Gregory Murray

Science and Singing

By DOM GREGORY MURRAY TH E accepted theory of voice is that it is produced by the action of the breath upon the vocal cords, the tone so generated acquiring increased resonance from the various cavities or sinuses in the head. T h e credit for the invention of this theory is attributed to Galen, the court physician to the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. I n recent years, however, an attempt has been made to discredit the theory and to demonstrate not only its falsity but the danger of studying the art of song and speech on such a basis. M r Ernest George White, the instigator of this revolt against tradition, began his career with a fine voice which he subsequently lost during his period of training at one of the chief London schools of music —a not uncommon experience among vocal students. A t times indeed he could not speak, and the combined efforts of doctors and specialists were unavailing. Nothing daunted, M r White embarked upon the task of discovering the reason for his misfortune. Ultimately, after years of research and experiment, he published his conclusions i n a volume entitled Science and Singing (1909). I n 1918 an enlarged edition appeared as The Voice Beautiful in Speech and Song which has itself since passed through two further editions and revisions. T h e main purposes of this book are to show that the vocal cords . . . are not the seat of sound and do not create the tone whether in speech or in song, and

What Defiles a Man

It had been witnessed by many people, including scribes and Pharisees on numerous occasions, that Yeshua’s talmidim did not follow the prescribed halakah for the washing of hands. The question was not why they were eating with dirty hands, but why they did not wash their hands according to the accepted halakah of the rabbis. It is to this question of halakah that Yeshua speaks. It is important for us even today as we return to Torah, for many would desire to put us under bondage to rabbinic halakah when Yeshua actually spoke against such things.

Saint Mark's Extra Material

ThE first three Gospels have so much in common that there must be some literary connection between them. Their likenesses are quite remarkable, not only in matter but very often in wording. As an explanation of this phenomenon the generally accepted hypothesis is that Marks Gospel was the first to be written, and that it was used as a source by the writers of the other two Gospels. In support of this hypothesis it is pointed out that Mark is the shortest of the Gospels, that of his 661 verses Matthew contains no fewer than 606 (with occasional verbal differences) and Luke includes 320 verses with 53 per cent of Marks actual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which are not in Matthew, Luke gives 31. In other words, there are only 24 verses in Mark which find no place either in Matthew or in Luke. This, it is asserted, indicates that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But those who accept this hypothesis of Marean priority insist that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark quite independently of one another. It is this independent use of Mark that raises an acute problem for which no Marean priorist has been able to offer a satisfactory solution. How is it, we may ask, that two independent writers, using the same source, have both omitted identical incidents and the same countless details contained in that source? For instance, neither Matthew nor Luke includes Marks cure of the deaf mute (7, 32-37). Again, neither of them includes Marks cure of the blind man of Bethsaida (8, 22-26). Is it not curious that, out of Marks twelve stories of miraculous healings, Matthew and Luke both omit the same two? Then, both Matthew and Luke omit Marks parable of the growing seed (4, 26-29), so that, out of Marks eight parables, they both omit the same one. Are we to attribute these identical omissions to mere coincidence? Mathematically, the chances against this double contingency are astronomical. A more likely explanation, therefore, is that Mark was not being used as a source by the other writers, but that they were being used as sources by him and that he was able to add to what he found in them. This alternative hypothesis finds support in the innumerable graphic details which Mark alone preserves. These occur all through his Gospel and are to be examined below. Meanwhile the

Saint Peter's Denials

ON the hypothesis that there is a literary connection between the three Synoptic Gospels and that their authors made use of one anothers work, there are two main views: either Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark and (for the non-Markan material they have in common) on a hypothetical document (or documents) labelled Q (the Two-Source hypothesis), or Mark is dependent on Matthew and Luke (the Two-Gospel hypothesis). The purpose of these pages is to see if the three accounts of Peters denials shed any light on this question. In the stories of the first two denials we find that Matthew mentions two different maidservants, one in the courtyard, the other in the porch; but he says nothing about the fire and its light. Luke has first a maidservant and then a man accuse Peter, the former in the courtyard near the fire. Mark has the same maidservant accuse Peter twice, first in the courtyard near the fire and then outside in the forecourt. On balance, the more probable order of literary dependence would seem to be: (1) Matthew (two maidservants, two locations), then (2) Luke (the fire), and finally (3) Mark combining them (the fire, two maidservants, two locations), but with the correction that it was the same maidservant both times. This correction could well be due to Peters own evidence, since it is the consistent early tradition that Mark enshrines Peters testimony. Although this literary order cannot be said to be proved beyond doubt, the alternative order does not explain why Matthew, if he was using Mark, should have omitted all reference to the fire (so prominent a feature in Mark), nor would he have written of two different maidservants (when Mark says it was the same one). Again, it is unlikely that Luke would have changed the sex of the second accuser, had he been using Mark as his source. Mark, on the other hand, can be seen as a conflation of the accounts in Matthew and Luke, with the one correction (which Peter could have made) as to the identity of the second accuser. In the story of the third denial, it is Peters north-country, Galilean accent that gives him away. Matthew, writing for Jewish readers, simply says your speech (Jews would know what that indicated); but Luke and Mark, writing for Gentiles, say that Peter

The Questioning of Jesus

IN their accounts of our Lords final week in Jerusalem before his arrest and condemnation, all three Synoptic Gospels contain a series of questions addressed to him and all three state that subsequently nobody dared to question him any more. But, when we compare the Gospels, we find that in Mark the saying no one dared to question him any more seems, in the context, to lack point. For Mark has just related how a friendly scribe has asked Which is the first commandment of all? and has commended our Lord for his answer in words that merited the reply You are not far from the kingdom of God. Then, says Mark, and no one dared to question him any more (12, 34). In Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, this remark (about not daring to question him any more) comes more appropriately: in Matthew (22, 46) Jesus has just silenced the Pharisees by asking how the Messiah can be Davids son if David calls him Lord; in Luke (20, 40) Jesus has just silenced the Sadducees after their question about the future marital status of the woman who had married seven brothers in succession. It is not without interest to examine the series of questions in each of the three Gospels.

Mark the Conflator

IN recent years it has come to be generally accepted that Marks was the first Gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke, independently of one another, used Mark as a source. This hypothesis runs counter to the universal early tradition that Matthews was the first Gospel. It further ignores the only clear early statement about the order in which the Gospels were composed, that of Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VI, 14). Clement died early in the third century and he claimed to preserve the tradition, derived from the oldest presbyters, that Matthew and Luke were both written before Mark, and that Mark was a transcript of Peters talks in Rome. If we accept Clements testimony and there is no reason why we should not do so then any resemblances between Marks Gospel and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke must be due to Marks dependence on Matthew and Luke, not to their dependence on Mark. Bearing this in mind, it is instructive to compare the three Gospels when they report the same incidents and sayings. As the following pages demonstrate, time after time Mark appears to be conflating Matthew and Luke. (1) In his introduction to the story of the temptations, Matthew tells us (4, 1) that Jesus was led up into the desert to be tempted by the devil. Luke says (4, 1-2): Now Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was being led by the Spirit in the desert for forty days being tempted by the devil. Marks account (1, 12-13) takes an expression from each of the other two: And at once the Spirit drives him out into the desert. And he was in the desert for forty days being tempted by Satan. (Incidentally, if on the contrary hypothesis Matthew and Luke were each independently using Mark, it is curious that they should both have decided to substitute the devil for Marks Satan.) (2) The healing of Peters mother-in-law is thus described by Matthew (8, 14-15): And Jesus, coming into the house of Peter, saw his mother-in-law prostrated and fevered. And he touched her hand and the fever left her. And she got up and served him. Luke (4, 38-39) says this: Now rising up from the synagogue he entered into the house of Simon. But Simons mother-in-law was in the grip of a high fever and they asked him about her. And standing

Order in St Mark's Gospel

THE following comparative table has been compiled to illustrate and to justify the hypothesis that Marks Gospel was the third to be written (as Clement of Alexandria states) and that its author had before him the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which it was his main purpose to conflate and which he supplemented with additional vivid detail. In support of this hypothesis it will be seen that he begins his Gospel at the first point where such a conflation can be made with the preaching of the Baptist; and he ends it at the point after which conflation is no longer possible at 14, 8 (the remaining verses being a later addition). Much of what he omits (e.g. the two great sermons, the genealogies, Lukes great central section) cannot be conflated. In the table, whenever the order of items is the same in two Gospels, the verse references are connected by a line. The absence of a connecting line indicates disagreement in order. Thus the table shows how Marks order of items (apart from two exceptions to be examined later) always tallies with that of Matthew and Luke when these agree and with one or other of them when their order diverges. The fact that when they differ in order Matthew and Luke alternate in agreeing with Marks order is impossible to account for on the widely accepted but unproven hypothesis that they were each independently using Mark as their source. For in that case, how could Matthew have known when Luke was going to abandon Marks order so as to return to it himself? Similarly, how could Luke have known when Matthew was going to abandon Marks order so as to return to it himself? To achieve such alternating support of Marks order would be impossible for two authors independently using Mark as their source unless they were in telepathic communication. The obvious explanation of this phenomenon of order is that Mark was using Matthew and Luke, not that they were using Mark. For, with Matthew and Luke before him, Mark would naturally follow their order when their order agreed and be free to follow either of them when their order diverged. A further indication that Mark was the third, not the first, Gospel to be written is shown in the table by those items (in italics) which find no place in either Matthew or Luke. Upholders of Marean priority can offer no explanation of why Matthew and

A New Translation of the Psalms: Part I —its Origin and Purpose

THE Bible de Jérusalem has already established itself as one of the most important modern translations of the Scriptures, valued as much for its critical apparatus as for its text. But its influence has extended far beyond the ranks of students of the Bible. The small pocket edition has provided the inexpert reader with a clearly annotated Bible of convenient size, with sufficient editorial guidance to make Bible-reading a stimulating and attractive experience. But a no less valuable result of the Bible de Jérusalem has been the widespread practical use of the psalms as corporate prayer in a form at once intelligible, simple and musically attractive. The advantages of this development can hardly be exaggerated. The liturgical renewal demands as one of its essential foundations that the laity should recover not merely a knowledge and an understanding of the psalms but a well-established tradition of singing them. In the book of psalms we find an epitome in lyrical form of the entire Bible, embracing both the history of the people of God and the progressive revelation of the mysteries of salvation. That is why the psalter was esteemed so highly by the authors of the New Testament and the writers of the early Christian centuries. The psalms only find their true meaning and ultimate fulfilment in the liturgical prayer of the Church when she sings of the Risen Christ as her Lord and of Sion or Jerusalem as his bride, the Church herself. When the translators of the Bible de Jérusalem embarked on the book of psalms, they took the bold decision to attempt something more than merely express the meaning of the original Hebrew. They

Reviews of Book: Rhythmic Proportions in Early Medieval Ecclesiastical ChantRhythmic Proportions in Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Chant by VollaertsJ. W., S.J. Second Edition. Pp. xix + 245 (E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland)

an even wider circle. The compression of 958 pages of matter into a single volume of less than 600 pages has required some drastic omissions. Thus the copious notes and references that are so important a feature of the original are missing, and wherever possible the text itself has been abbreviated. On the credit side, the opportunity has been taken to bring the revision up to date in accord with the fourth German edition of 1958. Furthermore Fr Jungmann has contributed an entirely new chapter on the Rite of Commingling. As a single-volume treatise of primary importance on the history and development of the Mass Liturgy, the book claims a unique and unchallenged position. For the ordinary reader it could hardly be more complete. The serious student, however, will necessarily prefer to consult the generous critical apparatus of the full edition.

Gregorian Rhythm in the Gregorian Centuries the Literary Evidence

THERE can hardly be any doubt that it would be both unscholarly and foolish to attempt to understand the music of any period of the past without taking into account what the musicians of that period have to say. However difficult and puzzling their statements may appear, their guidance is something we can ill afford to ignore in our search for the authentic interpretation of the music they discuss. This, however, was not the opinion of D o m Mocquereau, who has left on record a candid confession of his own attitude to the ancient treatises on the Gregorian chant: