IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

My impression is that you have probably no clue how a historian has to work with sources.

Hey, you're welcome to your impressions, just as I am with regard to the comments regarding "stylistic devices" that started this speculator dog's leg.

The difference between our impressions could be, that probably nearly 90 percent of our own forum members know the fact that Pontius Pilate is called in Annales 15,44 “procurator” and not with his real title "prefect" and that there are many other examples, where a historian or a later interpolator used a title that was more common at the time of his writing, but incorrect for the time about he wrote.

Perhaps more relevant to your concerns is this from Seneca the Younger, De Ira, 1.18:

Tunc centurio supplicio praepositus condere gladium speculatorem iubet, damnatum ad Pisonem reducit
Then the centurion in charge of the execution ordered the guardsman to sheathe his sword, and led the condemned man back to Piso

Indeed. But the "meaning" seems to be "executioner". This is in fact very close to Mark, but only one case against many others. But thanks for that.

[ETA: No, the meaning doesn't seem to be "executioner". We see a speculator having been directed to execute someone, which is also the case in Mark.]

So, we have evidence for speculatores as guards and being used as executioners.

It seems that you not only simply ignore all Latin sources that I have quoted, but also the fact that the usual imperial guards, the Praetoriani and the Germani corporis custodes, are nowhere called “speculatores” (so far I have seen).

I think you can see the value of your "nonsense" comment about the Marcan use of the term.

There doesn't seem to be anything problematical with the Latinisms in Mark.

It is a widespread scholarly opinion that in Mark’s narrative the mission and the death of John the Baptist foreshadows the mission and the death of Jesus - and not only generally, but also in little details. For those who are not ignorant to this it may be not too far-fetched to think about the possibility that also the person of the executioner of John could foreshadow the executioner of Jesus: the speculator his “boss”, the centurion.

I think the tone of your comments is rather inappropriate given your half-baked opinions. It is not a pleasure to discuss with you. Therefore this is my last reply to one of your comments.

[iskander]

Mark 6.27
27 καὶ εὐθέως ἀποστείλας ὁ βασιλεὺς σπεκουλάτωρα ἐπέταξεν ἐνεχθῆναι τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.


speculatore, see attachments .

[iskander]

2

[iskander]

3

[DCHindley]

to DCH,
Thank you for your efforts. I could not consult your table because I do not have the Microsoft program. However, I consulted other tables available on the web. I know that η can be pronounced differently (like "ee" in modern Greek), and so the Aramaic א, as I recall from last night.
That's why I wrote in an earlier link: "If different pronunciations are possible, is there any match where κηφᾶς and כאפא would sound the same or about the same?"

Bernard,

As far as I can see, most all spreadsheet programs should be able to open MS Excel .xls files (1997-2003). I thought about CSV, but there are four worksheet tabs in the workbook, and CSV only supports one sheet per file.

Well, my computer is acting up and I have to go to Physical Therapy, so "ta ta for now".

DCH

[JoeWallack]

I'm hip to spin's (by the way, great to have you back spin) input that complete narratives like GMark almost always have smaller narratives as sources but as yet I don't see any quality evidence for that so I'm still inclined to speculate that GMark is the original Gospel narrative.

Yo Joe! In what sense is Mark a "complete narrative"? Is Matt a complete narrative as well and how do you decide? Does it relate to the serendipitous fact that we have the gospel of Mark available? Is there not good evidence that christian texts generally developed through accretion? If so, how is Mark different if at all? And do the pointers I give such as the existence of two feedings not suggest prior independent sources to Mark?

JW:
The spinster! Hey, it's great to have you back here. First of all, let me say that you ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey. In general, my belief that GMark is the original Gospel narrative is just speculation. I don't claim that it is proven, probable or even likely because I don't have shit in the way of Source Criticism evidence. You seem to be the one who claims a more definite conclusion the other way, cain?

Like I said, I accept your assertion that early Christian texts typically show evidence of accretion. So this is the default position. GMark though reminds me too much of the Delta House legacy Flounder:

http://movie-sounds.org/comedy-movie-so ... loset-case

So, one question at a time:

how is Mark different if at all?

From the perspective of crediting identified sources:

1) GMark has a/the primary theme of discrediting identified sources (The Disciples)

• So "Mark" (author) in trying to promote Jesus, discredits all named supposed witnesses and fails to name himself/herself/themselves/its self. Who/what else ever did that?

2) All subsequent Gospels have a primary theme of crediting identified sources (The Disciples).

• So why use as a base a Gospel with the opposite theme? This suggests there was no earlier story to use that credited the supposed Disciples. Maybe because there was no earlier narrative.

Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

[spin]

My impression is that you have probably no clue how a historian has to work with sources.

Hey, you're welcome to your impressions, just as I am with regard to the comments regarding "stylistic devices" that started this speculator dog's leg.

The difference between our impressions could be, that probably nearly 90 percent of our own forum members know the fact that Pontius Pilate is called in Annales 15,44 “procurator” and not with his real title "prefect" and that there are many other examples, where a historian or a later interpolator used a title that was more common at the time of his writing, but incorrect for the time about he wrote.

Jesus, you're continuing this?? You plainly haven't read any analyses on the speculatores Augusti. Go back to your list of ancient writers for the first century and tell me how many of them were referring to the first century. You will find not one of them dealing with the speculator as existed in the first century. Those quotes are useless. But with a wave of your hand you throw out the second century witnesses to speculatores, as one throws out the baby with the bathwater. There is no reason to think that there was collusion between the writers to invent a new role for the speculatores. There is no reason to think of tendentiousness and there is no reason to think that the information was made up. These are just factoids for the histories. The consilience is so strong, your analogy with Ann.15.44 is vain. There is no tenable corroboration of the testimonium taciteum, but of the speculatores we learn about their weapons, their guardianship of the emperor in the second half of the first century, their housing with the praetorian guard from the literary sources... There is even a diploma from 76 CE, CIL, XVI 21=ILS 1993:

...nomina speculatorum qui in praetorio meo militaverunt, item militum qui in cohortibus novem praetoriis....

This relationship between speculatores and praetorians corroborates Tac Hist 2.11,

...ipsum Othonem comitabantur speculatorum lecta corpora cum ceteris praetoriis cohortibus....
...Otho himself was accompanied by some picked men of the body-guard, with whom were the rest of the Praetorian cohorts....

An inscription from near Udine in northern Italy tells of Voltigonius Celer, who after 12 years as a praetorian went on to become a speculator. This was a step up, not a demotion.

There is also a pre-98 CE inscription (CIL XI 5388) that starts:

T(itus)VERATIUS T(it.)F(ilius)SER(gia) SPECULATOR PRAETORIAN(orum)

Why were the speculatores stationed with the praetorians (whose task was direct service to the emperor)?

Perhaps more relevant to your concerns is this from Seneca the Younger, De Ira, 1.18:

Tunc centurio supplicio praepositus condere gladium speculatorem iubet, damnatum ad Pisonem reducit
Then the centurion in charge of the execution ordered the guardsman to sheathe his sword, and led the condemned man back to Piso

Indeed. But the "meaning" seems to be "executioner". This is in fact very close to Mark, but only one case against many others. But thanks for that.

[ETA: No, the meaning doesn't seem to be "executioner". We see a speculator having been directed to execute someone, which is also the case in Mark.]

So, we have evidence for speculatores as guards and being used as executioners.

It seems that you not only simply ignore all Latin sources that I have quoted, but also the fact that the usual imperial guards, the Praetoriani and the Germani corporis custodes, are nowhere called “speculatores” (so far I have seen).

It would be nice if you actually read those sources. Texts referring back to Hannibal and to the civil war tells you nothing about speculatores in the first century. You have to take notice of the later writers. But, but, they don't agree with your untenable views on speculatores. Pretend they don't exist or that they have no probative value. Sadly, they do.

I think you can see the value of your "nonsense" comment about the Marcan use of the term.

There doesn't seem to be anything problematical with the Latinisms in Mark.

It is a widespread scholarly opinion that in Mark’s narrative the mission and the death of John the Baptist foreshadows the mission and the death of Jesus - and not only generally, but also in little details. For those who are not ignorant to this it may be not too far-fetched to think about the possibility that also the person of the executioner of John could foreshadow the executioner of Jesus: the speculator his “boss”, the centurion.

Umm, that's interesting!?

I think the tone of your comments is rather inappropriate given your half-baked opinions. It is not a pleasure to discuss with you. Therefore this is my last reply to one of your comments.

Rather than responding so aggrievedly, you might like to present a few facts. You don't seem to have any, just a load of denial.

When you've finished this hogwash about speculatores we might get back to something a little more relevant.

[spin]

From the perspective of crediting identified sources:

1) GMark has a/the primary theme of discrediting identified sources (The Disciples)

• So "Mark" (author) in trying to promote Jesus, discredits all named supposed witnesses and fails to name himself/herself/themselves/its self. Who/what else ever did that?

Whoa! thar boyo. "...primary theme of discrediting identified sources"?? You might be able to make a case for a tertiary theme (though I doubt it), but the primary theme is so obviously the presentation of the special guy and his teaching. A secondary theme involves the lack of understanding of all the sinful slugs. By the time you get to the entourage, it's all about how despite their obtuseness they will be saved, so don't feel so bad if you're a dummy: you too, like the help, can get into the mansion.

2) All subsequent Gospels have a primary theme of crediting identified sources (The Disciples).

• So why use as a base a Gospel with the opposite theme? This suggests there was no earlier story to use that credited the supposed Disciples. Maybe because there was no earlier narrative.

I think this is too simple and not accurate. Peter still gets to falter, not enough faith to stay up while walking on water, still denies three times. We still get the dullards falling asleep in the garden. There's no attempt to hide this stuff.

[Secret Alias]

I know thinking outside of the box isn't everyone's thing but do all the gospel's retain the faults of the apostles because of a choice on the part of the individual gospel writers or was that dictated by common knowledge of the narrative? The question boils down to what are the canonical gospels and did they have a separate existence outside of the canonical set? Trobisch doesn't think so. He thinks they were specifically edited to fit a 'set.' Again we are down to the question of whether they represent a 'discovery' of the individual texts in their 'natural state' (i.e. out there in the world) or whether they were modified from original documents. I think the latter is true.

[Bernard Muller]

to iskander,
Good, I am waiting for spin's reply.

Cordially, Bernard