There were indeed Jewish protests about Pilate's conduct to Rome, in relation to both of the golden shields incidents (where Pilate used force once) and also Pilate's use of temple money to build an aqueduct in Jerusalem. Whether the protests were wholly legitimate in the case of the non-violent shields incident or the aqueduct building incident, is itself a matter that as Maier notes, could be argued either way. Still, the bloodthirsty depiction of Pilate would not square with the Gospel account of a man who seems to be looking for reasons *not* to crucify Jesus (one could certainly not find any trace of the Hurd Hatfield interpretation anywhere in the Gospels).
In the end, the tipping point was the "if you free this man you are no friend of Caesar!" threat, which in the context of previous letters of protest to Rome would have made Pilate very uneasy *especially* if as Maier argues, the timing of the Crucifixion took place after the fall from grace of Tiberius's former right hand Lucius Aelius Sejanus (who'd been exposed and put to death for conspiracy with Tiberius's daughter-in-law in the murder of Tiberius's only son). Sejanus had in effect been running administrative affairs in Rome while Tiberius had retreated to Capri, and was also notoriously anti-Jewish. During the days when Sejanus had the upper hand, Pilate would have hewed to a tougher policy against the Jews more out of good politics from his standpoint. But after the fall of Sejanus, Tiberius from Capri began to reverse many of Sejanus's positions, which meant showing more deference to the Jews. In *that* context, a protest letter to Caesar over the release of Jesus would have potentially made an impact on Tiberius not because of the merits of the case, but because it would have suggested to Tiberius that perhaps Pilate was still pursuing the Sejanus line. That ultimately was the thing Pilate had to be most afraid about. By that point in time, acting with bloodthirsty provocation against the Jews was the *last* thing he wanted to do because it would have run counter to general Roman policy at that point in time. (Admittedly this theory hinges on the matter of whether Sejanus's downfall took place before the Crucifixion. If evidence were to ever conclusively prove Sejanus fell from power after the Crucifixion, then this entire theory about Pilate goes out the window).
reply
share