Subject: Re: tc-list Psalms

From: [email-masked] (Jim Oxford)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:19:11 -0500

At 12:50 AM 3/25/98, Jonathan Dixon wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm also working on a paper for a class on the psalms about the psalm
>titles.  I think that the editorship of the psalter was designed to have a
>Davidic focus, and am trying to prove it.  Does anyone know of anyone who
>has written about the editorship of the psalter?  I've read Wilson's thesis
>on the topic and while I agree with his stance that the epilogue of the
>psalter is not simply 150 but is actually 146-150, I don't agree with with
>his conclusion that the psalm titles do not provide a Davidic focus.  I
>think that they do.  Anyway, anyone who can provide other sources for this
>paper will be greatly apreciated.

you may want to have a look at childs' "introduction to the ot as
scripture" (wilson's mentor).  if memory serves me correctly, he discusses
psalm superscriptions and their significance in his chapter on the psalter.
you may also want to have a look at james mays' "the lord reigns," which
discusses the "davidic focus" of the psalter.

jim oxford
phd candidate in nt
baylor university

---

From: Matt McGill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:39:21 -0800

Please forgive my words if they seem a bit foolish. Most of the postings to
this list are over my head, I have an interest in Biblical Studies, so normally
I just read.

I'm not sure I agree with the statements "the words are here used in precisely
(apparently) the way we would . . . This distinction between the "church" and
the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches";  rather, it
seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct
place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services;  the
"home/house" was elsewhere."

Venton's claim that these word are used "the way we would" assumes everyone
goes to a different building for "Church." While this is certainly the norm, it
is definitely not universal. When I was a little boy, I'd visit my Aunt every
summer for a few weeks. Sunday mornings she'd wake me up saying, "It's time to
get up, and get ready for church." The first time she said this, you could
imagine my surprise as the church was at her house! This was their custom, and
they always met in a member's house.

At the risk of placing my experience upon Paul's (?) writing: Why must these
two different words refer to two different physical settings.

We see the picture of the early church in Acts as meeting in homes. If this was
a common practice, then why can't the specific use of two different words refer
to two different "social settings?"

I guess my question is this: I agree that there is a "strict distinction" made
between these two words, but what is the true nature of that difference? To
leap from that assumption to define that difference as two different physical
places seems to go beyond the text of 1 Cor 14:34-35.

However, when one reads the account in Acts 18:7-11, you find that "Crispus,
the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of
the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (18:8). It does not
seem that the building used for the synagogue (18:4) became a "church" building
(note a new synagogue ruler in 18:17, was he the replacement for Crispus?) But
even the synagogue could have met in a person's house . . . but this doesn't
seem likely to me, because the Jewish population of Corinth was big enough that
they probably built a place for worship.

Also: Paul spent at least a year and a half in Corinth (18:11,18), perhaps he
gathered enough followers who build or converted a building into a "church."

Anyhow, thanks for listening to my thoughts,
Matt McGill