>I mean I dunno, maybe I'm making too much of it, but the whole
>tone of that scene just struck me as really off somehow; it
>seemed skewed to make it look like the Jews were really
>running the show and the Romans were these dumb unwitting
>lackeys beholden to their will. Which is INCREDIBLY
>ahistorical (that's what really bothered me about it at first
>actually), and it feeds into some the most pernicious
>anti-Jewish myths/stereotypes.

On the days we feel charitable, it might be more appropriate to say that the relationship between Roman and Palestine was a bit too complicated to portray in such a secondary manner in a movie. My impression is that it deviated pretty significantly from the way in which we'd ordinarily think of colonizer/colonized dynamics. Peter Brown's survey on Western Christendom makes a pretty convincing case that undergoverning was pretty systemic in the extremities of the Roman Empire.

The political situation for foreign overseers like the Romans was pretty tenuous, maybe best evidenced by the three serious (with one short term success) revolts within a century of Christ's death. Keeping the locals happy on small matters was pretty high on the priority list for Roman authority, and making sure not to appear ambitious past the authority allowed to them was similarly important to local Jewish authority.

Still, it's obviously notable that he'd err on the offensive side of a difficult-to-portray historical dynamic. Once again, it's a case of his actual life offering little reason for benefit of the doubt.

>As for including the Romans in with the good guys, well, the
>portrayal of Pilate was fairly sympathetic - I guess that's
>straight from the gospel account (I really wouldn't know if
>it's strictly from Luke, I'm not up on NT scholarship like
>that.)

It is Luke. I checked and I'm *very* pleased with myself that I actually got it right. Now, to justify the remaining fortune I've squandered on "education"...

>But yeah that is not in accordance with the
>contemporary Roman historical accounts, as Pilate was pretty
>brutal even for a Roman prefect. But what struck me as odd was
>the portrayal of Pilate's wife as such a saintly figure.

She actually is a saint in some Eastern churches. The story seems to assume the dream that led her to warn Pilate not to crucify Jesus (in Matthew... that one I looked up) eventually led her to convert. He might be as well, though I'm not as positive about that.

>Even the Jewish villians were still
>portrayed as human (if ugly ones at that),

This, I had a problem with. In a story about the outer reaches of the 1st century Roman Empire, *everybody* should be ugly. Maybe Jesus and Mary should have been given a pass, but past that...