Who wrote your book
of early church history?

[Note: This is an expanded version of an article that first appeared in the Fall 2010 online issue of New Wineskins magazine. The theme of that issue was "accompanied or a cappella?"]

    Growing up in the a cappella Churches of Christ, many times I’ve heard people say, "I think the strongest argument for a cappella singing comes from the example of the early church." In other words, although the scriptures appeared perhaps to lean a cappella, it was church history that made the case for them. As we learn more, though, we wonder if the version of history we received is worthy of taking such stands.

    For example, our literature often says that we should oppose musical instruments in praise because they were first opposed as early as the middle of the second century … by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The fact, though, as scholars have known for over 100 years, is that this "earliest" quote once attributed to Martyr actually came hundreds of years later.¹ Consequently, no one cites Martyr for that statement today except those who oppose instruments in praise. It’s no coincidence. Those who write history are powerful. If the record of history that we trust is mistaken or slanted, then it can lead good men to wrong conclusions.

    The writers of the history that undergirds my heritage were of the Protestant Reformation. About these Reformers, the eminent modern Church historian James McKinnon has observed, "Men were compelled by their allegiances to construct revised versions of the past; the simple chronicling of events was replaced by history that was selective and interpretive."²

    My heritage rests in one such "selective and interpretive" rendition of history. We have adopted one Old World view from the Reformation over against readings of history by those who reached different conclusions. The good news is that although there was debate in the days of our fathers (Reformers and Puritans), historians today have the advantage of a much more complete record, leading them to amazing agreement about the early centuries of the church.

    The consensus from modern scholars is that our Puritan, hand-me-down take on early church history has glaring holes and errors. Because of our inherited history, we have been wrong about (1) the influence of the synagogue, (2) the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy, (3) the influence of Christian asceticism, and (4) the origin of scriptural arguments.

    The Synagogue. The history we learned said that Christian worship adopted its practice of singing from the a cappella, first-century synagogue. In contrast, J. A. Smith summarizes the consensus among modern scholars: not only is there absolutely no evidence of singing or chanting in the first-century synagogue, but also the church did not adopt its worship from the synagogue anyway.³

• "I can only confirm the fact that in the Rabbinic literature there is no mention of singing in the early synagogue." -Levertoff⁴
• "The synagogue service was in ancient times always songless." - Mowinckel⁵
• "Meetings in the Jewish synagogue were primarily for reading, instruction, and prayer, but not psalm-singing." – David Hiley⁶
• "To state it as simply as possible, there was no singing of psalms in the ancient synagogue." – James McKinnon⁷

    McKinnon once suggested that there may have been chanting in the early synagogue, but Smith has pointed out that McKinnon based that possibility solely on a document dated centuries later, and therefore, "its relevance to the ancient synagogue is very doubtful."⁸ It was only after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. that the synagogue began to evolve into what we think of today. Hiley summarizes, "In the decades after the destruction of the temple, which removed at a stroke the whole focus of Israel’s religious life, something like an ordered service of worship became established in the synagogue, a partial substitute for what had been lost."⁹

    The practice of the first-century synagogue makes clear that early church worship was independent of it.

• "Indeed, the variety of form and content of the early Christian assemblies mitigates strongly against the idea that Christian worship was basically a continuation of the synagogue service. Nor is there any compelling reason why is should have been. On the one hand, many of the earliest Christians, being Jews, proselyte Jews or Gentile adherents to Judaism, freely attended the synagogues and temple anyway…" –J.A. Smith¹⁰
• "Christian services had a stamp of their own as regards form and content precisely because attendance at the Jewish services continued." – Gerhard Delling¹¹
• "Jewish public worship could have given to Christian worship neither its form not its content." – David Hiley ¹²

    Repeatedly we see the danger of reading back into the earliest centuries what can only be found in later ones. In the early centuries, before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christians were often savagely persecuted and often worshiped in secret, with a practice of worship that was likely not formalized.¹³ Christopher Page reiterates, "It would be … mistaken to interpret the range of the earliest Christian music in terms of what the mainstream church eventually found acceptable."¹⁴ The varieties of form of the earliest church assemblies were not a product of the first-century, songless synagogue.

    Greek and Jewish Philosophy. Our version of early church history incorrectly taught that the early church preference for voice over instruments was counter-cultural and could therefore only have come from God. It also mistakenly told us that Christians led the way in opposition to the degeneration of music in the Roman culture. Instead, modern historians know that Jewish philosophers and the Greeks philosophers before them were the ones who first favored the voice over instruments¹⁵ and who were first outspoken against the degeneration of music in the Roman culture.¹⁶

    Perhaps the strongest philosophical influence upon the early church, however, was a new method of interpreting scripture. It came by way of a contemporary of Jesus, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Building on Greek philosophy, Philo taught that correctly understanding scripture requires one to go beyond the literal meaning to derive an allegorical one.¹⁷ Although Philo was not a Christian, his works were adopted and exclusively preserved by Christians, beginning at Alexandria. Led by Clement of Alexandria (died 215) and his School of Alexandria, Philo’s allegorical method became a standard for early Christian interpretation of scripture.¹⁸

    Their thought seemed to be that if the story of Hagar and Sarah could teach an allegorical lesson about covenants (Gal 4:21-31), then imagine what hidden meanings we could find by interpreting nearly everything allegorically! One of my favorite musical allegories comes from Niceta of Remesiana (died after 414), speaking of David:

While still a lad, singing sweetly yet strongly to the cithara [harp], he subdues the evil spirit which worked in Saul — not because such was the power of his cithara, but because a figure of the cross of Christ was mystically projected by the wood and the stretching of the strings, so that it was the Passion itself that was sung and that subdued the spirit of the demon.¹⁹

    Setting aside the misquote of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria moves to the top of our list of Church Fathers who opposed instruments in praise, although his opposition is outside of an assembly, where we accept instruments. He writes of Jesus "scorning the lyre and cithara as lifeless instruments." Because Clement can cite no supporting scripture, one might wonder how he got there. Clement explains that Jesus "sings to God on his many-voiced instrument and he sings to man, himself an instrument."²⁰

    Perhaps you’ve heard the allegory that man is God’s musical instrument for so long that you no longer recognize it as scripturally homeless, born instead of the third-century allegorical search for God’s "hidden meanings."

    Nevertheless, even in the mind of Clement himself, allegory had not yet completely overcome literal understanding. In the specific context of Colossians 3:16, Clement elsewhere approves of praising God on this same lyre and cithara.²¹ Still, you’ll only see his oppositional quotes on our websites.

    Our history does not note how third-century Christians of the School of Alexandria began reinterpreting the instruments of the Bible in an allegorical sense,²² following the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy. Western Church Fathers, on the other hand, were not so quickly influenced by the musical allegory of the School of Alexandria, although they agreed in opposing the immoral influences of music (voices and instruments) in their culture.²³ For example, Novatian (died 258) said that when musical instruments were used for immoral purposes, then "sacred things have been transferred into illicit ones."²⁴ The persecution of his day, however, was about to change everything.

    Asceticism. Hermits. Recluses. The Decian persecution of 247-248 AD was the worst that Christianity had ever known. Many were martyred. Others fled the cities to escape, assuming the humblest of circumstances, leading to the monastic system.²⁵ In time, we read of how these ascetics prayed at set hours throughout the day and often through the night.²⁶ To maintain prayers for extended periods of time, they recited the Psalms. Of course, the Psalms were not written in 3/4 time; they don’t rhyme; they defy singing in the Western way. But they could be chanted.

    The sons of the Decian persecution came to oppose instruments in all praise. (The public worship versus private worship distinction that is central to modern arguments was unimaginable to them.) In a wave of writing from roughly 350 to 425 AD, they promoted the ascetic lifestyle as the ideal for all Christians. To read our website lists of Christians who opposed instruments is to read a virtual roll call of Christian ascetics.²⁷

    The 4-year ascetic experience of John Chrysostom (died 407) permanently damaged his health,²⁸ and he was "twice deposed and sent into exile because of his asceticism which he wanted to impose on others."²⁹ Jerome (died 420) taught that a virgin shouldn’t even know what a musical instrument is³⁰ and that no man should ever hear a woman sing.³¹ Augustine (died 430) thought that singing itself (as distinct from chanting) was a concession to weak brothers.³² We speak of how these ascetics chanted, but we don’t chant.

    The writings of monastic Christians dwarf the "fragmentary evidence" from others. Nevertheless, we know that while the ascetics were condemning instruments at all times, the morning prayers in the West "nearly always included Psalms 148-150,"³³ psalms which speak of praising God with those same musical instruments.

    Scriptural arguments. The ascetics offered their scriptural arguments for opposing musical instruments in praise. Most followed the pattern set by of the School of Alexandria, using allegory to reinterpret the instrumental language of the Bible.³⁴ We don’t accept those arguments today. Indeed, it wasn’t many years ago that Church periodicals were filled with denunciation of the allegorical interpretation of scripture.³⁵

    The rival School of Antioch took exception to this model, preferring arguments from a more literal understanding of scripture. They contended that the Israelites had grown accustomed to playing instruments and making animal sacrifices to idols while in Egypt, and so God allowed these practices to continue as a "concession" to their weakness.³⁶ This was God’s effort to "entice the Jews away from the worship of idols."³⁷ We don’t share that conclusion, either. We say that instruments were a shadow, but that is nothing like a concession, except that neither assertion is given in scripture. We also disagree that animal sacrifices were commanded as a substitute for Egyptian sacrifices to idols.

    The fact that neither school appealed to the teaching of the Apostles to settle the dispute underscores the fact that there is no Apostolic teaching handed down to which they could appeal.

    Modern arguments (e.g., that instruments are disallowed because God never named specific instruments in the commands to praise, that the meanings of the words for "sing" implied vocal singing only, or that all of these rules apply to public but not private worship, etc.) never occurred to the early church. Our modern arguments, as far removed from scripture as theirs, came along centuries later in an attempt to present scriptural reasons for opposing instruments better than the ones we inherited from the ascetics of either school of thought.

    Conclusion. I grieve that in centuries gone by my brothers suffered the Decian persecution (and others, even as many Christians still suffer horribly today). Still, I want to praise God with all my strength and a heart full of joy, unshackled by the asceticism that their heirs wished for me. The modern, balanced understanding of early church history is aware of the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy, free of misunderstanding about the role of the first-century synagogue and free of the third- and fourth-century detours of allegory, asceticism, and claims about concessions to the weak. It’s time our history books told the whole story.

Danny Corbitt

¹ Danny Corbitt, Did Justin Martyr Condemn Instrumental Music in Worship? (2010).

² James McKinnon, The Temple, the Church Fathers and Early Western Chant (Ashgate, 1998), VII: p. 241. [abbreviated below: TCFEWC]

³ J.A. Smith, The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church and Singing, published in Music & Letters, January 1984.

⁴ Levertoff, quoted by Smith, p. 5.

⁵ Mowinckel, Ibid.

⁶ David Hiley, Gregorian Chant (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 84.

⁷ McKinnon, TCFEWC

⁸ Smith, p. 6.

⁹ David Hiley, Western Plainchant: a Handbook (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 485.

¹⁰ Smith, p 8.

¹¹ Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament, p. 92.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Hiley, Western Plainchant, p. 484.

¹⁴ Christopher Page, The Christian West and its Singers: the First Thousand Years (Yale University Press, 2010), p. 32.

¹⁵ "Philo [first-century Jewish philosopher] reflects the Greek contempt for instrumental music."
Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Brill, 1996), p. 525.

¹⁶ "The overall picture of music in the Roman Empire is a picture of decadence; in fact, as early as Cicero (first century BCE) there were complaints about decline."
Calvin Stapert, A New Song for an Old World, (Eerdmans, 2007) p. 137.

¹⁷ Herbert M. Schueller, The Idea of Music (Medieval Institure, 1988), p. 130-131.

¹⁸ James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 6-7. [abbreviated below: MECL]

¹⁹ Niceta of Remesiana, as quoted in McKinnon, MECL, p. 135.

²⁰ Clement of Alexandria, as quoted in McKinnon, MECL, p. 30.

²¹ McKinnon, TCFEWC, p. IV: 71.

²² Ibid.

²³ McKinnon, MECL, p. 42.

²⁴ Novatian, as quoted in MECL, p. 48.

²⁵ McKinnon, MECL, p. 51.

²⁶ Page, p. 134.

²⁷ "…including Athanasius (died 373), Basil (died 379), Gregory of Nyssa (died 395), Ambrose (died 397), John Chrysostom (died 407), Jerome (died 420) and Augustine (died 430)."
Page, p. 136

²⁸ McKinnon, MECL, p. 78.

²⁹ Schueller, p. 227.

³⁰ Jerome is quoted in MECL, p. 142.

³¹ Ibid., p. 145.

³¹ Augustine is quoted in MECL, p. 155.

³³ Hiley, Western Plainchant, p. 488.

³⁴ McKinnon, TCFEWC, p. IV: 76

³⁵ For a contemporary example, see "Why Do People Misinterpret the Bible?" http://www.laramiechurchofchrist.org/documents/BT_208.pdf

³⁶ John Chrysostom and Theodoret are quoted in MECL, pp. 83 & 107.

³⁷ McKinnon, MECL, p. 7.