Bill Buckley: BLOODY PASSION

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

[Sabertooth]

Thank you for that relevant/required quote. [The lies of omission by the media, et al have become rampant]

You're welcome.

I should have been more clear, though, that Gibson quoted Isaiah 53:3-5. I reposted the entire passage for context, and to give an idea of what other Biblical sources Gibson used besides the Gospels themselves.

[moneyrunner]

Well, for the most part, Mel Gibson makes action movies. Whether the violence in "Braveheart" and "The Patriot." is gratuitous or not is, of course, up to each individual to judge. Slasher movies like “Friday 13th” to use violence for its own sake. Braveheart and The Patriot were action movies that depict some of the violence of warfare. Trust me when I say that the actual battlefield is a great deal bloodier.

For the same reason, Buckley alludes to the brutality of pre-19th century punishment when he refers to sailors being lashed “around the fleet” and often beaten to death in the process. If you think this was done without bloodshed you are sadly mistaken.

What Buckley seems to object to is transforming the traditional version of the crucifixion. Before seeing The Passion, the crucifixion of Christ, to me, was almost abstract. A trial, Jesus being hit with a few willow wands, a thorn crown placed on his head, being made to carry his cross and then the crucifixion. All done is pastel colors, virtually without passion, certainly without unbearable pain (OK, maybe the nails on the cross hurt) and then on to the tomb and the resurrection. Rather antiseptic and certainly lacking in any grand passion.

The movie gave me a new perspective. As a student of history, I know of the inherent cruelty of ancient cultures. “Scourging” certainly meant more than the whipping schoolchildren once received from their teachers for misbehaving. While the gospels do not give us the details of the tortures that Jesus suffered before his crucifixion, the version the Gibson gives us is not inconsistent with the practices of the time or with the versions presented in the gospels. That is why I have to smile at those who condemn Gibson for historical inaccuracy. Unless one of the critics can produce a living eyewitness who will withstand cross-examination, I’m afraid that I side with Gibson.

[Joe Republc]

"...Buckley here has lost his mind. The Romans were not simple "chastisers", they were violent and cruel men."

Think about it. Anyone who nailed people to a cross would have to be a sick puppy. Especially if they got used to doing it.

If I had a Roman crucifier or scourger as a neighbor, I don't think I'd complain about how his lawn looked, or much of anything else...

-- Joe

[presidio9]

I haven't seen it yet

In that case, why not wait until you have before forming any starting point?

[Mr. Lucky]

Which has brought more People to Christ; Mel Gibson's one film or William Buckley's 40 odd years of self-absorbed thrashing about?

[AFPhys]

Bingo: Someone ought to point out to Mr.Buckley, talented as he is, and all we owe him, that when a "stoning" is mentioned in the Bible, not once do the authors go into what actually is meant by that word and the bloody aftermath of it. Gibson drew on several contemporary accounts of what "crucifixion" and "scourging" entailed and simply translated that to film. True, we do not know precisely that is what Jesus endured, but it is not true to our faith to believe that he was treated with kid gloves by the executioners.

I have witnessed this movie a second time (only the second movie I've seen twice, and I believe it is the first "R" movie I've seen in theater). It is clear that Buckley would benefit from such a repeat. For example, his statement, "It isn't only the interminable scourging, which is done with endless inventories of instruments" is false on both accounts.

I agree with moneyrunner's #42: I have to side with Gibson's account as being the most useful portrayal yet of Jesus' death.

[hobbes1]

Gibson has a reputation for producing violent, bloody movies, and The Passion apparently doesn't disappoint.

Ever ready with the Ad Hominem.....

Can you honestly say, that The Patriot, a movie about battles that were faught, with Guns, Cannon and Sword, up close, or Braveheart, depicting an age where men faught Battles with Axes and Swords, in close quarters were unrealistically bloody?

Is it not just as, nay, more fair to say that he produces accurate movies of Violent and Bloody times?

[walden]

"There is a disconnect in ths country between the elite and the rest of us and Mr Buckley is one of the elite."

Bingo. I love Buckley, I've read almost everything he's written, but he is definitely a country club Republican. I'm not-- just an old Texas gal.

[Jack Armstrong]

Thank You presidio 9
I think that many reader of this thread have failed to observe what Bill B. was all about here!

He wraps it up with...
The only serious question left in the viewer's mind is: Should God have exempted this gang from his comprehensive mercy? But that is because we are human, Christ otherwise.

The question here is what Bill wishes the pundits to answer... Buckley has still got it, he is lucid and clear. Bill Buckley Jr is right on target with his question..
I will take the liberty to answer him, for every one else has been side tracked with their short sidednessit seems! ...
Bill /No God did good at the cross , you know it and I know it HE (GOD) poured out His mercy through the perfect vessel of His Perfect Son. Bloody Celebrated Mercy freely poured out to whomsoever will take it! Bill/ Mel Gibson did a good job of depicting the whole of human sinfulness, it is not about antisymeticness it is about redemtion!
I believe brother william F. buckley Junior does understand it and so does mel Gibson. I choose to stand along with these two heroes of integrity and truth!