In the first century, as now, the praise accorded this separated Jewish group in the Christian writings must have rankled those Judean, Galilean and diaspora Jews to whose notice it came. It would have confirmed them in their view of the noṣrim as incorrigibly deviant from halakah. The principle of the ancient world was, “Your friends are my friends and your enemies are my enemies.” The favorable notice given to these enemies of the Jews by Jesus' followers could only have set the movement back in Jewish eyes.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 8FA173AB85 (my bold)
It has been argued in past, probably wrongly, that Pilate was introduced as killer of Jesus in the Gospel tradition by Judaizers against the Gentilizers (who at contrary accused the 'Jews' as the only killers of Jesus).
At contrary, there is really too much obvious evidence that:
- 1) Pilate was a cruel enemy of the Jews. Only read Josephus and Philo.
- 2) the Samaritans were enemies of the Jews.
The introduction of Pilate as killer of Jesus could be part and parcel of the same process by which the Parable of the Good Samaritan was invented. Paraphrasing the quote above, I may well say:
The principle of the ancient world was, “Your friends are my friends and your enemies are my enemies.” The favorable notice given to that enemy of the Jews — Pilate — by Jesus' followers could only have set the movement back in Jewish eyes
Afterall, if the same principle was valid to explain the positive portrayal of the Samaritans in the Gospel tradition, why couldn't it be equally valid to explain the introduction of Pilate as a reluctant killer of Jesus?
The feature shared by both — Pilate and the Samaritans —, is that they didn't need to be Christians or pro-Christians in the real History to be portrayed positively by the Christians: what was sufficient for them to receive a such treatment and such a good reception in the Gospel tradition, was that they were both sufficiently famous as anti-Jewish symbols.