"Stereo-typical Jews (with hooked nose and kippa)"

Apparently there are many many Jews who are Stereo-typical Jews (a former co-worker of mine could be described this way - great guy btw) and thus should not appear on movie screens being portrayed doing things. Kippa = yarmulke right? For crying out loud, you can't show a Jew wearing a yarmulke doing something bad?

"Jews... taking bribes to give false witness against Jesus"

I think you have in mind Judas (one character), although I'm not sure he "bore false witness" he just turned the wanted guy in, seems like that's bearing true witness to me. Anyway, why did you use the plural? Apparently now if you portray a Jewish character in a film doing a negative thing that's "antisemitic". This is precisely why I get annoyed by the complaint and argue against it BTW. It's so condescending. Look: Jews are people & are capable of doing bad things, like other people. To imply that all stories must pretend otherwise is to coddle Jews as like pets.

"a group of blood thirsty psychopathic priests who, for no apparent reason but their innate vangefulness, keep on asking for Jesus' death to the very end"

It wasn't for no apparent reason, it was for an obvious reason which was perfectly apparent: because Jesus had blasphemed against the Lord their God, had claimed to be the "messiah". Had I been a member of the Sanhedrin (which implies, living in that society, having the religious views they did, etc) I reckon I would have voted the exact same way and called for his death as well. The case against him was pretty clear-cut and his own testimony was all one needed. But anyway, let's stipulate that the audience will come away thinking that particular group of Jews (the pro-crucifixion faction of the Sanhedrin - remember, there was an anti-faction as well, they just lost the vote) was portrayed doing bad stuff/having bad feelings in this film.

Thing is, other Jews were portrayed doing good stuff/having good feelings in the exact same film. Again, this is because Jews are, you know, people, some of them good some bad.

"itself much exaggerated compared to the account in the Gospels"

The account in the Gospels is sketchy so there's no disputing that the film writer filled in details according to how he felt like. Any writer of this story would have to. Anyway so you're asserting (probably correctly) that the film exaggerated the extent to which a bunch of ROMAN soldiers (or perhaps Syrians working as Roman soldiers? not clear but historically many of them would have been Syrians AFAIK) scourged JC etc. and somehow this exaggeration is an example of... antisemitism?

"the faces of the priests and their hypocritical soft talk to the Romans in charge"

Explain hypocritical. I don't even see them as hypocritical to begin with. They were priests in a theocratic society being occupied by a pagan empire; thus they had a very difficult fence to straddle. Again, I'd probably have acted pretty much the same way in their place.

"a very kind and benevolent Pilate"

Again, like Judas, Pilate is one (1) character. Does the movie Forrest Gump accuse all Americans of being simpletons? (Hmm don't answer that :) Now, I understand perfectly well that in the Bible stories Pilate's role was probably soft-pedaled/gussied up for later, Roman audiences. I understand that this aspect of the story, like many other aspects, was used in antisemitic ways in passion plays. But I don't see "the Jewish priests wanted him executed and the Roman proconsul guy was a soul searching Hamlet", however dubious historically (and literarily), as being antisemitic. This is because: I didn't see a problem with the Jewish priests' position (contextually) in the first place; Pilate came off like a cowardly bureaucrat; and I don't take either one of them to Represent The Races They Come From. And you really *can't* do this if you watch the whole movie, as I said there were Jews who *didn't* want JC to be killed, and Romans who were bloodthirsty monsters. Why pick on Pilate, and Caiphas, and say "the film's making The Romans look good and The Jews look bad" instead of picking on say Head Sadistic Roman Guard, and Jew Who Helps Carry Jesus's Cross, and say "the film's making The Romans look like monsters and The Jews look compassionate"?

Objectively I don't see why one would pick one interpretation over the other.

"bloodthirsty Jewsih rabble in complete contrast to real historical accounts"

I don't know what "real historical accounts" there are of the Jesus Of Nazareth Case which you could be basing this on. The Bible story goes that there was some crowd outside the courthouse and they wanted Barabbas spared and not Jesus. This film portrays that story. BTW everyone assumes this was a "bloodthirsty Jewish rabble" but supposing such an incident really did take place no one here knows what would have been the demographic makeup of that particular crowd of some (200? 300?) people outside Pilate's offices. Could some have been Syrian? Ethiopian? Could there have been anti-Jesus plants in the or Roman instigators in the crowd? Sure. Could the crowd have been majority pro-Jesus but this was a silent majority? Sure. The leap from "that crowd wanted Barabbas" to "this says something bad about The Jews" is one that I simply don't make.

Maybe my problem is that I think to some extent antisemitism in a film/story depends on *two* people to exist, the one who writes the story and the one who hears the story and *interprets* it in antisemitic ways. Since I didn't, I don't see the problem... For the record I don't dispute that if you show this film in many parts of Arabia you'll get an antisemitic reaction.

"well known antisemitic symbolisms like showing Satan repeatedly walking among the Jews-his people(?)"

WTF? Who said "the Jews" are "his people"? Jesus was also walking amongst the Jews, and besides he WAS one, doesn't this outweigh the other?

"the famous "his blood be on us and our children" line that was still there"

"still there"? Well I guess.. it's "still" in the Bible after all. Granted perhaps the Bible is simply antisemitic and you simply can't tell this particular story therefore without being antisemitic or leaving out certain aspects of it found in the Bible. That seems to be what others here are saying, in which case, so be it.

"even THEY had the Jewish authorities divided in two opposing camps ... My point is that Mel Gibson's film lacked even this."

No it didn't. At least in the film I saw it was evident that the Sanhedrin were divided, although obviously the "guilty" side won out.

Of course, again, I'm in a rather strange position because I too would've voted "guilty", I don't see why it's so shocking that an overt blasphemer would've been voted guilty by priests in such a society (ANY such society). Nor do I see why that reflects poorly on the race from which those priests come - or even on those priests themselves.