I quoted Brown later which critiqued Crossan’s portrayal of him as a bit one sided. Despite that he does still appear quite docile in the Biblical accounts. Pilate wasn’t there to teach. He was there to make sure disturbances were kept to a minimum. But we have no need to assume he could never be diplomatic about things. That is correct.
I think accepting the gospel rendition cart blanche is historically naive based on Pilates’s history in Josephus, the obvious literary significance of Barabbas, the absurdity of releasing any prisoner requested—including a murderer guilty of insurrection against Rome, problems with lines of transmission, and the tendency of parts of the later church to exculpate the Romans and look disdainfully on the Jews.
It’s difficult for me to shake the reading where Jews are portrayed as accepting a different type of Messiah while rejecting the real one and accordingly, sealed their own fate with Rome and the destruction of the temple. This doesn’t mean there isn’t any truth to the account nor that there aren’t other compelling possibilities, but it certainly makes it difficult to justify the details on historical grounds.
You are also correct that Pilate himself could have released a prisoner. There is nothing implausible about that and it has historical verisimilitude. Of course not implausible doesn’t mean did occur. There simply is no way what Mark narrates is true in total (any prisoner). Believing Pilate released a murderous insurrectionist, someone who started a lethal revolt against Rome, is a bridge built way too far.
Vinnie