Of course, disagreements arose over the exact order and wording of God's Commandments. Thus, it was easy for Jesus to offend someone. He seemed to offend just about everyone by dismissing them all with his new message. Well, he upset the nobles and the priestly class. The masses adored him (at least, that's the way the story goes).
All major religions (most minor ones, too), have adherents who disagree over everything. Doctrine. Dogma. Ritual. You name it, they'll argue about it. Many go so far as to persecute those who differ with them. Judaism is no exception.
In the time of Jesus, Judaism was divided among the Pharisees (no relation to Pharaoh) and the Sadducees as well as a few minor sects. The Sadducees were primarily composed of the noble and priestly classes, hardly the kith and kin of a common carpenter from Nazareth. The Pharisees were composed more of the common classes, the people who Burnett cast following Jesus on his travels. However, in Burnett's interpretation of Biblical history, the Pharisees were at the center of the conspiracy to have Jesus crucified. Perplexing, isn't it?
It's easy to envision Burnett's version of Jesus as a progressive of his time. As Burnett presents the story, we are told that Jesus believed that Mosaic Law could be reinterpreted, even dismissed, if it conflicted with his vision of the path to redemption, much like modern American progressives feel that the Constitution can be reinterpreted or dismissed if it interferes with their vision of fairness.
I don't know about you, but I was taught differently. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. All laws, rules, and regulations must conform to the standards set by the Constitution. The Ten Commandments are the laws of ethical living that should guide all our lives and ultimately by which our lives are judged.
I'm not a Biblical scholar. I have to depend upon the lessons taught to me by real Biblical scholars. They taught me that the temple priests were unhappy with Jesus' popularity because it threatened their tenuous relationship with the Romans. These priests weren't Pharisees. Like Herod, they were barely Jews. They were Edomites and Nabateans who practiced Judaism. Inasmuch as most Jews didn't accept them as real Jews, the Romans felt comfortable elevating Herod to King and his cohorts to priests of the Temple, so that they could administer Judea as a client state. Herod and the Temple priests remained in the good favor of the Romans so long as they kept the kingdom pacified and kept the taxes flowing into Roman coffers. Jesus threatened that peace by providing the people with a popular focal point to disregard attempts by Herod and the priests to make over their nation and their religion in the image of Rome.
You should be able to see where this is going. The Blood Liable that Jews crucified Jesus, the one used to justify the persecution of Jews throughout the ages, was misguided. Yet, Burnett and his experts chose to repeat it in their production. There is little difference between their version of the Bible story and the Passion Plays used in Medieval Europe to inspire the Crusades and the murder of Jews.
Granted, all tellings of biblical stories are interpretations. Opinions will differ, and there are many who believe that theirs is the one true interpretation and all others are merely misguided opinions. Thus, this posting is just another opinion, mine.