NOT ALL AGREE...HERE'S WHY

(JOHN WHEELER)

Please have patience while this page is loading; the content is worth the wait!

RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS COMMUNITIES

Naturally, a thesis as revolutionary as Haïk-Vantoura's is bound to bring various positive and negative responses from those who are affected by its implications. We begin this page with several sections concerning the responses of particular religious and other communities to Haïk-Vantoura's work.

I. THE RABBINIC JEWISH RESPONSE

It is not for nothing that Jesus said: "And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, 'The old is good [or better]'" (Luke 5:38, RSV). At the time, Jesus was speaking of religious practice and doctrine, especially as they relate to old tradition verses new truth. How the Rabbinic Jewish community has responded to Haïk-Vantoura's work illustrates the point brilliantly.

When Haïk-Vantoura's work was first published, its musical results won the wide acclaim of many gifted composers and musicians (both Jewish and Gentile) in France and Israel, as well as that of certain noted musicologists and Masoretic specialists -- even some who opposed the logical and historical basis of her work. Among the most notable of Haïk-Vantoura's supporters was Chief Rabbi Jacob Kaplan of France, who put his full authority behind the work -- and who (according to private oral testimony by Dennis Weber, Haïk-Vantoura's longtime translator) was astonished that others in the Rabbinic community didn't follow suit. Yet few indeed among modern rabbis have been more revered for their knowledge of Judaic tradition than the late Rabbi Kaplan (cf. the article concerning him in the Encyclopedia Judaica).

Another noted Jewish teacher who responded very favorably was Dr. Benjamin Dufchesne, head of the Rabbinical School in Paris. In an interview for National Public Radio in 1986, he mentioned that he had picked up Haïk-Vantoura's first recording out of curiosity, and later sang the Elegy of David (2 Samuel 1:18-27) for Israel's Independence Day in a Paris synagogue. "Before I got to the end of it," he related, "there were about 600 people crying...something that had never happened in my life! So I understood that there was something about this music that was...fantastic." His comparison of how he would sing the text in his community with how he would sing it under Haïk-Vantoura's key was most telling; there was simply no comparison in musical quality between the synagogal melody (shapeless and highly ornamental) and the reconstructed original (highly tonal and dramatic).

Nevertheless, Haïk-Vantoura's thesis has had little support to date among the Rabbinic and cantorial authorities in France and Israel. In the United States, it seems to have had somewhat better (though still mixed) response, though in fact it may not be as well known here as in Europe or Israel even yet. Most American cantors I have met personally have spoken well or very highly of Haïk-Vantoura's work once they have heard it (especially when I have performed it), even if they have not agreed with its technical basis. No Rabbinic synagogue I know of, however, has taken upon itself the task of performing Haïk-Vantoura's renditions in its liturgy, nor is her deciphering key taught in any cantorial school to my knowledge.

Here are the reasons why Haïk-Vantoura's work has been poorly received in some quarters, as far as I have experienced them to date:

Haïk-Vantoura's analysis of the notation itself denies the validity of the Masoretic and post-Masoretic analysis of the notation and its definition of individual "te`amim".

Haïk-Vantoura's results deny any direct link between the notation and the orally transmitted melodies of the Rabbinic synagogues.

The melodies which result from Haïk-Vantoura' deciphering key, while undeniably similar to certain synagogue melodies, are overall much different in construction.

Being different in construction, Haïk-Vantoura's melodies have an ethos which sounds "too Christian" to many Jewish ears accustomed to traditional cantorial music.

Haïk-Vantoura's deciphering key leads to exegetical results which at times fly in the face of those which result from the grammatical paradigm for the notation.
I have already dealt with the first three points elsewhere on this site. It is the last two which hold our interest here. In the end, it is the interpretation of the Hebrew words by the melodies resulting from Haïk-Vantoura's deciphering key which must convince one (or not) of the validity of her thesis. That interpretation, on the level of musical ethos, speaks of a time before Judaism and Christianity went their separate ways -- before Judaism became insular and earthbound and Gentile Christianity militant and otherworldly. It also speaks of a time when the concept of melos (for which the early synagogue cantillation of Scripture constantly searches but never quite achieves) was still a living memory -- and that time could be no later than that of the Second Temple. On the exegetical level, this music speaks of a time even earlier -- the time of the biblical authors themselves, who understood many things not understood by the Septuagint translators, the Pharisees and Rabbis, but which are pointed to by the musical notation preserved by the priests and Levites.

Then too, there is this natural human reaction and the fear that goes with it: "If we got this wrong, what else did we get wrong?" What, indeed? In that light, let the reader consider the omission (in the current Rabbinic reading cycle) of several profound texts in Isaiah -- notably chapter 53 (considered even in the Talmud as having messianic implications), which Haïk-Vantoura published at my suggestion in her last work, Message biblique integrale...

It is only natural that the various Jewish communities would want to preserve their local cantillation styles as things of value (even if they are not "melogenic" in any sense of the word). Yet as serious plans are being made for the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, the question of what music should be used there has also become serious. Certainly no mere synagogue cantillation should be used, but only that composed by the biblical authors and preserved by the Levites. To that end, this author has kept the Temple Institute in Jerusalem informed regarding the status of Haïk-Vantoura's work.

Meanwhile, should not the Jewish communities, so long divided among themselves even in their liturgies, consider making use of a common sacred heritage? In the exchange of truth for error, however old the error may be, the truth sets one free...or in the words of another Jew, one has nothing to lose but his chains!

II. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

In the United States, the greatest interest in Haïk-Vantoura's work has been in the Messianic Jewish and Gentile Christian communities, especially among evangelical Christians. Acceptance has not been universal here either, for various reasons. Some of these are the same as those held by Rabbinic Judaism. Others are unique to the particular Christian communities.

Interestingly, Gentile Christians (unlike their Rabbinic Jewish counterparts) usually pick up on the "Hebraic flavor" of the music, though some note with the Jews the superficial similarities it has with Gregorian chant. A number of Gentile Christian music educators, seeking to combat the growing influence of "contemporary Christian music", have looked to Haïk-Vantoura's work for inspiration. Others have compared it to traditional Protestant hymnody in hopes of breathing new life into the latter. Dr. Calvin Johansson, one of the most notable of the latter, mentions Haïk-Vantoura's work quite favorably in his books (such as Music and Ministry, published by Hendrickson Publishers).

In Implications for Modern Worship, I deal with the biblical example of worship music as Haïk-Vantoura's discovery portrays it. Naturally, such an example is a world apart not only from "Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM), but from other, more "traditional" styles such as "Southern gospel". In effect, the biblical melodies deny the validity in principle of any music intended for worship that expresses itself in sensual or "worldly" terms. Inevitably, this will offend many professing Christians who are used to such music, and they will ignore or reject Haïk-Vantoura's work on that basis.

Moreover, since biblical chant is not metrical in the modern sense, and is set to the original Hebrew and Aramaic words besides, its particular style may not fit the tastes of many in Gentile Christianity. Even those who agree on the moral values that should underlie Godly music do not always react the same way to Haïk-Vantoura's musical results. Frank Garlock (mentioned below) responds positively to them. Leonard J. Seidel, who shares a very similar outlook on sacred music generally, does not. One thing that usually helps in this respect is the ability to transcend the language barrier, such as through simultaneous translation of the lyrics (in print or vocally).

III. THE MESSIANIC JEWISH RESPONSE

Messianic Jews are people of Jewish descent who accept Jesus (in Hebrew, Yeshua) as the Messiah of Israel, yet who want to retain their identity as part of the Jewish religious community (whether Rabbinic Judaism accepts such identification or not). Accordingly, they follow a greater or lesser degree of biblical and Rabbinic traditions as part of their religious and secular culture.

Messianic Jewish musicians typically seek to combine traditional Rabbinic and modern Christian or even secular rock and other sounds and rhythms in their own "praise and worship" music. (This particular style is becoming increasingly popular in Gentile Christian circles, especially those who are already involved with CCM.) Such music often accompanies what they call "Davidic dance", which is based on various traditional Jewish dance steps. Using music in this way, Messianic Jews consider themselves to be "restoring" to a greater or lesser degree the musical practice of the Temple.

Naturally, when faced with "the real thing", Messianic Jews often don't know what to make of it. It is neither Rabbinic Jewish, nor Gentile Christian, nor Messianic Jewish in its ethos -- and virtually none of it is "danceable". It is cantillation, but with a unique inspiration. Biblical example shows that portions of Psalms and prose texts can be taken out of context and used as the basis for metrical dance. However (contrary to much Messianic Jewish misperception on the subject), the Psalms themselves were not dance songs, but sung poems. Moreover, Miriam's Song (Exodus 15:21) shows that the ancient Israelites danced to the natural and spiritually controlled strong-weak rhythmic pattern, rather than the sensual weak-strong rhythmic pattern increasingly found even in much so-called "Davidic dance".

One should think that Messianic Jews, if anyone, should have the greater receptivity to a bona fide restoration of a biblical heritage. It is safe to say that the jury is still out in this case. One reason, no doubt, is the lamentable lack of available product for sale in the U.S. (Only the original book -- not at all easy reading for the uninitiated -- and the original recording are currently available. Thankfully, nearly all the recordings are readily available from overseas sources -- see the Recordings page for more information.) But another was put to me by one of their own, when scores and recordings were readily available through King David's Harp, Inc.: "Most Messianic Jews would rather be 'Jewish' than biblical." Another case of "old wine versus new", perhaps...or of loving modern developments in the name of "biblical Judaism" over the ancient biblical religion (which, strictly speaking, is not "Judaism" in New Testament terms)...

IV. OTHER RELIGIOUS AND ACADEMIC RESPONSES

Some of the most interesting responses I have encountered have come from practitioners of various "New Age" religions and philosophies. Since the Jewish Kabbalists wrote so highly of the mystical power of the te`amim, it is no surprise that the few modern Kabbalists I have encountered have usually spoken very highly of the spiritual power of Haïk-Vantoura's renditions. On the other hand, I have known of at least one practicing pagan who was astonished -- angrily so -- that the ancient Hebrews could have had sacred music of such sophistication, based on theoretical norms similar to those known in Egypt and Mesopotamia, yet appearing so "modern" in several important respects.

Masoretic scholars, of course, generally have been less than enthusiastic about Haïk-Vantoura's work. The reasons for this are listed among the reasons listed for the lack of approval by the Rabbinic community: in particular, the way Haïk-Vantoura's methodology and conclusions fly in the face of the Masoretes' own "grammatical paradigm" and the orally transmitted synagogue chants. But another reason has been mentioned by Dr. James D. Price, a Christian Masoretic scholar: most Masoretic scholars have been unable to follow the musical aspect of Haïk-Vantoura's reasoning. But unless one is able to follow that aspect, how can one judge the matter correctly? All the more in that some problems regarding the transmission of the accents relate to their correct musical interpretation and vice versa...

Early music specialists likewise have had mixed reactions to Haïk-Vantoura's work. Certainly the "modernity" of the results in some respects challenges their presuppositions as to what ancient and early music was like (especially since so much extant early music finds its roots in the synagogue and early Gentile Christianity). Some have also complained about the accompaniments used for the Psalms and Song of Songs, which they have naively assumed are "reconstructions" of the original vocal and instrumental harmonies used. Whereas Haïk-Vantoura has stated repeatedly (beginning with her first album) that the arrangements used in her recordings and scores are but evocations, intended to point out to the listener that biblical psalmody was not monodic (and that biblical prosody was in principle accompanied).

In the Rabbinic Jewish and Gentile Christian communities, and among academic scholars, there may well be even more resistance (or enthusiastic acceptance, depending on the parties involved) when the exegetical implications of Haïk-Vantoura's discovery are made more widely known. The first to make known Haïk-Vantoura's discovery in the U.S., it seems, is Southwest Radio Church of Oklahoma City. The Associates for Biblical Research made it known some years later. Both are strongly "young creationist" in their stance. Yet the deciphered melody of Genesis 1:2 indicates that "the earth had become chaotic and disordered" after a perfect original creation, which flies in the face of the theology of these organizations. Comments to that effect by me during an interview with SRC were edited out of the final broadcast. ABR was no more receptive to the idea, even after having published several articles by me concerning Haïk-Vantoura's work as such. How will they and other organizations respond to such exegetical revelations as this when they are published more widely?

V. THE MUSIC OF THE BIBLE AS A "TOUCHSTONE"

Nevertheless, among all these groups and secular people as well, there are many who understand, appreciate and even deeply love the music restituted by Haïk-Vantoura. Of course, each gains his kind and level of appreciation for his own reasons. Like the words of the Bible, the music of the Bible is a touchstone of "where one is at" spiritually, mentally and even culturally.

Some musicians I have known have perceived the similarity of biblical psalmody to Gregorian chant (thanks to its use of sustained tones and syllabic rhythm especially). Some in Rabbinic Judaism have picked up on some actual similarities that exist between certain reconstructed melodies and their own local liturgies. Some musicians are reminded of Renaissance hymnody, or even (in the modes used) of jazz. Some ask about possible relationships with Celtic and British music. Some (who actually hold the original apostolic faith) have remarked on the subtle spirit of the music, one which reminds them of that which motivates their own hymnody in different terms. And some perceive the music as what it is -- a self-contained system, with a unique beauty equal to if not surpassing that of musical styles far more recent and complex.

Dr. Frank Garlock, who has presented Haïk-Vantoura's overall conclusions to a number of different audiences, has noted (privately to me) that people tend to take Haïk-Vantoura's thesis seriously to the extent they take the inspiration of the Bible seriously. To that I would add that people generally concur with Haïk-Vantoura's results to the extent they follow her logic correctly. Sometimes their skepticism in matters of biblical inspiration is chiefly at fault in their inability to follow Haïk-Vantoura's logic -- for after all, the Bible was written (if nothing else) as if it were "inspired". The object of biblical cantillation is but to underline the Bible's message -- adding another testimony to its inspiration (and thus, another potential cause of offense).

Updated November 05, 2008