BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 28
August, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
The contents of this issue are available in revised form as Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper 18 which can be ordered from the Product Catalogue.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 8
August, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991
By James B. Jordan
Before we move into a detailed survey of the history and chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, let us review the chronological information that leads from creation to the kingdom. This will be helpful both to new readers of these essays, and a reminder for those who have been on board all along. Back issues of these essays are available either from ICE or from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.
Biblical chronology is clear from creation forwards, and becomes a bit more difficult as we approach the New Testament. Thus, students of biblical chronology date forward from the creation, in terms of Anno Mundi dates. Thus, the creation was in the year 0 A.M., and the Flood came in the year 1656 A.M.
(Actually, since "anno mundi" is Latin, it is technically more correct to write A.M. 1656, just as it is more correct to write A.D. 1991 than to write 1991 A.D. Nobody really worries about this anymore, though. "B.C." means "Before Christ," and since it is English rather than Latin, it comes after the number always; for example, 660 B.C.)
It is harder to sort out the chronological data for the period of the kings (between 1000 and 500 B.C.), and even more difficult to be certain about the period between the exile and the New Testament (500 B.C. – 0 A.D.). That is why Biblical Chronology is presently concentrating on these periods. If we could become certain of the chronology between Solomon and Jesus, we could then date backwards, using B.C. dates, to the time of the creation of the world. Provisionally, based on the studies published in Biblical Chronology over the past two years, I have come to the year 3932 B.C. as the year of creation, but let me stress that this is open to revision.
Review
So let’s review: According to the airtight chronology of Genesis 5, the Flood came in the year A.M. 1656 (about 2276 B.C.). A careful study of the chronological data in Genesis 8-11 puts the birth of Abraham in A.M. 2008. Our study of the Sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus put the departure from Egypt in the year A.M. 2513 (about 1419 B.C.). According to 1 Kings 6:1, the Temple began to be built 480 years after the departure from Egypt, or in the year A.M. 2993. According to 1 Kings 6:38, the Temple was finished seven years later, in A.M. 3000.
The most careful study of the chronology of the Kings is found in Martin Anstey’s Chronology of the Old Testament, originally published as The Romance of Bible Chronology in 1913, and reprinted by Kregel Publications in 1973. It is our purpose in this essay and those that follow to examine Anstey’s chronology in detail. For now, we can provisionally accept Anstey’s calculations and put the fall of Jerusalem in A.M. 3426 and the decree of Cyrus, returning the Jews to the land, in A.M. 3476. If we take Daniel’s 70 weeks of years literally, and as beginning with Cyrus, we come to A.M. 3962 as the date of the crucifixion, and A.M. 4002 as the date for the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70). This is the end-point for Biblical chronology.
The Judges
The Exodus took place in 2513. The next year, the spies searched out Canaan and brought back a bad report (Num. 10:11-12; 13:17-20). At this time, Caleb was 40 years old (Josh. 14:7). According to Joshua 14:1 & 10, Caleb was 85 when the conquest of the land came to an end. This would be, then, the year A.M. 2559. This means that the War of Conquest lasted 6 years, and the land was (sabbatically) divided in the 7th year, A.M. 2560.
There is no direct chronological link between the Conquest and the time of the Judges. We are told that Israel was faithful all the days of Joshua, who died at the age of 110 but in what year we do not know, and that Israel was also faithful all the years of the elders who outlived Joshua (Josh. 24:29-31). The next thing we find is that Israel sinned and came under the yoke of Cushan-Rishathaim for 8 years (Jud. 3:8).
The "secret" to interpreting the chronological data in Judges is to recognizes that while one sequence of events took place in the North, another took place in central Israel, and another in the South. Sometimes we are told that an oppression followed directly after the death of a particular judge, but sometimes we are not told this. The core history and chronology of Judges tracks the events in the Center, around the tribe of Ephraim. The book of Samuel shifts attention to events in the South, around the tribe of Judah.
Last month we saw that the 300 years of Judges 11:16 came to an end in the 18th year of Ammonite oppression when Jephthah delivered Israel, in A.M. 2853. The oppression began when Jair died after 22 years of judging, so he began to judge in A.M. 2813 (Jud. 10:3). Before him came Tola, for 23 years, beginning in A.M. 2790 (Jud. 10:1). Tola became judge right after Abimelech’s oppressive 3-year reign (Jud. 9:22; 10:10), so Abimelech began to reign in 2787. His reign began when his father Gideon died after judging 40 years (Jud. 8:28), beginning in A.M. 2747, and this was after 7 years of Midianite oppression (Jud. 6:1), beginning in A.M. 2740, or 180 years after the division of the land in 2560.
This is as much as we can be absolutely certain of. If we read carefully, however, and take geographical matters into consideration, we can puzzle out the rest of the chronology of Judges with a fair degree of certainty.
We are also told that Jabin’s oppression (in the north) came after the death of Ehud, and that during this time Shamgar fought Philistines in the south (Jud. 3:31; 4:1). Thus, the sequence of Eglon’s 18-year oppression, Ehud’s 80-year peace, Jabin’s 20-year oppression, and Barak’s 40-year peace seem to go together (Jud. 3:14, 30; 4:1; 5:31).
But there is a problem with this sequence. Judges 3:30 says that after Ehud defeated Eglon, the land had peace for 80 years. It does not say that Ehud lived this whole period of time. Judges 4:1 says that after Ehud died, Israel sinned and a new oppression began under Jabin. Now, the Jabin oppression was in the North, while Ehud the Benjamite was a man of central Israel. Possibly, then, the central part of the land continued to enjoy peace while the North was being oppressed by Jabin. The end of Ehud’s 80-year peace, for the Center, would have to come when the Center was invaded by Midian (Jud. 6:1). Thus, the end of Barak’s peace in the North and the end of Ehud’s peace in the Center almost certainly came at the same time, in the year 2740, a date we have established firmly above on the basis of Biblical chronology. Since the 60 years of Jabin and Barak began with the death of Ehud, this puts the death of Ehud 60 years before the Midianite oppression in 2740, which was A.M. 2680. This means Ehud judged for 20 years, beginning in 2660.
Now, before Ehud came Othniel, a man of Ephraim and also a man of central Israel. He judged for 40 years after Cushan had oppressed for 8 years. Moreover, it is implied that the oppression of Eglon began after Othniel died (3:11-12). This indicates that Cushan-Othniel-Eglon-Ehud is one chronological sequence.
Thus, my own conclusion is that the oppression of Jabin in the North began while the central part of the land was enjoying the last part of the 80-year peace, and while Philistines were fighting Shamgar in the South.
We have good reason, then, to assume that Ehud lived for 20 years after defeating Eglon. When Ehud died, Jabin arose to oppress the north. Now if we add to this (at the beginning) the 8 years of Cushan, the 40 years of Othniel, and the 18 years of Eglon’s oppression, we come to A.M. 2594, which would be 34 years after the division of the land in 2560. Since the invasion of the land came in A.M. 2553, we have a significant 40-year period of righteousness before the fall into sin and judgment in 2594.
(I cannot resist suggesting a possible New Testament parallel. Israel was faithful under Joshua and under the elders that were his age. They faithfully conquered and occupied the land. Notice in the New Testament that Paul expresses fears that after he and the first generation of apostles are dead, the Church will fall into waywardness and sin. Did this indeed come to pass? Is this why we find in the early Church such a rapid departure from Biblical presuppositions, and such a rapid fall into Greek philosophical ways of thinking about food, sex, eschatology, etc.?)
If Joshua and Caleb were the same age, then Joshua as well as Caleb was 85 years old in A.M. 2560. If so, Joshua died at the age of 110 in 2585, and after 9 more years the elders who ruled with him also died, and the people fell into sin.
So to sum up, here is my conclusion of the matter, putting together information from the present essay and from the previous one:
2513 – Exodus from Egypt.
2553 – Beginning of Conquest of the land.
2560 – End of Conquest, Division of the land. Caleb (and Joshua?) 85 years old.
2585 – Death of Joshua (?).
2594 – End of the period of peace during and after Joshua, beginning of 8-year oppression of Cushan (Jud. 3:8).
2602 – Defeat of Cushan, beginning of Othniel’s 40-year judgeship (Jud. 3:11).
2642 – Death of Othniel, beginning of Eglon’s 18-year oppression (Jud. 3:11-12)
2660 – Death of Elgon, beginning of Ehud’s 20-year judgeship and his 80-year peace.
2680 – Death of Ehud, beginning of Jabin’s 20-year oppression in the North (Jud. 4:3).
2700 – Death of Jabin, beginning of Barak’s 40-year judgeship and peace in the North (Jud. 5:31).
2740 – End of Barak’s Northern peace and Ehud’s Central peace, beginning of Midianite oppression (Jud. 6:1). We can be certain of this date as a result of counting backwards from Judges 11:16 and 1 Kings 6:1. The Midianite oppression returns us to the Center of the land. From here on, Center and North experience one set of problems, while South struggles with Philistines (Jud. 3:31).
2747 – End of Midianite oppression, beginning of Gideon’s 40-year judgeship (Jud. 8:28).
2787 – Death of Gideon, beginning of Abimelech’s 3-year oppressive reign (Jud. 9:22).
2790 – End of Abimelech’s reign, beginning of Tola’s 23-year judgeship (Jud. 10:1).
2813 – Death of Tola, beginning of Jair’s 22-year judgeship (Jud. 10:3).
2815 – Beginning of Eli’s 40-year judgeship in the South (1 Sam. 4:18).
2835 – Death of Jair, beginning of Philistine oppression in the South and Ammonite oppression in the Center and North (Jud. 10:5-7). Births of Samson and Samuel.
2853 – End of Ammonite oppression, 300 years after initial conquests, beginning of Jephthah’s 6-year judgeship in Center and North (Jud. 11:16; 12:7).
2855 – Death of Eli, beginning of Samuel’s judgeship at Tabernacle and Samson’s judgeship in the South.
2859 – Death of Jephthah, beginning of Ibzan’s 7-year judgeship in the Center and North (Jud. 11:9).
2866 – Death of Ibzan, beginning of Elon’s 10-year judgeship in Center and North (Jud. 11:11).
2875 – Death of Samson, battle of Mizpah, deliverance from Philistine oppression.
2876 – Death of Elon, beginning of Abdon’s 8-year judgeship in Center and North (Jud. 11:14).
2884 – End of the line of judges in the Center and North.
2909 – Accession of Saul.
2919 – Birth of David.
2949 – Accession of David.
2989 – Accession of Solomon.
2993 – Foundation of Temple laid, 480 years after Exodus.
3000 – Completion of Temple.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 16
August 1991
Copyright (c) 1991 by Biblical Horizons
(Louis Schuler has a Ph.D. in Historical Music Performance Practice from Washington University in St. Louis. His performing specialty was wind instruments of the Renaissance and Baroque. His dissertation dealt with the music of early German hymnody. He is completing an M.A. in Exegetical Theology from Covenant Theological Seminary. Dr. Schuler is Director of Music at Tri-City Covenant Church and teaches at Tri-City Christian Academy in Somersworth, New Hampshire. Mrs. [Kimberly] Schuler has done extensive work in music history, earned an M.Mus. in Piano Performance from Wichita State University, and is completing a Ph.D. at Washington University in the same field.)
Johann Heermann, 1585-1647
Tr. by Catherine Winkworth, 1863
New Trinity Hymnal, #602, v. 3
This has been a difficult review to write. The most difficult thing for the reviewer of a new hymnal is not to allow his great expectations of the perfect hymnal to make his judgment of the product in hand too harsh. Compiling a hymnal for two denominations with as much diversity in their worship as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) would be a nightmarish task. Just looking over the hymnal has taken us many months; the work of the committee–all busy people–took much longer.
Trying to accomplish anything by committee can be very frustrating, and we are aware that some of our criticisms of the new hymnal will be shared by some members of the committee. A look at the preliminary reports for the revision shows hymns disappearing and reappearing. We can imagine some of the comments that were made by people like us who anticipated being separated from one of their favorite hymns. Our sympathies go to all who participated in the revision process. Because of the great number of hymns in the new hymnal, we are sure that we have not noticed many improvements, some of which may have been hard-won and required a lot of work. We apologize in advance for this.
The committee desired to maintain "the distinctives of the original volume." This they have done. The hymns are still organized in categories that follow the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession and the Shorter Catechism still appear in the back. The Preface puts the proper focus on the whole purpose of a hymnal. Larry Roff’s Introduction, which contains specific instructions to the pastor, the accompanist, and the congregation, is excellent. If we all prepared ourselves for worship following his recommendations, we would see a vital change in our worship. The Indexes are very complete, and the Topics section is particularly good. We were greatly relieved to see that the avoidance of "sexist language" was not an issue as it has been in almost every recent hymnal we have seen. Be glad at Christmas that we can still sing "Good Christian Men, Rejoice," instead of "Good Christian Friends," and that the earth can still take the feminine possessive in "Joy to the world, the Lord is come; let earth receive her King."
The old Trinity Hymnal needed revision. The typesetting was not the best (too small; often too many lines of text between staves); many hymn texts were not coupled with their most complementary tunes; there was an overabundance of 19th century hymn tunes; there were not enough 20th century hymns, Genevan Psalm tunes, and Scottish Psalter tunes and texts; some beautiful chorales were missing; the early hymn tunes were not freed from their Pietistic simplifications of rhythm; not all of the Psalms were represented, even in part, in musical settings; and the Psalter readings were not complete and were not divided according to the structure of the Hebrew text. The new Trinity Hymnal takes care of some of these problems, as we shall see, but not all, and creates others along the way. The improvements unfortunately are balanced (and perhaps overbalanced) by many unworthy additions and unjustified deletions. (For an extended analysis of the old Trinity Hymnal, see James B. Jordan, "Church Music in Chaos," available for $4.00 from Biblical Horizons .)
Before we get on with a detailed analysis of the changes made, we need to step back and look at the presuppositions that go into creating a hymnal and evaluating it. There are six major areas that need to be considered:
1. A definition of the type of music that is suitable for congregational singing.
2. A theology of worship.
3. A Biblical model for man’s creative activity.
4. A brief explanation of the raw materials of music.
5. An even briefer discussion of the historical periods of hymnology.
6. The Kingdom model and the work of the priest as servant-guard for the Sanctuary.
Too often in the discussion of church music, we make categorical statements that have no foundation in truth but only in our own personal preferences (however vaguely held):
"Traditional hymns are dirges. They’re boring."
"If the music has a beat, you can tell it’s alive."
"This was my Mom’s favorite hymn, and she was a wonderful Christian woman. How can you say the theology is all wrong?"
"The young people in the church need to hear their music to feel they are a part of the church."
"The new believers and the unconverted need to hear their music to feel they are a part of the church."
"Cultural minorities need to hear their music to feel they are a part of the church."
"But we have always sung this piece on Palm Sunday."
"I sang this when I was first converted. If it was good enough then, it’s good enough now."
"I’m too old to learn any new songs."
"Chanting Psalms is for monks, especially dead ones."
We hope to show that we should try to the best of our ability and understanding to base our beliefs about church music on Biblical principles, not on what my mother thinks, what I sang when I first became a Christian or as a folk guitarist in high school, or what has always been sung in my church. The Bible can free us to enjoy the richness of our heritage, the music of the church through the ages, not just what our denomination or cultural group has done. We need not be bound by tradition or pressured by special interest groups if we turn to God for our direction.
Music for Congregational Singing
In the Old and the New Testaments God tells His people to sing to Him. Why would He ask us to sing? Some of us do not sing very well and would probably just as soon wait out the hymns. We believe that God asks us to sing because He requires our praises to be heartfelt, and music has the power to uplift our emotions and stir our hearts (Ephesians 5:19). When Saul was afflicted by a tormenting spirit, David played the harp for him. "Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him" (1 Samuel 16:23). Music, even when not associated with words, has affective power. (We are mystified why this is a debatable point today. A few hours ago we heard a well-known Christian scholar state that music without words has no power of its own. Why do Sousa marches make us feel light and optimistic and Purcell’s funeral march for Queen Mary makes us feel solemn and thoughtful? It is not just association, as our two-year old daughter has shown by her response.) When we come to worship God, the act of singing and of hearing others who are singing helps to focus our attention on the meaning of the words and moves our emotions in a way that words alone may not accomplish.
God despises empty praise. As He said in Isaiah 29:13-14, "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish." This is serious. If we are not singing from our hearts, it would be better not to be singing at all. Therefore we need music that will enable us to worship from our hearts.
Does this mean that whatever music stirs my heart is the music I should use to worship God? Some people think so. But unless you are a congregation of one, there is someone besides yourself to consider. Leaving aside for the moment the question of what God may require from us in our creative endeavors, let’s consider some of the expediencies of congregational singing.
First, the music must be accessible to everyone who is able to participate. Music that is too difficult for an untrained ear will not aid worship but will bring about confusion and frustration. Second, if the music is too simple, the person may feel that he is not giving his best to God. Third, we must also be able to understand the words we sing and agree with the theology expressed. Thus, musical offerings must be intelligible and accessible.
We believe that two aesthetic extremes must be avoided in congregational hymn singing: high art and popular culture. The first, high art, may be the perfect vehicle to express God’s praise for those who by God’s grace have had the opportunity to become culturally enlightened, but may be unintelligible to most of the congregation without special study. The second may seem good to those who are involved with popular secular culture on a daily basis through radio and television, but will leave other people who are offended by popular culture with the feeling that the sanctity of worship has been violated. To dismiss this group with the epithet "snobs" and appeal to the lowest common denominator is as unkind as to call the other group "slobs" and force the unintelligible on everyone. Neither attitude is glorifying to God and neither is necessary.
When we present ourselves before important people, we try to look our best and speak our best. How much more should we come before God with offerings that are fitting to His glory, to the best of our collective ability? In order for congregations everywhere to praise God together they look to their poets and musicians to provide songs for them. This is a trust that must be taken seriously by any artist seeking to glorify God. The praises of God have inspired many of the greatest musicians and poets in every generation to write simply and sincerely for God’s people. The problem in compiling a hymnal is to decide what to exclude from the multitude of magnificent possibilities.
A Theology of Worship
Our assumption is that a hymnal is to be created primarily with the public worship of God in mind, with a supplemental use for private and family devotional time. Secondly, because most ministers of the Gospel are admittedly ignorant about music, everything in the hymnal should be usable for morning worship unless noted otherwise (this was the value of the "Hymns for Informal Occasions" of the old Trinity Hymnal). The new Trinity Hymnal (henceforth, NTH) mixes together some of the most sublime hymns of the centuries with hymns that frankly are an embarrassment. (In this essay, we are using the term `hymn’ to mean the combined text and music, rather than using `hymn’ for the text and `hymn tune’ for the melody of the hymn.)
A committee can only decide what hymns to include in a worship book when they have a clear view of what worship is. At least some members of the committee for the NTH must have had the presupposition that worship is primarily evangelistic. Hymns that are appropriate as milk for a very young Christian sound a little silly when sung by the mature. Charles Cleall writes in the Preface to his Sixty Songs from Sankey that these songs are "the nursery songs of the Gospel. . . . Spiritual growth requires a music heard with voluntary rather than involuntary attention; so unmistakably `peculiar to the Lord’ that it is useless for any secular purpose; and it is the duty of the church to provide it. . . To seek milk, when we ought to be digesting stronger meat is the mark of carnality; of self gratification; of a determination, like that of Peter Pan, not to grow up." (Quoted by Erik Routley in Twentieth Century Church Music [New York, Oxford University Press, 1964], pp. 203-205.) Presumably the spiritual infancy of the newly-converted will not last long in a healthy church. Why subject the entire congregation to pablum when they could be having steak?
The focus of many "dynamic" churches seems to be on the individual believer, not the worship of God. Witness this advertisement in the St. Louis Yellow Pages:
BABY BOOMERS–LOOK
"A CHURCH DESIGNED FOR YOU"
CONTEMPORARY MUSIC–CASUAL DRESS
NO HYPE NO MANIPULATION
CHILDREN’S CHURCH AND NURSERY PROVIDED
In other words, "Drop off your children. You don’t need to dress up. We have your music. We’re cool, like you–no hype. Come and relax. We want you to be as comfortable here as you are in front of your television." What is the incentive to leave the easy chair in front of the television set? Why not stay home and watch church on TV?
If instead, worship is seen as covenant renewal, coming to the holy God aware of our unworthiness, meeting with Him on His terms, confessing our sin, responding to His grace and mercy, eating with Him at His table, and being sent forth to serve, a very different idea about music must be held. We take all our cues from God Himself. As James Jordan has written concerning the responsorial reading of the Psalms:
As image bearers of the living God (Genesis 1:26), the creator of the universe, we also "ingest and digest" God’s example as creator and reflect back His image in our creative endeavors, music being no exception. How do we reflect the Creator? We attempt to follow the general principles that we derive from the Biblical account of creation.
A Biblical Method of Evaluating Music
First we must glean from the creation account a blueprint for man’s creativity. Next, those biblical principles must be applied directly to the raw materials of music and used by the composer as he writes a hymn. These principles are not so restrictive as to suppress freedom of expression. They are quite broad, but at the same time give clear direction. Third, we who sing the hymn must understand how it fits into the historical flow of song from the church. Once these three areas are understood, we have a heightened awareness of the use of the hymn in worship and are better able to use a specific hymn to worship God.
The minister uses the same process in writing a sermon–he exegetes the text; he places that information in the context of a systematic theology; it is placed in historical context; finally practical truths are derived from it. But we cannot come up with a very Biblical form of practical theology and counsel without the other three first. Likewise hymns (and therefore worship) suffer in quality when they do not fit into God’s pattern of good music.
The Model for Man’s Creativity
God could have made the world in an instant, but He did not. He took the raw materials that He had created and formed the world in a very specific and organized way. This pattern of creation then becomes the blueprint for man as he works with his raw materials to reach a finished product.
We can derive at least five principles in the creation narrative that establish guidelines for man’s creativity:
In this brief outline are all of the ideas for the construction of Western music in their original form. By contrast with non-Western music, the music produced by a Christian culture is characterized by the delineation of a period of time (the length of the piece) into a journey from its beginning to its end. Within this journey a hierarchy of pitches and harmonies produces points of tension and release that make the music "move," and the balance of repetition (unity) and contrast (diversity) create a formal design.
Just as God’s creation reflects His image, so do our creations reflect our image. A person’s most fundamental beliefs speak through his artistic creation. Although this is more evident when words are involved, it is also present in music. Too often pure music (music without the text) is thought of as having no moral basis. Yet hardly anyone will argue that music is not a communicative art form. We contend that pure music does communicate truths and lies, in some sense, just as the music of Bach reflects his Lutheran theology and the music of Beethoven his pantheism. This does not mean that Beethoven’s music is not great, but it does have serious implications for its use in the sanctuary. It is also interesting to note that the music of some composers does not reflect their own theology, but rather a theological viewpoint of the particular musical language in which they compose. Thus Vaughan Williams was not a Christian but loved the music of the church and composed in a language that expresses the theology of the church. (Ralph Vaughan Williams [1872-1958] poured his considerable creative energy into years of work and study to serve as musical editor for the English Hymnal [1906].)
Having seen a skeletal blueprint for the musician’s creative activity, we must now identify the raw materials that he uses. Just as a person working with wood must understand its properties and how to care for it before he can produce a beautiful piece of furniture, the musician must understand his raw materials thoroughly before he can use them effectively.
The Raw Materials of Music
Although their terminology will vary, music theoreticians generally agree that there are five elements to music: rhythm, pitch, harmony, timbre and form.
1. Rhythm relates to the duration of musical sounds and their relationship to each other in time. Beat–the underlying regular pulsation of the music; meter–the organization of strong and weak beats into regular groupings; and tempo–the speed of the beats, are examples of rhythmic elements.
2. The pitch of a musical sound is determined by the frequency or vibrations per second of its sound waves. Composers organize pitches in a sequence and add the element of rhythm to the pitches to make a melody. Melodic motion can be ascending, descending, or stationary, and within these categories the motion may be in wide intervals (skips) or narrow ones (steps). The possible combinations of rhythm and pitch are nearly endless.
3. Harmony is the chordal structure of a musical composition in contrast to the melodic structure. Chords consist of two or more pitches sounded at the same time. In Western music these chords have a strong functional character and lead from one to another in distinct patterns of tension and release. Even in compositions that are conceived melodically (Gregorian chant or solo instrumental compositions), harmony is often implied in the melodic motion.
4. Timbre (pronounced tamber) or tone color includes many elements of sound and is evidenced by the shape of the sound waves themselves. Tone color is that quality which distinguishes one instrument or voice from another, such as the difference in sound between a clarinet and a flute or a violin. Timbre also encompasses texture, the number and types of instruments playing, the number of notes sounding at the same time and whether they move together (homophony) or independently (polyphony), and the volume of the sound (dynamics).
5. Form is the orderly fashion in which a composition is put together. The use of repetition and contrast in melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre delineates form.
The manifold ways of putting together these raw materials of music gives us a wide variety of musical styles. Thus hymns come in many styles, depending upon how the elements of melody, rhythm, harmony, timbre, and form are handled. There are distinct melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic differences between music written in the 17th century and the 19th century. The chorale form of the Reformation is different from the chorus style of the American Evangelistic Revivals.
(continued in Rite Reasons No. 17)
