Talk:A cappella/Archive 1

Archive 1

beatbox is a capella ???

Beatbox is acapella??? So acapella is not about looking like that was made without instruments and just about making without instruments???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdeathbr (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I never knew A Cappella was a real style. I played alot of arrangments of songs on Wii Music, making them the A cappella style, because it sounds funny on that game, there's 4 doo-wop singers a beatboxer and someone clapping their hands. Well anyway, I think beatboxing probably is a cappella. --Little Blue Penguin (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

We could probably discuss this spelling for ever. Somebody has even created a web page about it. [1]

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the most widely accepted spelling is a cappella. Many web pages [2] [3] [4] and the A-Cappella Music FAQ [5] [6] agree. Collins (UK #2 authority, after OED) give 'A cappella' meaning according to (the style of the) chapel.

Some writers [7] [8] [9] use a cappella in their own writing, reserving a capella for quotations, titles and meta tags, acknowleding it to be incorrect. Others [10] [11], and The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, acknowledge what people are actually writing and hedge their bets, accepting a capella as a valid alternative spelling. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary takes this position, yet also confirms that Capelle means goat and is the name of a star.

Some apparently authoritative sources also concede [12] acappella as a most popular de facto usage.

Some writers [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] use both a cappella and a capella without appearing to notice the variation. Sometimes they are humorous.

One widely quoted purist [20] [21] in support of a cappella alleges

In truth, a capella means in your hair, a cappello means in your hat, and A Capella is an astronomical reference to the first planet circling the star Capella in the constellation Auriga.

The popular vote: Google finds 247,000 hits for a capella, 205,000 for a cappella and 77,600 for acappella.
EdH 15:50, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, one word, one "p," and two "l's" is the most popular. Google searches in early 2007 show about 2,410,000 for acapella, 1,740,000 for a cappella (the "correct" spelling), 1,510,000 for a capella and 1,240,000 for acappella.

--Acafella58 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I note, however, that almost all the first page of results for "a capella" in fact spell the word with two P's and just have the misspelling in their META tags. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary I keep here by my computer - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - gives a capella as a variant spelling. If I were voting in an election, I would vote to standardize it as acappella, since in English that a there by itself (not connected) can sometimes look confusing. Probably best here is to stick with the proper usage. I do wonder, though, if this sentence shouldn't be modified some way - "Often you find the wrong spelling a capella with one p." - Rlvaughn 03:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now someone has added a couple of times - "Correct is only a cappella - with two p and two l." This makes it even worse, especially since the sentence itself isn't even very grammatical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlvaughn (talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The "single-word" version acappella has its problems. It seems to encourage the short-A sound, Ack-a-pella, which sounds ugly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet... no-one has discussed whether it should appear in italics or not? The main article has no italics, people have used italics here, and my vote goes with the italics. Ergateesuk (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Without a consensus by the article's editors, Wikipedia's Manual of Style can be helpful. There's a whole section on the use of italics, and a separate text formatting guide with further information. An applicable style guideline is:

• Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not commonly used in everyday English.... Loan words or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online.

The phrase a cappella is in this online dictionary, and need not be italicized based on its Italian origination. —ADavidB 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious groups that sing a capella

Eastern Orthodox christians (especially Russian and other slavic groups) insist on singing unaccompanied by instruments. I didn't want to change the corpus of the article itself since I am still not completely familiar with the Wikipedia protocols.

---

For groups that already have Wikipedia entries, is it really necessary to have a direct link to the official page for the group from the a cappella article? Ventura 22:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I think probably not. I added Anonymous 4 with a link to their website, because at the time there was not an entry on Anonymous 4. After I started one, I didn't remove the link (and also forgot to add the link to the entry). I'm going to remove the link from the a cappella article. I'll leave others to do their own. - Rlvaughn 14:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

J.S. Bach's Mass in B Minor is currently given (in the first paragraph of the "Christian" section) as if it were an example of a work intended to be performed without accompaniment. That is not correct, so shall I go ahead and remove the erroneous statement? The problem is that this work is referred to shortly after that ("aforementioned"), but I suppose I could strike the "aforementioned" and then it would make sense. Just looking for any objections before I go ahead with the edit. DTinAZ (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shameless Plugs vs. Useful Listing

The list of groups is a bit out of hand. It should probably contain a few prime examples of each a cappella style (lay Church, religious, collegiate, etc.), and not all these minor groups. A simple link to the CASA listing of collegiate groups should be more than enough. It's walking the line of using Wikipedia for self promotion. SparqMan 07:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I came to make a suggestion/question, and found SparqMan already posted this regarding the list, so I'm putting my comments here. I don't know in general whether the groups listed are "shameless plugs" or "useful listings", not being at all familiar with most of them. If there are articles on groups, a list such as this does make it an easy "jumping off point" to find them. BUT the list is getting quite long. My thought is that if some of these are college a cappella ensembles, those could be moved to the collegiate a cappella article. Just a thought. Maybe some of them should be deleted altogether. - Rlvaughn 19:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Groups with articles get a link from collegiate a cappella, and the rest can be found from the CASA listing. SparqMan 21:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sparqman, looks like though we discussed this, neither one of us did anything. The list just keeps getting longer. What do you think? So we move on this? Another possibility, I suppose, would be to create a page called List of a cappella ensembles. Or is the original idea better? Any more thoughts?? - Rlvaughn 03:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem has certainly gotten worse. List of collegiate a cappella ensembles probably requires it's own list. That way we can link to both articles and have external links to websites for groups without articles. The CASA listing (http://www.collegiate-acappella.com) isn't exceptionally comprehensive or useful. So maybe name of group, school they're affiliated with, and the city, state. Perhaps a table? And I guess we can make a list for non-collegiate ensemble list too, although that doesn't seem to be where the traffic is coming from. SparqMan 00:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SparqMan, the table idea sounds good. Do you want to take the lead in this? I'm not familiar with making tables, though I suppose I could figure it out. - Rlvaughn 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't consider any of them 'minor groups'. I like this list, and I believe it should stay. Some of these groups are actually pretty major, just unheard of by many people not all that familiar with a capella.

One problem I see is that some of these might be "pretty major" in a smaller class (such as collegiate a cappella), while being relatively unknown in the larger genre of a cappella music (which is what the article is about). - Rlvaughn 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a move toward changing the ensemble listings. None were deleted. I moved all that were college-related, as best as I could tell, to the Collegiate a cappella article. I think they will be more fitting and appropriate there. I did leave the Yale Whiffenpoofs link, since they are the oldest collegiate a cappella group. Someone should check over the remaining list and see if any others ought to go to more specific articles. SparqMan, you still might want to move forward with your table idea at some point. - Rlvaughn 15:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last line of "Modern A Cappella", which appeared to be a plug for someone's school group: St. John's Preparatory School, in Danvers, MA, has an award winning a cappella group, Swingtown. I forgot to log in, so it's an anon. edit, sorry. Mana Gement 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Years later the problem persists. I'm going to see if I can a good clean up later on and really male a point of keeping only 3-4 notable examples. (Preferably with their own wikilinks?) Or is anyone else wanting to tackle this, if they're still watching? - chicgeek ^talk 11:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambigution not redirect is needed

Search for the music group named "Acappella", and you are redirected to this article on a cappella music. From here you can click on the list of professional vocal groups and then click on the link to the page for the group Acappella. Instead, there should be a disambiguation page so that you can find the article on the group Acappella directly from a search for its name. Folding Chair 01:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm new here, and havent yet learned how to do that. Maybe someday...

I've added a disambiguation link at the top of the page. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins Of A cappella

One can argue the origin of the genre; I have always believed that A cappella music originated from Negro Spirituals, Seeing that Afro Americans could not afford instruments. I have also been taught that it was a way of socialising, correct if I am wrong.

Gregorian Chant far predates slavery in America, and was originally a cappella.204.69.190.75 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have imagined some African slaves working together in cotton fields harmonising songs. I would ague that this music originates in Africa or slavery.

--Buhle78 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of a cappella music far predating American slavery. In fact, it's pretty certain that every primitive society involved a cappella singing at some point, even if we don't know anything about it. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Off Topic: New template?

There is already a Music Genres template, apologies!

But I couldn't see it in the A Capella page though...Henceforth the bottom edit:

Shouldn't we create a new template for music genres such as R&B, Pop, Ballad, etc...

As you all know, templates are usually at the end of the page in a shaded box and include associated references or (suggested reads) to the original article.

What do you think?

Dexter 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

bad link...

so the footnote #1 something about period judaism does not seem to work... Jabencarsey 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Other noted collegiate a cappella groups

The "other noted collegiate a cappella groups" sentence appears to be rapidly turning into a promotional space. I vote we either delete it, or add some criteria (multiple CARA wins, ICCA wins, BOCA appearances, whatever). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavaTenor (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Some of those groups are big names in collegiate a cappella, Off The Beat, Tufts Beezlebubs, etc. Maybe the list should be the 5 groups that have the highest number of BOCA tracks? Who are the Other Guys? I've never heard of them in my life. Tylermatts 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why give BOCA so much influence in determining the list? The BOCA selection process is not necessarily as unbiased a method as should ideally be used, in my opinion (as a former collegiate a cappella member). Ideally it should probably be a combination of ICCA, BOCA, CARA and any other quantifiable recognitions. I guess that gets complicated though. --BSweezy 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As a fan of College A Cappella, I find it odd that none of my favorite groups are listed. One or two I could understand, but NONE of them???

Well, okay, I like the King Singers, The Real Group, and of course the Swingle Singers. But no mention of the Nasoons, or the Kommedian Harmonists?!?

I don't feel qualified to write any text for the actual wiki, but c'mon guys!

Where is Insideout A Cappella at very least? The song Innocence II conatins some of the most amazing a cappella synth imitations I've ever heard. Not to mention some amazing techno drums!

So far no mention of the Knudsen Brothers, T Minus Five, The Standards, Moose Butter, Eclipse, 259, Reprise, Voice Male, T Minus 5, Octappella, 6th Gear, The Saltaires, Gentlemen of the Court, the Beehive Statesmen, Yamagata, Milk Money, The Kords, The Peerless Quartet, the Dale Brothers, etc. etc. etc.

None of BYU's choirs are mentioned, despite numerous distinctions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYU_Choirs

Not even any mention of the Osmond brothers, who got their first big break as children when they met a Barbershop Quartet while visiting Disneyland, and matched them note for note.

I see a pattern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.48.75 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war

Can we get some resolution to the recent reverts in the St. Olaf College Choir section? Maybe split the choir off on its own page, as I don't know that it's really necessary to have a full paragraph on any one particular group in this general-purpose article. JavaTenor 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Could use some guidance here. Stusutcliffe 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B. it already has its own article St._Olaf_Choir. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Still happening. We could use an official ruling... Stusutcliffe 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The St. Olaf Choir is relevant to the page. The a cappella tradition established at St. Olaf speaks for itself. You really can't talk about a cappella singing without mentioning St. Olaf, and if you don't know that, you really don't know what you're talking about. Adding references to other midwestern college choirs which have copied St. Olaf's style is akin to what is going on in the small-group acappella paragraph. Everyone wants to pimp their own group, but they are not relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.130.25 (talk • contribs).

You're absolutely right. In fact, no choir ever sang a cappella before St. Olaf — they were all accompanied by piano until F. Melius Christiansen had the brilliant idea to have them sing alone, establishing a worldwide tradition which has infected every country and even extended into previous centuries! And if you don't know that, you really don't know what you're talking about </sarcasm> —Wahoofive (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing this 64.122.130.25 user has ever contributed to wikipedia has been to plug St. Olaf and the invention of choral music (nice job, Wahoofive). Perhaps his/her neutrality could be questioned. Stusutcliffe 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My vote: The article needs some reorganization. There should be a section on a cappella choral music, and in that section, we can mention the St. Olaf choir as a prominent example and link to the relevant article. I'm not trying to disparage the worth of the choir in question, but I think it's worth reiterating that we don't need a paragraph on any one performing group in a general-purpose article about the genre. If people are interested in further information about this choir, they can read their article. JavaTenor 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, JavaTenor. Despite my snark, I agree that St. Olaf is a prominent choir and important in the history of music in the United States. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Category A cappella albums?

When pondering into which categories I should put Category:Rajaton albums, I wondered if it would make sense to create Category:A cappella albums as a subcategory of Category:Albums by genre. Cheers, BNutzer 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request

It may be obvious to those who know but isn't to the ignorant ("Hi, that's me. ;-)") - is a cappella for groups and choirs or is it possible to for someone to be a solo a cappella singer? And, given this potential sticking point, could ith be exp[licitly mentioned in the article, please? :-) 89.243.189.55 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The term can be used for solo singers as well. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam link

"acappella hosting" keeps adding a link. He/she is now bugging me on my personal page. Admins, can we do something about this? See below. Stusutcliffe (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AcappellaHosting

Please stop removing our links the A cappella wiki, we are a fully licensed company just like the others listed. We are mentioned in several articles and newsletters from CASA and RARB. Please stop discriminating against our company. Thank you.

Religious Traditions (header section)

The section introducing religious traditions is incorrect in saying that the original Jewish music was a cappella (either definition: without instruments or polyphonic). Of course, no one would argue that the original music was polyphonic. Regarding instruments, Jewish praise accepted accompaniment from the beginning (Exodus 15:20). Even later, when songs were first added to the tabernacle/temple service (1 Chronicles 15:16; see Barnes Notes, 1 Samuel - Esther, p. 344) both vocal and instrumental musicians were appointed at the same time. 4unity (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This section confuses the two meanings of a cappella. Gregorian chant is a cappella in the sense that no instruments were used, not in the sense of polyphony. Conversely, the music of the Renaissance was first called a cappella because of its new polyphony, not in the sense that there were no instruments. Polyphony replaced Gregorian chant. Putting these mutually exclusive examples together as examples of a cappella in one sentence with no clarification confuses the definition.

Similarly, to introduce the section by saying that religious music was originally a cappella seems misleading. If we mean a cappella in the sense of polyphony with accompaniment, then this style was first used in church music of the Renaissance, but there appears to be no polyphony in the Jewish and Muslim examples cited in the same sentence. If we mean songs without accompaniment, then this was not first originally used in all religious music (at least in any exclusive sense), as the Jewish scriptures cited above make clear. 4unity (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious traditions (Jewish)

"To provide a more balanced view, this section needs additional Tora/Old Testament references where the Lord specifically details musical instruments as a component of worship. Additional references like 2 Chronicals 5:13 where God was pleased with the people and the concept of "one voice" referring to both vocal and instrumental music would create a more balanced view. It appears that the more ancient texts do not differentiate between human voice and instrumentation in the context of praise to God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmgatl2008 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 May 2008

The above comment was appended to a reference within the Jewish subsection of the main article's 'Religious traditions' section; considering it more appropriate within the discussion page, I moved it here. —Adavidb 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 2 under Jewish religious traditions says, "David popularized the introduction of musical instruments..., but the innovation seems to have begun ... without divine approval...." This statement appears to contradict 2 Chronicles 29:25: "This was comanded by the Lord through his prophets." 4unity (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, the passage reads that the Levites had the instruments of David (cymbals, stringed instruments, and harps) and the priests had trumpets. —ADavidB 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that footnote 2 (regarding the Jewish chant) is itself in need of footnotes, but how do you footnote a footnote? Which scholarly work explains the meaning of “natural elements in the divine creation” and tells how this excludes instruments? A similar reference equating accompanied praise with entertainment is also lacking. It is further unclear how the removal of Moses’ sandals argues for chanting today, since the Jews continued to praise with instruments (while wearing shoes) after that time. Perhaps these views should be moved to the main body and footnoted appropriately. 4unity (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best way to present what you described, though the Separating reference lists and explanatory notes section of the Footnotes guideline documentation may prove helpful. —ADavidB 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving footnote 2 to a notes section and providing footnotes for it sounds great. Is that something that you would do? 4unity (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Go for it", as the saying goes. I have no objections to use of separate notes and footnotes sections, and no one else has (thus far) offered any differing suggestion. —ADavidB 04:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen arguments like those in footnote 2 made by Christians who oppose instruments, but (for what it's worth) I am not familiar with any Jewish arguments like them. If I were to make the move, my preference would be to move them to the notes section under Christianity, where these kind of arguments are already being made. I would have to leave them there as "citation needed," where someone who understande those arguments could cite the references. Unless someone objects, I can try that. 4unity (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The opening and closing sentences of the Jewish section seem to contradict. The former says that no instrument is used, while the latter is a cited reference regarding an instrument that is used. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the first sentence incorrect? 4unity (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from the article is that traditional services do not use an instrument, yet one instrument is used between certain dates. There may be a contradiction, depending on the meaning of "traditional" and whether the cited source covers a traditional service. —ADavidB 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I added clarification to the Jewish section. The shofar is used (required!) in the most traditional services. However the usage is extremely limited and very clearly defined. It is NOT an instrument in the typical sense of "sing along with an instrument" or even in the sense of playing a musical composition on an instrument. Manassehkatz (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you also cite the reference? I would like to learn more.

We agree, then, that the opening "Jewish" sentence is incorrect? I believe the correction should also leave it clear that there is no opposition to musical instruments in the Jewish scriptures. 4unity (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the Jewish section incorrectly states that Jews sang only without instruments in the synagogue both before and after the destruction of the temple. To the contrary, James McKinnon has pointed out that there is no evidence that the Jews ever sang in the synagogue at all (with or without instruments) until hundreds of years after the beginning of the church.[The Temple, the Church Fathers and Early Western Chant (1998), Chapter VIII, the question of psalmody in the ancient synagogue. See the entire chapter, and especially pages 182-183; or Chapter III the exclusion of instruments from the ancient synagogue, p 84, where Mckinnon states, "To state it as simply as possible, there was no singing of psalms in the ancient synagogue.")] I would suggest correcting the Wiki article to:

While services in the Temple in Jerusalem included musical instruments (2 Chronicles 29:25-27), songs of praise outside of the temple were offered both with and without accompaniment. The Jewish scriptures speak of God’s appreciation of instruments in genuine praise in many passages (e.g.: Psalms 33, 150). 4unity (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are restrictions today, there was no ancient Jewish prohibition of instruments in the synagogue. Such a prohibition is found neither in Jewish scripture nor in history for over 1000 years after the destruction of the temple. McKinnon asserts, "The truth of the matter is that there are no pre-medieval Jewish sources which indicate any sort of legal ban on instruments, nor are there sources which express a religious preference for voices over instruments." [The Temple, the Church Fathers, and Early Western Chant (1988), chapter VII (A cappella doctrine versus a cappella practice - a necessary distinction), p.239]. I can make that correction to the article. 4unity (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, I wonder if the discussion of the Jewish element has any place at all in the article on a cappella, since the section makes no effort to show a correlation between Jewish song and the birth of a cappella singing. It rather seems a forum to debate the use of instruments in songs of praise, where the Jews have no prohibition. Similarly, even the Christians who brought us a cappella singing were not trying to avoid instruments, as they included them in their songs. 4unity (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A cappella music is important in Jewish services where instruments are prohibited. Not every service carries that prohibition in traditional Judaism, but ones on certain holidays (including the Sabbath) do. That's not new. stusutcliffe 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified that the Jews had no scriptural prohibition. My thought, however, was that the current article does not make clear the correlation (or lack of one?) between certain modern Jews singing without instruments on select occasions and the evolution of a cappella singing, where its birth was in the church and included musical instruments. 4unity (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How does any of this mean that the Jewish section should be deleted? stusutcliffe 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian "alternate viewpoint"

A reference to "the Greek Old Testament" was added today within an "alternate viewpoint" in the Christian section on religious traditions. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, suggesting that this reference to its being Greek may be in error. While much of the new text includes source citations, this and another closing sentence do not, and have been identified as needing them. —ADavidB 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will double check the reference on the Greek translation of the Old Testament. For the final citation requested, I'm not sure what the request is. The article has already stated that the original a cappella appears to have included instruments. (We could cite 2005 Encyclopaedia Britannica.) I don't think there would be any question that many Christians believe we are not limited to a cappella singing. I see it as a summary statement of all that is referenced above. Is there a part that needs verification? 4unity (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When multiple sources are strung together and then summarized, without a source, it appears to go against the 'no original research' source policy, specifically: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." —ADavidB 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy supports alternate viewpoints. I had been respectful of the opinion that opposed instruments in Christian worship. Rather than responding line for line, I had offered an alternate viewpoint with scholarly citations.

Has the practice in this article now become to respond line for line, arguing each point twice, so that there is effectively no alternate viewpoint? I can do that, but I believe that it will regretably make for an article that is argumentative and quite hard to read.4unity (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article has a specific practice. It would be helpful, however, if the editor(s) who made the recent changes to this section would engage in discussion on the matter. —ADavidB 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the entry for the alternate viewpoint on Christian worship. Particularly troubling to me were edits this week that had changed what cited scholars had said. These changes included both removing text and also inserting text, leaving the impression that scholars had said things that they did not say. I tried to leave new text in where appropriate. Some of the same late edits had indicated that the viewpoint could have been clearer, so at times this clarity was added in a note. 4unity (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I changed the text that cited Burgess becuase it was incorrect regarding Lexicons. I also cited Kurfees becuase Burgess wrote to attack what Kurfees presented. Later James D Bales wrote in responce to Burgess. Kurfees does cite lexicon sources, but someone added a note that he did not, then changed the pages that I cited in his book, why? Burgess cited a small group of lexicon sources that disagreed with the majority of lexicons regarding psallo in the New Testament times. That said, both Kurfees and Burgess cited lexicon sources which I tried to present. Regarding the symbolic nature of Revelation, scholars admit this is true. No scholar believes there are real bowls of wrath, harps, or sacrifices going on in heaven, yet there was a footnote added about this as if it were a minorty or secondary viewpoint. Clement is also cited incorrectly since McKinnon made a judgement call, which is confirmed by other music historians given that contextually, the rest of Clements writings seem to indicate a private matter. Synagogue meaning assembly/meeting is in the OT, though it took many forms and finally became what we know it as during the exile. Someone put a footnote that it is not in the Old Testament, and even added some info about worship of it, which is not supported or accurate. Jews did what they did in the temple because of a direction from God, nothing more or less. In the assembly (synagogue) outside the Temple, they did not offer sacrifice or play the levitcal band, because God only commanded it in the Temple. This is common Jewish history. This fact was also removed, etc. I tried to add the 3 main arguements for adding instruments to worship in the alt view point, but even that was deleted. A lot of the information in the alt viewpoint is incorrect, and even those that argue for instruments in worship will not make thier case on the claims currently being used. I am happy to talk about many of the edits that were made about the information that I cited to reflect the history of a cappella more accurately.Trackn (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss these with me

1a)The footnote 1 "absence of instrumentation is rooted in hermeneutic principle restricting the appropriateness of worship" is not a point made by any scholars or theologians that I have read. There is a theological point made regarding NT worship, from the book of Hebrews that contrasts it with the OT worship. However, footnote 1 seems unverifiable. Can it be removed? How and who do I talk to about editing? A cappella music in Jewish/Christian worship is something that I have studied for a long time and I would like to discuss several issues, even if "line by line," to see what to do. Thank you

1b) Historically, as Jesus’ ministry began, both the synagogue and non-religious Jewish settings already favored purely vocal music,[17] not because of Old Testament commands,[nb 3] but due to extra-Biblical influences,[18] including the writings of the popular Jewish philosopher Philo.[19] ....... The Temple used instrumental music in Jesus day while the Synagogue used only vocal music, thus both were employed, though at dif times, in Jesus day as he worshipped. Outside the temple, Jews sang vocally or with instruments at national celebrations, unless it was the passover meal. "Not because of OT commands" is an opinion and incorrect. Instruments were not used in Temple worship until God commanded them to be added (2 Chron 29). While there was an influence on the style of vocal music by philo, he was not the determining factor, which the sentence seems to lead to. Also, "extra biblical influence" pg68 of John price is quoted wrong on here, since on pg69 Price plainly says that Christian worship was directed under the authority of Christ and his apostles. While rooted in the synagogue system, Christians were taught to worship not by Jews, or outside influence, but God, hence the contrast to the Jewish and Christian worship. There are some clear distinction between the Synagogue and Christian assembly.

2) The early church also then chanted, but without condemning instruments in praise.[20] ....... This is misleading because it fails to take into account that instruments were absence from Christian assemblies. Instruments were not condemned because they were not present. It did not become an issue until instrumental questions were raised. The factual statement is the early church chanted without instruments (why is up for debate).

3a) earliest verdict on instrumental music in worship comes from the Christian Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D)....... This is incorrect because Clement is not the 1st non-biblical writer to mention instruments or psallo. It was Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 74.3, and psallo is used in a pure vocal way. The most extensive writing using psallo was done by Clement. However, the setting is debated by a few, and Mckinnon has been used to show the setting in a non-assembly and assembly state, so McKinnon should be re-read and verified. Other historians take into account the context of Clements writings, plus the other patristic writers, and conclude that Clement was writing about a non-assembly setting (Kurfees, West, catholic encyclopedia, Bales, Girardeau, ISBE)

3b) a footnote > Some who oppose instruments answer that Clement used Col 3:16 to endorse instruments in what they call “private worship,” while at the same time contending that Col 3:16 refers to public, not private worship. (eg: Ferguson, pp. 22,64) ........ 1st, this seems very antagonistic and is also cited wrong. Ferguson on pg22 notes Eph 5:19 not Col 3:16. While Clement in his "instructor" writings may have been ref Col 3:16, Ferguson does not. 2nd, both the Col & Eph passages have fullfilment in assembly and life, but it seems that the person that made this footnote did not take into account Clements other writings. Clement was a bit inconsistant, even Ferguson notes that Clement only made a provision for Kithara or Lyre, while condeming all other instruments. Clement also made this statement very clearly not about worship, but about "our songs at banquets are to be hymns to God" as noted on pg22. This is only brought forward to stay on track with what Clement is writing, nothing more or less. 3rd, Clement is still hard to follow since he also said, "Let the pipe be resigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet being more suitable to beasts than men, and the more irrational portion of mankind...We must be on guard against whatever titillates eye and ear…” “The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute…” Paedagogos/The Instructor, ch. 4, book 2. My point is that the footnote is cited wrong and the comment should be directed towards Clement, not those for or against instruments in worship, since Clement gave the commentary and made provision for one type of instrument but condemned other types.

4) Fifth century Christians became the first to extend this opposition even to worship: Theodoret and others from the School of Antioch ....... The wording of this statement presents a distorted fact. With the exception of the debate over Clement, this is one of the 1st introductions of instruments into the worship setting, which created a need to defend vocal praise. While other early writers spoke of vocal praise, Theodoret gives a defense of vocal praise and why instruments are to be left out of the churches. This comes from "questions and answers for the Orthodox" and given the constant quotes from McKinnon, the one citing him should make sure he cites him correctly. I have yet to find anything about the "lesser of two evils, etc"

5) In the New Testament, the word Paul uses for Christian singing (ado) in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 always refers to accompanied praise in John’s Revelation (5:8-9; 14:3-4; and 15:2-3); hence the word itself did not imply “a cappella only.” [nb 5] ....... 1st, the Greek is miss represented. Ado is a verb that means to sing. The introduction of ado by the one who used it on here may have confused it with the psallo debate. Ado is always vocal. The only way to know if an instrument is added to the sentence is to add another word, hence "sing" ado and play. To be specific, if God says ado, then it was vocal. If God said ado and play, then he meant sing and play an instrument. This is quite dif than the psallo issue. 2nd, there is the language of Revelation, which has many ref to Jewish symbolic literature that ref the Temple worship, which the Hebrew writer said has past. The harps & incense represent the "song - ado" of the saints. Regardless, even in Revelation, ado means vocal music and we know it is with something else because the instrument is identified. Ado never meant to play like the debate of psallo.

6) Psallo “make music” (psallo, in Eph 5:19) always refers to instruments when used by first-century Jews (e.g. the historian Josephus, others > Philo) writing to Gentiles in common (called “Koine”) Greek,[24] (though Ferguson calls the New Testament an exception to this rule).[25] ....... 1st, the Greek is not correctly stated. Psallo, in its history, could mean "touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate, to sing to the music of the harp, in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song" It never meant simply to make music. If it means "to pluck" then a word for sing would be used like ado, then psallo "to pluck" then the instrument would be named. In Eph 5:19, Paul says ado-sing, making melody-psallo, with/in your heart. 2nd, this fails to quote Ferguson, a respected historian, correctly. Psallo, if used in its classical sense, as it was by Josephus & philo, meant "to pluck" then the instrument would be named. However, psallo had evolved and changed meanings in the intertestamental and Biblical sources, which means that not every first-century Jew used the same way, as the writer on here presented. This is why Ferguson notes that Josephus uses it in its classical sense, and not the normal way of his day. 3rd, if psallo still meant to play an instrument when Paul used the word, then in Eph 5:19, Paul is commanding all Christians to sing and play an instrument, since he says "ado" sing and make melody "psallo" with your heart. However, this line of reasoning has been abandoned, since it would mean that those who don't use an instrument are disobeying a command and sinning. Again, this argument is no longer used by respected advocates of instruments in worship.

7) Burgess has also observed that some lexicons of first century, New Testament Greek say that psallo meant to play or to sing with accompaniment, while other lexicons say it meant to sing with or without accompaniment, but that no lexicon says that it meant to sing only without instruments.[27][nb 6] ....... 1st, if you look at Burgess book, he used sources that carry the classical meaning without following the etymological sense of the word. 2nd, the footnote nb6 about Kurfees is incorrect. Kurfees names the lexicographers that carry the classical meaning into the NT times, then he names those who say it meant to sing songs in the NT times, like Thayer. Kurfees on pg6-17also listed 17 lexicons that discuss psallo.

Though I wonder what "views" have to with historical fact, I am not opposed to various views being presented. I simply feel that the views should be presented correctly and sources quoted correctly. In the book "The Instrumental Music Issue" written by Ferguson, West, Lewis pg48, they captured the "alt view" that introduces instruments into worship, though they disagree with it, and showed how the arguments cannot be used together. 1) Instruments are authorized in worship by the Greek word Psallo 2) Singing is authorized, but instrumental use is only an aid, though this denies it being a form of worship in the Temple as opposed to an aid 3)Deny that singng is authorized in worship. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us discuss here. I will plan to give answers to your concerns this weekend or earlier. [I'll agree now with your point 1a about removing footnote 1; I flagged it as needing a citation last September.] 4unity (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call! The footnote could be replaced with a reference to the Regulative_principle_of_worship, Sola_scriptura , the history of Hymn in Christianity or the thelogical understanding of New Testament spiritual worship as contrasted to Old Testament worship by the book of Hebrews. Once something is talked about on here, and people agree, can it be deleted? I am trying to repond to your private message.Trackn (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trackn, I am glad to now answer the questions you have asked. I also am a novice contributor to Wiki. When I first read the a cappella article, I strongly disagreed with what was written about the church today. I struggled with what to say, getting advice from ADavidB (who does know the Wiki ropes, and whose guidance is always appreciated). I modified the entry on the Jews after discussion with him (see above). Based on something that he had linked to elsewhere, I decided that Wiki’s approval of alternate viewpoints might be the best way to respect the division among scholars without picking a fight. I am cleaning up the alternate viewpoint with the things we agree on, but I am in no way the final authority on what goes in and what does not. I believe that we should also correct some things in the section that favors a cappella only. I do not know how disagreements of this kind are resolved if the contributors cannot agree.

You asked for a response to your points. I believe that the issue you raised in your final paragraph – about the inclusion of alternate views – is central to the discussion. I begin with it, even though you did not number it as a discussion point. Alternate views may be most appropriate when scholars are deeply divided on an issue. This division is certainly the case with regards to the appropriateness of musical instruments in Christian praise. Even though scholarly books have been written on both sides of this issue, the only exposure that many people have to the opposite point of view is what they read filtered through the writings of those with whom they agree. An alternate viewpoint in a non-partisan article like Wiki allows the arguments of scholars on both sides to be presented without being reworked by those who prefer the opposite opinion.

Here is an example from your opening sentence. Burgess (1966) says that while some lexicons of first-century Greek say that the verb “psallo” (translated “sing” and “make music”, etc.) meant (1) to play an instrument or to sing with instruments, and other lexicons say it meant (2) to sing with or without instruments, still (3) no lexicon says that it meant to sing only (without instruments). Because you cite Kurfees (1911) as contradicting that conclusion, I reviewed a copy of his work. Kurfees quotes 17 lexicons. He rejects those that fall into what would be Burgess’ first category, arguing that a few of them should be discounted as unreliable (pp 67-70). Because (A) he believes that “psallo” no longer had any instrumental associations in the first century, (B) he reads all of the lexicons that would fall into Burgess’ second category (sing with or without instruments) as though they fell into the third (sing only without instruments). You see it repeatedly in the lexicons he cites. Since you mention Thayer specifically, here is an excerpt from Thayer’s definition:

to sing to the music of the harp; in the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God.

The wording is similar to several other cited lexicons (e.g.: III, Pickering; IV, Groves). These lexicons note that “psallo” was not a “church” word. Nevertheless, although it did not imply praise by definition, it was used only of praise in the New Testament. Kurfees, however, interprets the New Testament distinction to be about instruments rather than about praise. He incorrectly reads them as though they said “sing only.” Following Thayer, “sing psalms” (James 5:13; KJV) is more clearly translated “sing praise” in modern translations (NIV); no translation follows Kurfees understanding and says, “sing only without instruments.” Moreover, if Thayer were trying to say “sing only without instruments,” we would find a sharp contrast with what he says is the NT meaning of the related noun, psalm. Under his entry for “hymn” (Greek “umnos”), in explaining the meaning of Col 3:16, Thayer’s lexicon says, “the leading idea of psalm is a musical accompaniment.” Kurfees premise (that “psallo” no longer had any instrumental meaning) was incorrect in his day just as it remains today. Playing an instrument was not its only first century meaning nor its primary meaning, yet it was still a meaning. I do not believe that Burgess’ point should be reworded to accommodate Kurfees, who is mistaken.

The wiki article on a cappella could hardly handle this lengthy discussion on each point, not to mention the fact that I am being too brief. Books have been written on “psallo.”

On to your numbered points…

1a) Go ahead and remove it. No one has defended it in the 9 months it has been flagged as needing a citation.

I edited the post Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1bi) You wrote, “ ‘not because of OT commands’ is an opinion and inaccurate.” If there is an OT command telling the Jews to no longer praise God with instruments, then please bring it to my attention.

1bii) I am not sure what point you are trying to make about when it was legal for Jews to use instruments in the temple versus outside of it. They freely praised God with instruments outside of the temple whenever they wanted. (One example is Psalm 57.)

1biii) Before you wrote your response, I modified the article to make it clearer that Philo was not the determining factor in the Jews change to sing without instruments. Still, those who favor singing only without instruments cite him as a clear influence.

Thank you for the modfication Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1biv) Regarding Price’s work, you had cited him as explaining why the Jews preferred singing without instruments in the days of Jesus, so I kept him in the same OT context. I can remove it so as not to seem to misquote him for the present, while we discuss.

Sounds great Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1bv) You mention the synagogue here and in your opening paragraph. The synagogue is not established in scripture. It evolved in the inter-testament period. There is therefore no verse that tells the Jews to sing in the synagogue at all, much less how to sing there. McKinnon has rightly said that there is more scriptural evidence that people were flogged in the synagogue than that they sang there. If McKinnon is wrong, please show me.

Synagogue is an assembly of people and seen by many scholars in the OT ISBE Article All scholars accept a transformation of it as early as the Babylonian Captivity. I'll leave thier worship reasons in it for another time Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the existence of the Synagogue, the 4th commandment was obligatory for all Jews from the time it was given (Ex 20:8). Even in the wilderness, they gathered around the Tabernacle and synagogues (Dt 31:12; Acts 7:38). Once the tribes were dispersed in Canaan, the Tabernacle was in one location and not accessible to all the tribes, accept for national festivals (Lev 23). Though scattered, the tribes were still commanded to proclaim the incoming Sabbath and new moons by the blowing the trumpet, which required synagoging. Psalm 74:8 identifies the Chaldeans burning up the Synagogues in Judea, before the Babylonian captivity. Adam Clarke said, the fact they were burnt up shows that they were not part of the Tabernacle, nor the actual assemblies of people.--Trackn (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning singing in the Synagogue, a collection of scriptures reveal the story. God directed Israel in all ways of life (Ex 20; 21cf). Though Israel used many instruments and sang in various contexts in daily life, they only performed commanded rituals of God in the Tabernacle, from its construction to service (Ex 25:8-9; Dt 4:2, 12:32; Heb 8:5). Only two instruments were used. Notably, they were commanded and regulated by God (Nm 10:1-10) Several hundred years later, Israel didn’t approvingly add anything else until God commanded them in the time of David/Solomon’s Temple (2 Chron 29:25-27). Ex 15:1-18 records the first song in scriptures, which was inspired, and sung by Moses with the Israelites. Not only is the song of Moses revealed, but created creatures singing from eternity (Is 6:1-4, Job 38:7, Ps 34:1) and songs of praise, which would end as the outer courts of the Temple were reached (Ps 100:1-5). While the Tabernacle was the center piece of priesthood and sacrifice, the Synagogue was a setting for Israel to learn Gods word, exhortation, and prayers, accompanied with singing. This enabled Israel to fulfill several generic and essential commands of God, since he always gives provision with his commands. Deuteronomy 4 reveals that there is allot that God taught Israel about life and worship, which we simply don’t know, nor do we need to know (Dt 29:29). The Synagogue and its rituals had the approval of God since the prophet Elisha obeyed God and assemble in them (2 Kings 4:23, Lev 23:1-3). This gives a large picture that Israel lived and worshipped according to Gods teaching. Everything that Israel did, which was pleasing to God, was something taught to them. Ultimately, the Synagogue sang without instruments long before Jesus’ day or Philo’s influence of vocal music. While it did evolve, from the time of the Tabernacle instruments were never used in the Synagogue.

Perhaps someone with more OT background can add more to this story. What I have provided from the Bible and authorities is sufficient evidence to contradict the NB Note about the late existence date of the Synagogue and the sentence about OT singing vocally due to Philo’s influence not OT commands. Please remove these phrases from the main article and/or provide another reason to make the case. --Trackn (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

4unity: Do we have evidence that God forbade the Jews to use instruments on the Sabbath? (Is there a scripture that forbids Psalms like Ps. 150 on the Sabbath?)

The practice of the synagogue seems to be a separate question. Though it met on the Sabbath, unlike the Sabbath, its practices were not established in scripture. (In what scripture can we read if singing itself in any form was either required or practiced in the Synagogue?) Even today, the Synagogue uses the Shofar (horn), apart from a command of God.4unity (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

trackn says I'm not sure why you asked about forbidding instruments and the Sabbath. Tabernacle and Temple worship were on the Sabbath, along with Synagogue worship, depending on the region and period of history. With the exception of various feasts and days, etc commanded by God, the Temple service used the same rituals, instruments, and priesthood daily, even on the Sabbath. All of Israel could assemble or synagogue any day of the week as a provision of God to study his Torah and “all he commanded them”, but the Sabbath was required. Keep in mind, as Israel wandered in the wilderness, they were not exactly working all day like you and I. They walked, slept, ate, and grumbled…all while learning about God 24/7. Granted, once they made it to the promise land, they were a tool of judgment on the nations, but they still worshipped and learned about God 24/7. I'm focused on what they started as, and you seem to be focused on what they were by the time of Philo.

Please re-read my post above, including the scriptures. We can discuss all the details of the Synagogue in another section, just let me know. Perhaps we can improve the Jewish section (lol), but for now I am focused on the Christian section. I gave the history because I hate giving quick answers with no background, although I probably just should have. I am sorry for that. Please note the following in relation to the main Christian article… 1) The Synagogue is in the Bible at the time of the Tabernacle. Why did you remove the footnote, just to say its not there in the main article? I have given you commentaries, ISBE, wiki sources, and scripture... Please, remove any entries that say that the Synangogue is not in the Bible or clarify for me why you have not removed it. 2) Neither the Tabernacle nor the Synagogue used instruments in that worship setting, though Israel used instruments as worship in other settings. There were restrictions on instruments throughout the OT and I would recommend a study of instruments in the OT to fully understand this issue. I am also happy to talk about it in another section. 3) I gave you verses that authorized Israel to sing and play to God (anytime), plus verses that limited or restrict certain people and types of instruments and times, to the Tabernacle/Temple worship, and other settings. I can’t provide a “thou shall not”… offer sacrifices, instruments, or incense in the Synagogue anymore than in their home, but such rituals were never in the Synagogue or their homes to begin with. However, I did give you the scriptures for God telling them where and why to perform those rituals. 4) The Rams horn and/or Trumpet (what came to be known as the shofar) were used for calling the assembly, like a class bell, and is one of several commanded by God in the scriptures above. See also Ps 81, which gives a brief general historical outline of God saving Israel and his statutes for them. Again, notice the rams horn, assembly, praise, life, etc. 5) To avoid a hermeneutics dispute, the factual statement might be from its establishment, roughly 1,000 years before the influence of Philo, the Synagogue never used instruments. Another way of saying it might be though the Synagogue had always sang vocally, by the time of Jesus, Philo had increased the preference for vocal music. I'm not dictating how you write your treatment of the issue. However, I am saying that you have three historical facts, from different time periods, combined into one sentence, which distorts the vocal history of the Synagogue. I presented a contrast of OT Temple singing and NT singing so you might want to consider a contrast. While nobody can specifically say why the Synagogue only sang vocally, by the time of Jesus, Philo had influenced culture’s preference for vocal singing. 6) I would examine several conversions in Acts and various NT contexts (Gospels and Epistles) before "overly weighing" and putting to much emphasis on Philo's influence on culture. --Trackn (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

4Unity Neither the synagogue nor its practices are established in the Old Testament. The word "synagogue" does not occur in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (the Greek translation made by the Jews), though it occurs 57 times in the Greek New Testament. Excerpts from the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary (1963) entry for synagogue:

"SYNAGOGUE, A Jewish institution for the reading and exposition of the Holy Scriptures, which originated perhaps as early as the Babylonian exile. It is supposed that the synagogue had its precursor in the spontaneous gatherings of the Jewish people in the lands of the exile on their day of rest and also on special feast days.... Purpose. The chief purpose of the synagogue was not public worship but instruction in the Holy scriptures."

The article goes on to delineate the practices of the 1st century synagogue with no mention of singing.

Since the synagogue is not established in the Old Testament, it follows that there is no scriptural command to sing there at all, let alone with or without instruments. There is no mention of singing in the synagogue in the New Testament as well. Jews freely praised with instruments in public (eg: 1 Chronicles 15:28) and in private, just as they praised him without them. It is true that the Jews had come to prefer vocal singing apart from any command of God to limit instruments.

This preference for vocal singing had been gaining momentum for centuries. McKinnon says, "Patristic musical puritanism [early church opposition to instruments] did not come about in a cultural vacuum: there were precedents for it in both Greco-Roman and Jewish Society. It is well known that Plato [4th cent BC] already wished to exclude from his ideal state the 'many-stringed' and 'many-keyed' professional instruments.... A number of Roman philosophers and historians expressed views even closer to those of the church fathers.... Without doubt both pagan and Jewish moralism contributed each in its own way to the patristic position, but the latter remains in a class by itself for its vehemence and uniformity" (pp. 1-2). The preference for vocal singing had roots in centuries of philosophy, but not in scripture.4unity (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

trackn says Zondervan is one of many authorities, but does not provide as much information as one would like. Incase you did not see it, I had previously listed the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia in this talk area. Zondervan said Synagogue was not public worship... perhaps not in contrast to the Temple, but it was just as much a time of worship as any Bible class or VBS today (smile). I have simply been trying to show that the Synagogue is seen in the Bible, though I am not sure how you use the word established. I take the view from the numerous scriptures that I have put forth that the Synagogue (in its beginning) was a provision of God that was later overrun by traditions. When God commands his people to come together, they do it somewhere. Sinful mankind will never pray, assemble, and study Gods word unless first approached and instructed to by God. God punished and sent Israel into exile for improper worship and life style, yet Jesus embraced the Synagogue system. Clearly, it fit in the scope of Gods teaching and approval, not something learned from "the nations". In Hebrew, one word to focus upon is moadey, which we translate synagogues, and may be taken in a more general sense, and mean any places where religious assemblies were held. It is used in Psalm 74:8 has structures being destroyed by fire as shown in a commentary from Adam Clarke or John Gill or Mathew Henry. Acts 7:38 looks back to something in the wilderness. Synagogue will not appear in the Hebrew, but the equivalent does and some versions like the KJV translate it that way. Did they Sing? Information about the worship of the Synagogue varies with different authorities, but most would say that they did. We also have Psalms giving us biblical evidence. When Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, the Synagogue became the normal place of worship during the Babylonian exile. It involved two vary different liturgies. The Temple was focused on sacrifice and that which accompanied it (priesthood, incense, instruments), while the Synagogue focused on the study of the Law and daily prayers. However, it did employ the psalms. Nobody can pinpoint when they began to sing during this time, but it is clear they did not use instruments. Psalm 137:1-3, was probably a song sung in the Synagogue during the Babylonian exile. Hughes Oliphant Old, "Worship: Reformed according to scripture", (London: Westminster John Knox Press), p35-37. Another authority has said, "the Synagogue may have developed before the Babylonian captivity, or at the time of the exile in 587 B.C... The Synagogue did not involve sacrifice as the Temple did. It is a lay liturgy, which consists of several benedictions, prayers, the reading of the law and prophets, and possibly interspersed with psalmody". Paul Westermeyer, "Te Deum: The Church and Music" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), p41-42

Most authorities accept the existence of the Synagogue around 587-536 B.C. and some form of psalmody as part of the worship service. Perhaps it was lament in exile? Regardless, Jewish tradition, McKinnon, and others affirm that instruments were not used in the Synangogue. While not 1,000 years, this is still 500 years before Philo’s influence. --Trackn (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2) I have taken “chant” as meaning without instruments by definition. That was not disputed. We can make that clearer.

Great Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

3a) Scholars on both sides say that the first condemnation of instruments in praise came in the fifth century. Certainly early Christians explain that they praised God without instruments long before that. Clement merely cited scripture as a basis for his conclusion that God could be praised with instruments (even though he did not do so).

Yes, but there is a context to Clement. I'm asking for the information to be reworded. In the main a cappella article you have "The earliest commentary" is a ref to Clement, but the earliest commentary on singing & psallo is by Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 74.3 where he used "pure vocal singing" as part of is defense before Clement wrote. Clement in The Instructor, ch. 4, book 2 condemend several instruments, but approved of only two. He did this after he used metaphorical language to compare body parts as instruments. Clement did quote Col 3:16 but even Schaff in the link, gives a note that this is becuase Clement "Here instrumental music is allowed, though he turns everything into a type." This is why I said Clement is a little inconsistant at times and an anomaly compared to other Christian commentators of his day. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Searching on "pure vocal singing" found no reference in the Martyr website.4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Christians sang without accompaniment, but they did not say the opposition was from the scriptures until the 5th century. Clement is an example. He gives his practice, but says the scriptures allow otherwise.4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Trackn says Regarding Justin, I will watch for what purpose I use quotes and make sure my sentences are complete. In the link above, I left out several words- I meant, He uses psallo in a pure vocal sense when talking about singing a new song. Also, look on p75 of (Price: Old light on new worship) for the footnotes to the following items in quotes: When Justin Martyr defended Christianity, 50 years before Clement, he says “…singing with instruments was not received in the Christian churches as it was among Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song...plain song is without instruments” “Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us (Christians) than circumcision.” Justin based his objection to instruments on the Old vs. New Covenant. This was part of his apologetic work on why Christians don’t use instruments, which has a theological bases. The same contrast is presented in the book of Hebrews.

Trackn says Regarding Clement, see also (p75 of Price). The best overview that I can give is that Clement does base his argument against instruments on association with idolatry and immorality, but that could have been in light of his cultural problem. While he does not use the OT/NT contrast like Justin Martyr, Clement does allude to Old Testament themes, yet emphasizes the cultural issue. Still, as I have tried to note, Clement “believed that the instruments of the Old Tesatment were now replaced by the human body” – “praise him with the harp, for the harp is the tongue of the Lord.” Price, on p76, footnote 30 quotes (McKinnon: The church fathers and musical instruments, pg151-155, 261-262) and says “Clement wrote favorably about instrumental music as being an imitation of King David…thou shalt imitate the Hebrew king…” – “…some use this as evidence for instruments in the early church. However, James McKinnon states that the larger context of this quotation shows Clements approval of instruments at a Christian banquet and not a worship service.” – “…Clement writes allegorically of instruments…it clearly demonstrates Clements antagonism to instruments in Christian worship, which is consistent with the unanimous opinion of the church fathers.” – “McKinnon also notes, musicologist, in an effort to produce instruments in the early church, have either mistranslated or misunderstood these (allegorical) passages from the Church fathers.” Moving towards the back of the book, Clement referred to instruments as “instruments of deception” and wrote extensively about opposing their use in all of Christian life as seen on (Price, pg159-161).

4Unity: McKinnon and Ferguson agree that early church fathers go beyond the New Testament in their condemnation of muscical instruments. (Ferguson, p. 74; McKinnon, pp. 2,3) (The early fathers would condemn instruments in many settings where we do not today.) McKinnon thinks that Clement's comments allowing instruments in praise may be allegorical. Both he and Ferguson suggest he may be accepting the use of instruments in God's praise at a banquet. In any case, Clement is giving an interpretation of Col 3:15,16, saying that this command to sing praise may be fulfilled with a cithara or lyre in some setting. The church highly favored vocal singing (because of influence from the world, not scripture, as noted in 1bv, above). This reference from scripture could not have supported instruments if Clement believed God forbade them with this verse.4unity (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Trackn says You said McKinnon and Ferguson agree that early church fathers go beyond the New Testament in their condemnation of muscical instruments. (Ferguson, p. 74; McKinnon, pp. 2,3) Please quote that for me. I think you miss understood them, but I want to make sure I am reading the same text as you.

Trackn says I moved the following points from the bottom of the page to this section, on July 5, 2009 becuase you seem to have missed them. 1) Justin Martyr is the first to give a statement on why Christians sing, though they were apologetic statements. 2) McKinnon in MECL pg28, plainly says Clement is talking about music at banquets and uses the allegorical method to interpret scripture and is an advocate of a special Christian Gnosticism. 3) To remove the allegory from Clements writing is to remove the very meaning of his words when speaking of Romans 13:12-13, various Pslams, Col 3:16 or Eph 5:19. 4) Here is a link to Clements context in dispute. 5) Clement, in is own words says he is talking about a banquet - “plainly such a banquet” … “from the temperate banquet” … “ancient Greeks, in their banquets over the brimming cups”. 6) Most amazingly, even if we look past the allegory, Clement approves of the cithara and lyre, but condemns pipes, and psalteries, and choirs, and dances, and Egyptian clapping of hands, and such disorderly frivolities, they become quite immodest and intractable, beat on cymbals and drums, and make a noise on instruments of delusion... Let the pipe be resigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet 7) If you are going to accept Clement allowing 2 real instruments, to be neutral, you have to accept that he condemened numerous (10?) instruments as idolatrous. 8) Clement is the first to condemn instruments at banquet, Theodoret is the first to condemn instruments in worship.--Trackn (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Trackn says While the early fathers go beyond and against the NT in condemning instruments in some social settings, some approve of them for Liberal Arts use. However, both McKinnon and Ferguson remind the reader that the fact remains instruments were never used in the NT worship giving an opportunity to be condemned... instruments were never brought into Christian worship. The early fathers condemning instruments in places that many don’t today has no bearing on those practicing Solo Scripture. There are so many variables that have to be taken into consideration when looking at the church fathers, including their lack of systematic theology and various hermeneutical principles. In deed Christians today condemn some types of clothing, dancing, etc as immoral, so historical comments must be understood in their writing style and context. History is not authoritative, but it shows some common ground across the whole spectrum, east to west. Those who oppose instruments as worship to God do so on scriptural grounds (most), with the support of history. Not even McKinnon will say that the Church in the Apostles day sang as strictly a cultural issue. He realized there is not enough historical evidence for a conclusion to link the two, nothing more or less. While there is a consistent condemnation of instruments and church psalmody that is strictly a cappella, he could not find historical records to help us solve their connection in the minds of early Christians. However, even McKinnon noted that – a few exceptional passages exist connecting [a cappella and condemnation of instruments] where the two are juxtaposed at least on the level of phenomenon if not doctrine when John Chrysostom writes admiralty of a monastic community that rises before day break for prayer and psalmody (pg4). I have avoided your cultural comments since I'm focused on adjusting what is currently in the main article first. --Trackn (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3bi) Ferguson is not misquoted. BTW, I only added this reference because you noted that scholars like him believe that Clement was condoning instrumental praise only in “private worship.” This is what Ferguson believes. On page 22 he says that Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 apply only to “public worship.” On page 64 he argues that Clements commentary on Col 3:16 does not refer to “public worship.”

Ferguson only cites Eph 5:19 on pg22, though Clement will eventually mention Col 3:16-17 in his work. Clement is talking about banquets on pg64. On pg50, Clement is talking about corporate worship. See note on your "3a." Clement said and quoted things a little different from others of his day. He not only typified instruments, but he condemend some instruments while approving of others. Ferguson is not inconsistant he is just noting what Clement did. If you look at the ref that Ferguson is citing, you will see that pg22,64 cite Instructor II.iv.43,3 and pg50 cites Instructor III.xi.80,4 and Miscellanies V1.xiv.113,3 Clement used Col 3:16-17 as approval, but then turns around and denies other instruments, then condemns those who leave the assembly of prayer and hymn to go outside and partake of the flute, etc. I am only sorry we cannot ask Clement how he put it together without a contradiction. I am sure he knew (smile). See also "3bii" below Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right about p 22. I was looking at pp 18 and 22, and cited the wrong page. I have corrected the reference.4unity (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We agree that there are times when the church comes together. The difference is that Ferguson believes that Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 only apply to those assemblies, despite the daily life context of the passages (pp 17, 18). He seems to want to fit Clement into that mold.4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3bii) You said that Clement’s statements are “clearly not about worship.” Clement says,

The Lord is now our congenial guest, for the Apostle adds again, ‘teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatsoever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the father through him.’ (Col 3.16-17) This is our grateful revelry, and if you should wish to sing and play to the cithara and lyre, this is not blameworthy; you would imitate the just Hebrew king giving praise to God.

Ferguson and Kurfees quote only the final sentence, omitting what Clement gives as the context for the statement. Clement IS talking about singing God’s praise, commenting on Col 3:16. Clement does not distinguish “public” and “private” worship; If we must distinguish public and private worship, then we should credit Ferguson or others with the distinction, not Clement.

Private worship is the daily life and devotion of every Christian (Romans 12:1-2) because God is everywhere and creator of everything. Public or Corporate Christian worship is the whole assembly gathered together on the first day of the week to partake of specific rituals in praise of God (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 11:20, 14:23, 16:1-2) This is also contrasted in the Old Testament with daily life vs. the Temple worship and the Sabbath day. There is a private/public worship and Ferguson did not create it. Clement wrote about the Lords Day assembly in Miscellanies 5.14.106.2; 6.16138.1; 7.12.76.4 and talks about the corporate worship as seen on pg50 of Ferguson. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Romans 12:1-2 does not exclude Sunday mornings. We offer a service of song to God in and out of assemblies. The question is if Biblical praise passages can be divided in such a way as to forbid instruments in praise only in limited settings. Ferguson says that Clements commentary on Col 3:16 perhaps only allows instruments in private worship, while he asserts that Col 3:16 does not apply to private worship, but only to public worship. 4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

4i) You say that the fifth century condemnation of instruments was in answer to their introduction. That is one theory.

You got me (smile), but it is the theory of McKinnon as well. McKinnon (1965), The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University). In the patristic period “the issue of instruments in church was never raised” (p. 263). “The simple fact [was] that they [musical instruments] were not used in the patristic period” (p. 268). What is another theory? Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An alternate reason with historical support is the growing influence of the world’s opposition to musical instruments. (You have quoted McKinnon's dissertation, but in his many books written after further study and as Professor of Music at State University of New York at Buffalo, he reaches other conclusions, as evidenced below.)

McKinnon points out (“Music in Early Christian Liturature,” 1987, pp 2) that Christians never condemned instruments in any setting until no earlier than the end of the second century. He makes a point about how this opposition was absent in all of the earlier writings. He goes on to say that the opposition “grew in explicitness and intensity throughout the third century.” He further observed that this early opposition was in a “limited number of contexts: most notable the theatre, marriage celebrations, and banquets” (apparently tied to contexts of immorality) and in idolatrous cults, but not church. Ferguson agrees. Of the “ancient church fathers,” Ferguson adds (p. 74) that they “go beyond the New Testament in pronouncing a negative judgment of musical instruments. They give an explicit condemnation to instrumental music…. There is no polemic against instruments in the church. That is not under consideration. The condemnations are of the use of instruments at social functions – banquets, the theater, and other entertainments of pagan society – and in idolatrous worship.”

Now, we could speculate that Christians began to oppose instruments in those third-century settings because that was when instruments were first used, but I doubt anyone would buy that. McKinnon rather concludes, “These later fathers on the other hand, all thoroughly educated in the classical tradition, might be said to have shared the musical Puritanism of pagan intellectuals, taking it – for reasons of their own – beyond all precedent.” McKinnon introduced this discussion (p 1) by noting, “Patristic musical Puritanism did not come about in a cultural vacuum; there were precedents for it in both Greco-Roman and Jewish society.” Then he gives examples of each, from Plato on down, throwing out instruments.

In short, another theory for the opposition to instruments in church beginning in the fifth century may well be the growing influence of the world.4unity (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

4ii) Theodoret (fifth century) said by allowing instruments, God was “avoiding the greater evil [of idolatry] by allowing the lesser [of instruments].” This is correctly cited in McKinnon, p. 7. I did not mention it, but McKinnon immediately adds, “The argument is expanded and repeated several times in the writings of the Antiochene exegetes.”

I re-read that to see the context and had forgotten what Theodoret was doing here. This comes from Theodorets commentary on Ps 150 and he gives a defense to others about Chrsitian worship vs. Jewish worship. He used the theological argument from Hebrews, but inserted his own thoughts, based on Hebrews 10:5-6 This gets theological so I will leave it alone for now. However, the thought about the "lesser evil" was a commentary on why God would command a worship in the OT that he was not pleased with, just to change it in the NT, which he new he would one day bring. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

5) No one is arguing that the Greek verb “ado” (translated “sing”) meant “play.” The point raised is that it could not mean “sing only (without instruments).” This is clear in that John uses it to describe those who sing with accompaniment (symbolic or not) on three seperate occasions.

6i) You say that “psallo” “never meant simply to make music.” To the contrary, that is how it is translated in the NIV in Eph 5:19. The lexicons support this usage.

6ii) You say that Josephus’ use of “psallo” with instruments was “not the normal way of his day.” On this point, you say that I have misquoted Ferguson, yet he wrote, “Hellenistic Jews writing for Gentile audiences kept to the classical meaning of psallo” (p 11). More clearly, Greek-speaking Jews (note the plural) used psallo in the instrumental sense. Ferguson asserts that the exception evolved for Jewish religious language: “linguistic evidence would seem to indicate that it was in Jewish religious language that we find the shift in usage for psallo from instrumental to vocal music” (p 13).

6iii) Lexicons note that psallo was still used for playing an instrument (as distinct from singing with accompaniment) in common first-century Greek (e.g.: Delling, p.490-491; Danker, 1096), though this was no longer the primary meaning.

Danker in 2000, indicated that even in the Septuagint, it “is usually the case” that psallo is translated as only “to sing” (2000, p. 1096). Also, Bauer-Gingrich-Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, p. 891, 2nd edition, 1979 says one usage is to "sing exclusively." I am only trying to do quick facts and avoid the deeper issues to limit space, but as a note, I agree psallo could mean to play OR sing. Where we miss each other isthat it does not mean both at the same time. Playing is not inherent in singing with psallo. We'll talk about psallo another time (smile) Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In defining ado (sing) in Ephesians 5:19, Danker gives the meaning, "singing and playing (instrumentally) heartily to the Lord" (p. 22). It seems to conflict with what he says about the same passage under the entry for psallo, making him perhaps like Clement (smile).4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

EVERY lexicon allows "singing and playing" at the same time as a meaning of 'psallo'; some say this was its primary meaning in common, first century Greek.4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

7) I couldn’t understand why you changed the language from lexicons to lexicographers, so in trying to defer to your comments, I incorrectly cited Kurfees. I discussed his views in my introductory comments. The citation should be removed as inaccurate until we can find an agreeable way to reference him, if at all.

8) ? (Your conclusion) You defer to those who oppose instruments as the authority on the beliefs of those who allow instruments. Opponents of instruments think the scriptural arguments center on what to do with “silence.” I removed a reference that said that Christians praise with instruments because instruments are not explicitly condemned. Those who oppose instruments do not argue that way. They rather contend that the scriptures are not silent, dating from Kurfees’ contemporaries to the present.

Many still argue that since instruments are not specificaly condemened they are allowed. Some say God has niether prohibited or prescribed thier use. Some hold to the Normative_principle_of_worship Still, some say instruments are inherent in Psallo. There are some more arguements as well. When we talk about the more time cosuming items, I look forward to hearing your personal thoughts on thier addition to worship. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, I’m not sure that we can come to agreement. Scholars have not, and we can represent this. I disagree with opinion in the pro-a cappella section as well (“public worship,” “sing” taken as “sing without instruments,” “the use of 'cannot include instruments',” and the suggestion that Jews only praised under explicit permission, etc.). I also don’t know if it is proper to fill the discussion page with such lengthy comments going back and forth, nor whether we should work on drafts of a point-counterpoint off-line, but I am open to that. 4unity (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

4unity, I tried to send you a private talk, like you sent me, but I don't know how. I agree that we should not fill up this talk page going back and forth, but if you would like to talk about it in private and see if we can’t learn from each other I would love it. People can read the books/info and search Google for that. I ask you to allow me to respond to just a few things, in general, and hope that it will not prompt the very response that we are trying to avoid on here. While I would like to give a response to each number that you took the time to give your view on, I will not, though I am sure its killing us both (laugh). That said, I would ask you to look back over my points a few times to understand me a little better as we agree not to talk about them further on here. In general, I tried my best to be brief, but also provide the context/sources of what I was saying, without appearing that I was cutting the authors words. You encountered this as well and I thank you for clarifying some of those for me. I would like to clarify a few things and then we will move away from discussion to seeing how we can just offer a good "wiki" page.

• I was trying to present that the Jews used instruments in daily festivals, but only introduced instruments into Temple worship when God commanded (2 Chron. 29:25), yet they did not use them, or other aspects of Temple worship, in the Synagogue worship. I ask people to see if there is a difference between private and assembled worship and come to their own conclusion.
• In regard to psallo, I should have said more to be clear, and I am sorry. All lexicons agree on its history and that the word changed forms, but disagree on its NT usage. Here is a link to Thayer Online representing the changes I was specifically quoting. I use many lexicons, but I am linking to Thayer to clarify. As an example, in Eph 5:19 psallo does mean pluck and not sing, but we ask if they sing (ado) and psallo/pluck/make music with the strings of a bow or the harp or their heart, since psallo can only have one meaning in each contextual usage. In both the OT and NT, the type of instrument is named in the sentence. I want everyone to always look at the context for usage and I am sorry for any confusion I presented.
  • None of the Lexicons say that Eph 5:19 is talking about mentally "plucking the strings of the heart." Scholarship says that both the singing and the playing engage the heart (Lenski, p Lenski, "Interp of St. Paul's Epist to the Gal...", pp 620, 621). Compare also where David sang and made music with all his soul on the harp and lyre (Ps 108:1,2)4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• I stated the original sources so that people could look at the whole context of the references to Clement, Justin Martyr, etc, so they see them without owning a copy of Ferguson, or others. The source quotes don’t stand out like I wanted, but they are there.
• There is no reason to toss out Kurfees or Burgess. They have both contributed greatly to the history of this topic. While Kurfees and Burgess seemed to be among those of the Restoration movement, there are many authors from other denominations that should be read. I would have used them but this piece just keeps getting longer.
• McKinnon has a few books and a wonderful dissertation McKinnon (1965), The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University). As a whole, he constantly says "note a “polemic” of the “church fathers” against musical instruments during and after the third and fourth centuries because they were “a symbol of lasciviousness and debauchery” (p. 2). While this polemic was present in these and succeeding centuries, “early Christian music was vocal” (p. 2). In the patristic period “the issue of instruments in church was never raised” (p. 263). The “strongest possible evidence” shows “that they were not used in the early Church” (p. 264). Later he stated “the simple fact [was] that they [musical instruments] were not used in the patristic period” (p. 268). He maintained that the organ was the first instrument to be introduced into the worship service and the next was the trumpet. His conclusion concerning the introduction of the organ, following the work of Edmund Bowles, was: “It appeared with some frequency during the period from 1000 to 1300 while in the later middle ages its use continued to spread until it was nearly universal” (p. 269). He noted accounts of an organ being sent from Byzantium to Pippin [Pippin the Short, ruler of the Franks (741-768)] in 757, and another to Charlemagne [Charles the Great (742-814), first emperor of the “Holy Roman Empire”] in 812. The reactions of curiosity and awe concerning these organs indicated “they did not exist in Gaul during the centuries immediately preceding their arrival from the East” (p. 276). In a few decades organs were being used in monastery schools to give instruction in the musica, part of the quadrivium in what would now be termed the liberal arts studies. Then, following the tenth century, the use of the organ made its way into the churches as noted above." - McKinnon is used by those in favor and against a cappella and I just ask that his total presentation be kept in mind. I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking your usage of him, when I meant people in general that cite him. (I added this after realizing I made the post without)

• Moving On – I like the point/counter point approach and think that it has gone well on other pages of wikipedia. I'm glad to help redo the Christian section on a cappella and just present a historical narrative or we can do a point/counter point piece with nice bullets representing the various thoughts. I am also open to leaving it alone. I agree that we will not solve the issue for the world. Can you tell me how to message you back so that we can bring a balanced approach to his article? Like yourself, I am not an authority on this matter, but I do love to study the topic. I am at best, just an open-minded student that is still learning.Trackn (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're both having an excellent interaction regarding this topic. Thanks for being civil and collaborating so well. If you mean sending email, that is done by using the "E-mail this user" link in the bottom left column of the other person's User (or Talk) page, under "toolbox". To allow others to send you email, the "Enable e-mail from other users" option needs to be checked and saved under "my preferences" (a link at the top of all pages while logged in). —ADavidB 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Adavidb,I found the email link, but how do I send messages to the user talk page? I keep editing his personal page, which I am sure he does not want & may not notice. Can you send me a message on my personal talk page? Thank you Trackn (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some brief thoughts under a few of the questions that 4unity gave a responce. I only responded to the topics that can be quickly checked for factual/historcal accuracy to limit space on this page. I hope this will make for quicker cleanup/corrections to notes or word structures. We will talk about the deeper issues at some point. Trackn (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian "opposition to instruments" viewpoint

In the non-alternate Christian view, I add a few questions:

• 1. 4UNITY. The phrase, “division is not over private use of instruments” needs a reference. Specifically, is this the opinion of all who oppose instruments, or only selected groups? It would be also clearer to say “private use of instruments in songs of praise,” since we are not talking about instruments in any secular setting.
  • I changed the wording to "worship service" since it is used by McKinnon, Wikipedia sources, and scholars. --Trackn (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't asking for a reference that the church assembles, but rather a reference for saying that the rules for singing praise are different inside versus outside of an assembly. (I don't see that distinction in the Bible.) Do all those who oppose instruments agree that the difference is only regarding certain assemblies? I'm curious; I don't know. 4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That argument varies by denomination and group with in the denomination. I will use the Presbyterians as example: 1) Some worship with instruments every where 2) Some a cappella in worship, instruments in private 3) Some a cappella private/public 4) Some a cappella Psalms exclusively. These are known as “EPs” or exclusive psalm singers. They see Eph 5:19 as a command to sing and make melody with you heart in any setting where God is the focus of the praise, and that “palms, hymns, spiritual songs” represents all the type of Psalms, so they only sing psalms a cappella. Still, some will distinguish private/public praise. --Trackn (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• 2. 4UNITY. The phrase "public worship of the assembled church" is not clear. For example, does this include Vacation Bible School or not, and who decides?
  • I changed this phrase as well. As far as your question, I alluded to it in your "3bii." This talk page cannot handle a discussion about worship. However, biblically the church can assemble for many reasons. The reason for assembly will determine the parameters for what the church does and how it responds to God. --Trackn (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • VBS is a hybrid, I suppose.4unity (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • VBS is a glorified name for bible class, Sunday school, bible study, or multi day bible study (smile). You have a particular question in mind, so I don’t want to take up space and give a general answer, but I will try. Any VBS program should be devoted to the Apostles teaching (Acts 2:42, Acts 17:11, 2 Cor 3:4-6) If the VBS program has anything going on from 2 Chron. 29:25-30, that is not specifically restated in the NT, then I would recommend a new program (laugh).--Trackn (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • In 2 Chron 29:29 (in the passage you reference), everyone kneels down and worships. There is no NT command or example of a Christian bowing down and worshipping in an assembly. (In 1 Cor 14:24-25, Paul says that an unbeliever might do that.) Who would argue that bowing down and worshipping is unauthorized in our assemblies and VBS? 4unity (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The heart of the question to me is that opposition to instruments is based on an understanding of passages about praise in our daily lives, such as Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, but then the opposition is focused only on praise in assemblies, not praise in every setting of our daily lives. I think it should be clear how that distinction is drawn. 4unity (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Trackn I was trying to be funny, sorry. Being serious, people in the NT did bow down, kneel, and some even lifted holy hands. I don't understand your statement about these not being authorized Trackn (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Trackn I know what you are saying, but wiki is dealing with a general view of church history and a cappella. To understand how different people approach this issue, please look at your first question in this section under “division is not over private use of instruments”. --Trackn (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• 3. 4UNITY. The phrase, “textually uses the words speak and sing in ways that cannot include instruments,” needs a reference. The conclusion appears to be an opinion. (If one speaks while playing an instrument, is he no longer speaking?)
  • I added two authoritative sources. In all fairness, this is one those passages where psallo means to "sing exclusively." While the question makes logical sense, it fails because it cannot be asked in such a grammatical context. --Trackn (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The second of the two sources you added (Robertson) says, "psallo originally meant to play on strings, then to sing with an accompaniment (Ephesians 5:19), and here apparently to sing without regard to an instrument." He doesn't say "sing without an instrument," but rather "without regard" [regardless], regardless of whether or not an instrument was used. (Note that he believes that psallo in Eph 5:19 refers to both singing and playing combined in the one word.) According to Robertson, a person who "psallos" by singing and playing satisfies I Corinthians 14:15 if it is done with understanding. 4unity (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • First, Welcome home! How do you know that Robertson uses "regardless" the way that you are presenting? (i.e. what sources informed you of this) Why does he make a contrast between the definition of psallo in Eph 5:19 and 1 Cor. 14:15? Psallo can mean to pluck, to twang/strike the cord, play an instrument, sing to an instrument, chant/sing - sing without an instrument. Which one of these 5 available definitions do you use when translating psallo in 1 Cor. 14:15? Did Robertson mean to sing to an instrument or sing without an instrument? Keep in mind that psallo cannot have two different definitions at the same time...it is one or the other. --Trackn (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • 4UNITY. You have asked 2 questions: (A) What do I believe about 1 Cor 14:15, and (B) How do I know what Robertson means in 1 Cor 14:15?

I think both questions require clarification on the meaning of psallo. In your list of 5 possible meanings of psallo, one of the most significant is omitted. You include psallo's derivation, but (of course) no lexicon says that it meant to (1) pluck or to (2) twang in the New Testament. The lexicons say that NT meanings include (3) playing an instrument and (4) singing with an instrument, but I can find no lexicon that gives (5) chant without an instrument. The meaning that you omitted is offered in numerous lexicons, including the most recent: (6) sing with or without a musical accompaniment [e.g.: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Danker), 2000; Complete Word Study Dictionary (Zodhiates), 1992; New Testament Greek English Dictionary, 1991; Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Louw & Nida), 1988]. In answer to your questions, (A) I believe that (6) sing with or without an instrument is an acceptable understanding of 1 Cor 14:15. (B) The contrast that I see Robertson making between psallo in Eph 5:19 and 1 Cor 14:15 (his full quote is copied above) is that in Eph 5:19 he offers (4) singing with accompaniment. In 1 Cor 14:15, he offers (6) singing without regard to an instrument. Robertson seems rather to be a counter argument to the anti-instrument point that is being argued. 4unity (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Trackn. I wanted you to look up some sources to understand Robertson, not give your thoughts of what he is saying. I did not just cite him because I think he agreed with what I am saying. Reading his works and works about him will mean more than me saying it over and over. (2) Robertson contrasts Eph 5:19 and 1 Cor. 14 on the bases of Gk. translation rules. They have different available meanings and are translated different ways on purpose; he seeks to bring this out. Robertson never in any of his work held the belief that the instrument was included with psallo. In Eph 5 he got singing from ado and playing from psallo, else the passage would be redundant with ado and psallo both used as a word for singing. Still, I think you missed that Robertson made the instrument a command in Eph 5, which even you won’t do. Regardless, his contrast is to show that he believes it was present in Eph and absent in I Cor 14. The context also helped him come to this conclusion because the psallo was from the Spirit. (3)Please ask a Gk scholar about Greek translation and don’t just disregard what I am about to say. I hear you loud and clear about singing with or without an instrument in the lexicons, and I agree! However, you seem to misunderstand that the word cannot mean with or without in the same translation/context or “at the same time”. Eph 5:19 is one context, Col 3:16 in one context, I Cor. 14 is one context… each time you have to make a choice to translate psallo as “sing without an instrument, sing with an instrument, pluck or, etc, etc.” Eph 5 could be play, Col 3 could be sing, 1 Cor 14 could be sing to an instrument, but none of the passage can be “sing with our without an instrument at the same time” doing such would be equivalent to saying Psallo can mean to pluck or sing “at the same time”. Trackn (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • 4Unity My previous comment lists numerous lexicons that say that one meaning of psallo in the common, first century Greek used in the New Testament was “to sing with or without an instrument.” We could add your reference of Robertson to that number. Again, here is what he says

"Psallo originally meant

(1) to play on strings,

(2) then to sing with an accompaniment (Ephesians 5:19), and

(3) here apparently to sing without regard to an instrument."

You interpret him by saying, “In Eph 5 he got singing from ado and playing from psallo,” but that is contrary to what he says. He expressly says that the meaning in Eph 5:19 was different from the earlier meaning of “to play on strings.” If Robertson thought psallo meant only to play in Eph 5:19, then there would be no difference between his first two definitions. You add, “else the passage would be redundant with ado and psallo both used as a word for singing,” but the lexicons say that this construction is allowable in the Greek. Indeed, those who oppose instruments typically see “sing only” as the meaning of both words. Robertson is a counter-argument to what is contended in the article. 4unity (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• 4Unity I listed numerous modern lexicons that give “to sing with or without an instrument” as one meaning of psallo. You split that meaning in half and say that it is in fact two meanings, and that psallo can mean only one of the two halves at any given time. I have looked as you suggested, and I cannot find a lexicon that makes that argument.

Here is a similar example. I enjoy playing catch with my sons. Sometimes we play catch with a football, sometimes with a baseball, sometimes with a Frisbee, and sometimes with a Nerf ball. We have never played catch with a football and a baseball at the same time.

If I said, “I think all dads should play catch with their sons,” the natural meaning would NOT be that I had to be talking ONLY about one specific kind of catch, RULING OUT all others. Certainly, dad’s who followed my advice would only play catch with one sport at a time, but like me, they might play catch with different sports at different times. Any kind of catch would satisfy the meaning. All of them satisfy the meaning of “playing catch.”

Similarly, one meaning of psallo was “to sing with or without an instrument.” The lexicons list it that way, as one meaning, not two halves of a meaning, not two meanings. In satisfying Paul’s command, at any given moment, I am either playing a guitar or not, but both satisfy the meaning.

I have looked as you suggested, and no lexicon says that we must ever do only one or the other. What then is the basis for splitting the stated meaning in half? 4unity (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Trackn Thank you for your English sentences, they helped me see what you are saying, but they don’t correspond to the Greek. Vocal and instrumental are two kinds of music. Catch football and baseball are two kinds of catch/sports. Music is generic, like sports is generic. Sing or instrumental are = to football and baseball. If I said play football, would you play baseball? If I said sing, would you play a guitar? If I said play a guitar, would you sing? Now, saying sing and make melody with the harp is = to saying catch the baseball and football. Saying "make music" is = to "go play catch" since both are generic commands. However, if you said make music with the heart, that is = to "catch with a glove".

• 4Unity. In Eph 5:19, the heart is not the musical instrument. Rather, the sense is to sing and make music "heartily." The RSV makes this clearer with “be filled with the spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart.” Both are offered to the Lord, both heartily. The lexicons agree: “singing and playing (instrumentally) heartily to the Lord” [A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (2000, p.22).] The heart replaces neither voice nor instrument; it is rather the essential element of all praise. 4unity (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4unity. The lexicons give various responses that would all satisfy the meaning of psallo. They don’t split the primary meaning in half, and command either, or. Here is a typical definition from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (2000, p.1096): "to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment, sing, sing praise" 4unity (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Trackn I really like talking to you, so don't take me wrong! Robertson (nor any other scholar) is saying what you are saying and I'm sorry that I can’t seem to communicate that. Some people do limit the usage of psallo, but I openly accept all the definitions, will you? If you look at your 1,2,3 list, you see three options provided by Robertson. What you are claiming "with or without" is not a singular option. You listed it correctly, but with all due respect, you have not been translating correctly becuase you merge two definitions. Lexicons describe psallo as meaning to sing "with or without" an instrument because it is a summary statement to show the changes that the word has gone through, because at one time it meant only to pluck. It could be pluck, sing to an instrument, or sing without, hence "sing with or without an instrument". How else do you explain "to sing only" in some usages as lexicon option? I did not make this up and choose to separate the meanings. I believe you have misunderstood the lexicons; Nothing new, we all have at some point (lol). Please note, even Burgess in his book, (pg 14, 118) did not try to say what you are saying. He said what you will not, which is "the instrument is commanded" -- even you won’t say this. Translation cannot be left open, the instrument is either present or it is absent. It is not "with or without" at the same time. Perhaps this will help communicate what I’m saying. You seem to say that one can use option 2 and 3, at the same time. I’m saying that translation rules force 1 definition to be used in any verse. If you want to say 1 Cor. 14:15, 26 means sing with an instrument that is fine (you go against all translations) but that is fine. Robertson sees Eph 5:19 using the instrument, and 1 Cor. 14 without, but neither are "with or without" at the same time, which is what you say it means. We have already discussed Bauer-Gingrich-Danker so please look back at it and ask when psallo means to "sing exclusively" which is one of many definnitions. By your translation method of using "with or without at the same time", psallo can never mean "sing without an instrument", which defeats the purpose of translating it "sing" when an instrument is not specified. By doing this, you remove one available meaning, which is "sing without an instrument". So, we come back to my point, you have to make a choice in the text when psallo means to sing "with an instrument" and when psallo means to "sing without an instrument". This is just like when you have to make a choice to translate psallo "make melody/music" and not include sing in the word, which the NASB and NIV did in Eph 5:19, because sing came from Ado. You already noted that the NIV translated psallo "to make music" so sing must have come from ado. I edited the info below from a link that I already recommend that you read. I think you are doing the same thing that an author of a recent book did.

The basic premise is that instruments are scriptural, but optional based on psallo and some entwined arguments…He was creative…to avoid making the instrument mandatory, which OE Payne argued in “Instrumental Music is Scriptural”. Yet, in so doing -- presented the same proposition as Mr. Boswell in the Hardeman-Boswell Discussion, which was “instrumental music is optional”. Moving past how a command can be optional, after the debate everyone realized the duplicity of such a statement and the proposition was abandoned by most, until recently with ---. Tom Burgess recognized the problem with the “instruments are optional” argument so he added a slight variation in “Documents on Instrumental Music”. With great fervor he actually made the instrument mandatory or optional depending on what type of music you sing. Burgess clearly stated that, “psallein meant to sing with instrumental accompaniment in the NT [mandatory]” (pg14), but Eph 5:19 allows for three types of music. Psalms are sung with instrumental accompaniment [mandatory], hymns are sung and spiritual songs can be sung with or without [optional]. Burgess went on to say that if in doubt about the practice, the safe position is for everyone to USE the instrument to ensure that nothing is left out of the Greek (pg 117-118). The author relied heavily on Burgess, but seemed to miss the fact that psallo cannot be with or without instruments at the same time/context (see Hardeman-Boswell Discussion).Don Dewealt felt there were much better arguments than using psallo and chose to argue against worship assemblies, which --- picked up on. Given O. Blakely avoided the pitfalls of the past and broke new ground by proposing that the Apostles did not give directives for corporate worship and no authority is needed to use the instrument…It seems that the author has managed to not only ignore but also contradict his predecessors, while breaking new ground in practically every argument he put forth. I would like to believe that much of this was missed due to those assisting his research…

--Trackn (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• 4Unity. What are the choices if I invite someone to "sing with or without an instrument" (the primary 1st century definition of psallo)? Would you say that the instrument was forbidden, required, or optional? 4unity (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn Did you read my post directly above? With all due respect, I have asked you to talk with a Greek expert because you are doing what cannot be done- you limit psallo to with or without an instrument, at the same time, while voiding it of other meanings. That is equivalent to a partial translation. Strangely, you have failed to see that if it means with or without an instrument at the same time, optional, then psallo can never mean “sing exclusively” which lexicons agree as being one of the five meanings. If it can never mean just sing, because the instrument is always optional, then you oppose the lexicons. You asked an English question that the Greek cannot hold. What you would have to ask in Greek is “if you invited someone to Psallo, would it be pluck, play, sing, or sing with an instrument” The answer is, the context would have to decide how the word is translated into English. In Col. 3:16 psallo would be translated sing with gladness in your hearts… where is the instrument? You continue to advocate what none of your contemporaries will as if I have said nothing about your line of reason when you say psallo means to sing with or without an instrument at the same time. Tell me again, if the instrument is not included with the psallo, which you have admitted, and the instrument is not named in the text, where does the instrument come from to sing with? Where is the instrument in Col. 3:16? (I plead with you to check with someone else) – in one of the most famous discussions on this topic, Mr. Boswell was advocating instrumental use in the Christian church/churches of Christ, even he said in the Boswell-Hardeman Discussion book, pg.231 “I have been accused of saying that one can sing with or without the organ at the same time…I have not advocated such a thing…you have put words in my mouth…no man would be fool enough to make such a statement as that” – I appreciate you, but when I quote your own scholars as being opposed to your position, and you still challenge my background, I don’t know what else I can say.Trackn (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn I enjoy the conversation about psallo, I am just saying that I don’t know what else I can say bout the “with or without” issue. --Trackn (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4unity I also don’t know what else can be said. The consensus meaning in the lexicons is that psallo’s primary first century meaning was “sing with or without accompaniment.” You say that it can never have that meaning in any passage of scripture. You say that in each occurrence, we must determine whether it demands or forbids instruments, but NO LEXICON MAKES THAT CASE. You quote partisans who promote their wishful thinking without need of support from scholarly lexicons.
• Trackn ... 1) I see it as an option which must be determined when translating the word, within a context; you believe the instrument is optional anytime psallo is used with a singing connotation. Is this an accurate account of your position? We disagree over what the Lexicons mean, when they say "with or without," so lets move to how scholars view them. 2) I quoted James McKinnon, The Temple church fathers and early western chant, as one example of a scholar who says 1 Cor. 14:26 is an example of psalmody without instruments pg74 section IV. I have also quoted your sources and predecessors to show that you seem to stand alone with your understanding of the lexicons. If you feel they are “partisans promoting wishful thinking,” I apologize. 3) Help me and everyone reading this to understand your position. What scholars or advocates of instrumental music have held to your understanding of the lexicons when they say “with or without – optional”? Instead of attacking the people that I quote, provide me with scholars that hold your view so I can read thier works. --Trackn (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Trackn Since the other footnote is present, I removed the reference to Robertson. I hope you will study on him, but there is no need for us to discuss him further. Trackn (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• 4. 4Unity The emphasis on singing in the temple leaves out the singing of praise with instruments outside of the temple (even in large gatherings), where believers freely employed instruments.4unity (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not at all, rather it establishes that in a worship service, the people responded to Gods instruction by only doing what he commanded. While all of Isreal sang and played at National celebrations, 2 Chron 5:11-14; 29:25-30, etc reveals that only the Levites played and sang in the Temple as they offered sacrfices. The only reason we know they sang and played is becuase the text says the Levites sang and played while the assembly worshipped. --Trackn (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity What is the reference for singing in Old Testament "worship services" outside of the temple? It seems to me that instruments were employed outside of the temple at any time (Psalm 33, 150, etc.). This is the part being left out. It seems to me that you have an understanding of singing during what you call "worship services" that I cannot find in the Old Testament scriptures. 4unity (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • This is allot like your 2nd point and gets into dividing worship and praise as opposed to looking at the context of the praise/worship setting. Even the OT context reveals whether the setting was secular, signaling (alarms/warnings), or a worship service setting for Israel. Even then, context reveals various settings where the music was vocal, instrumental, and/or mixed. Let me know if you would like me to expand on this idea and provide scripture and scholarly sources.--Trackn (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity I hope no one is dividing worship and praise. Rather, some today distinguish praise/worship in an assembly from praise/worship outside of an assembly, using verses on our daily lives (e.g.: Eph 5:19, Col 3:16) to forbid instruments only in a different context -- our assemblies. It looks like that same perspective is being cast on the Old Testament scriptures. Yet even the captives "by the rivers of Bablylon" would have used their harps if the could have mustered a song at all (Psalm 137:1-4). 4unity (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• 5. 4unity The statement that the New Testament passages "reveal a command for all Christians to sing" is misleading. It implies that the meaning is "sing a cappella." In his chapter V, Burgess cites numerous scholars from numerous translations who agree that their use of the word "sing" in no way implied "without instruments." The chairman for the RSV is quoted as saying "we fully intended to include and not exclude musical accompaniment" (Burgess, p. 91). 4unity (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know your additional concerns. After we work on them I will ask you about some of my concerns for the alt view section (I'm enjoying the talk)Trackn (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look at section 1bv regarding some facts about the Synagogue and needed changes in the main article. I also added a responce to your private/public singing question --Trackn (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see YOUR section 3a about some facts on Justin and Clement that I added from James Price and McKinnons books. Specifically: --Trackn (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian "acceptance of instruments in worship" viewpoint

• Trackn 4unity, Please look on the following pages of James McKinnon, The Temple church fathers and early western chant. He says that your conclusions are incorrect. This is not an interpretation, this is factual citation work. (1) The first sentences about Jesus’ ministry beginning, synagogue, and non-religious Jewish settings already favored purely vocal music due to outside influences like the philosopher Philo are “without claim and false” Page 238-242 section VII and pg73 section IV, Mckinnon says that Quasten, Idelsohn, and Eric Werner have no evidence to make such claims. In fact, he says that philosophers never made a distinction between vocal and instrumental music when talking about silent singing. Silent singing would prohibit both chant and instruments. Jews and pagans used vocal and instrumental music, but Christian converts from these groups only employed vocal chant. Christians employed the psalmody style from the synagogue, had no use for instruments, and McKinnon even quoted 1 Cor. 14:26 as an example of psalmody without instruments pg74 section IV. I recommend all of section IV, pg70-82. (2) Regarding church history, clement, the Revelation passages, and psallo, I recommend sifting through two links I found about a book that you may really enjoy. I disagree, but enjoyed the book, study the issue, and like to see what people say about it. Read all the post, even if it takes more than one sitting. I look forward to talking. Psallo/Revelation portion and the Church history portion Trackn (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn 4unity, have you looked at the historical record regarding the information that you posted in the main article? History should be pretty easy to verify and correct, but it has not been edited in long time. --Trackn (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity THIS IS GREAT NEWS. If McKinnon is correct, then there remains no first century reason not to translate psallo explicitly as “play” in Ephesians 5:19. Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2000, p.1096.) acknowledges scholars who had translated psallo as “play” in that passage, but he says he prefers softening the language to “making music” (with or without instruments) specifically because of Eric Werner’s research. If Eric Werner is in fact wrong, then Danker has no remaining first century basis not join other scholars who prefer “play.” I can strike this research while we research further. 4unity (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn Let me know what you come up with in your research. To remind you, I accept one of the meanings of psallo being “to play (no sing)” as well as the later addition by the NT time of to sing, etc, based on historical evidence. It never lost its ability to be translated play, it just had two options added, which were singing to the instrument or sing (chant). It is my understanding that they knew when psallo meant to play, pluck, sing (chant), or sing with an instrument, because of the context and the fact that the instrument would be named, whether a bow/arrow or a harp string/instrument, etc. As I have said, I believe that in Eph 5:19 singing comes from ado, and the “pluck/play/make melody” option comes from psallo. Psallo does not include an instrument in the word, which you agree, so the instrument must be named in the text. I believe Col. 3:16 clarifies Eph 5:19. --Trackn (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4unity. Your assertion that "the instrument must be named in the text" stands in oppositin to the lexicons. No lexicon says that psallo meant “sing without an instrument unless an instrument is specified.”

Moreover, Gerhard Delling (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1972, ”umnos” article, p 493) specifically contradicts that thought even in the evolution of the word. Writing of psallo in the Old Testament, he says, “often the obvious sense is ‘to play,’ especially when an instrument is mentioned.” He didn’t say “only when an instrument is named," as you say, but rather “especially when.” He also lists numerous occurrences of psallo in the Septuagint (citing 9:11; 30:4; 66:4; 7:17; 9:2; 61:8; 66:4; 68:4; 65:1; 92:1; 135:3; 47:6; 57:9l 108:3; and 138:1) where “the idea of praise by song as well as stringed instrument is suggested.” Look up those passages and you will see that no instrument is specified, and yet Delling says they speak of singing with accompaniment. 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn In quoting Burgess, you noted that he said "no lexicon says that it meant to sing only without instruments" but we both agree, as noted in 6iii in the talk page, that Danker in 2000, indicated that even in the Septuagint, it “is usually the case” that psallo is translated as only “to sing” (2000, p. 1096). Also, Bauer-Gingrich-Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, p. 891, 2nd edition, 1979 says one usage is to "sing exclusively." This is one lexicon that proves that statement wrong, so please remove that comment in the main article. Also, Burgess believes that psallo demands the instrument be used, it is commanded. --Trackn (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity. You are misreading A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. Psallo did not mean “sing exclusively” in the first century. The lexicon rather says that the meaning of psallo evolved until “psallo in modern Greek means ‘sing’ exclusively” (2000, p. 1096). You have claimed the modern Greek meaning as though it were the first century meaning. In contrast, the stated first century definition is “to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment.” The lexicon also grants that the meaning of play an instrument continued for generations after the apostles. No lexicon says that psallo meant to sing exclusive of instruments in the first century. What Burgess wrote in the 60’s is still verified by the latest lexicons.4unity (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn I did not say that the only meaning was sing exclusively. I said it is one option in the lexicons that we have discussed (1979, 2000). Every lexicon says it has a variety of meanings, including play, pluck, sing with, or sing without an instrument. Taking a break from all the other issues, can we focus on Burgess one moment? This should be fairly simple since we both have access to the book. On Page 14, he says “I shall prove no change to psallo ever occurred... I have raised proof... clearly demonstrate that psallein, in the New Testament, meant to sing with instrumental accompaniment.” On page 117 he acknowledges, “if psalms means instrumental accompaniment, then isn’t it true that everyone must sing with an instrument.” To avoid his conclusion and answer the critic, he says there are three types of songs Christians can sing. We don’t have to sing all three types, which avoids an instrument being required at all times, but concedes in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom, that psalms includes the instrument when he says “psalms (instrumental accompaniment...” then again on page 118, 3rd paragraph again, “psallo means to sing with musical accompaniment.” --- Burgess never said you can psallo without the instrument, which you seem to believe is optional at the same time. Burgess says the opposite, that psallo requires the instrument and if you don’t want to use it, sing another style commanded by Paul in Eph 5:19. He said on page 117 that spiritual songs can be (with or without the instrument) but psallo means to sing with accompaniment. 1) Do you still agree with Burgess? 2) When you say “What Burgess wrote in the 60’s is still verified by the latest lexicons” does this mean that the lexicons support this conclusion? I ask because I thought that you disagreed with Burgess since you believe that psallo can be done with or without an instrument. 3) When looking at psallo, How do you determine the difference between when they played, sang with an instrument, and sang without? I think that is a fair question to help me understand your position. For example, in each verse respectively, Col. 3:16 and 1 Cor. 14:15, we agree singing is involved, but does psallo include the instrument or leave it out? How do you tell the difference? 4) Your with or without in the same verse seems to mean that the instrument is always optional, thus psallo can never require or exclude the instrument. How do you reconcile your understanding of this universal “optional” with clear usages of psalloing using an instrument and at other items excluding an instrument? 5) In the New Testament, please give an verse where psallo means to sing with and instrument; example without an instrument so I can better see what you are saying. Thank you for your time. --Trackn (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4unity. I didn't say you said, "the only meaning was sing exclusively." Show us the lexicon that says the psallo meant "sing exclusively without instruments," and Burgess will stand corrected. (You ask if I support all of Burgess' conclusions. I doubt I agree with anyone in the world 100%, but I can certainly quote men when they are correct.) 4unity (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn Burgess has one conclusion to agree or disagree with. I’m asking you to state your position, since you quote him. His entire work, which is stated in his premise on pg 14, and his summary on pg 117-118 says that psallo means to “sing with instrumental accompaniment (required)” and the lexicons agree with him. Your conclusion has been that psallo means to “sing with or without instrumental accompaniment (optional/at the same time)” and the lexicons agree with you. Clearly, one of you is wrong. Since I don’t know how to interpret your statement “I can certainly quote men when they are correct,” I’m asking you to plainly state which one of you is correct and who the lexicons support since you and Burgess have two different conclusions. --Trackn (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn ... Can you state your postion in regards to Burgess (above) please. --Trackn (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn ... The Psallo/Eph./Col bullets: You have stated several times that you agree the early church did not use instruments, but you are unsure why. Do you still agree that the early church did not use instruments, even when they sung "psalms"? Are you proposing that that the church in the 1st century had the option to use instruments (as a part of worship), but they all chose not to use them?
  • 4unity One possible explanation is given by McKinnon (Temple, Church Fathers III, 85): "Christian liturgical psalmody in the formal sense is not a product of the apostalic age nor of the immediately succeeding centuries, but of the period of the Church's emancipation in the fourth century." 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn ... Please read McKinnon (Temple, Church Fathers III, 85) again, as well as the larger context. McKinnon said psalmody in the formal sense developed later, but the early church focused on "scriptural cantilation." Both cantilation and the later formal psalmody are acappella. In support of his acappella practice and explanation of psalmody and canticles, he further says "...This is not to declare absolutely that some individual at some time or another might not have used a instrument in the early church, but there is little evidence to suggest isolated incidents of this sort..." What was your purpose in quoting the later psalmody of the 4th century, which was still acappella though in a different form, to try to explain why the 1st century church did not use instrument? Do you agree that the apostolic church did not use instruments (yes or no)? --Trackn (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Trackn ... The Ado/Revelation bullet needs a scholarly source of agreement given the apocalyptic genre of the book of Revelation. This is not about any differences, rather a source to agree with your postion.
  • 4unity Done. I did not say that Revelation authorizes instruments, only that the word does not exclude instruments even when there is no word for "play" in the passage. Scholars are in agreement in these examples from John's Revelation. 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn ... Barnes sees the images as symbolic given the apocalyptic style of literature. The creatures, harps, bowls of incense, etc, are all symbolic, and he confirms that they sang. I ref chapter 5, but his view is consistent throughout the other chapters. Barnes CH.5 Having a harp as a symbol is quite different from singing with a literal harp and attributing the playing to be included with Ado. Lexicons state the ado means to sing, nothing more. My point is that you can make the same case from Eph 5:19. Ado means sing, but if an instrument is present, one can sing and play/pluck, as represented by psallo. Speaking of Eph. 5:19, Barnes believes says "Singing. \~adontev\~. The prevailing character of music in the worship of God should be vocal. If instruments are employed. they should be so subordinate that the service maybe characterized as singing" He goes on to say, "The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart" Barnes Eph.5 Clearly, Barnes does not advocate instruments in the worship of God in Revelation or the Christian age. --Trackn (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity The word for "sing" (ado) in Eph 5:19 means to “sing,” not “sing without instruments.” That’s why Barnes says (in your citation from Eph 5:19) that vocal singing was the “prevailing character,” not the “only character.” This is even clearer if one continues to read his entire exposition of Eph 5:19, where we find this definition of psallo (“making music”): “It is most frequently used in the sense of touching or playing a lyre, or a harp; and then it denotes to make music in general, to sing – perhaps usually with the idea of being accompanied with a lyre or harp.”

Regarding ado (“sing”) in Revelation, in the article I cited Barnes’ final comment on Rev 15:2: “Harps that pertained to the worship of God; harps to be employed in his praise.” Barnes Rev 15 (As with Eph 5:19, above, you chose to respond to a different comment from him that was not so explicitly opposed to yours.)

Barnes clearly agrees that the harps were played regardless of any word for “play” in the passage. Ado (“sing”) alone was sufficient. These three passages in Revelation are the only examples we have of the word ado (“sing”) in the New Testament (as distinct from the commands in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16), and they show that the word does not mean “vocal only unless a word for play is present.”

Everyone agrees that the scenes are symbolic; even the singing itself is symbolic (not just the instruments). Revelation does not authorize singing of any kind in our assemblies, whether with or without instruments. The singing depicted is nevertheless singing with instruments. These passages in Revelation demonstrate the meanings of the words by their usage. John saw believers singing with instruments, and he described it with “'ado'”. John’s usage of the word clearly demonstrates that 'ado' did not mean "sing vocally only." Barnes and the prevailing scholarship agree. 4unity (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn ... The prophecy/Jesus bullet needs a scholarly source to validate the proposed understanding of this verse. The citation needed is not about zamar, which has been cited, rather it is about the prophecy. Also, please provide when this prophecy was fulfilled; specifically, where in the Bible or at what date in Church history do we see Christians singing with instruments and shouting gestures to God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackn (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 4unity Citation added. Mckinnon's explanation of history is noted a few comments above this one. 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn ... I was not clear, and I am sorry for that (smile). You merged two thoughts that nobody denies. Zamar was used with or without an instrument and Jesus reconciled Jew and Gentile so that Gentiles would praise him. The merging and focus of the prophecy is what I am asking for a scholarly source about. Specifically, you are presenting this prophecy is specifically saying that Gentiles would praise Christ with instruments. Please quote a source that says that. Again, sorry for being vague earlier. Regarding McKinnon, (Temple, Church Fathers III, 85) the formal psalmody, is an advanced form of canticles, and both are without instruments (acappella). I’m saying that you have an unfulfilled prophecy, which is disturbing, so please provide when it was fulfilled so that I can learn. --Trackn (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity I already added the citation as you requested. Did you read it? If you believe that Jesus fulfilled something less than David said, then your argument may be with Paul. Moreover, may we make hand motions when we sing "The wise man built his house upon the rock"? I know of no English translation that says "sing and make hand motions," so are the hand motions condemned? The Hebrew word of the prophecy ("zamar") includes gestures. Those who believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecy without watering it down have no problem with hand motions. Those who are bound by the English translations' failure to mention hand motions have difficulty, wouldn't you agree? Are hand motions allowed by God when we sing, "The wise man built his house upon the rock"? 4unity (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn ... Modern Christian/Church Father no exception: 1) The quote of Ferguson is that the church fathers go beyond the NT in condemning instruments at banquet, weddings, etc because the NT has such settings with instruments. Perhaps rewording the sentence will make it clearer. 2) The way you structured the sentences makes it seem like the church fathers opposed instruments in every setting, without exception. However, this is not the case. McKinnon notes that there are categories and interpretation methods, which if overlooked, will lead the reader to the wrong conclusion. Pg 4, MECL, McKinnon says “the church fathers, in seeming contradiction to their stand on pagan music and real life situations, accepted the idea of music as an academic discipline.” The church fathers opposed instruments in certain settings and for certain reasons. It was not a universal ban. --Trackn (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 4unity. To the contrary, the quote that I cited from Mckinnon says that there were no exceptions. From the earliest Church Father to oppose instruments forward, McKinnon wrote, "To them the instruments were evil in themselves." You say that the New Testament mentions settings of weddings and banquets, but you miss that it makes no condmenation (or mention) of instruments in those settings. The Church Fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries go beyond the NT in every way on this issue. 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn ... Did you transpose some words when you said “The NT does not mention instruments in settings of funerals or banquets?” The NT mentions instruments quite often, and in a positive light, just never in conjunction with worship, like the OT. Jesus spoke of their use in children’s games (Mt. 11:16-17). Jesus included them at the banquet in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:25-27). Flute playing was a custom of music at funerals (Mt. 9:23). History also confirms the use of instruments in such settings. When McKinnon says "To them [church fathers] the instruments were evil in themselves," there is a context. This is why McKinnon, in the same book (Music in Early Christian Literature, pg.4) says (This is his quote, not my words) "the church fathers, in seeming contradiction to their stand on pagan music and real life situations, accepted the idea of music as an academic discipline." It seems like a contradiction, because in one setting they see the instrument as evil, and in another setting they accept instruments as an academic discipline. Hence the seeming “contradiction.” Going back to the NT Acts 6:7 "...a large number of priests became obedient to the faith" The Priests used instruments in the Temple and in home life. Surely, they did not have a bias against instruments, but make note that they did not use them in Christian worship. Thus, the point is that NT speaks of instruments at funerals, banquets, and games. Also, the ban on instruments by the church fathers was not universal, but contextually dictated. --Trackn (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity You're right; I wasn't clear. When I added the parenthesis about not being mentioned, I was thinking of under the New Testament -- from Jesus' death forward, since that is when those who oppose instruments say that everything changed. The fact that instruments were used in any setting before that time is typically seen as inadmissible evidence by those who oppose instruments only in praise, so I was trying to be consistent. The Church Father's go beyond the New Testament in condemning instruments. The only good word they could typically speak about them was in allegory, even putting that slant on the Old Testament. Yes, instruments were mentioned in the gospels, but, again, without condemning them as the Church Fathers did. As McKinnon points out, the Fathers' view was that the instruments were bad in themselves, not that the settings made them bad. 4unity (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn ... Modern Christian/Clement of Alexandria: McKinnon clearly says Clement is using allegory and is not literal. He also condemned 10+ instruments, before allegorically discussing the praise of God with the cithara or lyre. Our previous discussions are packed full of references to Clement by McKinnon, but you continue to present Clement differently than McKinnon. Why don’t you tell people Clement says they can use the cithara or lyre and not the instruments that he condemned, instead of a general misrepresentation that Clement says Col. 3:16 allows the use of an instrument in praise? That is a significant difference, even if taken literally. --Trackn (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 4unity McKinnon elsewhere says of Clement's quote, "Whereas the passage may be allegoriccal, it may equally well be taken literally." (McKinnon, TCFEWC, p.71.) Ferguson makes allowance for it to be literal, as well. 4unity (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Trackn ... If you are going to take Clement literally, quote him. Though Clement of Alexandria condemns numerous instruments at banquets, he makes "an apparent toleration for the Lyre and the kithara. Whereas the passage be allegorical, it may equally well be taken literally. If it was meant to be a real toleration for these instruments [lyre and kithara], it was intended for extra-liturgical devotion rather than for liturgical singing and probably to accompany a non-Biblical metrical hymn rather than psalm." With all my heart I ask you, how can you take this quote and context, and then tell somebody that Clement says they can use any instrument they want in praise? McKinnon says very clearly that Clement is not discussing worship. Unless you are intentionally trying to misquote McKinnon and Clement, please use the whole quote so the reader can understand. It comes directly from the footnote in TCFEWC, IV, pg.71. --Trackn (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4unity As McKinnon says (and I agree), Clement is talking about songs of "devotion" to God. Ferguson agrees. The liturgy of a church assembly is not in consideration, as I also agree. It seems to me that the conflict arises if we say that some songs of devotion or praise are not worship, but they all are. I said "in praise," as the scholars agree; I did not say "in a Sunday assembly of the church." I note that it is an uphill battle to oppose instruments in our assemblies based on Col 3:16 and yet find consensus that Clement uses that very verse to condone them in praise in informal settings. 4unity (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trackn ... Modern vs. Historical arguments against instruments:
  • The arguments that you are using (culture, prophecy, command, psallo, opinion) are all less than 250yr old arguments. Still, there are other arguments advocating the addition of instruments that are not used as much today, but stemmed from the Reformation. Yet, you should consider that the justification for the addition of the instrument in the mid 600s was not an argument that you are using, rather it was Papal authority. The pope added it, there was no justification given like psallo permits it, and there is no record in history of any arguments for the introduction of instruments. We have a few of the arguments opposing instruments, the thought process can be tracked, and chanting can be traced back to the 1st century church. McKinnon even admits the church fathers knew what they believed; we just don’t have all surviving records of their thoughts. --Trackn (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We know that there was a slight shift in argumentation because interpretation of scripture changed as Christianity spread. The unique factor is that non-Christians wanted to know why the church did not use instruments, and the church defended the practice. McKinnon noted the Allegorical method (like Clement) and a shift to the Literal method (like Theodoret of Cyrus). The literal method caused Christians to explain why God commanded Jews to use instruments, but Christians did not, and this is the crux of the matter. Christians could no longer say that instruments in the OT were symbols, like Clement did when he or others allegorized them for 200yrs after Christianity began. Christians also had to explain why there worship was different from the Jews, even as early as 115ad as noted by Justin Martyr. --Trackn (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are some variations in arguments because people got away from the historic one. However, the basic and consistent argument for opposing instruments, from the 3rd century to the present day, has always been found theologically in the book of Hebrews, and applicably in the Epistles. As noted in Hebrews 10:5-8, God commanded and allowed certain rituals, though he did not desire them, and knew they would be made obsolete in the New Covenant. God made instruments a part of the Levitical system when he commanded them as worship in the Temple system. Everything not affirmed in the New was made obsolete with the Old, including instruments in worship. There were of course some new rituals added by Christ that were not found in the OT. God put instruments in the OT worship along with many other rituals, and in the Christian age he took them out along with many other rituals. This is revealed in the constant tension from Clements words about the Hebrew God when allegorizing instruments, and the tolerance of “evil” by Theodoret. Only one school of interpretation said God allowed the “evil” of instruments, when trying to explain the difference between Christian and Jewish worship. They were the Literal exegetes during a 250yr (+/-) time span and not all of them described it as evil. McKinnon quoted ones who do, but also discussed others in the same school of thought that describe it other ways. Earlier on (115ad) Justin Martyr explained the difference as an “infant stage” or childish period of Gods people. They realized that God changed praise, and explained why within their own interpretation method of the same scriptures. --Trackn (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)