Toto

On Gnosticism, Elaine Pagels says that the Gnostics (or some Gnostics) used this Gospel. But she also seems to say that there was a lot of overlap beteen Gnostic doctrines and Orthodox doctrines, with the real difference being their attitude towards church hierarchy.

But I have a larger question for Peter. I know that you have read extensively in early Christian writings, and will probably be able to make a career of it. But when I read things like - the feminine was seen as not fully human - Christians offered women the opportunity to become part of the (male) body of Christ - I wonder how much real value this has to a modern person. These early Christians obviously got a lot wrong, partly because they relied on the Platonic philosophy and science of the day. And the second century commentators do not clarify very much.

Vorkosigan

Do you mean to say that Gnostics didn't have ideas about the proper order of creation and the proper relationship between God and Humankind?

No. Only John is ordering it from a Christian point of view, making sure that there is no question who came in what order. It appears to be a comment that answers Gnostic doctrines without adopting them.

Vorkosigan writes: There's a comment in the Gospel of Philip that says first the gods created us, and now we created the gods.

Can I get chapter and verse on that?

71.35-72.4 in NHL 143, as quoted in Pagels Gnostic Gospels on page 122.

I can certainly understand that reading. On this reading, Gnosticism is in the background of the composition of the prologue, although the author is not gnostic himself. Do you think it can be established that the author know a form of Gnosticism?

I don't know how strongly you could establish that. Maybe the light-darkness imagery comes from something like Sylvanus: "Why do you pursue the darkness, though the light is available to you?" But this light-dark imagery was common in many doctrines -- Paul uses it to, in 2 Cor 6, for example, and Mt 10:27 "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the Light." The Qumran Hymns contain references to this imagery as well. The way I see that, this imagery represents a sort of symbological toolkit, common signifiers in the culture wars of the time that everyone uses in their own way.

You may know that there is an old debate over whether (and how) the author of John was dependent on the Gospel of Mark. Hopefully you will be able to comment throughout this Bible study in order to represent the point of view that the Gospel of John was dependent on Mark. You are in good company, along with J. D. Crossan and Frans Neirynck, although Kysar says that a slim majority still hold to the independence of the fourth gospel.

Yes, Brown said the same in his Intro to this gospel, but he seemed to expect the consensus to shift to a pro-dependence stance. I shall reserve more comments on the Mark-John relationship, but I will attempt to make that case.

Another thing is, I see all of these documents as engaging in a gigantic, mutually cross-fertilizing dialogue with each other. I don't like the word "dependence" because it carries with it epistemological baggage, namely that of the issue of multiple attestation. We use "dependent" to describe the documents because that terminology puts everything in relation to the historicity of Jesus -- it seems that the terminology is freighted with the problem of the historicity, and assumes that the story relates to history somehow. But the story is fiction. It might be better to say that John knows Mark, and is carrying on a dialogue with it, or developing ideas from it, much as modern SF writers have been strongly influenced by Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, even where they do not overtly cite them.

Do you think that the author of John suppressed mention of the actual baptism as found in Mark because the author of John thought Jesus to be sinless and thus in no need of baptism for the repentance of sins?

I don't know. That seems to be one common interpretation. But in Josephus JtB's baptism is for purification, not for remission of sins. The soul was cleansed by practising righteousness. It strikes me that this is more reliable than the NT's portrayal of John's baptism as being for remission of sin. By changing John to a baptizer for remission of sin, the NT links him to Jesus again. I suspect, as I said before, that these transformations exist to Christianize a rival messianic preacher/pretender.

Why couldn't the name of the father of Jesus be transmitted independently of a birth narrative?

Don't see why not, but it is hard to imagine that somehow only that fact reached John's redactors, all 3 or 5, shorn of other context.

Is there evidence that some saw JtB as a Messiah?

Wasn't there a whole alternate religious system based on JtB as the messiah? Don't the mandeans even today revere John and consider Jesus a false prophet?

Do you think that the baptism of Jesus by JtB was unhistorical and that the two never met, if they ever lived?

I don't think the Jesus we have is a historical figure. The baptisms and other events are there to link the two figures in a way that subordinates John to Jesus permanently. This would later become an explicit tactic in Christianity, when it absorbed local gods and repackaged them as Christian saints. JtB is just the first example.

Do you think that Luke knew John?

Reading the short little discussions on XTALK, yes. Let's explore that question as we go through this. But Luke 3, Matthew 3 and John 1 have a similar order of events...Mark omits the clash with the Pharisees.

....Simon are called. It seems to me that not only is the order reversed, but the location is different and the circumstances completely different. Not merely has Peter been firmly denigrated, but the entire story is removed from Galilee.

Do you have any ideas for why this is so?

No. John knows the prison story -- he refers to it parenthetically later, but the chronology is totally different. I have no explanation. Help!

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I have already put in three years towards a degree in computer science. I have no intention of becoming a professor. Being an "independent researcher" doesn't pay too well, and books are not free. But I do enjoy it.

This is a great question, but perhaps one more appropriate to the liberal Christian. I do not believe that we should look to the early Christians for "spiritual insight." I think the main value in studying early Christianity is in understanding our Western cultural heritage. The early Christians had their good points and their not-so-good points, but both the good and the bad played a part in the centuries of Christian hegemony in the making. If Jesus and Yahweh went the way of the Greek gods, then I think that there would be no need for anyone to study the early Christian writings outside of a small circle of specialists.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: 71.35-72.4 in NHL 143, as quoted in Pagels Gnostic Gospels on page 122.

Here is the quote from the NHLiE: "God created man. [. . . men] create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!"

There is a salient difference here, and that is that the quotes says that a singular god created man, not that gods created man. This has implications: perhaps the author is expressing the common Jewish viewpoint that pagans create idols and worship gods of their own making?

Vorkosigan writes: Another thing is, I see all of these documents as engaging in a gigantic, mutually cross-fertilizing dialogue with each other. I don't like the word "dependence" because it carries with it epistemological baggage, namely that of the issue of multiple attestation. We use "dependent" to describe the documents because that terminology puts everything in relation to the historicity of Jesus -- it seems that the terminology is freighted with the problem of the historicity, and assumes that the story relates to history somehow. But the story is fiction. It might be better to say that John knows Mark, and is carrying on a dialogue with it, or developing ideas from it, much as modern SF writers have been strongly influenced by Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, even where they do not overtly cite them.

That's interesting. I have never seen the language of dependence as assuming that the story relates to history somehow. Scholars argue about whether Pindar depends on Homer, but that does not assume historicity for the poetry of either Pindar or Homer.

Vorkosigan writes: I don't know. That seems to be one common interpretation. But in Josephus JtB's baptism is for purification, not for remission of sins. The soul was cleansed by practising righteousness. It strikes me that this is more reliable than the NT's portrayal of John's baptism as being for remission of sin. By changing John to a baptizer for remission of sin, the NT links him to Jesus again.

Your statement prompted me to read the description of Josephus on John the Baptist again.

Josephus writes: "For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions."

I myself do not see any reason to see the statement of Josephus on the purpose of John's baptism as more reliable than the statement of Mark's Gospel. This is particularly because Josephus seems aware of the interpretation of the baptism as being for the forgiveness of sins, which would make it plausible that it is Josephus who has altered the tradition before him. Also, the separation of soul and body seems to be the distinction of the Hellenistic historian rather than of the pious Palestinian Jewish preacher.

Vorkosigan writes: Don't see why not, but it is hard to imagine that somehow only that fact reached John's redactors, all 3 or 5, shorn of other context.

I don't see how the name Joseph is connected to an infancy narrative, other than the fact that the name of Joseph could have been contained in an infancy narrative. We know the names of the fathers of many people in antiquity for which there is no infancy narrative.

Vorkosigan writes: Wasn't there a whole alternate religious system based on JtB as the messiah? Don't the mandeans even today revere John and consider Jesus a false prophet?

Unfortunately, I recall that the earliest of the Mandean writings were written around 700 CE. It is precarious at best to argue from these documents to a background for the writing of the Gospel of John.

Vorkosigan writes: The baptisms and other events are there to link the two figures in a way that subordinates John to Jesus permanently.

But a baptism does not subordinate John to Jesus.

Vorkosigan writes: John knows the prison story -- he refers to it parenthetically later, but the chronology is totally different. I have no explanation. Help!

I am open to the possibility that the author of John had no more than partial oral familiarity with the synoptic gospels. But I am not sure how to explain this and other differences on the hypothesis that the author of John had a synoptic laid out before him.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Here is the quote from the NHLiE: "God created man. [. . . men] create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!"

There is a salient difference here, and that is that the quotes says that a singular god created man, not that gods created man. This has implications: perhaps the author is expressing the common Jewish viewpoint that pagans create idols and worship gods of their own making?

I don't see that salient difference. How would the plural "gods" not include the Jewish god?

That's interesting. I have never seen the language of dependence as assuming that the story relates to history somehow. Scholars argue about whether Pindar depends on Homer, but that does not assume historicity for the poetry of either Pindar or Homer.

True, but I would argue that the way dependence is used in NT studies, there is an implication that it is bound up with historicity.

Josephus writes: "For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions."

I myself do not see any reason to see the statement of Josephus on the purpose of John's baptism as more reliable than the statement of Mark's Gospel. This is particularly because Josephus seems aware of the interpretation of the baptism as being for the forgiveness of sins, which would make it plausible that it is Josephus who has altered the tradition before him. Also, the separation of soul and body seems to be the distinction of the Hellenistic historian rather than of the pious Palestinian Jewish preacher.

Yet, water baptism as practiced by the Essenes was not for remission of sins. In other words , there is an extant tradition of baptism for initiatory purposes in Judaism, with remission for sins coming from right thinking and behavior -- in the Essene community, and Josephus is aware of this tradition. Josephus' comment reads like he is correcting a widely-held misapprehension, not like he is incorrectly imputing Hellenistic religious philosophy to JtB. Doesn't Josephus claim to have studied with just such a community?

((As an aside, if Josephus was aware of a widely-held misapprehension -- Christianity -- that would be weak evidence that in fact the Testamonium Flavium is not a complete interpolation, but may have mentioned Jesus or the Xtian community in a negative way))

In any case, when placing historians against legends, the default must lie with the historian. Why would Josephus make up a story like that?

Further, JtB may well have been personally known to Josephus, as Eisenman speculates.

an infancy narrative. We know the names of the fathers of many people in antiquity for which there is no infancy narrative.

Good point. As I recall, John never uses Jesus' mother's name, although "Mary" crops up all over the place.

Unfortunately, I recall that the earliest of the Mandean writings were written around 700 CE. It is precarious at best to argue from these documents to a background for the writing of the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing from the writings! In any case the mandeans date themselves to much earlier. Hard to say exactly.....

...But even looking at the Bible, it is hard to argue that John was Jesus' forerunner. In Acts 19 we meet apostles of JtB who had never heard of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Why would JtB continue having apostles if his only role was as herald for Jesus? Acts is a second-century document; this argues that there existed in the second century a community of followers of a herald who had never heard of anything the herald said! (True even if Acts is a first century doc). Obviously such a community would have been a great embarrassment to the Christians. Note that Luke is aware of JtB's alleged herald-for-Jesus role, so why would he invent such a story in Acts, unless it is part of the ongoing campaign against JtB and his followers? Further, Josephus does not mention this aspect of John's preaching, although the Bible claims it was central to it. Finally, John and Jesus do not even meet in Q, and the authentic Paulines never mention this role of JtB's.

Vorkosigan wrote: The baptisms and other events are there to link the two figures in a way that subordinates John to Jesus permanently.

Kirby responds: But a baptism does not subordinate John to Jesus.

It annoints Jesus JtB's successor, and the accompanying verses about not being fit to tie Jesus' sandals makes their relationship pretty clear.

In John 1:35-7 we have:

• NIV: 35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"
  37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.[emphasis mine]

In other words, Jesus not only is superior to John, he even poaches two of his disciples, and one of those disciples is Andrew, who introduces him to Simon Peter, Andrew's brother. Jesus is poaching JtB's disciples, on JtB's turf, and then recruiting more disciples on JtB's turf, including the all-important Peter. The following day, in 1:43-50, he recruits more disciples on JtB's turf. Clearly the suggestion is, once again, that Jesus is superior to John. Thus, in John, the imprisonment/execution of JtB is placed to allow time for Jesus to recruit disciples and generally supplant JtB, in Mark, it is placed to end JtB's career as soon as Jesus is annointed by him. (Mark is also aware of a JtB community; they bury JtB in Mark 6.)

To recap: the NT's position on JtB exists to cover up the fact that the two never met, and JtB's mission was a rival to Jesus', and left a community that at least was still extant in the second century, and was still embarrassing Christians even then. The baptism is completely ahistorical.

I am open to the possibility that the author of John had no more than partial oral familiarity with the synoptic gospels. But I am not sure how to explain this and other differences on the hypothesis that the author of John had a synoptic laid out before him.

Then how do you account for the 200 denarii in John 6? Don't answer, let's keep exploring the problem.

best,

Vorkosigan

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I need more participation in this Bible study! I encourage anyone reading to offer their own comments on the first chapter of John.

Vorkosigan writes: I don't see that salient difference.

You had written: "There's a comment in the Gospel of Philip that says first the gods created us, and now we created the gods." But, as translated in NHLiE, the comment says that God or a god created us, not that gods created us.

Vorkosigan writes: How would the plural "gods" not include the Jewish god?

That's easy. The gods could refer to false gods.

1 Corinthians 8
4 -- concerning then the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in [the] world, and that there [is] no other God save one.
5 For and if indeed there are [those] called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there are gods many, and lords many,)
6 yet to us [there is] one God, the Father, of whom all things, and *we* for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and *we* by him.

Vorkosigan writes: True, but I would argue that the way dependence is used in NT studies, there is an implication that it is bound up with historicity.

Suppose that this is right (I do not, but will for the sake of argument). Do we know that there is no historicity to the gospels?

Vorkosigan writes: Yet, water baptism as practiced by the Essenes was not for remission of sins.

I believe you, but I need a specific reference for my notes.

Vorkosigan writes: Josephus' comment reads like he is correcting a widely-held misapprehension, not like he is incorrectly imputing Hellenistic religious philosophy to JtB.

I indicated that the separation of body and soul is characteristic of Hellenistic philosophy (Platonic and others).

Vorkosigan writes: In any case, when placing historians against legends, the default must lie with the historian.

I do not believe that Josephus is a historian in the modern sense. Josephus is a Jewish apologist.

Vorkosigan writes: Why would Josephus make up a story like that?

Maybe the readers of Josephus would scoff at the notion of a baptism for the forgiveness of sins?

Vorkosigan writes: Further, JtB may well have been personally known to Josephus, as Eisenman speculates.

Does Eisenman mean this literally? Josephus was born around 37 CE.

Vorkosigan writes: But even looking at the Bible, it is hard to argue that John was Jesus' forerunner.

You are right; critical HJ scholarship does not argue that John was Jesus' forerunner.

Vorkosigan writes: To recap: the NT's position on JtB exists to cover up the fact that the two never met, and JtB's mission was a rival to Jesus', and left a community that at least was still extant in the second century, and was still embarrassing Christians even then. The baptism is completely ahistorical.

You have argued that the material apart from the baptism of Jesus by John aims to subordinate John to Jesus (this is particularly clear in the Gospel of John, which narrates no baptism of Jesus by John). You have only claimed that the baptism of Jesus by John aims to subordinate John to Jesus.

Why would it have been embarrassing that Jesus and John never met?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

That's easy. The gods could refer to false gods.

Point conceded.

Suppose that this is right (I do not, but will for the sake of argument). Do we know that there is no historicity to the gospels?

Do we know that there is? Which parts are historical, and how?

I believe you [on water baptism], but I need a specific reference for my notes.

Josephus describes how they bathe in cold water to purify themselves before every meal. I believe the reference is War 2.120. The water was exorcised before they bathed. In Life 11 he boasts that he bathed in cold water every day when was with Banus.

I indicated that the separation of body and soul is characteristic of Hellenistic philosophy (Platonic and others).

That's fine as far as it goes, but Josephus appears to be referring to practices already known to exist in Judaism. There's no need to reach for Hellenism on this one. He represents the Essenes as believing that the soul, or a portion of it, was trapped or imprisoned in the body........

I do not believe that Josephus is a historian in the modern sense. Josephus is a Jewish apologist.

I agree with it, but Josephus is working with history. The gospels are working with legend, and elaborating, inventing and expanding it.

Maybe the readers of Josephus would scoff at the notion of a baptism for the forgiveness of sins?

But Jos doesn't attack the idea of baptism as remission of sins specifically, he attacks the link between JtB and that idea. This motive would not apply. There may well be another, perhaps in some way Jos is attempting to curry favor with the Romans by delinking JtB, and through him, ascetic practices in general, from the nationalistic religious cults. Jos, after all, claims to have once been an ascetic in the desert just like JtB.

Does Eisenman mean this literally? Josephus was born around 37 CE.

My bad. Eisenman is speculating about a Jos-James connection. Sorry. That's what I get for writing from memory.

Vorkosigan writes: But even looking at the Bible, it is hard to argue that John was Jesus' forerunner.

You are right; critical HJ scholarship does not argue that John was Jesus' forerunner.

You have argued that the material apart from the baptism of Jesus by John aims to subordinate John to Jesus (this is particularly clear in the Gospel of John, which narrates no baptism of Jesus by John). You have only claimed that the baptism of Jesus by John aims to subordinate John to Jesus.

Why would it have been embarrassing that Jesus and John never met?

Did I say so? I only meant that they did not meet -- in Q John is already in prison when he hears about Jesus, and has never heard of him prior to that time ( yet another solution, and a very prosaic one, to the JtB problem -- oh, he was executed before he really got know Jesus). The lack of meeting might be problematic for Christians because John obviously was a leader with enormous prestige whose approval would have been highly salutary for Jesus' cause, and because his community did not worship Jesus -- see Acts 19. Not so much embarrassing, as highly advantageous to invent a story in which Jesus subordinates JtB and takes over his mission by becoming his successor, thereby transferring JtB's prestige to himself, and his community to Christianity. Acts shows that this drive was still ongoing into the second century.

I do not see the Baptism as subordinating in and of itself, but rather, part of Mark's two-pronged strategy to create a link Jesus to JtB, make Jesus JtB's successor, and reduce or obliterate the latter's status vis-a-vis Jesus. In John's gospel another strategy is used: Jesus poaches JtB's disciples right in front of him, and later on his own turf. Each of the evangelists confronted the JtB problem -- the lack of a link between the two movements[/i] -- in a different way. Mark's gospel is so striking, he may have known of a story wherein JtB repudiated Jesus.

In John 1 JtB constantly "testifies" and "confesses" that Jesus is the One. This is emphasis may also reflect a tradition that JtB had repudiated Jesus. Or more likely, in both Mark and John, is aimed at the community of JtB followers who continue to deny the importance of Jesus.

• NIV20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.[7] "

The overkill here, with confess used twice, is of the "methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much" variety. It reeks of invention to cover a completely opposite case.

Vorkosigan

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Do we know that there is?

I have not claimed that we know there is historicity to the gospels. Are you claiming that there is no historicity to the gospels?

Vorkosigan writes: There's no need to reach for Hellenism on this one. He represents the Essenes as believing that the soul, or a portion of it, was trapped or imprisoned in the body.

So Josephus. Do we have references from the Dead Sea Scrolls or from the Pseudepigrapha that say that the soul is trapped in the body?

Vorkosigan writes: I agree with it, but Josephus is working with history. The gospels are working with legend, and elaborating, inventing and expanding it.

I do not believe that Josephus was in a better position to know about the purpose of John's baptism than was the author of Mark.

Vorkosigan writes: I do not see the Baptism as subordinating in and of itself, but rather, part of Mark's two-pronged strategy to create a link Jesus to JtB, make Jesus JtB's successor, and reduce or obliterate the latter's status vis-a-vis Jesus.

Why is the baptism of Jesus by John necessary to this strategy of making Jesus greater than John?

Vorkosigan writes: The overkill here, with confess used twice, is of the "methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much" variety. It reeks of invention to cover a completely opposite case.

That's what I said!

best,
Peter Kirby

Gringo

According to John 1:33, Jesus' baptism was God's way of identifying the Messiah to John.

This scene reminds me of <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Acts+19%3A+1-7&NKJV_version=yes&language=english&x=18&y=7" target="_blank">Acts 19: 1-7</a> where there seemed to be a sect of John the Baptist followers who were Christians whom Paul was visiting. Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and asked them if they had been baptised. They said they had received the baptism of John and Paul goes on to baptise them into Christ. This included his laying on of hands of them, where they spoke in tongues. This latter was a spiritual baptism, a rebirth, while John's was a ritual one. Sort of like in Matthew 3 when some of the Parisees and Sadducees came to be baptised, John told them to bear fruit worthy of repentance and then warned them that trees that did not bear good fruit would be thrown into the fire. So without genuine repentance, this baptism was not any good. But those who have been baptised into Christ have an Advocate with the Father even if they sin- 1 John 2.

Vorkosigan

I have not claimed that we know there is historicity to the gospels. Are you claiming that there is no historicity to the gospels?

Mmmmmm...I'm claiming, until we can demonstrate history in the gospels, we cannot claim they are historical. This means more than showing that Pilate existed; it means showing that Pilate existed and actually did what the gospels said he did. Otherwise we treat them like an other set of legends that re-arranges historical figures and events for their own purposes, like the medieval germanic legends about the late Roman emperors, or the Prose Eddas, or the Arthurian cycle, or Robin Hood, or the cargo cults, or .....

So Josephus. Do we have references from the Dead Sea Scrolls or from the Pseudepigrapha that say that the soul is trapped in the body?

Offhand, I seem to recall something from the DSS. I'll see if I can dig it up. But why are we having this discussion? In reference to the Prologue?

There is no reason that late Judiasm could not have taken up the idea of the soul being trapped in the prison of the body from Hellenism, so that Josephus could treat it as a Jewish belief. It appears in gnosticism (later?), after all.

I do not believe that Josephus was in a better position to know about the purpose of John's baptism than was the author of Mark.

I agree, but in this part of the discussion we are not discussing why Mark had John baptize Jesus, but what kind of baptism John practiced, and how it relates to the kind of baptism Mark portrayed. In Mark John's baptism is "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (1:4). In Josephus he goes out of his way to state that this was not the case. You have to choose one or the other, or some alternative (but what, and with what support?)

We know that the gospelers felt free to re-arrange events, people, and ideas as they felt necessary. We also know that Josephus got his chronologies and people confused, and also seems to slant his story to please his audience. He could well have been apologizing for JtB by eliminated his most controversial activity. Not easy to choose between them.

BTW, is the JtB story told differently in the other versions of Josephus?

Why is the baptism of Jesus by John necessary to this strategy of making Jesus greater than John?

Because (1) it creates a link between Jesus and JtB using the activity for which JtB is most celebrated while (2) allowing JtB to fulfill the role in the messianic literature of being the one who announces the messiah by "annointing" through baptism.

Mind you, that is only one strategy out of four.

Another question: I know that Josephus appears to date the death of JtB in 36, although Saulnier argued for a much earlier date (24-8). What is the generally accepted date? If it is 36, the last year Pilate was in Jerusalem, then Jesus could not possibly have been executed under Pilate, at least as the gospels tell the story; alternatively, he could have been executed under Herod, as GosPeter tells, and Luke appears to know. That would make more sense, Herod elminating a couple of bad boys in one fell swoop with Pilate's approval. But that would make the gospel stories almost entirely fiction.

Vorkosigan