This episode, recorded only by Luke, has come under some critical fire. Under the historical scenario, the trip to Herod becomes very sensible. The Jewish leaders had charged Jesus with stirring up the people, first in Galilee and then in Judea. Pilate might well consider whether Jesus did something worthy of extradition. There is nothing incredible reported here: Herod was known to have attended feasts in Jerusalem; while Pilate was under no legal obligation to send Jesus over to Herod, he could certainly do so of his own volition; provincial governors (like Pilate) were free to ask for advice from anyone they pleased, even from another provincial governor (like Herod, who, being from Galilee, was likely a seasoned expert when it came to insurrectionists); and while there was a rule, in principle, that Roman authorities could not execute their power outside their jurisdiction, Roman give-and-take may have allowed for exceptions. It is even possible that Pilate knew of Herod's desire to see Jesus.

What did Pilate have to lose? If Herod passed judgment on Jesus, he could (as tetrarch) take Him back to Galilee and execute Him, allowing Pilate to counter the priests' manipulation. Even if Herod did not take that step (which is what happened), Pilate gained the advantage of a diplomatic gesture. Not only that, but Pilate may have seen the trip to Herod as a good way to gain time to set a counter-manipulation of his own into action—one which came to fruition in the Barabbas exchange.