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
• 
Peter:
Knowing the kinds of episodes they have produced in the past, you have probably just written your first South Park script!
Wanna go for a second?
“Bloodbath”? Yeah, like the actually thing was clean and painless.
I know it’s ridiculous to bring up issues of continuity when discussing something like South Park, but I think they probably meant to stop having Jesus appear on the show after they, y’know, killed him off in the 2002 Christmas episode.
But then, they did bring Kenny back after he was dead for a whole year, so who knows…?
The scenario you described would make a kick-ášš episode, though.
I actually started to write a South Park script myself a few years back, but the whole idea behind it was to force them to hire at least one more voice actor by including a character who would only work if he had a properly impersonated celebrity voice…I stopped working on it because there were changes in the show that made the B-story not work, but, oddly enough, everything has now been changed back and now it would all work again (except for the fact that Kenny never gets killed anymore).
Paul
well, according to south park studios, the offical site:
New Season!
On March 17th the eighth season of South Park begins with seven new episodes!
South Park presents a very special Easter episode, “The Passion of the Easter Bunny.”
so, it might not be of the christ, but theyve sure got their passion down pat.
Not that I wouldn’t like to see your idea done, PAD.
Adam Schwartz
Going to be tough– they killed Jesus a few seasons back, as he heroically saved Santa Claus. A very special episode… I think we all learned something today.
Peter, I’m an agnostic, but I saw the film, and it was quite powerful. The torture and crucifixion were harrowing to watch, but overall it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be (because of the way hype and word-of-mouth creates an exaggerated expectation). I highly recommend it.
And I’d KILL to see them make another South Park MOVIE out of your suggestion! 🙂
Well, I wouldn’t kill for it, but I’d whip, flog and crucify someone for it….
Or maybe Kenny, Stan and Cartman go see the movie and are moved by the film. They decide to dust off their family Bibles and actually read about Jesus. They read how he was sent to earth to die for our sins. They realize that our sins nailed Jesus to the cross, and that by confessing their sins and asking Jesus into their hearts they would be saved…
…but I suppose that wouldn’t be funny.
Not funny? Well, let’s see: technically according to the bible and the church, we’re still responsible for our own sins, god already forgave people in the old testament if they repented, and the notion of ‘hereditary’ or ‘original’ sin is primitive, disgusting and devoid of any sane morality.
And if true, it was pretty much god’s own decision to nail jesus to a cross and therefore his responsibillity to do it, not the jews or the romans or our sins. He just suddenly decided just forgiving us for being imperfect (after creating us that way), wasn’t doing it for him anymore. And he needed a bloodbath to guilt-trip us into worshipping, fortifying his message of ‘goodness’ which comes down to ‘obey me or else it’s hëll fer ya’.
And then there are other usable issues like how the israelites were butchering whole cities on god’s command, down to the last man woman and infant. Hëll even the livestock had to be killed. Cuz ya know, god’s GOOD!
Not funny? I’d say it’s hilarious!!
Peter, ya got enough South Park material there for a season or 2!
Ðámņ! I wish i had cable or a satillite….
Or better yet, perhaps they’d dust off some books on the historicity of the Bible, and realize that there’s no historical evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth even existed, or that there was no location called Nazareth at the time alleged in the Bible.
I dunno, given the anti-PC quality of the show, coupled with their loathing of liberal Hollywood celebs (Mecha-Barbara gets me every time)and their general dislike of people who condemn a film without seeing it…I expect mel may not be the only one skewered.
The Mormon show, where they simultaneously skewered the religion’s origins while celebrating the values of its followers…brill. These guys are real subversives. Looking forward to the Easter Bunny episode.
Incidentally, the movie is fast approaching 300 million dollars worth of tickets and the only folks who have been moved to violence seem to be the radical Islamofacists who were killing Jews and anyone else they could before the movie opened. huh. How puzzling.
I didn’t even know that Kenny was back from the dead. But if he can rise again, why can’t Jesus?
The Easter Bunny, though…might be an occasion to rerun “Night of the Lepus.” Or the famous Holy Grail rabbit…
The only thing I don’t understand is why, when I click “Remember personal info?” and I return to this web site, I have to type all my personal info all over again. Doesn’t it store it in some kind of database so I don’t constantly have to retype my email address and web site URL? If not, what good is that radio button?
Or is the web site asking me if I remember MY OWN personal info? Is this some way to screen out the mentally impaired? If so, considering some of the posts, it isn’t working.
Or maybe Kenny, Stan and Cartman go see the movie and are moved by the film. They decide to dust off their family Bibles and actually read about Jesus. They read how he was sent to earth to die for our sins. They realize that our sins nailed Jesus to the cross, and that by confessing their sins and asking Jesus into their hearts they would be saved…
Ah, now come on, James. You know better than that.
More likely Cartman would say: “So, let me get this straight. I can be a complete bášŧárd and sin all I want, but so long as I do this whole ‘confess my sins’ crap I get into heaven? Sweet!”
Well, I’m a huge South Park fan as well as a Christian, and I think parody is fine. I’ll be looking forward to seeing “The Passion of the Easter Bunny.” I’ve laughed through Jesus’ boxing match with the devil, his “Super Friends” adventures with the other gods, and his death saving Santa Claus. It’s all done in good humor.
However, as a Christian, I loved “The Passion of the Christ.” It is not entertainment nor a “bloodbath.” It’s quite refreshing to watch a movie that has a message instead of the typicaly Hollywood crap-fest/sequel-rama.
– Mike
“Let’s just say that on this day, a million years ago, a dude was born who most of us think was magic. But others don’t, and that’s cool–but we’re probably right. Amen.”
-Homer J. Simpson
However, as a Christian, I loved “The Passion of the Christ.” It is not entertainment nor a “bloodbath.” It’s quite refreshing to watch a movie that has a message instead of the typicaly Hollywood crap-fest/sequel-rama.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So you’re not expecting “The Return of the King of Kings?”
David
touche, i gotta say the return of the king of kings got a definite chuckle.
what about an entire parody where cartman is judas, kenny is jesus, and stan as a disciple and kyle as the pharise calling for kenny’s crucifixion?
since the bible so thoughtfully left people of color out of the bible despite the fact that a lot of it takes place in egypt, some fun could be had with Chef as well.
First of all, let me just say that I saw the Passion and thought it was a bad film. Not racist, not offensive, just bad.
However, considering how many topics you’ve devoted to The Passion, Peter, I think you should finally go see the movie and give it a fair day in court. I’d like to see what you think. After all, if you’re going to post comments on how your friend said it was anti-Semitic, you should at least see the film yourself.
Chances are good you’ll think it was a piece of crap like I and most of my friends did.
“since the bible so thoughtfully left people of color out of the bible despite the fact that a lot of it takes place in egypt, some fun could be had with Chef as well.”
Why do you think there are no people of color in th Bible? They may not be explicitly described as such but maybe it wasn’t considered important. I mean, we don’t know which way Jesus parted his hair but once you’ve called him the Son of God that sort of detail might seem a bit petty.
Luigi, you believe that shite?
CJA
I have to agree with Donald (and his friends as well), The Passion was just bad filmmaking (although parts of it looked great). I can only assume that it was not a concern to tell a story or make you feel for the characters. It seems like Gibson made the film only for those that already feel a personal connection to these characters. That’s fine – I’m just surprised that so few reviews mention it. I have Catholic roots, so I am familiar with the story (and actually reread the gospels after the film), and was hopeful that the film might effect me in some way, but clearly the connection was not strong enough.
At the risk of hijacking the topic, I’m interested to get the take of some of the other people that saw it (especially those that liked it). The biggest detriments to my enjoyment were the over the top nature of a few of the scenes and the lack of any connection with many (most?) of the characters. Those of you that really enjoyed it – did you like it as a movie, or just because it spoke to you in some way?
And what was the “inventing high tables” scene all about? I found that just odd…
Or better yet, perhaps they’d dust off some books on the historicity of the Bible, and realize that there’s no historical evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth even existed, or that there was no location called Nazareth at the time alleged in the Bible.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus between 115-117 A.D He was a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ.
Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D.
That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.
what i mentioned about there being a shortage of characters of color, but is the subject of many debates within the black community. I’m a white male, but I have to say that I was shocked when I read some of the arguments of black religous leaders about “we’re supposed to believe there were a bunch of middle class white guys running around the Middle East and Egypt?”
How many dark skinned images of Jesus have you seen. For the record his skin is escribed as “the color of Bronze” in the bible, but he is depicted as white. I don’t feel it was an oversight. I feel it was the interpretation of a predominantly white church that white men would be the central characters in both the writing of the bible and the choosing of which gospels would be included in the bible. Other gospels such as the gospel of Mary Magdalene depict Jesus’s life quite differently. By the way, why leave out ages 18-30? And under Pope Constantine there was a vote as to whether or not Jesus was to be depicted as the son of God, if memory serves me correctly I believe it passed 5-4. One vote varied and history is changed forever. Don’t tell me that Jesus’s race is as unimportant as to what way he parted his hair. And for the record, the fact that his hair isn’t mentioned hasn’t stopped almost every image of Jesus to give him long hair and a beard.
How many dark skinned images of Jesus have you seen. For the record his skin is escribed as “the color of Bronze” in the bible, but he is depicted as white.
Most images of Jesus are based off of paintings from hundreds of years ago. Obviously Jesus was not a while male with long, light brown hair. In fact, he most likely looked like your average middle eastern that you see. I’m always amazed how good they make Jesus look as well. I have a feeling he was quite plain/normal looking. Don’t think the paintings you see hanging on the walls in some churches are what all Christians think Jesus looks like.
if i was founding a religion on the teachings of a man, i would commision a painting of him so all his followers could see what he looked like. I’d be shocked if they didn’t, but again the white controlled church very likely did not want the image of Jesus as a colored man to circulate. of course that is speculation though.
However, as a Christian, I loved “The Passion of the Christ.” It is not entertainment nor a “bloodbath.” It’s quite refreshing to watch a movie that has a message instead of the typicaly Hollywood crap-fest/sequel-rama.
So would this be a bad time to mention the news blurb on the radio this morning that Gibson has announced his next film will be The Resurrection?
Y’see, PAD…I’ve learned something today (cue Piano). I’ve learned that if you come up with a sweet, kickass story idea in which a manipulative jáçkášš gets his fictional comeuppance…You can’t just come out and say so. You’ve gotta trail off with a disclaimer. That way, people won’t think that you think the jáçkášš is a jáçkášš, or that you’re advocating that he, y’know, oughtta be flogged within an inch of his life, figuratively or literally, for, y’know, his sins and stuff, or his crackpot theology, or “Lethal Weapon 4”.
Chef: That’s right, children…it’s called ‘covering your ášš’, and its very very important.
“How many dark skinned images of Jesus have you seen. “
Well, if you picked up “Fallen Angel #9,” now on the stands, you’ll have seen at least one. The depiction of Jesus in that issue is based on the latest historical theory as to what he most likely would have looked like.
PAD
Regarding the historicity of Jesus:
Actually, there isn’t a whole lot of historical evidence for Jesus. As a matter of fact, there are no verifiable non-ecclesiastical records of his existence, id est, nothing trying to be reasonable or scientific or present Jesus as a historical figure.
For instance, the Talmudic writings were written long after the time of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem, and seem mainly designed as defensive mechanisms by orthodox Jews to preserve their culture against the proselytization of Christians during the diaspora. It was easier to say that Jesus existed but he was a bad person than that one has no traditional information on him. Other otherwise reliable historical documents suffer from this same problem; they attest that there was a Christian religion preaching that a person Jesus of Nazareth, was crucified, etc, but offer little more evidence than that.
For a long time, it was fashionable to deduce, from this, that there was no historical Jesus — usually because such reconstructions were done by vocal opponents of Christianity.
However, starting with the work of deistic and early liberal christian historians (mainly German and French) during a period that was called the Old Quest for the Historical Jesus, it was concluded that there was no reason to assume that the figure of Jesus was entirely phantasmic, despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. In other words, not only is it difficult to prove a negative, but comparisons between the Christ figure and other mythic heroes, while suggestive, means nothing without systematic, predictable correlation of elements or clear evidence of borrowing. A completely phastasmic origin theory would leave much unexplained, while a historical Jesus would handily account for the subsequent development of all the mythic apparatus and christology associated with him.
The Old Quest period was followed by the No Quest period, initiated by Albert Schweitzer, who expressed the theory that all attempts to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus would only reflect the assumptions of the reconstructionists, that the available historical documents (primarily the four gospels and fragments of earlier gospels) are inherently theology and thus propagandistic, rather than historical, and made a plea that the historical Jesus should remain unknown.
The No Quest period, was followed by the New Quest for the Historical Jesus in the conservative fifties, based on the idea of continuity between the historical and the mythic figure.
We are now in the Third Quest period, begun in 1980, which incorporates new and undeniable historical and archeological evidence about the life and times of Jesus, but which, ironically, has only indirectly confirmed his historicity. Nevertheless, modern scholars across many different fields no longer doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure. They are also, for the most part, agreed that he was, indeed, very Jewish in thoughts, attitudes, dress, and habits, that he never claimed to be the son of God, and that he didn’t expect the end of the world while he was alive. Most reconstructions posit that he was some sort of charismatic social reformer.
“Don’t tell me that Jesus’s race is as unimportant as to what way he parted his hair.”
Well, it’s obviously important to you. To me that seems like not seeing the forest for the trees but I guess we all have to decide what it is about Jesus, or any other man, that is important. Someone’s race isn’t all that important to me but I’ll respect your point of view.
Nevertheless, your statement that the Bible has few people of color is unsupported, as many are not given any physical description. To assume that someone is white just because they are not described differently strikes me as chauvinistic
From comments I’ve seen of the film, it frankly seems to be Jesus Christ Superstar with more blood and less dancing.
actually this movie is the exact antithesis of jesus christ superstar. that was a fairly liberal view of Jesus’ life including him having a girlfriend and not being the son of God. The Passion is a very conservative right wing look at it.
I really think this conversation would be much better served if people took the time to actually watch the movie before bashing it.
I got in an argument awhile ago with a woman I worked with about the film Dogma. I mentioned that it was one of my favorite movies, and she told me that it was a horrible movie and that her and her friend “protested that piece of šhìŧ”. I asked her what she did’t like about the film and she told me she protested it because her friend said it was horrible, so i asked what her friend didn’t like about it and she told me that her friend hadn’t seen it either.
If I cared about something enough to take time out of my day to complain about it, I’d take the time to at least watch the movie or find out more about it before opening my mouth. But that’s me, I’m a learner.
Yah…Jesus died. There’s no way he could be resurrected…
I think the comparison between JC Superstar and Passion is that both were movies about Jesus that have been controversial. The fact one is based on a liberal perspective of Jesus, and the other an extreme Conservative, Pre-Vatican II perspective is irrelevant.
It will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, and others respond to The Davinci Code, which is being filmed. (Directed by Ron Howard)
This is pretty OT but I’d really like it if PAD started watching the OC over on Fox since I tend to keep coming here to read the feedback on the the TV discussions.
I’m very surprised I like the show since I figured it would be another 90210 knockoff. Instead it’s smart, well-written and as a bonus has comic book references in pretty much every show.
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.
Perhaps Kenny could become a Jesus Freak, after all he is white trash who’s resurrected just about every week. Also, they could give us Mecha-Streisand vs. Mel Gibson’s Dad, since I bet that’s one Jew that even Papa Gibson wouldn’t be able to ignore!
“actually this movie is the exact antithesis of jesus christ superstar.”
I’ve been surprised at how many people have complained that Pontius Pilate was given too sympathetis a portrayal in Gibson’s film. In Jesus Christ Superstar he was practically as sympathetic as Jesus himself. For that matter, the Jewish Mob in Superstar were every bit as bloodthirsty as in Passion–worse maybe. There’s even a lyric given to Pilate where he talks about how, in his dream, the “wild and angry” Jews fall upon Jesus and leave him to take the blame. Wow! Where were the complaints about anti-semitism then?
(For that matter, the version I saw performed also had Herod portrayed as a flaming Queen. Anti-semitism AND homophobia! Good thing it had a liberal Jesus!)
Speaking of Hutton Gibson, I couldn’t help but think that what Luigi said was somewhat similar to his whole “the holocaust never happened thing.” Sure there is more evidence for the holocaust, because ya know it only happened 60 years ago. There are pictures of it and people alive who experienced it. So a better comparison might be
something like “Julius Caesar never existed.”
If you actually watched south park I think they would have more of the overreaction of the film. I think they would make fun of the people who accused it of being antisemetic. s
Well, with this being South Park, they’re likely to make fun of *everybody*. And do it wonderfully.
One of the great things about South Park is that, as an animated show, they can be contemporary *now*, since an episode takes only days to create, rather than months.
Some of the best of South Park has been influenced by events that occur within a week of an airing of the episode, like the episode based on that Cuban kid a couple of years ago and Saddam’s capture.
The Blue Spider: Luigi, you believe that shite?
Luigi Novi: I generally tend to believe what is considered to be empirically true by virtue of examination of evidence and scientific consensus, and in keeping with the scientific method, I revise or reverse such positions when new evidence presents itself that requires me to do so.
If you can illustrate why what said was
Luigi, I’d like to comment on some of the things you said here, if I may:
It is indeed suspicious that Tacitus is not mentioned by Eusebius, but it is not reasonable to claim that ‘Christus’ was ever a title–it might have been an uncommon family or personal name, but not a title. You see, around the time of Christ, Greek ‘Christos’ (transl. Lat. ‘Christus’) only meant ‘ointment, oil, salve, cream, balm’. The word was used to translate ‘anointed, meshiach’ in the Old Greek LXX, by analogy to the verb ‘chrismo’, to anoint (it was possible in Koine Greek to use abstract nouns as titles if they were preceded by articles). However, even among the Hellenized communities where the LXX was used, Christos was not used as a title, because the Hellenized Jews, by and by large, were not messianic.
It wasn’t until attempts, ever the death of Christ, of aramaic speaking messianic Jews to evangelize the Hellenized community that the word ‘Christos’ became a title.
Looking over Tacitus use of the word more carefully, there is no reason to assume that it meant anything other than the Christ, whom we are familiar with. Conversely, there is no reason to assume that he had access to any other evidence than what the christians were themselves saying:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
(this quote taken from http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/handouts/tacitus.html)
I also think that it is somewhat misleading to say that the Bible did not exist in it’s collected form until the printing of the Latin Vulgate by Gutenberg. It wasn’t as if church leaders all decided one day to stop arbitrarily rewriting it. The printing press stopped accidental scribal errors, it’s true, and created a standard version of the scribal errors that were going around, but the text had been preserved with a high degree of fidelity for about a thousand years previous to that.
The original text was not lost completely either (if you can even talk about an original text). Using the accepted principles of textual criticism, we can reconstruct, with a high degree of certainity, the text as it existed sometime in the second or third century from the manuscript witnesses available. Most reputable, recent bibles are translations of just such a critical text.
Luigi Novi: I generally tend to believe what is considered to be empirically true by virtue of examination of evidence and scientific consensus, and in keeping with the scientific method, I revise or reverse such positions when new evidence presents itself that requires me to do so.
I was never aware that scientific method was applicable to history.
According to Frank Wolfs of the University of Rochester: “The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.”
I’m not very convinced that this method could be used to properly claim the life or death of George Washington, let alone that of a man purported born circa 2000 years ago.
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. (Another typical action of a dogmatic secularist is to assume and insist the Bible is one book and not a collection of previous written, copied, and distributed material). That is why I say that it is old. I deny that it is sensical.
Western culture, for the most part, embraced a system of calender dating counting years from this person’s supposed birth. Would the collective Powers That Be from these various and disparate groups of individuals really cling to this calendar for this exceedingly long period of time without some sort of confirmation that they are not basing their comparative measurement of status quo on myth? The answer is irrelevent of course. If it is a myth they did, if it is a myth they didn’t. There’s nothing to test and no way to confirm.
One primary reason that I embrace the notion of Jesus’s historocity is that the most timely and relevent claims of his non-existence would have been documents and treatises generated circa Jesus’ life and the birth of the movement. Any insistence that Jesus didn’t exist or was not what the Gospels portray him to be would have been loudest and most relevent when the movement was first growing and when these documents were first distributed. In other words, the health and growth of the movement from then until now could be attributed to the idea that opponents and critics of Christianity that existed when it was its most threatening did not have the means to undo it. Logically, nearly two millenia later I expect critics to have even less power, as evidence towards either notion has largely faded into dust with history.
The most basic evidence of Jesus’ historicity is the birth of the movement. It is not rock-solid proof by any measure, but it’s more believeable that a movement came together to follow a man rather than put together to follow an idea of a man.
the 18th Chapter of Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense contains many interesting ideas. It lists many non-Christian references to Jesus. All of these are questionable. What is concretely established is that to these writers the historicity of Jesus wasn’t as open to question as was his status as God.
A good deal of commonly accepted ancient references to Jesus are examined here. I would never say that Homer does not nod, nor would I accuse Flavius Joshephus or his contemporaries of perfection and total historical accuracy.
Any mention of Jesus in old records would be stinking rare to say the least, as is apropriate… many mentioned that to the Romans, Jesus was a nobody. To non-Christian Jews Jesus was either a threat to their beliefs or one of many religious martyrs and either way to see so many mentions is somewhat amazing. None of these can be confirmed to a huge degree of certainty.
An edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica states concerning secular records of Jesus of Nazareth: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
Basically, I’m willing to accept the existence of this man simply because enough historical individuals from that time and up to five centuries afterward accept the historicity of Jesus, especially at a time when that status could be most easily challenged and when it would have been most profitable to do so. If these people from the first five centuries since accepted it, I may question it but I will not dismiss 20 centures later out of hand.
I consider it shite because it’s a very easy thing to do to just say that someone never existed, especially if the existence in question is of extensive vintage and the figure is controversial. Indeed if a figure is so controversial, it’s easier to discount the historicity of the individual rather than his or her veracity. If you don’t believe he exists than there is no call to even begin debate what he said, as he obviously didn’t say it anyway.
Frankly I’m not seeking to dissuade you of your beliefs… merely establish that I think the historicity of this particular figure is well-established and that if it were less so much religion would have vanished into myth. He may not have been God, but casual dismissal of the Nazarene’s existence seems to me so much shite. I’ve read that argument many times from those who, like me, tend to make too many blanket statements.
CJA
John David Ward: “The original text was not lost completely either (if you can even talk about an original text). Using the accepted principles of textual criticism, we can reconstruct, with a high degree of certainity, the text as it existed sometime in the second or third century from the manuscript witnesses available. Most reputable, recent bibles are translations of just such a critical text.”
As I recall there are a greater number of original manuscripts existing of the various writings collected within the Bible than there are of say, Plato’s Republic. Comparing the quality of the manuscripts of Plato’s work to those of the Gospel-writers’ and Plato’s words tend to be less consistent across the board than the Gospel-writers’. Also, the age of the so-called Biblical manuscripts is closer in proximity to the claimed date of relevence and occurences… and even the estimates of when the Gospel writers put pen to papyrus… than the distance of time between the oldest manuscript of The Republic and the time in which Plato could have written that document.
In any case, we still believe that Socrates exists.
Historical records from these freaking time periods are spotty.
CJA
The other thing that needs to be factored into any quest for a ‘historical Jesus’ is that most ancient texts are lost to us.
There are countless things we know from Antiquity almost by chance; many things would be unknown to us had even one manuscript not survived.
Jesus’ existence is well-attested compared to countless figures from Antiquity – the first Gospel was probably written within 35 years of his death, and Paul’s letters were written before that Gospel.
What’s more, the existence of Christian communities is attested from very early on; it would seem madness to claim that these groups were following an imaginary figure, and indeed that many of them were willing to endure persecution in his name. You can extrapolate Jesus’ existence – in some sense anyway – quite easily from the existence of his followers.
The details given about our sources for Hannibal above are wrong, but the point is valid. Our sources on Jesus are far closer to him chronologically than they are for, say, Hannibal.
And as my English teacher used to say, we actually know far more about the historical Jesus than we do the historical Shakespeare.
Cracking idea for a South Park script either way!
Now THAT’S low, disgusting and filthy Jack…
spammers must all die!
I’ve never watched South Park (I watched the proto-South Park Christmas short and was the only person in the room not laughing, so I quickly realized it just wasn’t in keeping with my particular sense of humor) but I thought I’d mention that there actually is a radio station that claims to have a Jesus-hosted talk show. Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but the March 24 episode of South Park is titled “The Passion of the Easter Bunny.” FWIW.
Non-Political? Apolotical? That’s nonsese. Everthing is political. Everything involves somebody talking and thinking and even in tiny ways influencing or mentioning how things should be done.
There are times when it’s overt, sometimes when it is subtle, sometimes when it’s heavy and specific and other times when it’s just a general larf.
But everything is politics.
And South Park will take a shot at anything… which is why it’s good. Everyone will get offended at one point or another… so don’t watch what doesn’t tickle you… but if it tickles you, watch it.
Man, that seems obvious.
CJA
Sorry, Dee, but I gotta respectfully disagree with you about SP not being political. They have always been poking fun and making statements about the world we live in. And in a dámņ funny, clever way. Their movie, one of the funniest movies ever made IMO, made a very clever statement on censorship and the misplacing of blame when it comes to people raising their kids. And it made us laugh at the same time. Good times, indeed.