What is an hymn?

Scripture?

 

Besides the fact that two men can't sing 4 part harmony, you think the variety of instruments in the Temple orchestra, and the plurality of singers in the Levitical choir were all there to play and sing one note at a time in unison?

That's a bit credulous, don't you think?

Actually it's not new. The authors of your textbook didn't have the benefit of recent archaeological discoveries, and they made a host of unsubstantiated assumptions based on a Darwinistic view of history, much in the same way that modern scholarship assumed that writing had yet to be invented in the days of Moses.

Just like it is now beyond dispute that writing was well-developed by the time of Moses, it is now known that the ancients had an advanced knowledge of music theory and harmonies. The oldest song in the world, a 3400-year-old Ugaritic hymn used the diatonic, do-re-mi scale and was written in harmony.

Jesus, the son of Sirach (2nd Century B.C.) mentions that when Simon, the son of Onias was the High Priest, "The singers sang praises with their voice; with great variety of sounds was there made sweet melody."

But one need not know all that, just take the Scriptures at face value and one will understand that music as an art and science was a well-developed discipline by the seventh generation from Adam, Jubal. He is the father of all those who handle the harp and the organ.

A fallacious premise invalidates your conclusion.

There is no new thing under the sun, Eccl. 1:9. Language and writing is not new. Music and harmony is not new. The thing that shall be is something that has already been. There is no intelligent reason to think that the music was much different than what we hear today. Certainly each region had it's own local color, but no matter how you sliced it, the music came out do-re-mi. There were many different styles in ancient times just as there are today, all with the same goal in view, to evoke a certain emotional response from the listener.

I've already provided the clues from Scripture: the contexts of solemnity in which hymns were sung, and the contrast of hymns with drunken revelry.

There is also the quote from Jesus the son of Sirach.

As far as links are concerned, see the thread on Psalms.

My concern here is, what style or styles of music is indicated by the word "hymn."

 

There is nothing a man does for pleasure that he didn't do since the Fall. Some of the tools may be different, but the behavior is the same. Men have always taken pleasure in music, and as men are wont to be, have always put tremendous effort toward the enjoyment of their pleasure, hence musical instruments at least by the seventh generation of Adam. The musical instruments of the ancients were no less sophisticated than those today. (I don't consider electronic instruments sophisticated. Discerning ears prefer a Stradivarius over a synthesized violin any day.)

At any rate, the ancients new what "sweet" meant. They described the taste of honey as sweet, and they describe pleasant words as sweet. No one argues that they only thought honey was sweet, or that pleasant words only felt sweet to them because of their culture, so why is it that when the ancients describe certain melodies as sweet (Is. 23:16), we're automatically thinking that we wouldn't find them sweet to our ears as well?

Who made that claim?

 

If you were a perceptive fellow, you would see that I only asked for Scripture when someone postulated a moral judgment concerning what was and wasn't acceptable to God.

But you're not very perceptive, so you asked me for Scripture when I'm merely citing historical facts. It's like asking me for Scripture when I say Ronald Reagan was the President for two terms.