Nevin on “ZAMAR” and “PSALLO.”
James Dodson
MEANING OF “ZAMAR” AND “PSALLO.”
Returning now to the word psallo, and confining our attention to the Book of Psalms, for it seems unnecessary to go further, we find that it occurs in that book, in the Septuagint, at least 42 times. In two instances [Ps. xiii. 6 (7), and lxviii. 33 (34)] there is no word corresponding to it in the Hebrew, according to the free and easy method of the Alexandrian translators. In two other places [Ps. xxxiii. 3, and lxviii. 25 (26)] it is the rendering for the Hebrew verb nagan. In all the rest it is the rendering for the Hebrew zamar. This latter, then, may be regarded as the regular Hebrew equivalent for psallo. Common consistency requires that those who regard the one as necessarily implying the use of instruments should regard the other in the same way, and they do. We must, therefore, examine the use of the Hebrew word first, for that may well be taken to rule the significance of the equivalent Greek term.
_____
* We have sometimes asked the question, What is the meaning of that word earing (not ear-ring) which we sometimes meet in the Bible in connection with harvest? The answer, even from persons of education, has uniformly been to the effect that it means the time when the grain is forming into ear. But what of that expression, Isai. xxx. 24, “The oxen likewise and the young asses that ear the ground, &c.?” The truth is, the word, as thus used, is an old English one, derived from the Latin aro, and signifying to plough. So “earing time and harvest” means ploughing or seed time and harvest.
[Page 60]
Now, the primary meaning of zamar is, not to play on a musical instrument, but to pluck, to prune. Then it came to signify in the Piel conjugation “to sing, properly (as has been well observed by Albert Schultens and Bishop Lowth) to cut off the discourse or sentence, or song; to express a song divided according to rhythmical numbers.”—Gesenius. It is plain from this that it was capable of being applied, either to the composition of poetry, or the measuring it off in sound, whether by vocalization or instrumentation. We find it construed actually in the Psalms in two ways, either with a dative or an accusative. We have marked a dozen instances of the latter construction, that is with an accusative; and these are suggestive, to our thinking decisive. Here are a few of these—Ps. ix. 2 (3), second clause, literally rendered as we believe it should be—“I will praise thy name, O thou most high.” This, according to the false philology we are exposing, must stand—“I will play thy name upon an instrument.” Is not that absurd? Ps. xxi. 13 (14)—“We will sing and praise thy power”—must, in like manner, be rendered “We will play thy power on an instrument.” Ps. xxx. 12 (13)—“To the end that glory may praise thee”—“that glory may play thee on an instrument.” Surely this is doubly absurd. One more, Ps. lxviii. 32 (33)—“Praise the Lord. Selah.” We must really be excused from putting this into the English which the false philology would require: it would savour too strongly of irreverence. That the construction with the dative makes no difference is plain from two instances. In Ps. xlvii. 6 (7) we have both constructions in the one verse, first with an accusative, and then with a dative; and in Ps. lxvi. 4 we have the word construed first with a dative and then with an accusative. Whatever may have been the usage in respect to this word at any previous period, we think it is most manifest from these proofs that, at the time when the greater part of the Psalms was composed, it was used to express simply the idea of praise. The word in itself expresses no more, and if the intention at any time was to convey the idea of an instrumental accompaniment, then it was necessary, either that an instrument should be expressly mentioned in connection with the verb, or that an instrument or instruments should have been expressly referred to in the context, so that the reader could easily and naturally take the word corresponding to instrument as understood. One reference may suffice to show this. Ps. xxxiii. 2—“Give thanks (hodu) to Jehovah with kinnor: with ten-stringed nebel give praise (zammeru) to Him.” Here it will not be pretended that the first verb in itself implies the use of the instrument. Neither does the second. The grammatical construction, in respect to both, is precisely the same.
Let us come now to psallo. The primary meaning of this again,
[Page 61]
was, not to play on a musical instrument, but to twitch, pull, or pluck. It was applied by one of the old Greek dramatists to the pulling or twitching of a man’s hair or beard. We are not aware that these were ever regarded as musical instruments, or that any very sweet sounds could be elicited by such an operation. It would be rather perilous to try the experiment on the beard of a Turk. It was applied by another to the twanging of a bow-string, and however agreeable this might be to the ear of some veteran warrior handling the bow, it would be anything but musical to the person aimed at by the death-dealing arrow. It was applied also to the pulling of a carpenter’s line, in order to make a mark. No doubt it was applied to the touching of the strings of a musical instrument. But this, as may readily be seen, was only one out of many applications of the term. It did not necessarily, in itself, mean to perform on an instrument. When such an idea was intended to be conveyed, the word for instrument was either expressed or understood from the connection. The fact is, we do not know of a word in any language which had or has for its proper meaning to play on a musical instrument, in the general sense. There were words formed from the name of a particular instrument, hence called denominative verbs, the application of course being restricted to that kind of instrument. Thus in Greek there was auleo, to perform on the aulos; kitharizo, to perform on the kithara, just as we have in English the verbs to pipe, and to harp. There is another such denominative in our language, but somehow it has come to be regarded with disfavour, as though it were low and vulgar. In these degenerate days, when dignified language is more looked to than principle in quarters where better might be expected, if one would not offend fastidious ears, he must not speak of fiddling, but translate the phrase into the more polite performing on the violin.* There is no need here to have recourse to a dead language, unless we want to mystify or be mystified. The English is as copious as any language that has ever been spoken by man. Where, then, is the English word which has for its proper meaning the use of musical instruments in general? We know of none such. Take the word most commonly employed in such connection—to play. That is not its proper meaning, but only one of its applications, and it has many others. Young creatures play with one another. Both children and adults play at various games. There is such a thing as playing upon the stage, and even grave divines can sometimes condescend to play upon words. Nay, we speak often of creatures playing themselves. In its application
_____
* If any one should take it into his head, regardless of his dignity, to characterize the theorizing of the instrumentalists about the word psallo as fiddling criticism in a double sense, we really do not see what method we could take, consistently with truth, to convince him to the contrary.
[Page 62]
in music, everyone knows that it has the word instrument, or else the name of some particular kind of instrument, either expressed or understood. If we would have a word to express in itself the general idea, we must coin one not in general use, such as instrumentate. The Hebrew verb nagan might seem at first sight to be an exception to what we have stated, but it is not really so. The word occurs in a very few places. Its primary meaning evidently was to touch or strike. The only application we find made of it is to the touching or striking of the strings of a musical instrument. Did it occur oftener, we might find other applications. Even as it is, in all the passages where it occurs, there is either the express mention of a kind of instrument in immediate connection with it (which completely bears out our view), or the word for instrument is easily understood from the context. Does any one infer from the well-known line—
“And strike to the numbers of Erin-go-bragh,”
that our English word strike always implies the use of a harp or other instrument of music?