hey look! we're totally not antisemetic! caiphas and judas werent bad!

if you're going to tell the bible story, tell the bible story. if you want to tell a more realistic passion story, tell a more realistic passion story. but dont try to do both and screw the whole thing up

if you want a realistic version, than take caiphas and the sanhedrin out of the story completely, and just have pilate and rome assume the blame. you already got rid of herod to suit your story. if realism is what you wanted, take out the temple leadership entirely.

if you want to tell the biblical story, well then there is no getting around that the gospels, luke and john especially, make certain jews look really bad and absolve the romans of any responsibility. probably not historically accurate, but at least we'd know you were telling the biblical narrative (notwithstanding the obvious gospel contradictions in the empty tomb and trial before the sanhedrin stories)

it's obvious the writers were trying way too hard to be politically correct and avoid any whiff of blood libel. but they end up making the whole story even more implausible in the process.

they should have just called this "the anti-gibson passion of christ". tag line: "finally, a passion story the jews can watch!".