Pilate appears, in general, as a person who is maneuvered by Caiphas and the priestly Jewish elite. The new script, however, has Pilate saying that he nominated Caiphas for his present position (which was the way during those days). The priestly position was generally bought by influential families as a way of enhancing their power. Pilate was a very evil personality and finally ended his days in Rome being accused by Roman authorities of brutality.

Certain of the Gospels, especially the two latest ones, Matthew and John, seem on the surface to portray Pilate as a vacillating administrator who, himself, found "no fault" with Jesus and sought, though in a weak way, to free him. Other data from the Gospels and secular sources contemporary with the events portray Pilate as a ruthless tyrant. We know from these later sources that Pilate crucified hundreds of Jews without proper trial under Roman law, and that in the year 36 Pilate was recalled to Rome to give an account. Luke similarly mentions that "the Galileans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifice" in the Temple (Luke 13:1-4), does corroborate the contemporary secular accounts of the unusual cruelty of Pilate's administration. John, as mentioned above, is in pain, to show that Jesus' arrest and trial were essentially at Roman hands. Finally, the Gospels agree that Jesus' "crime," in Roman eyes, was that of political sedition-crucifixion in the Roman form of punishment for such changes. The document of the American Bishops stresses that, There is, then, room for more than one dramatic style of portraying the character of Pilate while still being faithful to the biblical record. Again, it is suggested here that the hermeneutical inside of Nostra Aetate and the use of the best available biblical scholarship cannot be ignored in the creative process and provide the most prudent and secure criterion for contemporary dramatic reconstructions.

Next: Pope John Paul II
and Anti-Judaism