In fact, there's no historical evidence to the contrary.
Regardless of the Gospels efforts to white-wash Pilate, the facts remain that by Roman law, only Pilate could order a crucifixion, and that only for a Roman capital crime, such as rebellion.
There is also non-biblical historical evidence that Pilate was a callous, cruel and uncaring ruler, for whom executions without trial were matters of routine.
That's why historically speaking, there's no evidence to suggest that Jews killed Jesus.
In fact, there’s no historical evidence to the contrary.
***Sure there is. The 4 gospels. They are only writing a historical account of the crucifixion, certainly not recording a despised miracle. On the basic mundane items of history, the gospels have proven to be very reliable historical documents. You’re trying to discount what historians know to be reliable and introduce some tertiary evidence that has no bearing on the case. That is not solid scholarship, it’s idealogical baloney.
Regardless of the Gospels efforts to white-wash Pilate,
***I don’t see this in the gospels, there’s simply an attempt to record the events as they were witnessed.
the facts remain that by Roman law, only Pilate could order a crucifixion,
***True.
and that only for a Roman capital crime, such as rebellion.
***Here you go off the rails. Produce your reliable source that says this is what happened. The existing reliable sources directly contradict your claim. Anyone who argues against historically reliable sources with nonexistent sources is practicing historical witchcraft.
There is also non-biblical historical evidence that Pilate was a callous, cruel and uncaring ruler, for whom executions without trial were matters of routine.
***Sure sounds like the Pilate I know from the gospels.
That’s why historically speaking, there’s no evidence to suggest that Jews killed Jesus.
***Dude. You don’t know squat about history if you claim such a thing. You’re just being driven by your idealogy. Produce your sources that back up your claim to historicity.