the context is the history of multiple violent jewish rebellions before and after jesus.  pilate cucks out because he knows if he doesn't the end result is his head on a pike, either literally because the jews storm his throne and kill him, or figuratively when he has to explain to tiberius of all people why he let his province burn over pardoning a single criminal. pilate's actions amount to cowardice, not murder. the moral idea conveyed is that being under duress is no excuse for refusing to do the right thing. even a utilitarian take, ' killed this one guy, but look how many i saved keeping the jews from burning jerusalem', is no defense because it turns out the one guy was the son of god and acquiescing to the jews just emboldened them into an even more violent rebellion later on.   pilate was certainly governor of judea in 33ad and at this point in time the jewish priesthood had no authority to carry out an execution, nevermind a crucifixion, on their own. he is not a fabrication and his role in the story fits.  as for the idea that the jews may have had their own authority over executions, this is of course contradicted by scripture. however the argument against it is supported by the fact that right before the birth of jesus there had been a huge jewish revolt and then at least three major disturbances under pilate, so jewish autonomy was at a low point. again it's about knowing the context the story is placed in. before vatican 2 you'd have said the creed but also been told to pray for the conversion of the jews, told about the role of the sanhedrin in the story, and told about the curse the jews placed upon themselves. you'd have probably heard of claudia, pilate's wife, who was a roman like he was and begged him not to execute jesus, so a roman couple becomes a mirror of the first couple in the old testament, where adam sins by listening to the temptations of eve and pilate sins by refusing to listen to the mercy of claudia.
Mexico