Five days after the opening of Mel Gibson’s controversial film “The Passion of the Christ,” professors and students are reflecting on allegations that the movie presents anti-Semitic material.

Released to coincide with Ash Wednesday, the film presents what Gibson, the director, calls a historically accurate picture of the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The film—which has grossed $117.5 million in its first five days, according to the Associated Press—has made headlines for months amid debates over its historical accuracy.

Dustin M. Saldarriaga ’06, who saw the film Wednesday night in the Square, was surprised that most of the people in theater clapped at the end of the movie.

But Todd D. Fine ’04 said he felt the movie was clearly anti-Semitic.

“My initial reaction was that I felt that the critics of the movie had, if anything, understated the degree of anti-Semitism of the movie,” he said. “At every juncture where there was some ambiguity in the Bible, he chose to paint the Jews as bad as possible.”

Rev. Peter J. Gomes, Plummer professor of Christian morals, said he recommended the film but would only give it a B+ on the grounds that many portrayals of the passion had already been done.

“It seemed to me essentially a faithful reproduction of Roman Catholic piety of an earlier day,” Gomes said. “It deserves to be taken seriously.”

Hillel Vice President for Community Building Eric R. Trager ’05 said he thought that the movie was one-sided.

“What I saw on the screen was an overplaying of Jewish guilt in the death of Christ without the accompanying compassion that Jesus himself preached throughout his lifetime,” he said.

Harvey G. Cox Jr., Thomas professor of divinity, is requiring his class Religion 1076, “Fundamentalisms,” to see the movie over spring break.

But some in the class feel that they should not be forced to see it.

Polly R. Seplowitz ’05, a student in the class, wrote in an e-mail that she “feels very uncomfortable supporting Mel Gibson’s work.”

“While Gibson is entitled to his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, imposing this belief on a mass audience is simply irresponsible. The result may very well be the reinforcement of already growing anti-Semitism,” Seplowitz wrote.

But many viewers said that they thought the movie’s anti-Semitism stemmed from history itself.

Peter C. Mulcahy ’07 said that the Jews were not solely responsible for Jesus’s death in the movie’s depiction.

“I feel like Gibson did a pretty good job of making you hate everyone involved,” Mulcahy wrote in an e-mail. “I thought it was generally fair in portraying what the earlier Gospels, not John, do in the Bible—blame all of humanity for these sins and thus Jesus’s substitutional atonement.”

Gomes also said that the film’s alleged anti-Semitism is a consequence of what he called its historical accuracy.

According to Gomes, “The Passion of the Christ” is “no more [anti-Semitic] than Christianity carries a message of anti-Semitism.”

“Christianity is burdened with an original sin of anti-Semitism...and a refusal to recognize the Jewish origins of the Christian faith,” he said. “At a certain level, anti-Semitism is almost an empty epithet these days.”

But Christopher P. Jones, Lane professor of the classics and history and teacher of the popular Historical Studies B-09, “The Christian Revolution,” contested the film’s its claim to historical accuracy, although he has not seen the film.

“Anyone who studied those texts knows that, for one thing, they are not written by eyewitnesses...They’re something like 40 years later,” Jones said. “You can’t produce a film that is unprejudiced and uninvolved by using those accounts.”

Kaitlin Burek ’06, president of the Harvard-Radcliffe Catholic Student Association, wrote in an e-mail that viewers should remember that the film is only “one person’s interpretation of the Passion.”

Many also said that they were concerned about the film’s graphic violence.

“This seems to be a Christian version of ‘Kill Bill,’” said Jones, referring to the Quentin Tarantino movie released several months ago.

But Gomes, Jones and Saldarriaga said that the violence was historically accurate.

“[It was] definitely violent, but in a very historical way,” said Saldarriaga.

According to Gomes, “There is so much gratuitous violence in the world...I don’t think you can hang on the violence issue as a way of condemning the film.”

And while most of the controversy over the film centers on its alleged anti-Semitism, Shaye J.D. Cohen, Littauer professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy, said it raises a different debate.

“The right question to ask is whether the film implicitly or explicitly sees the Jews of later times...as condemned, damned, or sinful, because of the complicity of some of their ancestors in the crucifixion,” Cohen wrote in an e-mail.

At issue is whether Gibson rejects the doctrine enacted by the Second Vatican Council, which absolved the Jews of responsibility for Jesus’s death.

Cohen draws a distinction between the traditional anti-Jewish doctrine of the Catholic church, which condemns the Jews who killed Jesus, with the anti-Semitic hatred of other Jews because of their ancestors. He said Vatican II tried to end only the latter.

But many who have seen the film do not believe that it promotes anti-Semitism.

“Anyone who pays attention to the movie...would not leave the theater with any feeling of anti-Semitism,” Saldarriaga said.

Gomes also said that there was no danger of the movie promoting anti-Semitism.

“I don’t think any person will see this movie and think, ‘look what the Jews did,’ and go out onto the street and try to get his hands on the Jews,” he said.

And many members of the Jewish community said they praise the movie for fostering a dialogue about the Bible and modern anti-Semitism.

“It’s an interesting thing that while the movie itself may be so problematic...it brought people together from many different backgrounds” said Hillel’s Director of Programming Michael A. Simon, referring to an interfaith discussion of the film held at Hillel about two weeks ago.