Executing John the Baptist

[Hugh Fuller]

As M. Demetrius points out, the word used in the original Greek text is spekoulátôr. I remember to have read (for example in Le Bohec) that the equites speculatores of the Praetorian Cohorts were also a bodyguard for the Emperor, so a speculator could rightly also be translated as a bodyguard.

Yes, but what's the evidence before Otho? As far as I know, he was the first one to employ people like that. I may be wrong.

Yes, that's also what I read. At the same time, this could suggest another research thread. Since the Gospel of Mark is often considered to have been composed shortly after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (therefore at a time when the speculatores were actually acting as bodyguards), spekoulator may not be the word used in the days of Antipas, but the word that Mark would most naturally use to identify the bodyguard of a leader. While it might be somewhat puzzling that Mark use a Latin transliteration in a Greek text, I found at least two comments here and here suggesting that Mark was actually writing for a non-Jewish, possibly Roman audience. Hence the choice to use terms that would make immediately sense to Latin-speaking readers (by the way, both comments refer to spekoulator exactly in this context)

Another interesting point that I found in a commentary to Mark's gospel (but I do not know how strongly based in primary sources) is that the use of the word spekoulátôr would suggest that Antipas' army was modeled on the Roman example and used Latin titles. So, the executioner of John the Baptist would be a bodyguard of Antipas rather than a Roman officer

That's interesting, and certainly possible. Which commentary is it?

It is actually a modern commentary in Italian. You may find the text here. The contributions on the website are from a number of scholars specialised in the Early Christian Literature but, as I said, no primary source or other reference is provided, so I cannot say how much this is the personal opinion of the author or a widely shared view. Maybe I might ask him through the site...

Bolding is mine to emphasize the part that I was questioning.

It is generally accepted in the studies that I have read that Mark is dated to shortly after the Great Fire in Rome and the subsequent execution of Peter. That dates it to the mid-60s CE, before the destruction of the Temple and during the principate of Nero. They date Matthew and Luke to the period shortly after the destruction of the Temple, say 10 years or so.

[Maiorianus]

Hugh,

I was maybe a bit too quick in my earlier post, because I was actually focusing on the use of the word speculator in Mark and I only made a passing remark on the date of the composition of his Gospel. I'll try to be still synthetic (to avoid going off-topic), but a bit more elaborate this time.

The issue of the datation of all gospels has been heavily discussed since a few decades after the time they were written

1. the Gospel of Mark is generally (but not universally) considered the eldest gospel;

2. according to the testimony of ancient Christian authors (none of whom, however, wrote before 120 CE, at earliest), Mark was closely associated with Peter and wrote his Gospel during the last years of Peter's life or shortly after his death, which took place during Nero's persecution (as you rightly point out, this started in 64 CE, after the Great Fire);

3. Modern scholars point to the prophecy Jesus makes about the destruction of the temple (13,2) as a key element to determine the date of composition of Mark's Gospel. Some (a minority, I agree) see this as evidence that the temple had already been destroyed at the time of Mark's writing (and they also use 13,14 to support this view); others (in particular comparing his description with the more detailed ones by Matthew and Luke, which seem to refer specifically to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus) think that the description is too generic to be evidence of a post-70 CE composition.

In short, most texts I have checked (either at home or on the Internet) point to a 65-70 CE date; some consider plausible a 65-75 CE date; a few (building on the controversial interpretation of a Qumran fragment) go back to 50 CE.

Going back to the speculator, the word might actually, a contrario, constitute a hint for the datation of the Gospel. If, as it seems, the equites speculatores of the Praetorian Guard started to be used as imperial bodyguards by Otho (69 CE - and here I think to the discussion of the issue in Rose Mary Sheldon's Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome) and if Mark refers to a speculator as the bodyguard of a king in order ot be understood by his Latin-speaking audience, this might move us towards the upper limit of the 65-70 CE range. And the genericity of the prophecy on the destruction of the temple might refer (as I actually read somewhere, if I only could find it again ) to the fact that Mark completed his text while the siege of Jerusalem was underway, but without full knwoledge of its eventual outcome.

[Jona Lendering]

Going back to the speculator, the word might actually, a contrario, constitute a hint for the datation of the Gospel. If, as it seems, the equites speculatores of the Praetorian Guard started to be used as imperial bodyguards by Otho (69 CE - and here I think to the discussion of the issue in Rose Mary Sheldon's Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome) and if Mark refers to a speculator as the bodyguard of a king in order ot be understood by his Latin-speaking audience, this might move us towards the upper limit of the 65-70 CE range.

I find it hard to believe that the new meaning of a Latin word surfaces for the first time in a Greek text, written by someone whose first language was (probably) Aramaic...

[Maiorianus]

Going back to the speculator, the word might actually, a contrario, constitute a hint for the datation of the Gospel. If, as it seems, the equites speculatores of the Praetorian Guard started to be used as imperial bodyguards by Otho (69 CE - and here I think to the discussion of the issue in Rose Mary Sheldon's Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome) and if Mark refers to a speculator as the bodyguard of a king in order ot be understood by his Latin-speaking audience, this might move us towards the upper limit of the 65-70 CE range.

I find it hard to believe that the new meaning of a Latin word surfaces for the first time in a Greek text, written by someone whose first language was (probably) Aramaic...

Is this really the way it sounds? Then sorry for the confusion. What I meant is:

a. the first clearly recorded employment of Praetorian speculatores as bodyguards starts with Otho;

b. Mark uses spekoulator to mean "bodyguard of a king";

c. We may assume that he's using the term because it was clear to his audience that a speculator was a bodyguard for a senior leader. Should check more carefully if he really was the first one to do so, but even then he was only stating a fact, ie that a speculator in his days was a bodyguard.

By the way, this is not the only Latinism Mark uses and this is why Bible scholars think that he was addressing a Latin-speaking audience. In fact, he also uses kenturion, praitorion (for praetorium), kodrantes (for quadrantes) and a few more.

And we should not forget that one of the few biographical notes we have about Mark is that he was the "interpretor" of Peter. We don't know whether this means that Mark was providing interpretation in Greek/Latin for Peter or only that he "interpreted" his thought by transferring it in his Gospel, but the close association with Peter would point to Mark having been in Rome, so he may well have had first-hand knowledge (and sight) of the Praetorian speculatores in their roles as bodyguards...

[M. Demetrius]

Mark was not of Israeli heritage, according to some sources, who say he was not even Jewish-born, which is why his gospel has a very Gentile perspective, as opposed to the other three.

Mark (Marcus) is a Latin name, of course, not Hebrew/Aramaic.

We don't know whether this means that Mark was providing interpretation in Greek/Latin for Peter or only that he "interpreted" his thought by transferring it in his Gospel,

Some think that Peter, a fisherman by trade was not very literate, though people in his time were taught to read at an early age. There Bible verses that attest to this. It is entirely likely that someone transcribed for him, if not Mark, then someone else. That was not an uncommon practice, then or now.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

But it would be nice if we had parallel sources about Roman soldiers attached to foreign courts.

Acts 10:1 refers to Cornelius, a centurion of the cohort "named Italica" - probably, cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, who serves at Caesarea at the time when Herod Agrippa ruled in Judea. According to Acts, in the 40s C.E. the cohort, or at least its part, apparently was included in the army which Agrippa inherited from the Roman prefects and which after his death was transferred under jurisdiction of the Roman procurator of the restored province of Judea.

Acts 27:1 reports that after his long imprisonment in Caesarea and a hearing before the procurator Festus and king Agrippa II, Paul was handed over to Julius, a centurion of the cohors Augusta, to be transported to Rome. AE 1925, 121, a building inscription discovered in the Hauran mountains near the border of the modern Syria and Jordan, suggests that the cohort might have been garrisoned in that vicinity (IGR III 1136 records another inscription from the area that mentions “cohors Aug..."). The surviving part of the inscription informs the reader that Lucius Obulnius, centurion of the cohors Augusta, accomplished the work in the twenty-eighth year of “the great king Marcus Julius Agrippa, the lord, fried of the emperor, pious, friend of the Romans...â€

[D B Campbell]

So, the executioner of John the Baptist would be a bodyguard of Antipas rather than a Roman officer

Just tossing in my quadrans-worth ... this has always been my understanding: namely, that Antipas did not actually have a Roman officer at his court, but rather an informant/assassin/executioner who, for want of a better title, could be described as a speculator.

The Latinisms found in the text are common for the literature of the period. ... they are also found in the Hebrew literature, including the Mishnah (including the "speculator") and Talmuds.

I'm sure Jona would be grateful for a more precise reference, Alexander!

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

I'm sure Jona would be grateful for a more precise reference, Alexander!

Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, II 1899, 92;
Hermann L. Strack und Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, II, 12.

I do not have the books at hand, so no further details.

[Jona Lendering]

The Latinisms found in the text are common for the literature of the period. ... they are also found in the Hebrew literature, including the Mishnah (including the "speculator") and Talmuds.

I'm sure Jona would be grateful for a more precise reference, Alexander!

I know them. A fine one is the prosbul (pro + boule), a legal document developed in the first quarter of the first century CE (many rabbinical regerences). Another interesting one is Tosefta, Hullin 2.24: a story about rabbi Eleazar who runs into trouble for accepting a Christian interpretation of a verse; the hegmon (hegemon; judge) dismisses him from court with the Latin "dimus" (dimissus). In the Gospels are more latinisms.

But at issue is, now, whether we can retroject the late-first century meaning of "speculator" (executioner, guard) to c.28 CE, when it still meant "spy", "agent". The only way to retroject, is to accept that Mark -written in Greek- is the first evidence, antedating Otho's crisis measure. I do not think that is very plausible, and tend to stick to a Roman agent who accepted orders from a foreign head of state.

[Maiorianus]

As to the Gospel of Mark, we know nothing about the author, who chose to remain anonymous, except what later Christian tradition tells us. The Latinisms found in the text are common for the literature of the period. They do not necessarily suggest a type of audience, since they are also found in the Hebrew literature, including the Mishnah (including the "speculator") and Talmuds.

Just on this point: the evidence we have is limited, but by crossreferencing it, it seems to point a certain kind of audience. In order:

1. The latinisms: Mark uses them more than the other synoptic Gospels, ie he has kenturio where, in the same episode, Luke has ekatontarchis (Mark, 15,39 and Luke 23, 47). True, Latinisms in themselves ar just an indication, not firm evidence (and in addition Luke's Greek is generally considered more polished than Mark's one);

2. Mark feels the need to explain Jewish traditions (as in 7,3-4) to his audience, which suggest a non-Jewish audience. Equally, he translates aramaic words;

3. It is true that the Gospel is anonymous (and a lot has been debated about its author), but all initial testimonies about it (Papias via Eusebius, Iraeneus, Clemens Alexandrinus and the anti-marcionite Prologue) suggest a Mark closely associated with Peter and who wrote around the time Peter was in Rome. In this respect, Mark's insistence on persecutions and endurance to them (eg in 8, 34-38; 10, 38-39; 13, 9-13) is seen as confirmation of a connection to the Christian community in Rome

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

2. Mark feels the need to explain Jewish traditions (as in 7,3-4) to his audience, which suggest a non-Jewish audience. Equally, he translates aramaic words

I certainly agree on that one, the audience was apparently other than Palestinian Jews. But I would not argue any further than that. Since we know that latinisms could occur in literature aimed at a non-Latin audience, the presence of the latinisms does not necessarily suggest an audience who was Latin. Why Matthew and Luke avoid using them could be explained, for instance, by the difference in their style of writing; they also employ less Aramaic then does Mark (3 passages in Mark, one in Matthew, none in Luke?), thus showing tendency to avoid foreign language.

3. It is true that the Gospel is anonymous (and a lot has been debated about its author), but all initial testimonies about it (Papias via Eusebius, Iraeneus, Clemens Alexandrinus and the anti-marcionite Prologue) suggest a Mark closely associated with Peter

The testimonies listed after Papias are thought to be dependent on Papias, and so hardly add any weight. We do not know how credible was the statement of Papias. But what Papias said about the way "Mark" composed the Gospel does not seem to go well with the text of the Gospel itself, which, IMO, somewhat undermines the credibility of the entire statement, including his view who was the author.

The theme of persecutions and endurance is common for the entire New Testament corpus.

[Jona Lendering]

all initial testimonies about it (Papias via Eusebius, Iraeneus, Clemens Alexandrinus and the anti-marcionite Prologue) suggest a Mark closely associated with Peter and who wrote around the time Peter was in Rome. In this respect, Mark's insistence on persecutions and endurance to them (eg in 8, 34-38; 10, 38-39; 13, 9-13) is seen as confirmation of a connection to the Christian community in Rome

Personally I believe this, and when I visit the Roman house underneath the S.Clemente in Rome, I fantasize that the Gospel of Mark was written in those rooms. But I think that those who maintain that the evidence for the Mark-Peter connection is insufficient, certainly do have a point.

One remarkable aspect of this Gospel that may be better explained if we accept that Mark was written in Rome, is the odd statement that the temple curtain was torn (Mk 15.38 ). Mark may actually have seen the curtain during Vespasian's triumph, or in Domitian's palace (t.Babli, Yoma 57a and Josephus, Jewish War, 7.5.7).

It is possible that the curtain, before it was captured by the Romans, was indeed torn (Josephus, Jewish War, 6.8.3: "a great quantity of purple and scarlet, which were there reposited for the uses of the veil"). I do not know what to make of this; it is just interesting. Did Mark see the curtain, torn as it was, and create his own theological explanation - suggesting that God had left the Temple and abandoned the Jews?