Pontius Pilate

The historical "experts" that seem to have emerged lately seem convinced that "historians agree that Pontius Pilate was a tyrant" in direct opposition both to his portrayal in the New Testament and the totality of the evidence, which gives a much more nuanced vision:

"Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE; in this capacity, he was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. This was not the only incident during his tenure of office, however. In this article, all these incidents are discussed. An attempt is made to show that Pilate was sincerely interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence."

Article on Pontius Pilate on livius.org

Interestingly, the "consensus" about the character of Pilate is based on the writings of two ancient Jewish historians, Philo and Josephus. I never quite got how Philo and Josephus are more reliable sources for the character of Pilate than the writers of the gospels. Remember that Roman-Jewish relationships were not exactly friendly in the 1st c. AD and there would be a great incentive to vilify the Roman administration of Palestine of the time. It is often claimed that the Christians made Pilate look good because they wanted to endear themselves to the Romans, a claim which is truly absurd once early Church history is considered, which is replete with Christians being killed by the Roman authorities.

Another example of anti-Pilate nonsense is the statement that seems to turn up in stories lately:

Given that Christians for the past couple of millennia have been reciting, in the Nicene creed, that “Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate,” it’s rather amazing what a stand-up fellow he turns out to be.

The Nicene creed says in the original Greek "epi Pontiou Pilatou", which means "during the time of Pontius Pilate" and has no bearing on the matter of whether or not Pilate was responsible.