Because of it, we all know that Gibson is a traditional Roman Catholic. A way to view this movie is as part of an inner Catholic dialogue. Some Catholics argue that Gibson's Passion skews the meaning of the Crucifixion and causes deep distress because it seems to be unaware of the Passion narrative's role in the history of the persecution of the Jews.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recently reissued The Bible, The Jews and the Death of Jesus: A Collection of Catholic Documents, which brings together excerpts from official statements pertaining to the presentation of the Passion and Death of Christ, whose intent is "not only to end prejudices against Jews and Judaism, but also to better understand salvation in Christ by seeing the unique place of Jews and of the Jewish religion in the unfolding of salvation."

Credit for many of the movie's extra-biblical details (Satan's appearance at Gethsemane, at the trial and at the end, apparently defeated; Jewish priests who give bribes to obtain false witness against Jesus; and explicit details of his prolonged scourging) derive from the mystical visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are other extra-biblical details. Why should Mary Magdalene now be identified as the woman taken in adultery? Or Pilate's wife (whose name readers of the New Testament will be intrigued to know is Claudia) offer towels to Mary and Mary Magdalene to wipe up Jesus' blood after his scourging.

The effect of including this extra-biblical material, however one views it, creates exactly what readers of the gospels take for granted, and what is perhaps Mel Gibson's theological contribution --  namely, a visual narrative of Jesus' journey from Gethsemane to Golgotha.

This visual narrative, accompanied by carefully staged iconic moments, intentionally replaces the gospel narratives. None of them are apparently enough in and of themselves.
A pastiche of John's Passion account is blended with Matthew's trial scene.

Nor are these enough. From the cross, Jesus utters the seven last words of Matthew and Mark, together with his final words from Luke and John. He is crucified between two criminals, one of whom is promised paradise; but then a raven alights on the cross to pluck out one's eye.

It is the powerful weight of this visual narrative and its crossover effects on audiences that we must assess. Nothing of Jesus' healing ministry and compassion counts for anything. What we see in Mel Gibson's movie is not so much atonement theology as blood sacrifice. Why?

Neither atonement theology or blood sacrifice belongs to gospel traditions. Driving the relentless shedding of blood is Gibson's and Emmerich's notion of the enormity of human sin and concomitant guilt. For this there is never enough spilled blood.

According to Gibson, only this much blood suffices for the sins of the world, including yours and mine. What kind of god requires relentless suffering and torture culminating in an excruciating death? What kind of god is so angry and vengeful that people leaving theaters feel anxious and guilty? Is this in fact a Christian God?

Is it not ironic that Protestants should flock to a movie whose vision is driven by extra scriptural material? Gibson's Passion affords us an opportunity to ponder these questions and others like them. Nothing could be more profitable as we approach Easter.