link
(The link won't be of much use if you don't have Google account. If you can afford it - yes, a good point - you might consider buying the book, it's probably one of those where this can be safely stated. But in any case, creating Google account is free, so, ...)
Fortunately, access to pages 129-132 is not restricted. Pilate is said to be an image of the hindrance on the way to the 'superman', a balanced development of will, emotions and intellect. Very cultured type and he understands. In his own Roman soldier way, though... And let's not forget he's definitely above prejudices of his time.
Interestingly, Pilate is an eternally recurrent unconcious role, besides the priests, the people, and so on. If this happens to me, to you, to us, we are nailed. It HAS already happened to us, we ARE mechanical and without a soul, so it will either not change and just remain as it was and continue eternally, or it can change.
Ouspensky obviously avoids counting in Judas in this context. Why? Judas is far better off, it seems. He is a typical full-of-shit, somebody who was for some reason attracted to the Work, but, alas, the Work is something a) much bigger b) entirely different than what he expected. Therefore, IMO, it is possible that somebody had to play a conscious role that is to communicate to a student a lesson even more vital. Later, Pilate/Judas pair might appear as the two criminals, one will go to heaven, he knows it is all for his past (criminal?) action, and another displays YAV, yet another version of washing of hands.
In teological terms, there are two possibilities, or three, for the sake of completeness: one is either Jesus, Man of God, prophet or the like (say that of yourself if you think this changes anything; it doesn't, of course, you either have the being or you don't), or one is recognizing the divinity of Jesus - the subtle point being that such can't be entirely criminal, and according to Jesus himself, not only that but there is actually great possibility of evolution (this is where ordinary religion tells you nothing, you are to accept and believe, period) - and the third possibility is that one is not recognizing (recognizing, not accepting/believing) the divinity of Jesus. Well, he must be a 'philosopher'... The very idea of the man of God seems intolerably absurd to these types. There lies the difference, innocent and the good criminal and the bad criminal, or in terms of OT (Kings, for example), the prophet, the good king and the bad king. It is about differences of being, not about differences of the chosen denomination variants, about different scopes of knowledge that a person has, or about the size of your nose.
Evolution can only come about by persistent work in a definite direction, it is said somewhere in A New Model. (If I just remember how people came to me, suggesting, like, it is, well, maybe a second rate book? Like, Ouspensky is suddenly just 'mediocre writer' when you get to the real thing. (I hope the guy has got enough of this 'real thing' by now to not repeat the same mistake again... I know, I'm just 2 wicked...) Like, me, allowing myself some serious considering of these learned opinions. Phew.)