Luke - by the companion of Paul; intended as a historical document

Matthew - by the Apostle and tax collector; formulated as a teaching gospel

John - by the Apostle; a kerygmatic and missionary presentation

The implication of the Gospels, at any rate, is that anyone who became a disciple of Jesus, became an "ex-" whatever they were before - Matthew became an ex-tax collector; Peter, an ex-fisherman; thus Simon, an ex-Zealot [ibid, 10n].

The presumption is that Matthew (and Mark) reads events as follows:

To this we may add the following observation:

Now to the broader question: Is the Pontius Pilate recorded in the Gospels equivalent to the Pontius Pilate known to history? Critics say no, and we shall let the Still voice the chief objection:

2) There is no evidence for any earlier occurrence of the term;

Let's have a "round-up" of relevant opinions in this regard - bearing in mind that our stance here is that once Mark and Matthew are read critically, they reveal the same order of events as Luke and John:

2) The trial was illegal, and Jesus was not convicted.

I see no requirement for a denunciation anywhere; as for the hearing - there was one, according to John. That would be the place where Caiaphas made his "one dying for the nation" speech. Or, it could be the meeting at Annas' place that counted in that respect.

Again, skeptical response here is notably ineffective. Fricke

As we note elsewhere, to claim on your own to be the Messiah would be taken as proof that you most assuredly were not telling the truth - and thus, you could very well be charged with blasphemy.

Sedition Sentence, Execution Power

No? What about encouraging people to see Him as God's only Son or as the Messiah, and claiming the attributes of God? What about demonstrating against the Temple order, which was ordained by God, thereby suggesting rebellion against God's established order and leaving open the option of going to other gods? And even beyond that, Pesch's Qumran interpretation covers that issue - it was seen as encompassing more than just simple idolatry.

This, indeed, seems well-agreed to by critics:

And indeed, the further evidence that I have uncovered indicates that this is more of an affirmatory phrase, and one actually in line with social constraints of the day. Let us look at two examples of its use in detail:

And now some other relevant objections:

He also indicates that because of the improper behavior of the high priest and the unjust conditions of the Sanhedrin trial, more upright members of the Sanhedrin protested and refused to convict - thus forcing the high priest to rework the charge into one of sedition, and thereby explaining why Jesus was not stoned.

Who is the Real Pontius Pilate?

*Simon the Modest, in reply to Rabbi Eliezer's question concerning his lack of adherence to Temple protocol: "Are you ashamed to admit that the high priest's dog is more beloved than you?", replies "You have said so" - which may be seen as a "shame-faced acquiescence and an embarrassed admission" that Eliezer has caught him. [ibid., 220]