FRiend, please think about this: if the plaque "King of the Jews" did not mean what it said, then what did it mean?
Or, to put it another way: if Pilate let Jesus be crucified for "blasphemy", then why didn't he write the word "blasphemy" on his plaque?
Kevmo from his 2008 link: "Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. "
Michael Grant is my source for saying that the New Testament is rather well attested to.
But neither Michael Grant nor any other serious historian would interpret that to mean every jot & tittle of the New Testament can be considered as historically accurate, especially where one account differs from others.
Sorry, FRiend, but history is not all about trying to prove the Bible.
It is partly about using as much of the Bible as possible to help confirm other data.
Kevmo from his 2008 link:
***Too late to try to go back and have legitimate discussion because you’re exposed as a heretic. You can make a pig into sausage but you can’t make a sausage into a pig. You turned it into sausage by pushing your historical-fantasy heresy.