No ekklēsia in Mark?

[rgprice]

My search on biblehub shows no instances of ekklēsia in Mark. Is this correct?

https://biblehub.com/greek/ekkle_sia_1577.htm

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.

[MrMacSon]

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" ?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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" ?

Well, the only gospel that uses ἐκκλησία ("the one called out") is GMatthew.

In GMark, Jesus is ironically called out by his family just as he is sitting in the circle with his spiritual family. Mark seems to have had the word ἐκκλησία in mind here.
​

Mark 3:31 And His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside (ἔξω), sent to him, calling (καλοῦντες) him.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

[rgprice]

@Peter But here is no "church" anywhere, this is anachronistic. Ekklēsia = assembly, and this term was used by Jews to refer to Jewish religious bodies. It seems to me that Ekklēsia as it is used by Jews prior to the 2nd century refers mainly to a group of people, not necessarily a building. When Paul uses it in his letters it is sometimes unclear whether it is referring to just a group of people or organization also a physical building.

It seems in that the Gospels synagōgēn refers to physical buildings. So a question is, could ekklēsia have been substituted for synagōgēn, or is there a meaningful distinction that would make ekklēsia inappropriate to use?

For example:

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagōgēn and began to teach.

vs

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the ekklēsia and began to teach.

Clearly in the first case it is said that Jesus entered a building. I suppose that the second case wouldn't necessarily mean that Jesus entered a building. Is this correct?

[Peter Kirby]

But here is no "church" anywhere, this is anachronistic. Ekklēsia = assembly

Yes, some more yes, and a little no, then a lot more no (and finally one last little 'sure, technically yes'). I need an analogy to explain, although I hope that it should already be obvious to anyone what I would attempt to explain here. We could say that "catholic" is an anachronistic translation, catholic = universal. Obviously, it is "anachronistic"! And sometimes, that would just be a better translation! We shouldn't imagine that there were big-c "Catholics" at the first appearance of the word, let alone anything so much as Roman Catholics at any point this early. At the same time, it would be wrong to assume that every use of the word has no more connotation than that which is inherent to its pre-Christian usage. By usage, it comes to have additional layers of meaning added, and not all at once.

Clearly, the word has to be used in its previous senses before it can acquire new ones, so the earliest uses of the word must (most likely) be imbued with much of the pre-Christian senses. Yet it's very easy for words to acquire additional connotations. There's nothing magic about it.

Ekklēsia = assembly has validity, but making it an exclusive mantra would just be a good way to mislead ourselves.

[Peter Kirby]

It seems to me that Ekklēsia as it is used by Jews prior to the 2nd century refers mainly to a group of people, not necessarily a building.

I wasn't at all thinking of uses of the word Ekklēsia / "church" (or "assembly") as if referring to a building. I'm possibly being misread here somehow.

When Paul uses it in his letters it is sometimes unclear whether it is referring to just a group of people or organization also a physical building.

I wasn't aware of any time that Paul uses it as a reference to a building. I would assume that it never is used that way in Paul's letters. But then, I also don't get the impression that you are arguing that it was either.

[Peter Kirby]

It seems in that the Gospels synagōgēn refers to physical buildings. So a question is, could ekklēsia have been substituted for synagōgēn, or is there a meaningful distinction that would make ekklēsia inappropriate to use?

Clearly in the first case it is said that Jesus entered a building. I suppose that the second case wouldn't necessarily mean that Jesus entered a building. Is this correct?

The impression that I have is that the word Ekklēsia had the connotation of the general community of believers who are specifically (to use a non-Pauline word) Christian, as well as particular such communities (the Ekklēsia that is at such-and-such-city, the "church" community of fellow believers, not a building). This is an impression that is grounded in the evidence quite well, not that I feel it necessary to go over that evidence here and now with anyone for whom it is not immediately obvious by their own reading. The ancient Christians feel free to use this word as though it refers to them specifically, so that is the sense in which I most often read it in ancient Christian texts.

The mythology associated with it is that this Ekklēsia was built and established after Jesus rose from the dead.

That is why it is inappropriate to use here. Not only is their Ekklēsia not a building, it also didn't exist then for them.

This seems pretty obvious. I'm guessing that trying to substitute exclusively "non-Christian" definitions (a generic group of people. somehow-a-building-or-not. those two options only.) and use those exclusively is obscuring the nature of the facts for the way that Christians used the word. This would justify my comments above regarding how this can be misleading. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.

[rgprice]

It seems to me that Ekklēsia as it is used by Jews prior to the 2nd century refers mainly to a group of people, not necessarily a building.

I wasn't at all thinking of uses of the word Ekklēsia / "church" (or "assembly") as if referring to a building. I'm possibly being misread here somehow.

When Paul uses it in his letters it is sometimes unclear whether it is referring to just a group of people or organization also a physical building.

I wasn't aware of any time that Paul uses it as a reference to a building. I would assume that it never is used that way in Paul's letters. But then, I also don't get the impression that you are arguing that it was either.

I would say there are places where it is ambiguous and could be read as describing a location. Some examples:

1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Is the "church of God" just a collection of people, or is this an institution? Does the institution have a building?

17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Is Paul talking about going to locations? "As I teach in every church"? Is he talking about walking into a building an giving a sermon?

1 Cor: 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Is this talking about being silent while in the building?

My point is, ekklēsia is not a distinctly Christian word. It does not in fact describe a "church". Jews also considered themselves members of the ekklēsia of God. Even pagan Greeks of course also used the term ekklēsia to describe many organizations and religious groups. So I don't see a specific reason why Mark couldn't have used ekklēsia just fine, unless that reason is that ekklēsia does not describe a building while synagōgēn does describe a building and in Mark's narrative is he always talking about Jesus entering a building.

Nevertheless, given the extent to which the term ekklēsia is used in the Pauline letters it is odd that it is never used in Mark and so rarely used in any Gospel. This is similar to the issue of "Christ", which is all over the epistles but barely used in the Gospels.

[Peter Kirby]

It seems to me that Ekklēsia as it is used by Jews prior to the 2nd century refers mainly to a group of people, not necessarily a building.

I wasn't at all thinking of uses of the word Ekklēsia / "church" (or "assembly") as if referring to a building. I'm possibly being misread here somehow.

When Paul uses it in his letters it is sometimes unclear whether it is referring to just a group of people or organization also a physical building.

I wasn't aware of any time that Paul uses it as a reference to a building. I would assume that it never is used that way in Paul's letters. But then, I also don't get the impression that you are arguing that it was either.

I would say there are places where it is ambiguous and could be read as describing a location. Some examples:

1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Is the "church of God" just a collection of people, or is this an institution? Does the institution have a building?

17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Is Paul talking about going to locations? "As I teach in every church"? Is he talking about walking into a building an giving a sermon?

1 Cor: 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Is this talking about being silent while in the building?

No, I don't think these are references to buildings.

No, I don't refer to Mark when saying so (i.e., I don't think I need this as an additional argument).