mans, their supposed king, choose to set free Barabbas, who is referred to as a "bandit." (Ibid) Yet why would the Jews not rally for the release of Jesus, who had entered Jerusalem and was treated like a king just a few days before? The Roman Governor, Pilate, campaigned for the release of Jesus, whom he referred to as the "King of the Jews." Yet why would Pilate ever agree to let free such a powerful force? Could he have understood the political implications of letting free a man who he himself called a "king" in the very land he governed? Pilate is not seen as an evil Roman, in fact the Romans are hardly mentioned in the gospels. Historical evidence, however does not portray Pilate as the kind of governor who would've been merciful at all. To the contrary, in the writings of contemporary Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, Pilate was a particularly brutal figure when it came to the Jews (The Works of Josephus, Ch. 4; Cohen, et al. 55). Jesus conflict is portrayed as almost entirely against the Pharisees, yet historically, the Romans were the ones who were engaged in major persecution against the Pharisee class. Even the simple ideal of a "Passover privilege," in which the Jews are allowed to set free a prisoner, seems highly implausible, and indeed there is no historical account of this event (Wells, 198-207).
             Jesus is oblivious to Roman occupation, yet this was the central Jewish conflict of the time. Living under the yoke of an outside imperial power was a massive affront to the Jewish people (Grant, 154). The Jews were proud and able to trace back their roots to Israel farther back than any native peoples of the Roman Empire other than the Egyptians. They had their own self rule in Israel hundreds of years before Rome was even a blip on the map. To be controlled by this outside force was a humiliation. There was a small priestly class, known as the Sadducees, tha...