OK. Let's see if I can make my points more clear this time around.
The issue was whether there were identifiable antisemitic symbols/stereotypes/stances...in the film which would make the film (deliberately?) antisemtic, besides the fact that the storyline is based on the Gospels. (Themselves already antisemtic in some parts(esp. Mathew and John))
I think it was. There are other films made about Jesus, and they all entail the trial, the role of Jewish priesthood and so on. So you can argue they all have some elements of antisemtism no matter what.
This film however has gone beyond this limit and the examples I gave were to show this, so your arguments about the historic events or the Gospel connectiosn are not really relevant.

Use of 'stereotypical "Jewish" look doing stereotypically "Jewish" things like taking bribes or coveting for money' is antisemtic.
Jews like any other people have different looks. That particular look IS an old time antisemtic symbol. Just look at the cartoons in Der Streicher or today's arab media.
(And I didn't mean Judas, but others who were contacted in the middle of the night and hired by the Temple to come and testify, and there were more than one, hence my use of plural tense)
As for psychopathic priests, that was they way they were portrayed, the acting styles , the faces, the hateful use of language, the way they readily chose Barabbas instead, their sometimes satisfied mostly indifferent and cold looks, while watching the most painful and inhuman torture.I think all you said about performing their religious duties could have been portrayed easily without all this.
As fopr the soft talk, again Jews being rash on those they have power over, but instead cuddling to those in power in a servant like and humble tone thus making them do their evil plans is an oldie. Have you seen "Jude suess" by any chance?

"a very kind and benevolent Pilate... having to deal with a bloodthirsty Jewsih rabble in complete contrast to real historical accounts"
I meant historical account about Pilate.(sorry for my poor English)
Pilate was a murderous sadist by all those accounts, sadist even by Roman standards of the time. In the film he looked, at least to me, like a kind and perplexed poor guy in charge of a stinking hateful people asking philosophical questions about "truth". You didn't see that? Don't you think Gibson could have portrayed him a bit more accurate historically? Don't you wonder why he didn't?

If the "blood" sentence is OK, why did he choose to omit the subtitle? If it was so problematic, why did he insist on keeping it there? Deliberate?

I also said there were one or two jews who weren't that bad. The scene with the Sanhedrin(?) members opposing nightly trial lasted what...5 seconds? In contrast to near two hours of hateful priests?
Simon of Cyrene, bearing the cross, became a Christian saint later as tradition goes, so that doesn't really count. Christian anti-semtism was agains Jews who chose to remain Jews and thus remain cursed, not the Jews who became Christians and were forgiven of their sins, as all Jesus desciples were Jews too as you said, but that is irrelevant.
In any case, 1 o 2 little shots like this can't compenstae all the rest of the film.

The Devil walking among Jews. Well, Jews being devil's lot and the Devil doing his work through them is a well known part of Christian anti-semitism and went on for centuries. What do you think those scenes in the film would convey? Why are they there? Do you see the Devil walking among Roman soldiers or gurads? Why only among the Jews and behind the priests? Coincidence again?

Depicting Jews in films sometimes doing bad things is not antisemtic. Depicting them, including their high priests, evil for being or remaing Jews or acting according to their beliefs is.

BTW, I didn't understand what you meant, but Jews are no "race".

hope that helps. :)

AIS