Appendix Two:

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE SONG OF SONGS

o One would normally expect to find (in Song 2:3) the musical sign zakef katon on the word haScharon. The sign is missing in the Letteris and Snaith Editions, but not in the BHS or Ginsburg critical editions. (No notes in the latter mention whether zakef katon is missing in any manuscripts.) The same is true for the word leroschi in Song 2:6: zakef katon is missing in Letteris and Snaith, but not in BHS and Ginsburg.

According to the normal rules of Haïk-Vantoura's musical key (and the traditional grammatical rules for that matter), zakef katon should follow the sublinear mounah in both cases. Its inclusion gives a certain softness to the melody in both verses (it would mark, in effect, a "feminine" cadence). Its omission in 2:3 gives the hemistich a suspensive, "masculine" cadence on the 5th degree. This gives the words so marked a degree of tension (or rather a lack of resolution) that would not otherwise exist.

Letteris and Snaith have different "accent traditions" in general (as a simple comparison of their texts will show). It is highly unlikely that they would have the same upper sign missing in the same place by chance.4 The normal rules of the musical system show that this reading is indeed an omission, one which Haïk-Vantoura nevertheless scrupulously respected (and thankfully, not to the serious harm of the melos in context).

o The Letteris, Ginsburg, Snaith and BHS Editions also differ in their use of siLouk when it is found on any but the last stressed syllable of a verse.5 The post-Masoretic scribes often omitted siLouk as redundant (perhaps assuming the reader would automatically supply the unmarked pauses, or being ignorant of why the pauses were necessary). In many cases, this sign was moved to a neighboring syllable or even word in order to make its use more "grammatically self-consistent". Some scribes even added siLouk here and there, by comparison to Letteris. Many of these differences were tabulated in the famous lists of "ben Asher" and "ben Naphtali" readings (said to represent the opinions of the two greatest Masoretic masters).

Such changes are by far the largest source of musical anomalies when the editions that have them are analyzed under Haïk-Vantoura's musical key. (The changes are especially common in the Psalms.) In virtually every case, the Letteris reading is musically superior to that of the other editions; to omit or move siLouk (relative to Letteris) is to deform the connection between words and melody. As Haïk-Vantoura notes, it gives the melody a sense of deformation, even of mutilation to the initiated reader.6 Occasionally the variation makes no essential difference in the resulting melodic line, but this is relatively rare.7

o In some cases, one or even a series of musical signs found in Letteris is replaced by another in the other editions. Ginsburg lists a number of such variants, found in manuscripts and the earliest printed editions.

o In every case we have found where Snaith, BHS or Ginsburg differs from Letteris within the Song of Songs, the Letteris reading is musically superior under Haïk-Vantoura's key. This is shown by how the altered melodies interpret the words they support. A few comparisons between Letteris and Ginsburg will illustrate:

1) The words isch harbo `al - yerékho ("every man with his sword on his thigh") in Song 3:8 are accented differently in Letteris and the main text of Ginsburg on the one hand and the margin of Ginsburg on the other, as this link will demonstrate. Letteris and Ginsburg (main text) have a melisma which raises the voice on harbo from the 6th to the 7th degree; the melody returns to the 6th degree (and a stable, suspensive cadence on the 5th degree) on `al - yerékho. The Ginsburg marginal reading takes the voice from the 6th to the 5th degree on harbo; the melody then leads to a cadence on the 4th degree on `al - yerékho. The latter reading "falls flat" in its expression, in comparison to the former. The joy and grandeur expressed by the "lift" in the Letteris reading is blunted in the more "monotone" (and yet more "chromatic") Ginsburg marginal reading. It takes so little to disturb the delicate balance of the melos!

2) Other such variations are found in the Ginsburg Edition's main text (e.g., Song 2:8, at hiNé - zé) as well as the marginal notes. Several exist because of efforts to make both words and te`amim identical or similar in parallel texts. Song 5:10 (margin) is one example (the signs on Dodi tsah, "My Loved One is white", are made the same as those which mark the incises of 5:13-15).

3) A longer substitution is found in Song 7:14, in which Ginsburg's marginal reading divides the hemistichs differently and parallels the sequence of signs in 7:1. Another long substitution is in 8:14a (margin), which is verbally parallel to 2:9a (the sequence of signs in the two hemistichs is made virtually identical). In each of these cases, we hold the Letteris reading is musically superior; it fits the musical-verbal context better. Moreover, giving at times different melodies to similar verbal texts allows a more interesting and expressive melodic-poetic structure overall (this being a principle found in all art music).

o Aharon ben Asher, in his treatise Dikdoukê ha-Te`amim (ca. 930), notes an unusual feature of the tradition: the apparent substitution of merkha for siLouk (relative to Letteris) on the word Te`orrou ("you awaken") in Song 2:7; 3:5; and 8:5.8

As it happens, the resulting melody in verse 2:7 (as in the other examples) is not defective compared with the more "conservative" reading derived from the Letteris Edition. If anything, the substitution suggested by ben Asher would make the melody more interesting and piquant -- and yet at least as suitable to the verbal context. (Ben Asher's reading neatly pictures the sense of awakening through its subtle rise to the 2nd degree followed by a fall to the 7th subtonic degree.) And yet, we must acknowledge that ben Asher may simply be giving his opinion about a textual feature which may have another explanation (such as the consistent scribal tendency to add nuanced grammatical distinctions to even the written forms of the signs), or of how he believed the notation "should" read. Since this issue is beyond the scope of this study, we will say no more about it here.

C. Criticism and Authority

While examining the textual sources of the Letteris Edition is beyond the scope of this study, the source materials cannot be ignored. A few paragraphs will suffice.

It is commonly acknowledged that the Letteris Edition is a revision of the text found in the Second Rabbinic Bible published by Jacob ben Hayyim (Venice, 1524-1525). This latter edition is the basis for the main text of the Ginsburg Edition as well. No doubt this explains why Letteris and the main text of Ginsburg are so similar to each other overall and rather distant from other, later editions (especially with regards to the accentuation).

Nevertheless, in the Psalms especially, Letteris' accentuation is often unique among extant editions, matching neither that of the ancient "ben Asher" manuscripts nor that of any early or modern printed edition we have seen to date (once again, Ginsburg and some of its marginal readings excepted in some cases). We do not yet know on what basis Meir ha-Levi Letteris edited the ben Hayyim text, in particular with regard to its accentuation. Discovering that basis is one of the long-term goals of our academic research.9

Meanwhile, specialists know that a late manuscript or edition produced with care, containing a carefully guarded textual tradition, may be superior to even the oldest extant manuscripts (especially if the older ones were produced less carefully.) Besides, in classical (as opposed to modern) criticism the authoritative edition (and not any critical amendation) gets the benefit of any doubt. This is not "argument from authority"; it is giving authority its due. As distasteful as the idea seems to some people, we hold that God does work through consituted human authority -- sometimes despite its own intentions (cf. Romans 3:1-4). The difficulty lies in knowing which human authority to trust as being used of God -- and the Hebrew-Christian Bible has much to say on this issue as well (e.g., Acts 5:29).

It is worth noting that Letteris is the basis of countless rabbinic editions around the world and has the full approval of the international Orthodox rabbinate (despite its original production by a Christian missionary society, the British and Foreign Bible Society of London). We are confident that further research will confirm the overall critical authority of Letteris as well (at least concerning its accentual tradition).

Finally, while it is often claimed there was no single, "authoritative" Masoretic tradition, no sole textus receptus, Moshe ben Asher's testimony of the "establishment" of the te`amim by the Elders of Bathyra needs to be given its due weight.10 If even Aharon ben Asher (and without question, later scribes) disagreed with (and sometimes emended) the received musical tradition, this does not prove that a received tradition did not exist. It merely confirms (with the insufficiency of the traditional interpretations of the te`amim) that the received tradition was not understood by its preservers, and was critiqued and sometimes emended accordingly.

This much we can safely conclude: the Letteris Edition accurately preserves the melody to which the Song of Songs was originally sung (in its Second Temple edition). Such is the complexity of the overall poetic structure and of the gracious interweaving of verbal and melodic themes that we dare add "since the Song of Songs was first written". While the Song's accurate transmission is ultimately a matter of faith in God's work through human instruments (cf. Romans 3:1-4 once again, as well as Isaiah 40:6-9 and similar verses), the evidence provided by the Song's own melos clearly supports this belief.

D. The Authorship of the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes

It is often claimed the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes -- both ascribed to Solomon -- were written long after Solomon's time. We have dealt with some of the textual reasons above; there are others which are beyond the scope of this study.

As Haïk-Vantoura points out, certain texts dating from medieval and Renaissance Europe have later words substituted for earlier, obsolete ones; that does not mean the texts as a whole are recent! Any such amendation to either above-mentioned biblical book must have been done by initiates (namely, the Levite musician-scribes). As noted in Appendix One, many "late" words in the Song (such as `apiryon) are not demonstrably late at all.

We should remember that Solomon, renowned for his unique wisdom, received visitors from "all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom" (cf. 1 Kings 4:29-34). Given the contacts Israel had in commerce, diplomacy and the arts, it would only be natural for foreign words to enter the Hebrew language. Certainly Solomon would be conversant with foreign terms, even if the common people were not. Would these terms have remained out of his writings? We think not.

Of course, we say Solomon was young when he wrote the Song of Songs; but he shows signs of being very well-traveled, even then. Besides, would not David have had similar diplomatic contacts? Not only given the Levant's importance as a land bridge, but due to David's own connections with the king of Tyre? Many so-called "late" words may have had wider currency earlier than we suspect; trade and diplomatic networks stretched as far east as China, long before David's time. The very mention of kiNamon or cinnamon (in Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17 and Song 4:14) is one of the evidences of this.

Contemporary sources (it is alleged) are silent about Solomon's existence, let alone the travels to hear his wisdom. Others have contested this idea, with good reason (which we cannot go into here). As a partial refutation, we may point to the cosmopolitan language that Solomon uses. Its traits (which seem so "recent" to some) are consistent with diplomatic and commercial contacts between Israel and other, widely-scattered nations, even before Solomon's sole regency.

Few commentators seem to consider that the creation of David's royal court implies the creation of a courtly language: a "Received Standard" or "King's Hebrew" which incorporated diverse dialectical elements. (See our remarks about the prefix sche- in Appendix One.) This would have reached its classic form in the reign of Solomon, when representatives from all Israel participated in the courtly life and culture. Once established, such "courtly" Hebrew would have influenced literary Hebrew from that time forward, just as the Arabic of the Koran has shaped literary Arabic from its own time to the present.

Is it any surprise, then, that "Solomonic" Hebrew would resemble later biblical (and even Mishnaic) Hebrew, or that the Song of Songs would have "northern" and "southern" elements intermingled? All this is no proof of multiple authorship over many centuries. It merely shows that different literary influences were brought together in a unified work. Other indications (especially musical ones) show the unifying force was a single author, not a series of authors or redactors.

Similar refutations may be offered against the allegedly late authorship of Ecclesiastes. Actually, there is verbal and musical evidence that both books were written by the same author. We cite as an example the common use of the prefix she-, "that, which", in both texts, attached in similar ways to various words, supported by similar musical motives. One particular complex of musical signs [( ) followed by ( )] and words (the prefix sche- added to another word) is found only in these two books. Song 1:7 (she'ahava) and Ecclesiastes 1:7 (schehaNhalim) are two examples of its use. Naturally, there are more general evidences, which we have cited in the main text.

All critics acknowledge the poetic charm and high literary quality of both books. Melodically, they are approached only by Ruth and Esther. Both books are sagacious, modally pure, complex in their poetic structure, with a subtle graciousness and sensitivity. Both use delicate, ingenious metaphors to describe the parts and functions of the body (Song 4; Ecclesiastes 12:1-7). If their exceptionally talented author was not Solomon, why should such a person (or persons) claim Solomonic authorship rather than his own (or hers, or theirs)? Is not such a claim the mark of an inferior craftsman, rather than of one who knows his own merits and the fame they deserve? True, it is a trait of human nature to seek its own glory, under the name of another if necessary -- but it is a law of human nature (indeed, a test of sanity) that no one will lie contrary to his own self-interests!

Besides, this sort of pious fraud is totally contrary to the moral and spiritual vision of these books (to say nothing of the principle behind the Eighth Commandment). Pseudopigrapha are written generally to persuade others into accepting unorthodox, even deceptive teachings. No such motives can be charged to the author of these books. His works have the "ring of truth": of real, individual yet universal human experience.

Nor is this kind of artistic perfection (in the "real world", past and present) the result of redactions by several authors over a period of time. There must have been an "Ur-text", an irreducible core which could tolerate only the correction or updating of a living tradition. Such life as we find in the biblical melos cannot be bestowed by a community, whether of contemporary or successive authors. Nor is such life the mark of a simple "editor". It is rather the mark of a single personality, a single personal vision: that of a poet-composer, whatever sources he may draw upon.

Were these two books written about Solomon at a later date? Could the Song of Songs be "for" or "about Solomon", while Kohelet ("the Preacher", i.e., Ecclesiastes) represents Solomon symbolically without indicating his own authorship? Some contend that if Solomon had written Ecclesiastes, he would have said so (forgetting the time-honored use of pen-names). These same critics deny Solomonic authorship to the Song of Songs in spite of the attachment of Solomon's name to the text. A priori skepticism, not irrefutable proof, is obviously behind such conclusions as these.

Truth (as William of Occam effectively pointed out in the 14th century) is found through seeking the simplest and most complete explanation of all the facts. Thanks to Occam's Razor, we believe the textual evidence (musical and verbal) confirms Solomonic authorship for both books and denies all other possibilities. The Song of Songs began Solomon's musical career; Ecclesiastes ended it. Yet both books (despite their very different rhythms, use of melismas and general character) have common threads which deserve further exploration -- but which are beyond the scope of this book.

FOOTNOTES

1. See especially her Les 150 psaumes and Message biblique intégrale (melody-only scores; see List of Available Publications).
2. Ecclesiastes 1:6 also has a "disjunctive" tevir (on çovev, "turning round"), the only one in the book.
3. In fact, the distinction of "independant" forms via the addition of a vertical line (paçek), is younger than the "accent" system itself, given its lack of systematic use in the early manuscripts (Yevin, op. cit., p. 216).
4. At least one scholar has alleged that Dr. Norman Snaith produced his edition in comparison with that of Meir ha-Levi Letteris, and copied some of the latter edition's typographical errors. (Our thanks to Blake Conley for this information.) Since the Snaith and Letteris Editions differ considerably elsewhere (especially in Psalms), we wonder how much credence to give to this assertion.
5. The traditional "rules" define the graphical sign as siLouk when it rests on the last accented syllable of a verse, and as "ga`ya" everywhere else. They treat siLouk as a "grammatical accent", "ga'ya" as a mere pause in the reading (accounting for its alternate name, "meteg" or "bridle"). In fact both are "centers of melodic attraction" and are attracted to each other as well, proving that they are musically one and the same sign.
6. "It is...obvious that this sign always represents the same tonal degree...and no one is justified (under the guise of nuances of exegetical interpretation) in excising it from the context of which it is an inherent part. This clarification made, the reader, in comparing an edition thus mutilated with a standard edition [Letteris], will know which to retain; confronted with the indisputable melodic deficiency which results from such mutilation, he will know each time that he is dealing with the omission of the tonic note." Haïk-Vantoura, The Music of the Bible Revealed, op. cit., p. 445.
7. In a few places in the Song and elsewhere, the addition or omission of a "ga`ya" merely means the tonic degree (sung on several syllables in a row) is or is not stressed on a particular syllable. In most cases the sign falls after other sublinear signs defining different degrees, in which case "mutilation" (in Haïk-Vantoura's words) occurs.
8. Manuscripts and editions that follow the reading on Te`orrou recommended by ben Asher may omit one or more of the so-called "ga`ya" (as on the first syllable of ha'ahava), altering the melodic line from that given here.
9. In particular, the differences between Letteris and the oldest complete manuscript of the Masoretic Text, the Aleppo Codex (finished ca. 930 and partially destroyed in 1948) are beyond the scope of this book. However, Haïk-Vantoura believes the Aleppo Codex represents the opinion of Aharon ben Asher (and thus carries his own emendations to the te`amim); it does not necessarily reflect the original, received tradition in all points.
10. While not wishing to argue in a circle, we note that Haïk-Vantoura's research confirms the overall authority and accuracy of the Letteris Edition with regard to the accentuation. Her musical results are self-consistent throughout Letteris (leaving obvious typographical errors in Letteris itself aside), but give rise to many anomalies in other editions (especially those more or less conformed to BHS) -- anomalies acknowledged by certain other specialists (for other reasons) to be based on an altered textual tradition.

Contents

Previous Page

Next Page

Music of the Bible