Nevin on the Philological Argument
James Dodson
THE PHILOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
An argument has been derived from the use of the Greek word psallo in the Septuagint and New Testament. Professor Wallace says, p. 23, it “signifies to play on an instrument, where song is not implied, and more frequently its use implies song also; but it does not signify song without the instrumental accompaniment, expressed or implied.” On the next page he says, “When this word stands alone, as in the instance before us (Rom. xv. 9), it implies singing, while it expresses playing.” By comparing the words we have marked in italics, the reader will see that these two statements are not very consistent the one with the other, but we presume the opinion amounts to this—when the word is used along with another denoting singing, it always means to play on an in-
[Page 56]
strument; and when it is used alone, it generally, if not always, comprehends both singing and an instrumental accompaniment. In the unhesitating confidence that he is correct in this, the Professor employs such phrases in relation to it as “old liturgical term,” “technical liturgical sense,” the “instrumental term,” “the word expressing the instrumental accompaniment,” “the old orchestral term,” “this technical term,” “its own proper signification.” Let any one imagine these high-sounding phrases applied to our English word play—and there would be fully as much real ground for that—the effect must be ludicrous. On the faith of his interpretation of this single word—he has nothing else for it—the Professor assures us, p. 29, “that we have no reference to song in the New Testament which does not include instrumental music.” The idea is not a new one. It is at least as old as Bengel. But we are not aware that it has ever before been so formally exhibited as an argument on behalf of instruments in Christian worship. There are many, however, among those who favour their use to catch at it eagerly and adopt it. Solomon has said, “a living dog is better than a dead lion”—that is, for most purposes. But certainly one might take liberties and make experiments with the dead which he would scarcely venture upon with the living animal. Something like this might be said of a dead language. The point demands careful consideration. Critical discussions are proverbially dry. Nevertheless, we may be able to impart a little information to some of our readers, and thus and otherwise to relieve the dryness somewhat. We may state at the outset that we hold, in opposition to the view presented above, that the Greek verb psallo, at least in New Testament usage, is employed to convey the idea of praising, the word in itself not indicating how the praise is expressed, or whether it has any outward expression at all.
Let us test the two views by a passage or two. According to the Professor, Paul is made to say, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, “I will sing and play upon a musical instrument (psalō) with the spirit, and I will sing and play upon a musical instrument with the understanding also.” Paul was not the man to say he would do a thing and never do it. If he really said he would play upon a musical instrument he did it. When the Professor is so sure of his ground so far, it is a matter of regret that he could not have gone further, and given us some certain information as to the kind of instrument Paul used; because, in that case, we should have felt under a sort of moral obligation to get one made as exactly like it as possible, and to learn to perform on it to the best of our ability, late in life as it might be. Again, James says (does he?), ch. v. 13, “Is any merry (psalletō), let him sing and play on a musical instrument”—and this, although he knew perfectly well that not, perhaps, so large a proportion as one out of every hundred among
[Page 57]
those who should read his epistle would ever learn to use a musical instrument! Let us now try the other method of interpreting the word, premising that prayer and praise are spiritual exercises which, from their very nature, are most commonly interlinked and associated—remembering also that there is such a thing in Scripture as mental prayer, as well as vocal. Paul says, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will praise with the spirit, and I will praise with the understanding also.” Does not that look very like the right word in the right place, to say the very least? Again, James says, “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any cheerful?* let him praise.” We leave the reader to judge, on the ground of congruity, whether these two passages might not be taken to be in themselves decisive of the point. Other passages will fall to be considered afterwards.
_____
* Comp. Acts xxii. 22, 25, where the same word occurs in the original.