No ekklēsia in Mark?

[Peter Kirby]

That discussion, omitted, looked at the references in Mark:

It looks like Mark uses συναγωγὴν.

I find this interesting because Paul never uses συναγωγὴν and Mark apparently never uses ἐκκλησίᾳ.

I'm not sure what to think about that.

Evidence that [the extant] G.Mark reflects "Judaising" ?

It's a possible suggestion, but I would call that a "counting fallacy," counting words as an argument that is independent of reading texts.

There are only two kinds of references to a "synagogue" in Mark. The first kind involves the ones where it refers to the activity of Jesus and those around Jesus as contemporaries. And while Mark doesn't refer to a "church" (which may indeed happen to be meaningful in some way), we also don't see anyone else who does refer to a "church" retrojecting its existence back into the life of Jesus. What we do see is that a "church" is sometimes mentioned as something that will exist (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17) or that exists post-resurrection (Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, etc). When reading texts without a reference to a "church," the highest potential for such references should probably be considered from that perspective. We wouldn't really expect a reference to it when speaking about the pre-resurrection period.

There are also possible hints of a kind of "genre blindness fallacy" at work for some here (not taking into account the subject matter and genre of a text when considering its features even when they are possibly the most significant aspects of the text), given the simultaneous reference to the letters of Paul above (by RG Price). Some may even object to calling this a fallacy, given how much it has contributed to their thinking. Indeed it would be fair to say that, for some people, their whole approach is based squarely on the twin pillars of the "counting fallacy" and the "genre blindness fallacy" (present company excluded of course).

There's one example (the only one of which I am aware) of the other kind of reference in the Gospel of Mark, and it is Mark 13:9, which is a prophetic or predictive reference to "synagogues."

Mark 13:9. But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.

This is the best clue for the relationship between the author of Mark and synagogues, although it may be said that (as it is still only a clue) it's still not completely clear. It could be read in ways that put distance between the author and synagogues (being beaten by those in them), in ways that set the reference aside as being about other believers, or in ways that pull them closer together (being in them in the first place?).

The idea that genre and subject matter could be the biggest factor here is perhaps illustrated by the fact that the four gospels, Acts, and Revelation have all the references to a synagogue in the New Testament. On the other hand, the idea that a chronological factor may also be relevant here cannot be dismissed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_s ... _Palestine

Synagogues had a different function prior to the Second Temple's destruction in 70 CE than they did afterwards. Several examples of such early synagogues from the time and territory of the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties until 70 CE have been excavated in pre-1967 Israel, on the West Bank, and one on the Golan Heights. A significant portion of the scientific community agrees that some of these are synagogues, while some are debated. They all share only a certain number of architectural characteristics with the better-accepted post-destruction synagogues.

By all accounts, synagogues gained stature and importance (and grew in number) after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

[Peter Kirby]

In the "if you liked that, you should love this" department:

https://peterkirby.com/self-identifications.html

(Looking at it again, the pattern of parenthetical annotations on "synagogue" is confusing because it can be taken to imply that no annotation means something. Parenthetical annotation means something; no parenthetical comment is not a comment.)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The word synagōgēn is not used in any epistle except James, where amusingly it is translated as assembly.

James 2:1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your assembly [synagogue] wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in.

It is interesting, though, that James uses the term synagōgēn as James is very likely an actually Jewish text that was just revised into a nominally Christian document.

The Marcionites also used the word synagogue for their place of worship.

The fourth century Marcionite synagogue inscription:

‘συναγωγη Μαρκιωνιστων κωμ(ης) Λεβαβων του κ(υριο)υ και σ(ωτη)ρ(ος) Ιη(σου) Χρηστου προνοια Παυλου πρεσβ(υτερου) του λχ᾽ἐτους’; Philippe Le Bas, Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineur. Inscriptions III i (Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 1870) no. 2558, pp. 582–4 ¼ OGIS 608; see below, p. 387.

[Giuseppe]

The Marcionites also used the word synagogue for their place of worship.

when even them were partially judaized. I mean: do you believe really that in the fourth century (!) the Marcionites hated the demiurge with the same intensity they hated him in the second century?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The Marcionites also used the word synagogue for their place of worship.

when even them were partially judaized. I mean: do you believe really that in the fourth century (!) the Marcionites hated the demiurge with the same intensity they hated him in the second century?

It is typical (but probably anachronistic) that you do not want to associate this term, which today seems so Jewish, with the Marcionites

As rgprice has discovered, "synagogue" could already be used for a building in NT times, but "ekklesia" (church) probably could not. This suggests that the Marcionite use of the word "synagogue" for a building could be very old and probably dates back to the 2nd century. Marcion had the money to build synagogues.

There are many terms in the gospels that could describe both a group of people or things as well as a building: synagogue, house, synhedrion, praetorium, aula (court), temple (ἱερὸν).

Perhaps the question of the thread should be why Mark used the term synagogue. In fact, there seems to be some contrast between the houses where Jesus is with disciples and the public synagogues in Galilee or the temple in Jerusalem. Synagogues in GMark are part of the religious establishment in Galilee.

[rgprice]

In addition to the "counting fallacy" we also have to be on guard against the "genre fallacy". Far too often biblical scholars fail to acknowledge the extent to which every Gospel is primarily just following the lead of the first. They act as if "Gospel" was a "genre" that developed independently, even thought we know that not to be the case.

"Gospel" isn't even like "Western" or "Romance Novel". In the case of the Gospels every single writer is following the lead of the first Gospel writer. Yes, they make their own choices and diverge to some degree here and there but many, if not most, of the common characteristics among Gospels are a product of the fact that they are all directly copied from one another.

So when certain words are not used this is less about people independently making choices or adhering to "tradition" about how to use words than it is about people just copying the example in front of them.

In this way, it may have become the case that ekklēsia came to be associated with "post-resurrection Jesus worshipers" while synagōgēn was used to refer to non-Jesus worshiping Jews all because the word ekklēsia is used in the Pauline letters and was not used for some unknown reason by the writer of the first Gospel, and all the other Gospel writers just copied from them so the word went effectively unused in Gospels. Then looking back it appears that, "Oh, there was a 'tradition' in the 'communities' where they only used the term ekklēsia to refer to worshipers of the risen Jesus!" But that itself may all just be post hoc fallacy.

All I know is, that ekklēsia is commonly used in the Pauline letters, but not synagōgēn. Gospel of Mark never uses the word ekklēsia but does often use synagōgēn.

Maybe its just happen stance. Maybe ekklēsia is used to refer to a body of people and not a place and synagōgēn is used to refer to a place and not a body of people and it just so happens that Paul never described places, only bodies of people and Mark never described bodies of people, only places?

But, when I test that, it appears to me that there are instances in the Pauline letters where what Paul is talking about could be interpreted as talking about a place and there seems to be plenty of instances in the Gospel of Mark where the writer talks about bodies of people but uses words other than ekklēsia to describe them. Arguably, the group of people gathered for the Passover Festival who witness teh crucifixion could have been referred to as an ekklēsia, but the writer chose not to describe them as such.

I find this use to be interesting:

Mark 5:22 Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet.

Even though in most cases Mark uses the term synagogue to describe buildings, here the writer of Mark refers to a leader of a synagogue (ἀρχισυναγώγων / archisynagōgōn) as opposed to a leader of an assembly.

Mark:

When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. “Where did this man get these things?”

Paul:

1 Cor 4:7 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every assembly.

17 The elders who direct the affairs of the assembly well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

It seems to me that the writer of Mark had the opportunity to use ekklēsia and chose not to use it and the same goes for Paul in his letters. It seems there were opportunities for Paul to talk about synagogues but he never used that term.

Gal 1:21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the assemblies of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

This seems to be a telling distinction. Especially given the letter of James, this seems like a candidate where synagogue could have been used, in this case applying to those who worshiped Christ. But what about other cases that talk about those not in Christ?

Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Could not synagogue have been used here? Also, in Galatians 4-5 Paul is clearly talking about Jews or Judaizers who want the Galatian proselytes to adhere to Jewish practices. Apparently these Galatians were proselytes who wanted to be a part of the covenant of Abraham and were acting like Jews and Paul was telling them they didn't need to be circumcised, but some other group of local Jews was telling them that they did need to be circumcised.

Paul talked about Jews and his life in Judaism:

2 Cor 11:I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the assemblies.

Philippians 3:4 If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the assembly; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.

So I just find it a little odd that he never had occasion to use the word synagogue. Nowhere in the Pauline letters do we find a distinction between "Jewish synagōgēn" and "Christian ekklēsia". If Paul conceived of such a distinction it seems like he would have made it.

Its another one of those things that becomes assumed based on inferences. Paul's letters are set in the "post resurrection world" and the Gospel stories are set in the "pre-resurrection world" and one set of writings uses the word ekklēsia while the other uses synagōgēn, so it is assumed that ekklēsia was understood by "the community" at the time to be reserved for post-resurrection worshipers of Jesus, while synagōgēn describes non-Jesus worshiping Jews. I'm saying this distinction may be more a product of the word choices made than the driver of the original choices.

Its possible that "Paul" didn't know the word synagōgēn. But the writer of Mark would of course know the word ekklēsia.

[Secret Alias]

I know there is a core of interpreters here and elsewhere that have this mindset "the gospels we have are the gospel." But really? Why would the Valentinians have made "Church" a key concept in their mystical doctrine if the word "Church" wasn't in the gospel? It doesn't make sense. Surely they had the power to take a gospel and add the word to the text. But we persist in making holy the texts of the gospels handed to us. That's fine I guess. Everyone is entitled to believe their mother was a saint. It just stands in the way of reason.