Yup, that's what the printed word says. Did you have another account of the 'festivities'?
You concur that the Jewish mob was screaming for Jesus's head on a platter
Again, those are just the facts. Got another account, do you?
--as totally unjustified, either in history, or from the context of the story, as this contention is.
Perhaps you could share the 'alternative' historical account (which you simply presume). Most intriguing is your "context of the story" comment. What in the 'context of the story' suggests that the Jewish establishment of that day was not seeking Jesus' execution?
And you concur that PP was being portrayed as a kindly, sympathetic
No, the Gospels do not portray Pilate in any sense as 'kindly' or 'sympathetic'. Cowardly and indecisive, surely. Nothing kindly there.
and reluctant executor, which is, of course, transparent nonsense.
Yes, I think he was pretty clearly "reluctant.' At least reluctant to take responsibility for his own actions. Transparent, yes. Nonsense, no. So...how, exactly is it, that you are making a case for yourself that the gospels are not a heavily anti-jewish tract, as most historians think they were intended to be?
What, in the "context of the story" suggests to you that the Jewish mob was seeking the execution of a potential new messiah? Something they yearned in all their hearts for?
Which puts you and the Gospels at total, ludicrous odds with history, and common sense.
Yup, that's what the printed word says. Did you have another account of the 'festivities'?
No. Do you have an explanation as to how you think this somehow mean the Gospels lays the blood guilt somewhere other than at jewish feet? You give the impression of arguing with me, but somehow, one find's little actual disagreement here.