No ekklēsia in Mark?

[Peter Kirby]

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.

None of this is strictly speaking wrong, with the qualification that everything I wrote in this regard isn't wrong either.

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.

Alright, this isn't wrong either because ekklēsia did not describe a building.

The question of the OP was about the use of a word (ekklēsia) in a gospel (specifically Mark). I mentioned how the Gospel of Matthew uses the word ekklēsia, but when it does so, it does so in a way that refers to the future. I mentioned how Luke-Acts does so, but when it does so, it is only when the narrative arrives at that future, after the narration of the resurrection (in Acts). This helps illustrate the orientation of Christians regarding their ekklēsia being established post-resurrection. This is relevant because the thread is framed in terms of the appearance of the word, and one way in which the word can appear (as illustrated) is with reference to the Christian community everywhere or particular such communities.

If the discussion wants to focus instead on the use of words in particular contexts, like the contemporary context of people and places visited by Jesus, and particularly in reference to Jewish people and places, that's fine. Then it should be noted that we're not really talking just about the non-usage of the word in Mark. We could also be talking about Matthew, Luke, and any other text that doesn't use the word that way.

I'm making a wild guess here, that the OP was written from the perspective that the word might be ambiguous in Paul, but that the pattern of non-use of the word in Mark is taken as a clue to the use of the word in Paul? (The OP was not clear.)

[Peter Kirby]

You say:

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.

I wrote:

... I would call that a "counting fallacy," counting words as an argument that is independent of reading texts.

... 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 no shortcut here. Instead of being "odd," this is, rather, a good demonstration of the failure of this kind of fallacy.

It can indeed be considered valuable in that way, a useful error to be presented as if it were valid by RG Price, since a lot of people here are blind to the fact that this is a fallacy, but maybe a few that are less blind might see that this is a solid particular example of where it goes wrong.

[davidmartin]

maybe the gospels don't like the idea an organisation existed before it was supposed to although thats what it looks like in the gospels, they won't call it that

[rgprice]

Firstly I'm not saying any certain explanation for the phenomenon is right or wrong at this point. I'm just wondering why this might be the case.

Acts is interesting because it uses both terms in relatively equal proportions. And in Acts ekklēsia does not always refer to the "church".

For example in Acts 19 we find both ekklēsia and synagōgēn.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

32 The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33 The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34 But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36 Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to calm down and not do anything rash. 37 You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. 38 If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. 39 If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. 40 As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.” 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.

Here the writer is using the word synagōgēn to refer to a Jewish religious building and ekklēsia to refer to a Greek body of people. So I'm surprised, why is the word ekklēsia never used to refer to a Jewish "body of people" in the Gospels, when ekklēsia was a perfectly valid term to use to describe a Jewish "body of people"?

This helps illustrate the orientation of Christians regarding their ekklēsia being established post-resurrection.

But this is what I'm getting at. 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.

So, when the first Gospel writer came along, assuming that the reading material he would have been familiar with were existing Pauline epistles, which spoke frequently of ekklēsia, why might this person have thought to reserve the term ekklēsia for "Christians" and not to use it for Jews?

My point is that Jews would have referred to their own congregations as ekklēsia. This wasn't a word that could not be applied to Jews. I just found it interesting that Mark doesn't use ekklēsia anywhere for anything. I don't see why the writer of Mark would necessarily have associated the term ekklēsia with the "post-resurrection" body of Jesus worshipers. The writer never uses the term, so we can hardly make that conclusion.

Might there be a reason that the writer never identifies the disciples as an ekklēsia? Might the writer not consider them a part of the ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ?

Maybe I am just reading too much into it...

[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" ?

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

I'm not counting words: I'm simply offering a simple suggestion as to why these texts use different words for very similar things, ie., 'assemblies': texts that many scholars propose and argue are inter-related, ie. that the author/s of G.Mark used the Pauline letters ...

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).

The genre of the texts is less relevant than the point I've already made: these are texts that many scholars argue are inter-related, ie. that the author/s of G.Mark used the Pauline letters.

My proposal fits with the use of these different words for 'assemblies' - ekklesia and synagogue - other than that the use of those words, as you have pointed out, are sparsely used in the Pauline epistles and G.Mark (but that might well be a "counting fallacy").

[MrMacSon]

Some background

The ecclesia or ekklesia (Greek: ἐκκλησία) was the assembly of the citizens in city-states of ancient Greece.

The ekklesia of Athens

---

The ekklesia of ancient Athens is particularly well-known. It was the popular assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship.[1] In 594 BC, Solon allowed all Athenian citizens to participate, regardless of class. The assembly was responsible for declaring war, military strategy and electing the strategoi and other officials. It was responsible for nominating and electing magistrates (árchontes), thus indirectly electing the members of the Areopagus. It had the final say on legislation and the right to call magistrates to account after their year of office. A typical meeting of the Assembly probably contained around 6,000 people, out of a total citizen population of 30,000–60,000. It would have been difficult, however, for non-wealthy people outside the urban center of Athens to attend until reimbursements for attendance were introduced in the 390s. It originally met once every month, but later met three or four times per month. The agenda for the ekklesia was established by the Boule, the popular council. Votes were taken by a show of hands, counting of stones and voting using broken pottery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Greece)

Ecclesia (Sparta)

The ecclesia or ekklesia (Greek: ἐκκλησία) was the citizens' assembly in the Ancient Greek city-state of Sparta. Unlike its more famous counterpart in Athens, the Spartan assembly had limited powers, as it did not debate; citizens could only vote for or against proposals.

In the pre-War literature, the assembly was often called the apella (Greek: Ἀπέλλα), but this word refers to a festival of Apollo, the Apellai, during which the ekklesia originally met.

Name

---

... The Apellai were a festival of Apollo where the ekklesia originally met. They were organised once a month, with perhaps one more important feast once a year (called Apellaios), during which elections were presumably organised. In later times, the two events (religious and political) were possibly split.[2] Ancient sources use instead the word ecclesia to designate the political assembly of the Spartans, like in any other Greek city-state. The most important mention comes from Thucydides, who reproduces a verbatim sentence of a decree between Sparta and Argos concluded in 418 or 417, which uses "ecclesia" for the Spartan assembly.[3][4] The confusion arose from the Rhetra* cited by Plutarch, mentioning apellazein, which Plutarch tells it means "to assemble the people", but only in reference to Apollo, the god at the origins of the Rhetra.[5][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(Sparta)

* The Great Rhetra (Greek: Μεγάλη Ῥήτρα, literally: Great "Saying" or "Proclamation", charter) was used in two senses by the classical authors. In one sense, it was the Spartan Constitution, believed to have been formulated and established by the quasi-legendary lawgiver, Lycurgus. In the legend Lycurgus forbade any written constitution. It was therefore presumed to have been oral.

In a second sense, the rhetra refers to an oracle of Delphi, which was believed to have contained the entire constitution in verse. The credo of being unwritten fails in this case, as a written record of all oracles was maintained by the priests at Delphi. They and others consulted it frequently. It survived long after the demise of the oracle but is missing now, except for fragments handed down by classical authors ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rhetra

< While all roads [might] lead to Rome, many roads in Rome in antiquity lead to Greece >

Etymology

---

From ἔκκλητος (ékklētos, “summoned”) +‎ -íā (-íā, abstract noun suffix), from ἐκκαλέω (ekkaléō, “to call forth, summon”), from ἐκ (ek) + καλέω (kaléō).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%9 ... E%AF%CE%B1

See https://biblehub.com/thayers/1577.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm

[MrMacSon]

See https://biblehub.com/thayers/1577.htm ...

ἐκκλησία, ἐκκλεσιας, ἡ (from ἔκκλητος called out or forth, and this from ἐκκαλέω); properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used

1. among the Greeks from Thucydides (cf. Herodotus 3, 142) down, an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberating: Acts 19:39.

2. in the Sept. often equivalent to קָהָל, the assembly of the Israelites, Judges 21:8; 1 Chronicles 29:1, etc., especially when gathered for sacred purposes, Deuteronomy 31:30 (Deuteronomy 32:1); Joshua 8:35 (Joshua 9:8), etc.; in the N.T. thus in Acts 7:38; Hebrews 2:12.

3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance or tumultuously: Acts 19:32, 41.

4. in the Christian sense,

1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship: ἐν ἐκκλησία, in the religious meeting, 1 Corinthians 14:19, 35; ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, 1 Corinthians 14:34; συνέρχεσθαι ἐν ἐκκλησία, 1 Corinthians 11:18; cf. Winers Grammar, § 50, 4a.
   .
2. a company of Christians ... < many references to the Pauline epistles here >

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1577.htm

[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.

I'm not counting words: I'm simply offering a simple suggestion as to why these texts use different words for very similar things, ie., 'assemblies': texts that many scholars propose and argue are inter-related, ie. that the author/s of G.Mark used the Pauline letters ...

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).

The genre of the texts is less relevant than the point I've already made: these are texts that many scholars argue are inter-related, ie. that the author/s of G.Mark used the Pauline letters.

My proposal fits with the use of these different words for 'assemblies' - ekklesia and synagogue - other than that the use of those words, as you have pointed out, are sparsely used in the Pauline epistles and G.Mark (but that might well be a "counting fallacy").

It is a proposal.

The words "similar things" paper over the points of dissimilarity that do explain the use of different terms, which have been discussed in this thread.

It's a bit of a fig leaf over the counting fallacy, yes. It doesn't wrestle with the texts and what they say, in any detail.

[MrMacSon]

The ecclesia or ekklesia (Greek: ἐκκλησία) was the assembly of the citizens in city-states of ancient Greece.

The ekklesia of Athens

---

The ekklesia of ancient Athens is particularly well-known. It was the popular assembly, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship.[1] In 594 BC, Solon allowed all Athenian citizens to participate, regardless of class. The assembly was responsible for declaring war, military strategy and electing the strategoi and other officials. It was responsible for nominating and electing magistrates (árchontes), thus indirectly electing the members of the Areopagus. It had the final say on legislation and the right to call magistrates to account after their year of office ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Greece)

Archon (Greek: ἄρχων, romanized: árchōn, plural: ἄρχοντες, árchontes) is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office.

... Under the Athenian constitution, archons were also in charge of organizing festivals by bringing together poets, playwrights, actors, and city-appointed choregoi (wealthy citizen patrons). The archon would begin this process months in advance of a festival by selecting a chorus of three playwrights based on descriptions of the projected plays. Each playwright would be assigned a choregos, also selected by the archon, from among the wealthy citizens who would pay all the expenses of costumes, masks, and training the chorus. The archon also assigned each playwright a principal actor (the protagonist), as well as a second and third actor ...

Byzantine Empire

---

Byzantine historians usually described foreign rulers as archontes.[3] The rulers of the Bulgars themselves, along with their own titles, often bear the title 'archon placed by God' in inscriptions in Greek.

Other Uses

---

In 'Gnostic' religious traditions, the term archon generally refers to a group of seven supernatural beings, associated with the seven classical planets and considered to be responsible for the creation of the physical world ["the builders of the physical universe"].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

[Peter Kirby]

RG Price makes an excellent point about James, on the other hand, based on a close reading of the text.

Only a single use of the term was required for RG Price to be able to do that and to discuss the relationship of the text to the term. It makes a world of difference that the term is used in the context of where believers are gathered (James), instead of where Jesus entered (Mark), or where believers are predicted to be beaten (also Mark).

I discussed these two different manner of references in Mark. The discussion is skipped over, as is necessary to maintain the 30,000 foot view that is the counting fallacy.