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.