Did the Israelites Use Drum-Like Instruments in The Worship in the Solomonic Temple?
Concerning the use of drum-like instruments in the temple, I recently found the following information online:
Percussion
The Bible doesn’t mention drums as we think of them. Israelites used cymbals, bells, tambourines, and castanets.
Cymbals: both selselim and mesiltayim are translated as “cymbals.” They were played in pairs and may have been as small as finger cymbals. Selselim, which occurs infrequently (2 Samuel 6:5), is from the Hebrew for “clattering” or “whirring,” as an insect’s wings. Mesiltayim is from the Hebrew for “double tinklers” and is used extensively in reference to the ark of the covenant (1 Chronicles 13:8; 15:16) and the temple (1 Chronicles 25:1, 6; 2 Chronicles 12—13; 29:25), as well as the dedication of the wall and temple after the return from Babylon (Ezra 3:10; Nehemiah 12:27).
Castanets: Menaanim are difficult to identify, as the definition we have is “an instrument made of fir or juniper wood.” Most likely, they were similar to our castanets, small finger cymbals made of wood. Israelites used them to celebrate the return of the ark from the Philistines (2 Samuel 6:5). Since this celebration was impromptu and menaanim are not mentioned in temple worship, it was probably a common instrument of the people.
Tambourine: The toph or top seems to be the closest the Israelites had to a drum, although it’s not clear if it had a drumhead or if it was comprised of cymbals or castanets fastened to a ring of wood. Bible versions translate toph as “tambourine,” “timbrel,” or “tabret.” Like the menaanim, it is not mentioned in temple worship but is prolific in celebratory events (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6; 2 Samuel 6:5; Psalm 81:2; 149:3; 150:4; Jeremiah 31:4). Taphaph (Psalm 68:25) is a verb meaning “to beat a tambourine.”
Bells: Bells were used for ornamentation, not specifically for music. Pa’amon were attached to Aaron’s robe (Exodus 28:33–34; 39:25–26), while metsillah, from the Hebrew for “tinkler,” were used on horses’ bridles (Zechariah 14:20). [underlining added to the original]
Does the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in the worship in the Solomonic Temple show that such instruments were not used in the temple worship?
- 2157 views
Because God commanded the Israelites to use timbrels(a drum-like instrument) in two passages (Pss. 81:2; 150:4), properly explaining the complete lack of mention of these instruments in all the accounts of temple worship is no minor issue.
How about pianos or organs? Our church does not have an organ, so we do not have to worry about that, but we just got a new piano that will be delivered soon. I had not even thought about whether or not a piano was used in the temple. Should I have been concerned about that? Part of the reason I ask this is because the piano has been the only instrument we have had in our small church. Would a piano be considered a variation of a harp and were harps used in the temple? Also I like to watch old westerns and pianos were often in the saloons. Should I be concerned about that?
I would like to ask a moderator to intervene. I am not asking that the preceding comment by JD Miller be removed.
I am asking for intervention so that further comments such as the one he has just made above do not proliferate in this thread.
He makes no attempt to engage with the actual specific interpretational question raised in the thread.
This kind of nonsense reply has no place in legitimate discourse.
RajeshG wrote:
He makes no attempt to engage with the actual specific interpretational question raised in the thread.
This kind of nonsense reply has no place in legitimate discourse.
I do think he was attempting to engage with the question. The passage you posted started out with "The Bible doesn’t mention drums as we think of them." You asked this question at the end - "Does the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in the worship in the Solomonic Temple show that such instruments were not used in the temple worship?"
JD was using exactly the same logic as you presented in your question. He pointed out an instrument, the piano, that wasn't mentioned in the Bible and then asked if a piano-like instrument had been used in temple worship. You didn't need to call it a "nonsense reply" since he may not have been aware that harps were indeed used in temple worship, and a piano could certainly be considered a harp-like instrument since it uses strings that are moved to make sound.
The question I have for you is - What characteristics do you think need to be present for an instrument to be "drum-like." In my mind, if sound is produced by striking a portion of a non-string instrument, then that instrument is drum-like. The OP mentioned regarding the tambourine that "it’s not clear if it had a drumhead," but I don't think having an actual drumhead is necessary for an instrument to be drum-like. Since cymbals make sound through the striking of part of the instrument, and since cymbals were used in temple worship, then I DO think that drum-like instruments were used in temple worship.
Kevin Miller wrote: You didn't need to call it a "nonsense reply" . . .
No, talking about pianos, westerns, and saloons is a nonsense reply to a thread about the interpretation of plainly specified biblical content (see my first comment above).
No, cymbals are not drum-like instruments.
RajeshG wrote: No, cymbals are not drum-like instruments.
What would make an instrument "drum-like" in the context of your question? Does the sound have to be lower pitched than a cymbal for the instrument to be drum-like? Does it have to look exactly like present day drums to be drum-like? If that's the case, then it would be a present day drum and not just "drum-like," and the article already said that present day drums were not mentioned in Scripture, so I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by "drum-like."
It's worth noting that there are a few basic classifications of instruments; string instruments, brass instruments, woodwinds/reeded instruments, and percussive instruments.
Drums, cymbals, tambourines, and...the piano...are all in that last category. Cymbals and drums are similar in tonality (if one has a higher pitch) because the governing functions for their dissonance are Bessel (and sometimes Hankel) functions instead of sinusoidal, as in wind instruments and many other percussive instruments like the piano and xylophone. So there is a clear analogy from the drum to the cymbals.
It's also worth noting that if you want to eliminate instruments because they are not mentioned in Scripture, you lose the piano, organ, the entire orchestra except the (!) percussion section and the flute....and you'd better get going training your musicians on percussion, the harp/lyre, and the flute. Otherwise it's going to be very quiet in church.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Kevin Miller wrote: What would make an instrument "drum-like" in the context of your question? Does the sound have to be lower pitched than a cymbal for the instrument to be drum-like? Does it have to look exactly like present day drums to be drum-like? If that's the case, then it would be a present day drum and not just "drum-like," and the article already said that present day drums were not mentioned in Scripture,
The point of this thread is to address a specific aspect of biblical interpretation. That aspect is not dependent on answering these questions. I am not interested in discussing these questions at this time.
Again, God twice commanded the Israelites to use a drum-like instrument that has been rendered as "timbrel," "tabret," or "tambourine" in various translations (Ps. 81:2; 150:4). The Hebrew word for that drum-like instrument never occurs in any account of worship in the Solomonic Temple. It is never rendered as "cymbal" in the Bible. The Bible uses other Hebrew words for cymbals.
The total lack of any mention of that specific drum-like instrument (that was not a cymbal) in any account of temple worship must be interpreted and explained properly because God commanded its use, but the accounts never mention that it was used.
RajeshG wrote: The point of this thread is to address a specific aspect of biblical interpretation. That aspect is not dependent on answering these questions. I am not interested in discussing these questions at this time.
So what you are saying is that you are unwilling to answer questions about your "specific aspect of biblical interpretation." I truly don't understand this unwillingness. You made a specific biblical claim in your post, yet you are refusing to discuss it. Why start a thread and claim you want to discuss something and then refuse to discuss it? It doesn't make sense.
[quote]Again, God twice commanded the Israelites to use a drum-like instrument that has been rendered as "timbrel," "tabret," or "tambourine" in various translations (Ps. 81:2; 150:4). The Hebrew word for that drum-like instrument never occurs in any account of worship in the Solomonic Temple. It is never rendered as "cymbal" in the Bible. The Bible uses other Hebrew words for cymbals.
The total lack of any mention of that specific drum-like instrument (that was not a cymbal) in any account of temple worship must be interpreted and explained properly because God commanded its use, but the accounts never mention that it was used. [/quote]
What make you think a timbrel is "drum-like"?
What makes you think a timbrel wasn't used in Solomonic worship? 2 Chronicles 5:13 says the singers in the temple were "accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments." 2 Chronicles 7:6 says the temple worship was accompanied by "the Lord’s musical instruments, which King David had made for praising the Lord and which were used when he gave thanks." The phrase "other instruments" makes it quite clear that the specifically named instruments were NOT the only ones used in temple worship, but other instruments, besides the named ones, were also used. Unless you've been given some divine revelation, which I know you do not claim to have, it doesn't seem biblical to adamantly reject any particular instrument from being part of the "other instruments" being used in temple worship.
Kevin Miller wrote: What makes you think a timbrel wasn't used in Solomonic worship? . . . Unless you've been given some divine revelation, which I know you do not claim to have, it doesn't seem biblical to adamantly reject any particular instrument from being part of the "other instruments" being used in temple worship.
I have never said that it was or was not used. You are misrepresenting me by making claims about my thinking that it wasn't used in Solomonic worship and by claiming that I "adamantly reject . . ."
I have repeatedly said that they are not mentioned in any of the accounts. If they were used in the temple worship, that lack of mention must be explained properly and thoroughly.
Kevin Miller wrote: What makes you think a timbrel wasn't used in Solomonic worship? 2 Chronicles 5:13 says the singers in the temple were "accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments."
There is no Heb. word for "other" in 2 Chron. 5:13. That statement refers back to the previously mentioned instruments (psalteries and harps in 5:12) that were not restated in 5:13. Of great significance in that pinnacle passage of music used in worship is the fact that cymbals are explicitly mentioned twice but timbrels are never mentioned. Moreover, the Heb. word for cymbals in 2 Chron. 5 is not the same as the word in Ps. 150. The Heb. word for the cymbals spoken of in Ps. 150 is never mentioned in any passages about temple worship.
Kevin Miller wrote: 2 Chronicles 7:6 says the temple worship was accompanied by "the Lord’s musical instruments, which King David had made for praising the Lord and which were used when he gave thanks."
Timbrels were in use long before David came on the scene. Whether David made any timbrels for use in temple worship is never directly stated and is therefore debatable.
In addition, 1 Chronicles 15-16 relates what David did in establishing the courses of musical priests who would minister with various instruments. Although other instruments are directly mentioned, timbrels are not mentioned at all in those chapters in revealing to us what David did to establish who would minister musically in the Temple.
Let us assume that Rajesh is correct, and that drums are never mentioned in Temple music or other liturgical/prophetic music. Keep in mind, by the way, that at least some sets of Bible translators do translate some Hebrew words as "drum" in that context, but let's go with Rajesh's idea for the sake of argument.
What do we do with that knowledge, if true? What does it mean for other musical instruments and techniques not mentioned in Scripture, like the piano, organ, violin, guitar, cello, viola, woodwinds with reeds, brass instruments with valves, singing in parts, and the like?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh, why do you think drums were not mentioned and why do you believe that there was significance to them not being mentioned?
My theory as to why drums were not mentioned is because much of their similar effect can be accomplished with the clapping of hands. Temple worship in music had many participants and hand clapping could regulate the beat very effectively so that drums may not have been needed to do the same thing. Since hands are not manufactured instruments, they would not be listed among the other instruments. (see Psalm 47:1. Even the natural clapping of nature in praise to God is found in Ps 98:8 and Isaiah 55:12).
JD Miller wrote: Rajesh, why do you think drums were not mentioned and why do you believe that there was significance to them not being mentioned?
JD, I do not know why timbrels are not mentioned in any passage concerning the temple worship. Given the divine commands to praise God with the timbrel in Ps. 81:2 and 150:4, we have the obligation to try to determine what the lack of mention signifies.
If, in fact, timbrels were not used in temple worship, we would know that those specific commands were of limited application and not universal requirements of God for acceptable worship.
Wikipedia:
The drum is a member of the percussion group of musical instruments. In the Hornbostel-Sachs classification system, it is a membranophone.[1] Drums consist of at least one membrane, called a drumhead or drum skin, that is stretched over a shell and struck, either directly with the player's hands, or with a percussion mallet, to produce sound. There is usually a resonant head on the underside of the drum. Other techniques have been used to cause drums to make sound, such as the thumb roll. Drums are the world's oldest and most ubiquitous musical instruments, and the basic design has remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years.[1]
Brittanica:
drum, musical instrument, the sound of which is produced by the vibration of a stretched membrane (it is thus classified as a membranophone within the larger category of percussion instruments). Basically, a drum is either a tube or a bowl of wood, metal, or pottery (the “shell”) covered at one or both ends by a membrane (the “head”), which is usually struck by a hand or stick. Friction drums, a class apart, are sounded by rubbing.
Quite plainly, cymbals are not drum-like instruments according to the understanding presented in these encyclopedias about what a drum is.
The significance of the lack of any mention of the use of any drum-like instruments in any account of the corporate worship in the Solomonic temple is heightened when these five points are brought to bear on how we are to assess that total lack of mention:
.....where ya goin' with this, Rajesh? If we are to make an analogy to the Temple, we would infer we also need to start sacrificing bulls and goats, no? How much do we make of an "argument from silence" fallacy?
And quite frankly, I am amused that you even bothered to link a definition of "drum", as if the people here were unaware of the differences between drums and cymbals. Really, given that both are percussive instruments whose dissonance is described by Bessel functions, I think you're protesting too hard to try and make it look like there's a massive difference between standard drums and other instruments when there really is not that much of a difference in terms of their role in music. They set a beat, first of all.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert Perry wrote: I think you're protesting too hard to try and make it look like there's a massive difference between standard drums and other instruments when there really is not that much of a difference in terms of their role in music. They set a beat, first of all.
This is a faulty claim. My church uses various drums, etc. from time to time in our worship services, and I do not recall them ever being used to "set a beat, first of all."
Bert Perry wrote: .....where ya goin' with this, Rajesh? If we are to make an analogy to the Temple, we would infer we also need to start sacrificing bulls and goats, no? How much do we make of an "argument from silence" fallacy?
I'm still studying this subject and am not prepared to make any definitive conclusions at this time. Having said that, carefully examining all the accounts of temple worship vs. the passages where timbrels/tabrets are mentioned does not entail in any way any "need to start sacrificing bulls and goats."
The issues that I am examining and calling attention to are based on explicit divine commands for the use of timbrels vs. a complete lack of mention of the use of those specific instruments in any passages about worship in the Solomonic temple. Because of those divine commands, that total lack of mention must be explained in some valid way.
1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
The NT teaches us that there are uses of percussion, including cymbals, that are unacceptable for use in corporate worship.
One source that I have consulted recently discusses how drums were the instruments of women in ancient Israel and the nations surrounding her. That understanding would explain why there are no mentions of timbrels or any other drum-like instruments in any of the accounts of the music or musicians in the Solomonic temple because no women were allowed to minister in any of the inner workings of the temple activities.
Rajesh, given that drums are very typically used for signaling things for armies, I'm curious what your source is. Count me skeptical.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert Perry wrote: Rajesh, given that drums are very typically used for signaling things for armies, I'm curious what your source is. Count me skeptical.
Just as some others have refused to provide source info to me when I have repeatedly asked for it (and you supported one person's doing so), I am not going to give you any source info for this information. Search the web and find it yourself.
Find it yourself
I responded improperly in my previous response that I have quoted here. God wants us to do to others what we would have done to us and not to do to others as they have done to us. I apologize for my previous improper response.
For anyone who might still be interested in knowing the source of the info, here it is:
Women with Hand-Drums, Dancing: Bible
Disclaimer: My referring to some of the information in this article in previous comments does not mean that I agree with everything that it says or that I endorse any other things written by the author of the article or anything else that is posted on that site.
That the import of the article you linked is that, contrary to your earlier assertions, women did in fact take part in Temple music, using....drum-like instruments.
Hearty congratulations on an emphatic "own goal", Rajesh.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
That the import of the article you linked is that, contrary to your earlier assertions, women did in fact take part in Temple music, using....drum-like instruments.
Hearty congratulations on an emphatic "own goal", Rajesh.
It is a historical fact that no women were ever allowed to minister in the inner workings of the Temple, which is the specific claim that I made:
One source that I have consulted recently discusses how drums were the instruments of women in ancient Israel and the nations surrounding her. That understanding would explain why there are no mentions of timbrels or any other drum-like instruments in any of the accounts of the music or musicians in the Solomonic temple because no women were allowed to minister in any of the inner workings of the temple activities. [bold added to the original]
All those who ministered musically in the inner workings of the Temple, whether priests or Levites, as singers or instrumentalists or both, were men.
So, you cannot have it both ways; if you accept the article's position that drums were the instruments of women, then that would entail having to hold that no drum-like instruments were used in the Temple worship in the inner workings of the Temple.
If you reject the article's positions, then you have to provide specific biblical evidence for men who were priests or Levites who played the timbrels in the inner workings of the Temple.
RajeshG wrote - The issues that I am examining and calling attention to are based on explicit divine commands for the use of timbrels vs. a complete lack of mention of the use of those specific instruments in any passages about worship in the Solomonic temple. Because of those divine commands, that total lack of mention must be explained in some valid way.
We have "explicit divine commands" for the use of musical instruments in Old Testament worship, but we have "a complete lack of mention of the use" of any musical instruments at all in New Testament church worship. We are told in the NT to sing, but we have no commands in the NT to use instruments nor do we have any examples of a church worshipping here on earth with musical instruments.
If it is important to explain the lack of a mention of timbrels in Solomonic Temple worship, then wouldn't it be even MORE important to explain the lack of a mention of ANY instruments in New Testament church worship?
RajeshG wrote - 1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
The NT teaches us that there are uses of percussion, including cymbals, that are unacceptable for use in corporate worship.
How does this verse support your conclusion? The verse isn't even saying that any brass instruments or any cymbals were being used in corporate worship.
Rajesh, we know that the Priests and Levites who served in the Temple were male, but I don't believe that similar restrictions were placed on the musicians. I believe you're going well beyond what the Scripture says, and the article you link notes that several verses in the Psalms indicate women were indeed among the musicians around the Temple.
So what you've indicated is that, if the article you link is correct, that contrary to your earlier assertion, the 'zif is a drum, and contrary to your recent assertion, Scripture gives us some indication that women were among the musicians around the Temple.
One quibble I have with the article is that it does not prove that drums were exclusively the province of women, but rather that the artistic renditions of drums were predominantly the province of women. And that's a third strike against the hypotheses you've offered.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So what you've indicated is that, if the article you link is correct, that contrary to your earlier assertion, the 'zif is a drum
I have not said anything about "'zif" in this entire thread. I do not even know what that means.
If it is important to explain the lack of a mention of timbrels in Solomonic Temple worship, then wouldn't it be even MORE important to explain the lack of a mention of ANY instruments in New Testament church worship?
Both are important. The latter is a different discussion that goes far beyond the scope of this thread. It deserves to be the subject of its own thread.
Here, the author makes two noteworthy points:
1. By saying that "only one percussion instrument is named," it is clear that she does not consider cymbals to be drum-like instruments.
2. She asserts that "even though other kinds of drum were known elsewhere in the biblical world," the Bible mentions the use of only the one kind of drum. Why does the Bible mention only the use of that one percussion instrument and not the use of any of the others that were known elsewhere in the biblical world?
Put differently, why does the Bible record only that the Israelites used timbrels and not any of the other drum-like instruments that were available in the biblical world?
Kevin Miller wrote - If it is important to explain the lack of a mention of timbrels in Solomonic Temple worship, then wouldn't it be even MORE important to explain the lack of a mention of ANY instruments in New Testament church worship?
RajeshG wrote - Both are important. The latter is a different discussion that goes far beyond the scope of this thread. It deserves to be the subject of its own thread.
I don't think it's a different discussion at all. We really need to examine whether the "lack of mention" principle really is as important as you've been making it sound in regards to drum-like instruments.
There are some groups today that make it a principle to never use musical instruments in their corporate worship, but I've never been a part of one of those groups. If the majority of fundamental Christians today do not abstain from musical instruments in corporate worship, then it stands to reason that the lack of mention of musical instruments in New Testament corporate worship really is a minor matter after all, and therefore the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in temple worship is not quite the major matter as you've been making it out to be either.
I don't think it's a different discussion at all. We really need to examine whether the "lack of mention" principle really is as important as you've been making it sound in regards to drum-like instruments.
I've been intensely studying what the Bible teaches about music for the past 12 years. For at least that long before then, my focus was on other areas of theology and interpretation. In those years, how the lack of mention of something is to be properly interpreted was at the heart of very weighty debates, disputes, and discussions that I was involved in with many other people, and those interactions did not have anything to do with music issues.
Having spent 20-25 years, maybe more, pondering how the lack of mention of something is to be properly interpreted, I am fairly certain that discussion is a much bigger discussion than you probably think it is.
Put differently, a proper discussion of how the lack of mention of something is to be properly interpreted cannot be limited to just music issues. Such a discussion, therefore, would be impossible to keep focused in a way that would be profitable for this setting.
It's worth noting that "lack of mention" is another way of saying "argument from silence", which is as a rule a very weak argument to even a fallacy, depending on what range of explanations there could be for that silence. Just sayin'.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Put differently, a proper discussion of how the lack of mention of something is to be properly interpreted cannot be limited to just music issues. Such a discussion, therefore, would be impossible to keep focused in a way that would be profitable for this setting.
Umm. It seems really odd that you are saying this now. You yourself are the one who started this thread with a "lack of mention" question. You asked, in the opening post, "Does the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in the worship in the Solomonic Temple show that such instruments were not used in the temple worship?"
If a discussion of this type is "impossible to keep focused in a way that would be profitable for this setting," then why did you even start this thread with that question?
Umm. It seems really odd that you are saying this now. You yourself are the one who started this thread with a "lack of mention" question. You asked, in the opening post, "Does the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in the worship in the Solomonic Temple show that such instruments were not used in the temple worship?"
If a discussion of this type is "impossible to keep focused in a way that would be profitable for this setting," then why did you even start this thread with that question?
You seem to misunderstand what I have said. A proper discussion of how lack of mention is to be interpreted more broadly, especially globally, is what I am saying is impossible in the setting of an SI thread. That is why I started and intend to keep this thread limited and focused on what Scripture reveals about drum-like instruments and how that affects how we should interpret properly the lack of mention of the use of any drum-like instruments in any of the biblical accounts of worship in the Solomonic Temple.
You seem to misunderstand what I have said. A proper discussion of how lack of mention is to be interpreted more broadly, especially globally, is what I am saying is impossible in the setting of an SI thread. That is why I started and intend to keep this thread limited and focused on what Scripture reveals about drum-like instruments and how that affects how we should interpret properly the lack of mention of the use of any drum-like instruments in any of the biblical accounts of worship in the Solomonic Temple.
But why should we be concerned with interpreting the lack of mention of drum-like instruments in the first place? You seem to take it for granted that this lack of mention is important. I wasn't trying to bring in a bunch of other topics into the question of whether this is important or not. I was keeping the discussion focused on music in the Bible.
You asserted that "properly explaining the complete lack of mention of these instruments in all the accounts of temple worship is no minor issue," but you didn't explain why you think this is no minor issue. You just asserted it as if everyone would agree that it's true. I don't necessarily agree that it's true, and the New Testament music issue that I brought up would tend to indicate that the lack of mention of a musical instrument is NOT a major issue.
Discussion