Harper II.16
James Dodson
Page 57
CHAPTER XVI.
THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE—MEANING OF THE WORD PSALLO.
What light is shed on the meaning of psallo by the preceding investigation of the meaning of “zimmēr?” This I think, that as “zimmēr” meant to praise or celebrate, without any necessary implication of instrumental music, so psallo, the Greek equivalent employed by the Seventy, must have been reckoned by them, as of like latitude of meaning, that is, as denoting to praise melodiously or rhythmically without involving necessarily the idea of instrumental music. When, moreover, this translation had been disseminated, it would aid in accelerating the transition already begun, in virtue of which, psallo drifted away from its earlier classical meaning.
Confirmation of the view that in the lapse of time, the instrumental suggestion involved in psallo faded away or receded to the back-ground, may be found in the writings of the Greek Fathers, who, though perfectly aware, as they often show, of the classical meaning of psallo, and aware too, that in the New Testament we are commanded to do whatever is meant by it, never used or favored the use of instruments in the worship of God.
Besides, in their writings, we meet with instances in which they use psallo to mean the act of singing simply. For example, Chrysostom, in a passage already quoted from his Commentary on Ps. 150, says, “For the eye praises, when it does not look unchastely, and the tongue when it sings.” (In Greek hotan psallē.) Here the tongue is represented as doing all that is meant by psallo.
Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who flourished about the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, commenting on Eph. 5:19, says, “For he sings (psallei) with the heart, who not only moves the tongue, but also excites the mind to the understanding of those things which are uttered.” Here again, the only instrument named or apparently applied, is the tongue.
Similar language is used by Basil, the Great, in his Epistle to the clergy in Neo Cæsarea.
In the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, held probably about A. D. 364, psallo and its derivative psaltēs are used in the sense respectively of singing and singer.
In very many cases also, the Fathers, while distinctly recognizing the classical sense of psallo, yet undertake to show, in an allegorical way, that in praising God with the voice, or with the life, we perform fully what is meant by psallo. For example, Eusebius, commenting on Ps. 33:2, 3, where psallo occurs, uses this language, “He means instruments prescribed according to the first delivery of the law. Whoever preserves the inner as well as the outer senses pure and blameless, sings on a ten-stringed psaltery to God. ‘Sing ye to him a new song.’ An old song is sung with the ancient harp and psaltery, that is lifeless instruments, symbols and as it were images, in which the former people delighted. But a new song, grander and worthier of God, is uttered to him through the living harp and the devoted ten-stringed psaltery.” Again, expounding Ps. 66:2, he says, “Then
Page 58
secondly, he commands to sing (psallein) to his name, which is wont to be observed by us in all places.” Then he goes on to show that the command is obeyed by using the human body as an instrument by which to praise God. In their interpretations, Eusebius, and others of the Fathers, are often fanciful and self-contradictory. They appear thoroughly conscious of the classical meaning of the word psallo, yet labor to show that this might be adequately realized in the absence of all musical instruments. It is at least obvious that they would not have needed to resort, in their explanations of psallo, to far-fetched analogies, had instrumental music been used in the church in their day. If instruments had been employed, what need was there to resort in their interpretation of psallo to the analogies alluded to? If not employed, why not, seeing the word psallo, classically used, was so suggestive of musical instruments? It is worthy of notice also that the Eastern or Greek church, which might be presumed to know the force of psallo, is both theoretically and practically opposed to the use of instruments in worship.
The verb, psallo, was at an early date transferred to the Latin vocabulary. Andrews, in his “Latin Dictionary on the basis of Freund,” says that psallo means “in ecclesiastical Latin to sing the Psalms of David.” It is used by the leading Latin Fathers, in the sense of singing without any suggestion of instrumental music. Jerome, for instance, in his Commentary on Ephesians, remarks on Ch. 5, v. 19, “Et canere, igitur, et psallere, et laudare Dominum magis animo quam voce debemus; hoc est quippe quod dicitur, ‘Cantantes et psallentes in cordibus vestris Domino,’” that is, We ought to sing and make melody, and praise God rather with the mind than with the voice. This is of a truth what is said, Singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord. Mark that Jerome understood “mind and voice” as competent to do all that is denoted by psallo.
Isidore, of Seville, makes the following remark, “Primitiva, autem, ecclesia ita psallebat, ut modico flexu vocis faceret resonare psallentem, ita ut pronuntianti vicinior esset quam canenti,” which means, The primitive church so sung psalms as to cause the singer to sound with a slight modulation of voice, insomuch that he appeared more like one speaking than one singing.
It is not to be wondered at, whether we consider the usage of the Septuagint, or of the Greek Fathers and of the Latin Fathers as well, that Sophocles, in his “Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period,” covering the state of the language from B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100, should have defined psallo as meaning “to chant or sing religious hymns.”