Season 8 of “South Park” debuts this Wednesday. I know exactly what I’d love to see them do at some point, since it’s such a gargantuan target. I’m putting it onto extended entry just in case, by some unlikelihood, I happen to be right.
The local church organizes an outing to see “The Passion.” Kenny, Stan and Cartman totally freak out. The only one who still has his mind is Kyle since, of course, he didn’t see it ’cause he’s Jewish. But Kenny, Stan and Cartman now hate Kyle. Kyle, distraught over the situation, calls Jesus on his talk show and asks him for advice. Jesus hasn’t seen the film yet, but he goes to see it and is totally horrified, feeling his message of love, sacrifice and brotherhood has been totally lost in a two hour bloodbath. Infuriated, Jesus (or perhaps Santa Claus, or maybe even Satan) goes after Mel Gibson and inflicts hours of torment upon him, which has little effect on him because it turns out he actually loves it.
At the end, Kyle announces he’s learned something today, but we never know what it is because he’s stoned to death. But all turns out well when God resurrects him.
This, by the way, is not intended as a commentary on the film or its maker. I still haven’t seen it. It’s just speculation on the approach “South Park” might take.
PAD
• 
Matt Petersen: Well in all fairness there is not a lot of evidence for Hannibal crossing the mountains with his elephants either. There were only TWO known records of his crossing one was written by Hannibal himself (Yeah, that’s going to be accurate), and the other was written 300 years after is supposedly occurred. Yet that is in a lot of history books and taught in school as absolute fact.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, there
You make some good points there, Luigi, but you go too far.
Extrapolating a cause from an effect…
To compare the fact that there were followers of Jesus with followers of, say, Herakles, is absurd. There were significant numbers of Christians in Rome by the mid-sixties – around the time Mark’s Gospel was written – or earlier, many of whom were willing to die rather than refute their fate.
The Greeks, on the other hand, believed Herakles to have lived before the Trojan War, which itself was thought to have been fought more than Homeric Poems. In other words, we know nothing of how the Herakles myth developed, save that those who felt he was a God believed he had lived many generations before their own day.
Jesus’s existence was a bit more immediate to his followers.
You’re how old?
It doesn’t work to challenge the Gospels either on the grounds that there wouldn’t have been people around to challenge them, since they were written 40 years or more after Jesus’s death and people didn’t live past 30-40 back then.
Mark’s Gospel is generally thought to have been written between 65 and 75, so just over thirty years after Jesus’s death. People could actually live quite a long time in Antiquity; Romans in the Army of the Republic were expected to serve sixteen annual campaigns during the years of regular service – 17 to 46, after which they would become a kind of home guard, still being called on for service when necessary. There was no shortage of these.
What’s more, if you think about famous figures from Antiquity, most of them lived a long time. Julius Caesar’s political career only really started to take off when he was in his forties.
But what about the texts?
Luigi, you’re quite right to say that there are no original manuscripts of any books of the Bible; unfortunately for your argument exactly the same thing can be said of any book from antiquity. The Bible does better than any other book in this regard, as it happens.
This makes the Hannibal comparison particularly apt. Our earliest accounts of his doings are to be found in the writings of Polybius, who wrote more than fifty years after the invasion of Italy (and still managed to interview some participants in the war.) After Polybius we have to wait for Cornelius Nepos and Livy, writing from a Roman propagandist viewpoint more than 200 years after Hannibal’s death. And then we’ve to wait for Appian and Plutarch for any information…
All these sources are further away from Hannibal than the Gospels are from years, and yet we basically accept them, though we get more suspicious the later the sources are. And of course, all our manuscripts for these things date from the Middle Ages! More than a thousand years later!
As for the claim that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny are considered unreliable by historians, I’d have to disagree. We have to treat our sources with caution, but that doesn’t make them unreliable.
Suetonius claimed that the Jews were expelled from Rome in 52 because of disturbances caused by Chrestus; this is generally taken to refer to quarrels between Jews and Christians, who were seen as a Jewish sect. Furthermore, Suetonius claimed that Nero persecuted the Christians, adherents to ‘a novel and mischievious superstition’, in 64.
Tacitus’ reference to the Neronian persecution is quite clear too, and is something that I’ve not seen doubted by any serious historians.
As for the famous passage about Jesus in Josephus’s ‘Jewish Antiquities’, sure, plenty of scholars see it as having been tampered with, but few see it as a complete interpolation. In fact, a tenth century Arabic manuscript of Josephus has the same passage, attesting clearly to Jesus’ historical reality, but shorn of the probable Christian modifications seen in the Greek versions.
And as for Shakespeare?
Well, let’s just say that we only know more about Shakespeare the man than we do about the historical Jesus if we decide that every piece of evidence we have about Jesus is unacceptable.
Gosh, that was long. I never want to talk about this again.
(Again, I still like PAD’s idea for the show.)
To prove that I am still politic even unconscously…
Luigi Novi: “You have not proven that my statements are made dogmatically, nor offered any evidence for that notion. You don
Luigi Novi:’ I
Well Peter David looks like we were both wrong. They mentioned the Passion but in a way that either side could interpret it as finding it anti semetic or making fun of people who thought people would find it antisemetic. Funny, but I guess that’s the brilliance of southpark!!
Greg: To compare the fact that there were followers of Jesus with followers of, say, Herakles, is absurd. There were significant numbers of Christians in Rome by the mid-sixties – around the time Mark’s Gospel was written – or earlier, many of whom were willing to die rather than refute their fate. The Greeks, on the other hand, believed Herakles to have lived before the Trojan War, which itself was thought to have been fought more than Homeric Poems. In other words, we know nothing of how the Herakles myth developed, save that those who felt he was a God believed he had lived many generations before their own day.
Luigi Novi: Your original point
The only people who think SOuth Park isn’t political are the ones who are too stupid to understand the actual plots and sophisticated jokes & are just laughing at the low-brow fart jokes.
I guess sometimes the most pointed or obvious satire just flies underneath the radar of many people. Just look at how Parker and Stone slid the subtitle of the movie right past the MPAA.
In respone to Luigi Novi’s point about Cybele, Cybele was never described as a person per se. She’s a concept of the mother earth and fertility and such, who came to Rome as a black stone in the river (according to one version of the Roman government’s spheel anyhoo) during Rome’s time of crisis to lend aid(when many of the soldiers and citizens were abandoning faith in the Olympian Pantheon and investing belief in other gods and goddesses due to their nation’s misfortunes and the cultural exchanges between individuals in disparate colonies that were filtering back to the home areas). Anyway, the point is that even if the physical reality of Cybele was just a black stone in a river, or just a black stone the Roman government said they found in the river, (never mind the thoughts and beliefs of the myriad follwers Cybele had in the countries east of the Roman territories for hundreds maybe thousands of years previously) then in a very real way Cybele exists, because hundreds of thousands of people believed in her (it?). And that’s all it takes, screw the physical reality – that’s what shrines and holy parades and objects are for, to link the belief to the physical world – belief is just as real and religious belief is something that is shared and therefore much more powerful.
Unfortunately The Passion of the Easter Bunny did not even make it on last night. Instead we got a killer parody of Anime and Manga. Hopefully the Passion of the Easter Buny will be appear a lot closer to Easter cause I still want to see what they have planned.
Luigi, let’s just quit the whole ‘historians say’ malarkey, shall we? I am one. I specialise in the ancient world. I’ve written the only full length study of any ancient battle ever. And yes, it’s on Hannibal. I’ve spent years working through this sort of stuff. I’m not saying this to establish my own credentials, just to say that phrases like ‘historians say’ won’t wash. Historians disagree. Most believe Jesus exist. Some think he was the son of God, some think he was a teacher, no more. Hardly any think he didn’t exist.
You accept that Tacitus and Suetonius refer to Christians in Rome in the mid sixties? And indeed that there are passages in their works that suggest their presence in the mid fifties? In other words, Christianity had spread to Rome within at most three decades of Jesus’s death. Paul’s letters demonstrate the existence of Christian communities throughout the Greek world in the intervening decades; they also make it very clear that Christianity had been viewed as a serious threat in Palestine from the first.
The issue of immediacy is an important one, Luigi, it’s not just hairsplitting. It’s crucial to the historical method. The closer your sources are to the events they describe the more credibility they have, as a rule. In other words, you can extrapolate the existence of Jesus from the fact that he definitely had followers twenty and thirty years later; you cannot extrapolate the existence of Herakles from the fact that he had widely conflicting cults in his honour eight hundred years later.
What alternative are you presenting? That the likes of Paul and Peter sailed around the Mediterranean, enduring persecution and ultimately death in order to spread the word about somebody they’d made up?
As for Mark’s Gospel, it was ascribed to him at the very latest by 130 AD, when Papias of Hierapolis said that he had been told that it was written by Mark, the interpreter of Peter. There’s nothing arbitrary about that. It might be wrong, but it’s not arbitrary.
As for the claim that the Evangelists use the tools of fiction writers when they say what Jesus was thinking, can you give me some examples? I’m kind of puzzled by this.
I’m intrigued by your faith in ‘historical sources’ that you don’t indentify. I mean, you talk about manuscripts of Josephus from the second century, though the earliest existing one is from the ninth century. The controversial passage is still debated by historians, but most historians consider it to be genuine, albeit corrupted; very few see it as a complete interpolation. In other words, Josephus believed that Jesus did exist. That doesn’t prove anything by your criteria, though, since Josephus is thought to have relied purely on oral evidence for the period 4BC to 66AD.
As for the age thing, where on earth have you dragged up this notion of people living for only thirty years? Roman soldiers in the Republican army were amateurs – they were a citizen militia, composed of farmers, carpenters, stonemasons, potters, whatever. And yet they were expected to be able to do perfectly good military service until they turned 46, after which they’d still serve, but as a kind of home guard.
The Romans were far from abnormal in this regard. The fifth century Greeks certainly lived into their sixties and beyond on a regular basis. Why on earth would the first century Jews have been any different?
Dylan, yes, the Anime/Manga send up was hilarious, but I never even saw the punchline at the end comng till it hit, and it was wonderfully done, insightful into America (if a few months late), and HILARIOUS!
I think Passion fo the Easter Bunny is scheduled for next Wednesday.
I don’t know if it was originally intended that way, or if they decided to shift episodes around at the last minute.
Luigi Novi: Without having offered any evidence or argument that supports it.
You want me to come up with evidence of my beliefs about the human heart.
You want me to come up with a dedicated treatise about why I think steak taste good, too?
CJA
Hëll, it sounds like you want me to write a treatise about why guys like steak.
CJA
this it?
“Regardless of religion it is the typical action of a dogmatic secularist to outright deny the existence of the relevent Jesus, and claim that the only evidence of His (his?) existence was recorded in a collection of epistles and other writings whose collective accuracy is already held in collective suspicion.”
Proof. Proof. Support.
Nobody would ever ask me for this if they read the Op-ED columns in the local student newspaper.
I mean NOBODY. It’d be freaking obvious.
CJA
Assuming that I’m awake again… what the blazes is your source for a THIRTY-year lifespan for Jews?
I have never heard that EVER in ten years of casual research, spanning the gap from childhood to adulthood. If it was true. P-gøšhdámņ-BS would have told me that three times by now, followed up by the experts at ABC where they create a new “is Jesus real” documentary every three years or so.
I want to know your source, because none of mine, either reliable or third-rate have ever made that claim.
CJA
CJA
for another outlook on the South Park premier
Read this batch of stuff. Peter David sings South Park’s praises on his blog and goes on to be thankful that it is back. Then the comments section quickly degenerates/evolves (depends who’s asking) into a debate about the historocity of Jesus. Comics B…
The Blue Spider: Western culture, for the most part, embraced a system of calender dating counting years from this person’s supposed birth.
Luigi Novi: And days of the week whose names in English are derived from Norse and Roman Gods. Does this mean you believe that Thor and Freya were actual gods who lived, CJ?
Um, Luigi, a bit more accurately, the days of the week derive from the Teutonic gods, one Roman god and two heavenly bodies revered by early humans.
Sunday and Monday are the “Sun”day and the “Moon”day respectively.
Tuesday and Wednesday derive from the Teutonic gods “Tiw” and “Woden” (as opposed to the more Norse renderings, “Tyr” and “Odin”).
Thursday and Friday seem more derivative of the Norse gods “Thor” and “Frigga”, though how much of this is due to the Teutonic versions being less distinct is uncertain. (“Donar” is more Teutonic than “Thor”, but there’s uncertainty as to which version was actually revered by the Angles. “Fricka” seems more Teutonic than “Frigga” but, the distaff side of Northern mythology wasn’t quite as distinctive as in Rome or Greece. Certainly, though, “Freyja” is not the source of “Friday”–that was a different goddess.)
Saturday is the only day specifically derived from a Roman god, “Saturn” (and certainly, it’s an oddity).
speaking of South Park did anyone see the season premiere? it was seriously one of the most twisted things they’ve ever done, up there with “Do you like your Chili, Scott? I call it – Mr. and Ms. Tenorman Chili.” If you haven’t seen it, and you have bittorrent, go to http://www.mrtwig.net and download “801 – Fun With Weapons”. You WON’T be disappointed.
>>>The only people who think SOuth Park isn’t political are the ones who are too stupid to understand the actual plots and sophisticated jokes & are just laughing at the low-brow fart jokes.
Now, now. Insulting these people is just appeasement, you liberal freedom-hating heretical liberal commie pinko longhair liberal terrorist-loving farm-animal-rutting liberal intellectual high-brow ACLU-lover fág liberal Hollywood commie liberal bášŧárd.
America. Don’t think about it, or leave it.
I dunno, I know people who won’t watch South Park because it’s just plain vulgar and such.
But then, these are some of the same people who don’t “get it” either.
And yeah, the season premiere was lots of fun. 🙂
“And days of the week whose names in English are derived from Norse and Roman Gods. Does this mean you believe that Thor and Freya were actual gods who lived, CJ?”
That doesn’t parallel the importance of calender dating.
I find more similar to naming planets after gods.
Now, while I don’t believe in them, I can’t find a reason to discount them.
I don’t discount the existence of something just becuase I cannot see it, because that would literally be discounting an existence out of ignorance.
So for all I know there were Greek gods. I just don’t care so long as they leave me the Frigga alone.
CJA
skii: In respone to Luigi Novi’s point about Cybele, Cybele was never described as a person per se. She’s a concept of the mother earth and fertility and such, who came to Rome as a black stone in the river
I’m troubled, Luigi, and not just by Jim Walker’s laughable ‘free thought’ site, replete as it is with errors and absurdities.
It
Next week on South Park: Kyle goes to see “The Passion”. No joke.
Wein’s Law tells us: If we don’t see Jesus’s body, that means he can come back. When we LEAST EXPECT IT!
Just saw the newest episode of SP. Looks like you weren’t all THAT far off in the end, Pete.
Sorry for the belated response, but between my trip to Italy, settling back in after returning, work, and other things, I was unable to reply earlier in such a way that would
trying to find out which season & episode it was that had either stan or kyle explaining the mormon religion.