John Wheelera <\/b><\/p>\n
Is it really possible that we could sing today melodies known by Moses? Melodies perhaps inspired by God Himself? Could the melody of the \u201cSong of Moses\u201d (De 32), to be sung by the saints (Rv 15:3), be actually preserved in the Hebrew Bible we have today?<\/b><\/p>\n
In the Winter 1989 issue of A&BR<\/i> I discussed the implications of the work of French composer and music theorist Suzanne Haik-Vantoura (The Music of the Bible -Revealed).<\/i> Haik-Vantoura believes that the accents or te\u2019amim<\/i> of the Hebrew Old Testament text authoritative in the synagogue -the \u201cMasoretic Text\u201d – preserve the melodies to which the Psalms and prose texts were sung at the Temple in Jerusalem. In her various publications, the author has amassed a great deal of textual, musical, and historical evidence to support her claims (much of which was mentioned in passing in my last article). Hers is the first decipherment to fully account for all the notation in<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 114<\/p>\n
every verse of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
Those who are not musicians may find the musical evidences Haik-Vantoura offers difficult to grasp. For them, the historical<\/i> links between the music of the Temple and the accents found in the Masoretic Text may be of greater value.<\/p>\n
It is these historical links that are the subject of this article.<\/p>\n
There are a number of questions to answer: 1) Who created the original musical system upon-which the accentation was based? 2) How was the music based upon it preserved by the Levites – and 3) how was it passed down after the destruction of the Second Temple to the ninth-century Masoretes? Much of the evidence Haik-Vantoura presented in her book on the latter point was by necessity indirect. That the link between the first and ninth centuries was not strictly oral is evident from the internal evidence of the Biblical text itself; a melody transmitted by purely oral means could not have remained the flawless mirror of the text and its meaning that the revived Biblical chant actually is. What precisely that link was, Haik-Vantoura could not definitively prove.<\/p>\n
We now have enough evidence to give a plausible picture of the origins and transmission of Biblical chant from Israel\u2019s beginnings to the present. What I am presenting here is my own hypothesis (which may or may not agree with Haik-Vantoura\u2019s views).<\/p>\n
Origin of the Melodic System<\/b><\/p>\n
We saw in the Winter 1989 issue of A&BR<\/i> that the internal evidence of the Masoretic Text strongly indicates text and melody were created and transmitted together.<\/p>\n
In every text where one author is indicated, the melody upholds the unity of the particular composition (whether Psalm, chapter, or book) and of its authorship. It is primarily this linkage of melody to text that allows us to make sense of the hints the Bible and other sources give us about the origin and history of Scripture \u201ccantillation.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that the Biblical notation (and, by implication, the musical \u201csign-language\u201d it represents) has parallels both with the musical hand-signs used in Mesopotamia (out of which came the Patriarchs) and those used in Egypt (where Israel sojourned). (For that matter, it has striking parallels with the hand-signs used in the modern Kodaly Method of teaching music.1 <\/p>\n
It is possible that the Patriarchs – and the Israelites in Egypt – knew of and used some form of \u201ccheironomy\u201d as the basis for their own sacred or secular music. Perhaps the original hand-signs used to conduct Biblical chant drew upon earlier sources for some of its inspiration. The system reflected, in any case, the technical and artistic norms of its own time.<\/p>\n
Since the Five Books of Moses (like the rest of the Bible) are provided with melodies apparently created and transmitted with the text, Moses<\/i> was likely the inventor of the musical system. He is an ideal candidate; he was certainly familiar with the use of cheironomy by Egyptian royal musicians <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 115<\/p>\n
(Acts 7:22), and his skill as a poet-melodist is evident (Ex 15:1\u201318; Dt 32:1\u201344; Ps 90). It is reasonable that he would have used a notation to preserve his melodies and their correlations with the text intact, Since the Egyptians used hieroglyphs to represent musical hand-signs long before Moses\u2019 day,2 this conclusion is historically plausible.<\/p>\n
It is interesting that Talmudic and Masoretic tradition alike claim the accentation (at least in its \u201ccheironomic\u201d form) dates back to the days of Moses. The arguments given in the Talmud concerning the meaning of Neh 8:8 imply not only that the accents were of Biblical age, but even \u201cMosaic.\u201d3 Later Masoretic and rabbinic commentators claimed that the accents (in their \u201coral\u201d form) were revealed to Moses on Sinai.4 Some (such as Ga\u2019on Mar Natronay of Babylonia, 9th c.) claimed that the written signs themselves were revealed on Sinai (this claim, however, was contradicted by other commentators).5 <\/p>\n
While we can rule out a direct revelation of the melodic system on Sinai (it was evidently used before then at the crossing of the Red Sea), we can make a guess as to when it was created. Ps 81:1\u20135 could be understood to mean that the musical<\/i> service used on the feasts of the Lord (Lv 23) was ordained while Israel was yet in Egypt. It is reasonable that Moses could have ordained a specific melodic system – based (as others of the time) on cheironomy – to retain the purity of Israel\u2019s worship.<\/p>\n
By the time of the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses was able, using this melodic system, to create and then teach his \u201cSong of the Sea\u201d (Ex 15:1\u201318) to large crowds of people on short notice. We know from the capabilities of the cheironomy used in the Kodaly Method (very similar in its norms to that of antiquity) that simple yet expressive melodies can be taught with ease to children and adults of all levels of musical skill, using hand-signs representing notes of the scale. Interestingly enough, the Song of the Sea uses musical signs representing notes of the scale almost exclusively (the ornaments used are few and simple). The melody, moreover, is spontaneous, rather rustic, and by turns, jubilant and grandiose. In every respect, the Song of the Sea<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 116<\/p>\n
fits the circumstance related by the Biblical narrative as well as the norms of musical practice current in its own time.6 <\/p>\n
Levitical and Prophetic Heritage<\/b><\/p>\n
When Moses put his writings in charge of the Levites (Dt 32:24\u201326), it is logical that the melodies he intended to be used in their public reading (cf. Dt 31:9\u201313) would have been written in the text. It is equally logical that the Biblical authors after Moses would have used and respected this \u201cmosaic\u201d system as a vital part of Israel\u2019s heritage. Yet this respected melodic system would have enough flexibility to reflect the personalities of the composers who used it, and something of the historical circumstances of the creation of their works. Such is exactly what the evidence offered by the melodies themselves indicates.<\/p>\n
Ancient Hebrew (like other ancient languages) was written without punctuation marks. In their absence, it was the function of the melody to emphasize the punctuation and syntax of the sacred text (as well as their literary form and meaning). We know that in ancient Greece especially, text and melody were not considered as separate entities in literature – and the same was evidently true in Israel. Thus, the melody, like the words, would have been considered part of the \u201coracles of God\u201d and guarded with equal care and reverence. The word translated \u201csong\u201d in 1 Chr 15:22, 27 (KJV) -massa, \u201coracle\u201d – and the fact that Psalm-singing is called \u201cprophecy\u201d (1 Chr 25:1\u20133), points to this fact.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew Bible actually uses two forms of musical annotation, each representing a different musical \u201cstyle\u201d of chanting: psa\/mod\/c (used in Psalms, Proverbs and the body of Job) and prosodaic<\/i> (used in the prologue and epilogue of Job and in all the other books). The narratives and songs of Moses and later authors prove that \u201cprosodaic\u201d and \u201cpsalmodic\u201d styles of music were used by priests and prophets alike from Israel\u2019s earliest days. The Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) is a stirring example of a \u201cprosodaic\u201d hymn. No doubt the musical \u201cprophecy\u201d of Samuel\u2019s day would have followed the traditional norms (cf. 1 Sm 10:5\u20136, 9\u201313; 19:18\u201324). The historical books written in those centuries -annotated (like the books of the Law) with melodic signs – would have eventually been put into the hands of the Levitical priesthood (cf. Jos 24:26).<\/p>\n
David was familiar with the prosodaic style of chant (cf. 2 Sm 1:17\u201327; 22; 1 Chr 16:7\u201336) as well as the psalmodic (cf. the Psalms); he probably learned both from Samuel and the prophets (perhaps when he stayed at Ramah – 1 Sm 19:18\u201324 – as Alfred Sendrey and Mildred Norton have suggested7 ). To perform his work and those of others, David created a Levitical<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 117<\/p>\n
\u201cacademy\u201d for psalm-singing in the Temple service (1 Chr 23:5; 25). This academy carried on the practice of psalm-singing for nearly a millenium, with only one major break during the Babylonian Captivity (cf. Ps 137:1\u20134). Even this was not enough to stop the accurate transmission of the Psalms\u2019 melodies \u201caccording to the hands of David\u201d (Ezr 3:10).<\/p>\n
The Biblical narrative relates almost nothing about the history of \u201cprosody\u201d in Israel after David\u2019s time (although Ps 119:54 may refer to the chanting of God\u2019s laws). We are told considerably more about the history of Levitical psalm-singing, which was always done al yedei davk<\/i>\u201d (\u2018according to the hands of David\u2019: 1 Chr 16, 23:5; 25:1\u20137; 2 Chr 5:12\u201313; 23:18; Ezr 3:10, etc.). However, in the post-Davidic books the melodies always reflect consistently the meaning of the texts, the personalities of the authors, and the historical circumstances of the texts they support. To cite but a few examples: the melody of the opening verses of Amos reflect both the passionate, poetic personality of Amos himself and the deadly seriousness of his message from God to Israel. Esther -with the Song of Songs the most melodically charming book of the Hebrew Bible – reflects the influence, the grandeur, and luxury of the Persian court upon the Jews and betrays its relatively late date by the sophisticated development of its melodic forms. Lamentations is charged with an almost unbearable weight of grief-yet also with an unconquerable hope in God. Thus, we can state that priests and prophets use the ancient melodic forms without a break throughout Israel\u2019s history, until the canon was completed with the creation of the book of Malachi.<\/p>\n
Although we are not specifically told so, no doubt the law and the histories were read in the First Temple as well as in the Second (following the principle of Moses\u2019 injunction in Dt 31:10\u201313). Eventually the entire Old Testament was placed in the hands of the Levites,8 who preserved its textual and melodic reading until the beginning of the Christian era (cf. Ecclesiasticus 50:16\u201318). We are told by rabbinic tradition that Ezra revived the practice of chanting scripture,9 and the Talmud gives us details about the choice of textual portions for different occasions in the service of the Second Temple.10 <\/p>\n
From the Second Temple to the Masoretes<\/b><\/p>\n
When the Romans destroyed the Temple in AD 70, the Levitical liturgy perished in practice with it. Nine turbulent centuries passed between the end of the Temple and the appearance of the complete manuscripts we have containing our Biblical accentation. When the notation was disclosed, its true meaning was evidently no longer<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 118<\/p>\n
known; yet it is preserved accurately enough to allow its meaning to be unambiguously revived. How could the notation have been preserved while its musical meaning had been completely lost?<\/p>\n
The accentation and vowel pointing found in our present Hebrew Bible appeared in the hands of the Masoretes of Tiberias as early as the 9th c. The earliest manuscript fragments we have containing this so-called \u201cTiberian\u201d notation seem to be of abbreviated manuscripts called serugin<\/i> in the Talmud. Later, manuscripts containing portions of the Bible, then the entire Bible, were written out in full and provided with accents and vowels. (Scholars call this notation \u201cTiberian\u201d to distinguish it from the \u201cPalestinian\u201d and \u201cBabylonian\u201d notations used in the synagogues before the Masoretic manuscripts appeared.)<\/p>\n
Haik-Vantoura suggests that the accentation could have been transmitted by means of such abbreviated manuscripts; the text was written out only when the tradition was in danger of disappearing,11 Yet I am not sure this fully explains why no source before the 9th c. mentions the use of the \u201cTiberian\u201d notation (especially since two others were in use for several centuries before it was disclosed publicly), nor how the knowledge of its musical meaning could have disappeared so completely.<\/p>\n
Dr. Norman Golb of the University of Chicago suggested that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not created by the Essene communities, but were hidden by various groups based in Jerusalem just before the Roman siege of AD 68\u201370. He notes that about AD 800 manuscripts of the Bible and other books had been found \u201cnear Jericho\u201d and brought to the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem. These do not seem to have been from the Qumran caves (says Golb) but from another location.12 <\/p>\n
The Jewish sect of Karaites (\u201cScripturalists\u2019) had the ascendancy in Jerusalem at that time, and it was they who received and studied these Dead Sea manuscripts. This sect (founded \u2014 it is thought \u2014 in the 8th c.) rejected in principle the Talmudic traditions of the \u201cRabbinites\u201d (orthodox Judaism) and insisted on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the basis of doctrine. The last of the Masoretic master teachers – Moshe and Aharon ben Asher – were (according to Paul Kahle) members of this particular sect.13 It is their manuscripts which are considered the best, most authoritative manuscripts of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n
Moshe ben Asher, next-to-last of the Masoretes, noted (in his end notes or \u201ccolophon\u201d to his \u201cCodex of the Prophets\u201d [AD 895]), that his manuscript reflected the reading tradition \u201cas it was understood by the Karaites.\u201d We also know that the Karaites claimed to have inherited their doctrines from the<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 119<\/p>\n
\u201cElders of Bathyra\u201d (the \u201cBoethusians\u201d of the Mishna<\/i> [Menahoth 10:3, Chagigah 2:4]), a family of priests who were in charge of Temple observances until displaced by Hillel and the Pharisees in the 1st c. Morever, ben Asher claimed (in a poem called \u201cThe Song of the Vine\u201d) that these very Eiders of Bathyra – not the Masoretes or the Karaites – \u201cestablished the accents of Scripture, giving sense and interpreting its word.\u201d The Karaites, then, would by implication have been the inheritors not only of the doctrines of the Eiders – called \u201cthe heirs of the prophets\u201d by ben Asher – but of their musical accentation as well.14 <\/p>\n
Moreover, the Karaites\u2019 doctrine shows striking similarities with certain teachings found in some of the Dead Seas Scrolls. Ps 119, important to the Karaites, was even more so to the authors of the Qumran scrolls. A number of expressions taken from this Psalm by the authors of the scrolls to describe themselves were also used by Karaite authors, as were numerous other literary expressions and theological ideas (especially the idea that true understanding of the Torah was a gift of God\u2019s inspiration, based on Ps 119:66 and other verses}. Moreover, Moshe ben Asher\u2019s understanding of the interpretative and aesthetic significance of the te\u2019amim – which he could not have known first-hand,<\/i> given the loss of their musical meaning – is closely linked to how Ps 119:66 was understood by the Qumran authors and the Karaites (and, evidently, by David himself.15 <\/p>\n
Paul Kahle states that these and other parallels show that the scrolls discovered at Jericho had great influence upon the teachings and literature of the Karaites, and that this discovery seems to have given new ascendancy to the Karaites over the Rabbinites (and, indirectly, the impetus to the work of the Masoretes). If this be so, and given Norman Golb\u2019s thesis, is it so impossible that among these scrolls were doctrinal works by the Elders of Bathyra, and abbreviated manuscripts of the Bible containing musical accents (and perhaps even vowel-points)? We have no direct proof of this, but the state of preservation of the musical accen-tation demands a non-oral means of transmission. Morever, the \u201cTiberian\u201d notation, and the Karaite doctrines which have such striking parallels to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, appeared only after the<\/i> Jericho manuscripts had been discovered and studied.<\/p>\n
Of course, the scenario I have proposed here for the transmission of the accentation is but a hypothesis. The Masoretes noted in their early commentaries the ancestral names for the musical signs (with many secondary names which they added), as well as some of the hand-signs which the written signs they fixed represent. Whether these ancestral names<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 120<\/p>\n
and hand-signs were transmitted orally in the synagogues, separately from the accentation, or together with it in manuscript form, cannot now be proven. It is evident, nevertheless, that the Masoretes did not preserve the true musical meaning of the accents along with their names, hand-signs and graphical forms. Their complete inability to explain the accent system musically – despite their insistance on its musical significance – or to give a coherent explanation of its physical features, should (we believe) prove this beyond dispute.<\/p>\n
Interesting in this light is Haik-Vantoura\u2019s discovery of a threefold correlation between the musical meaning she assigned to each accent, its ancestral name, and its graphical form. The original hand-signs preserved by the Masoretes show the same sort of correlation with the name, form, and musical meaning of the written signs which represent them. This proves (as Haik-Vantoura points out) that the entire system had to have been conceived as a whole, at one point in history – and not<\/i> by the Masoretes.16 The correlation of the melodies this system preserved with the texts they support strongly suggest that the system was created at the very beginning of Israel\u2019s history. This system, moreover, fits well with the norms of musical practice of other nations at that time – norms much different from those current in the days of the Masoretes.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n
Here we have come full circle. We have in our Hebrew Old Testament a notation, found today in manuscripts no older than the ninth century, which preserves by all evidences a musical tradition dating to Biblical times. This conclusion has implications for many areas of Biblical studies, as well as for music history. In particular, it implies that our Masoretic Text is a direct descendent from the authoritative text preserved by the Levitical priests from high antiquity – and should be respected as such (cf. Rom 3:1\u20132).<\/p>\n
A final word should be given about the transmission of the accentation from the 9th c. until today. Many manuscripts – and the printed editions based upon them, including the Stuttgart Bible<\/i> (BHS) used by Hebrew scholars – have an accentation deliberately altered to make it more \u201cself-consistent\u201d as a grammatical notation. When one attempts to reconstruct the chant via Haik-Vantoura\u2019s Key using these editions, musical anomalies are very commonly found. This alteration of the accentation by post-Masoretic scribes demonstrably distorts or destroys the correlation between the expression of the melody and the rhetoric and meaning of the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 121<\/p>\n
The Letteris Edition of the Hebrew Bible17 used by Haik-Vantoura was based upon manuscripts representing the religiously authoritative tradition<\/i> of the text -and is accepted as authoritative by the international rabbinate. In its accentation it is very close to the oldest and most reliable manuscripts (those of the ben Asher family) – and it preserves the musical tradition so falthfull that no anomaly has been found in the 5,000 verses so far deciphered. When we sing or hear sung the melodies reconstructed by Halk-Vantoura from the Letteris Edition, we can be confident that they are essentially the same as those extant during the Second Temple period (at the very least). There is every reason to believe (thanks to their very simplicity) that they are essentially the same as when they were first created; their intended message<\/i> is by no means compromised.<\/p>\n
This, then, is what Haik-Van-tours offers us: the \u201cother half\u201d of the \u201coracles of God,\u201d revived from oblivion after nineteen hundred years. I trust that my efforts to set forth the implications of her discovery, far from the last word on the subject, will prove beneficial to the readers of Archaeology and Biblical Research<\/i>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
John Wheelera Is it really possible that we could sing today melodies known by Moses? Melodies perhaps inspired by God Himself? Could the melody of the \u201cSong of Moses\u201d (De 32), to be sung by the saints (Rv 15:3), be actually preserved in the Hebrew Bible we have today? In the Winter 1989 issue of … Continue reading “THE
\nORIGIN OF THE MUSIC OF THE TEMPLE”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}