Bill Buckley: BLOODY PASSION

Yahoo! News ^ | Tue, Mar 09, 2004 | William F. Buckley Jr

[Joe Republc]

"...I write as author of a book ("Nearer, My God") in which I included a vision of the Crucifixion by an Italian mystic, Maria Valtorta. A learned priest cautioned against taking this liberty. "Valtorta seems to have solved the Synoptic problem that's been plaguing scholars for centuries, viz., the contradictions between Matthew, Mark and Luke. She has St. Dismas, the good thief, blessing Christ; Matthew (27:44) has him reviling him (Luke and Mark do not); she has Our Lord drinking gall mixed with vinegar (Mark 15:36 has him drinking just vinegar). I was amused to see Joseph of Arimathea boldly traversing the line of 50 soldiers and the angry Jews in order to get near the cross, since in Mark (15:43) we're told he 'took courage' to go to Pilate to retrieve the body."

Somewhat beside the main point here, but any Bible scholars out there that can reconcile what Buckley claims to be inconsistencies between the Gospels?

As for the movie criticism about violence, I also felt the scourging scene was a bit much, but overall I thought the film was very well done and generally true to the Gospels.

-- Joe

[My2Cents]

Only William F. Buckley could summons up an unknown Italian mystic to rebuke Mel Gibson's film.

[My2Cents]

They aren't inconsistency; only additional information.

[freebilly]

Buckley views the movie with the prejudices of an intellectual.

It's a pity that the story can't entirely be understood with the intellect....

[presidio9]

The inconsistencies are relatively minor. These were eyewittness accounts written by different people at different times and in different locations. The miraculous thing is that they have so many seemingly trivial details in common.

[wardaddy]

I hate to say this..we all here owe WFBj a lot, but this review has a Kerry style waffling that is undesirable.

Is there something in the water?

[Tempest]

So what the author is trying to say is that Jesus's sacrafice really wasn't a big deal and that basically the Roman soliders stubbed his toe before gently easing him onto the cross.

Alright I got it. . .

[Tribune7]

Somewhat beside the main point here, but any Bible scholars out there that can reconcile what Buckley claims to be inconsistencies between the Gospels?

I'm not a Biblical scholar but the minior inconsistancies -- the death of Judas or the Lord's genealogy -- helped lead me to conclude the Gospel was true.

I took the small descrepancies to mean there was no collaboration, which meant the important parts were corroborated by independent witnesses who were endevouring to tell the truth.

[moneyrunner]

Apparently, this is not the movie the Bill Buckley would have made. On the other hand, Bill’s hit movies include ……., sorry I’m having a mental block. Can anyone help me here?

[per loin]

That is the Gibson/"Braveheart" contribution to an agony that was overwhelmingly spiritual in character and perfectly and definitively caught by Johann Sebastian Bach in his aptly named "Passion of Christ According to St. Matthew." There beauty and genius sublimate a passion that Gibson celebrates by raw bloodshed.

That's right Bill, no suffering involved. Everyone just sat quietly and attentively listening to music. No blood, no dirt, and none of that nasty sweating.

[anniegetyourgun]

LOL. Methinks there is a reason why the Buckster retired....and he should keep on doing so.

[buwaya]

His writing is off - he is getting very old.

[Just mythoughts]

"Somewhat beside the main point here, but any Bible scholars out there that can reconcile what Buckley claims to be inconsistencies between the Gospels?"


They are not inconsistence!

We have 4 people writing what our Heavenly Father inspired them to write. If they all wrote the same thing what would be the purpose. Call it 4 witness and what they saw at the crime scene.

[sinkspur]

Apparently, this is not the movie the Bill Buckley would have made

No, but, as Buckley points out, it is entirely consistent with Gibson's style, given the bloodiness of "Braveheart" and "The Patriot."

Mel takes violence out five decimal places.

[katya8]

It is imperative that ugly matters be sublimated.

Whenever they are not, people become either violent, suicidal, or both.

We shall all be able to witness this phenomenon, a few months from now.

[Eala]

One sees for dozens of minutes soldiers apparently determined to flog to death the man the irresolute procurator had consented merely to "chastise."

With all due respect, Mr. William F. Buckley Jr. needs to go back and view that movie again. From beginning to end the flogging may well have taken up "dozens of minutes," but in my second viewing (for other analytical purposes -- vanity link) I noticed that relatively little time was spent on the flogging itself; a significant time was spent on flashbacks, some more on the crowd (often with shadows/reflections/sounds to remind you what was going on). But the audience is spared what Jesus was not: every stroke.

[Sabertooth]

Consider Matthew: "And when (Pilate) had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. ... Then they spat on him and took the reed and struck him on the head." Luke: "I will therefore chastise him and release him" -- Luke records that the soldiers "mocked" him. And John: "So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. ... "And they (the soldiers) struck him with their hands."

Buckley becomes yet another pundit who fails to notice that "The Passion of the Christ" begins with a quote from Isaiah 53.

Isa 52:13	Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
Isa 52:14	As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
Isa 52:15	So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for [that] which had not been told them shall they see; and [that] which they had not heard shall they consider.
Isa 53:1	Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa 53:2	For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3	He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4	Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5	But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6	All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7	He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8	He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9	And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10	Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11	He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12	Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. LINK

[sinkspur]

Methinks there is a reason why the Buckster retired....and he should keep on doing so.

Why? Because he thinks the movie is a bit gratuitously violent? I haven't seen it yet, but there is enough critical mass out there to make that argument.

So what? That doesn't mean that Buckley is senile; it just means that he thinks Gibson was a bit loose with some of the account(much of which was based on the recounting of "visions" of a mystic, Catherine Emmerich). It appears that he was.

I'm forming the opinion that Gibson knew he had to make the movie violent in order to differentiate it from all the saccharin stuff that has gone before.

One should not automatically skewer someone who disagrees with the level of violence, since we cannot know just how violently Jesus was scourged.

[per loin]

How then do you explain the continued existence of Rosie O'Donell?