Talk:Pilate stone

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Actual Location[edit]

Is it certain that this stone is located in Jerusalem. I've been to the Milano Archaeological museum this summer, and it was there that I found out about this stone. I even saw it there. What was that? Was that a copy or something? A temporary situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.212.119 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

What does the reconstructed text mean in English? Bastie 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence is provided to support the assertion that "Most scholars questioned the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate". Given that Josephus mentions Pontius Pilate (he was not a 'Governor') repeatedly, this seems highly unlikely.

Nor is there any argument presented to support the further assertion that the inscription "adds to the credence of Josephus on Jesus". It is difficult to work out the reasoning behind this assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.82.216 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very valid criticism. The idea that "most scholars" ever had any doubts that Pilate existed is without foundation and seems to be based purely on unsourced claims made in popular Christian apologetic literature. I have removed the references to this supposed "doubt" and suggest they should stay removed unless someone can actually back them up with clear citations of material to support this claim. TimONeill (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either the subject or related Wiki articles anachronistic?[edit]

The article states that the stone contains a dedication to the deified Augustus and Livia. The article also states that the stone is contemporary to Pilate’s lifetime. However, the Wikipedia article states that Pilate died around (I assume that “c.” stands for circa) AD 37, and the article on Livia states that she wasn’t defied until AD 42 under her grandson, the emperor Claudius. Can anyone reconcile this apparent conflict? Thank youHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the only evidence Pilate existed was this stone so his death can't be known with too much certainty. If it was "circa" AD 37 that means it was around then. There is a margin of error there and it's quite possible (or even likely with this stone as evidence) that he actually died in 42 AD. In other words we just don't know for sure. Popish Plot (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Pilate Stone[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pilate Stone which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That website, seems to have some good info and it shows what it's sources are at the bottom. But it would make more sense to check the sources it shows, use them for this wiki article if they are reliable, rather than just assuming everything on that website is reliable. It probably got blacklisted because some info was previously found to be inaccurate there. Popish Plot (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Pilate Stone[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pilate Stone which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Pilate Stone[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pilate Stone which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyberbot. User:Cyberpower678 I want to get your education because I'm not sure what your bot is saying here, what is wrong with the blacklisted link? Popish Plot (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply blacklisted. I can't tell you why. The is simply following the official blacklists. If you follow the links on the message above the people that clerk there can help you better.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this is an important artifact and should have accurate info but blacklisted makes me think it's false info! Don't want that. Popish Plot (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting ready to edit the page to get rid of the blacklisted website as a source but now I don't see it used as a source anywhere. User:Cyberpower678 is it possible the bot is wrong? Popish Plot (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the source doesn't exist on the page, Wikipedia won't allow the bot to add the tag.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are it's sources:

^ The Pilate Inscription

2.Jump up ^ Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence by Jonathan L. Reed 2002 ISBN 1563383942 page 18

3.^ Jump up to: a b Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1998 ISBN 9004111425 page 465

4.Jump up ^ A History of the Jewish People, H.H. Ben-Sasson editor, 1976, page 247: "When Judea was converted into a Roman province [in 6 CE, page 246], the Romans moved the governmental residence and military headquarters from Jerusalem to Caesarea.

5.Jump up ^ Historical Dictionary of Jesus by Daniel J. Harrington 2010 ISBN 0810876671 page 32

6.Jump up ^ Jerry Vardaman, A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as 'Prefect' , Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 81, 1962. pp 70–71.

7.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the ossuaries, Volume 44, Baylor University Press, 2003. pp 45–47

8.Jump up ^ A History of the Jewish People, H.H. Ben-Sasson editor, 1976, page 247: "When Judea was converted into a Roman province [in 6 CE, page 246], Jerusalem ceased to be the administrative capital of the country. The Romans moved the governmental residence and military headquarters to Caesarea. The centre of government was thus removed from Jerusalem, and the administration became increasingly based on inhabitants of the Hellenistic cities (Sebaste, Caesarea and others)."

9.Jump up ^ A.N. Sherwin-White, review of "A. Frova, L'iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea" in The Journal of Roman Studies, 54 (1964), p.258.

I am probably being clueless here if so I apologize.Popish Plot (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Pilate Stone[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pilate Stone which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgery[edit]

But this so called "Pilate stone" appears to be a forgery:

The 1962 forgery of the so-called “Caesarea inscription”

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the last row of the "infobox" about this "stone":

Significance: Confirms historicity of Pontius Pilate and rank of administrators of Judea prior to Claudius

OK, so the editor(s) creating this article want to believe the "historicity of Pontius Pilate and rank of administrators of Judea prior to Claudius"? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked page is not about the Pilate stone. It is about a completely different inscription with possible bearing on the historicity of Nazareth. There is no mention of Pilate or the Pilate stone, and no connection besides the fact that both objects were found in Caesarea Maritima. --Amble (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move request: Stone -> stone[edit]

Requested move 10 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure). sst✈^·discuss· 07:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilate Stone → Pilate stone – There is no indication that "Pilate Stone" exists as a fixed proper noun. Instead, it appears to be a descriptive title and should therefore have lower-case "s" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Amble (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks SSTflyer for closing and moving. --Amble (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amble: remember to update the capitalization used within the article text to maintain consistency. sst✈^discuss 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Amble (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of image[edit]

Why is the main image in this article a picture of a replica, and the picture of the original is in a less conspicuous position further down? It should be the other way round. Richard75 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]