literally true).
So to that extent at least, where Philo appears to be describing actual conversations, the account is presumably impossible and an invention by whoever wrote those passages under the name “Philo“. That may be an entirely innocent practice of just bringing a real story to life by giving a general idea of what sort of grievances local people were said to be expressing on the streets. But that does look like Philo is creating or embroidering that aspect at least, if not simply recounting a legend of Pilate as the cruel governor.
OK so finally, turning to the issue of why the Pilate Stone is suspicious, I’ve said this before but to spell it out -
1. Prior to 1961 there was no physical evidence of Pilate’s existence. Outside of the gospels, all that apparently exists are some questionable references to Pilate in the writing attributed to Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus. However, it appears that all three of those works are known only as copies written many centuries after the named authors had died. So that leaves the obvious possibility that the mention there of Pilate may be a later addition in support of what had earlier been written in the gospels.
At any rate, it’s obvious that people were sceptical about Pilate prior to the discovery of the Pilate Stone in 1961. On which point -
- afaik, it is commonly said that there are many other authors of that time who wrote extensively about the history of the Jewish people in that region and about the period of Roman rule etc. But where not only do those authors’ never mention Jesus, they don’t mention anyone called Pontius Pilate either. Now I don’t personally know if that lack such mention is true. What I am saying is, I have the impression throughout all these discussions on HJ and the various references to sceptical authors on this subject, that it is commonly said that most writers of that period, who might all have been expected to mention Jesus and Pilate, in fact say nothing about either of them.
2. The inscription on the Pilate stone looks very sharp, clean and almost modern (at least as shown in photographs). Is that suspicious? Are such inscriptions usually so clear and sharp after 2000 years?
3. The remaining portion of the inscription says almost exactly what biblical scholars would wish to find in support of the gospels saying that Pilate executed Jesus in 30AD. Ie, it apparently confirms that Pilate was the governor, in the required region of Judea, at the appropriate period. Presumably a decayed 2000 year old partial inscription might easily have said something far less definitive with far less clarity, but fortunately it confirms precisely the three elements that bible scholars would wish to know.
4. Who was Antonio Frova, the Italian archaeologist who was said to have lead the group that discovered the tablet being used as part of a stairway in an ancient theatre which had previously been excavated at a place on the coast of Israel named Caesarea? What do we know about Frova? What connections or interests did he have with religiously important archaeological sites in Israel? Who paid for his expedition on this trip? What connection if any did Frova have with any of the Israeli museums who commonly display these religiously important local archaeological finds?
5. 1961 it might not have been thought vital to have the inscription verified by anyone outside of the Museums own staff. However, in the light of the subsequent discovery of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet, and the trial which ensued over their authenticity, it should now be obvious that suspicions must also arise over the Pilate Stone, since all three items share very obvious similarities - (a)they are all stone inscriptions of importance mainly if not entirely as evidence of biblical issues, (b)all three were discovered in Israel, and it seems all three were quite easily found without needing any great excavations, (c)two of the three say just exactly what is needed to support the two main evidential claims which bible scholars have typically offered as their main proof of the life of Jesus, ie that he had a real brother James, and that he was executed by a real man named Pilate, (d) all three were declared genuine by the museums own experts, but apparently not by any external experts.
. 
