Add new comment

This is a story about an imperial governor, the local supporters of his regime and a dissident figure. Such a person in authority would naturally want and need to support the friendly faction but would also worry about their getting above themselves and raising anger and disturbance among other factions. The Gospels tell us implicitly that the Governor declined to take seriously the idea that someone who had ridden a donkey into Jerusalem amid some applause and who had overturned a few tables in the Temple - never organising an armed band or denouncing the Empire in any way - was in effect or in intention a threat to Rome. But the priestly faction and the mob they had recruited insisted. The law gave him discretion and he decided to use it to maintain the frienship of Rome and the Jewish leaders, even though he rather liked the enigmatic, Greek-speaking Jesus.
This may not be in the least bit true. It may be true that Jesus was simply a victim of imperialism, which we might like to think. But the story as we have it doesn’t seem particularly implausible or in clear need of revision