A Chapter from a Book in Progress on the Subject of Music in the Bible
One of the questions that Bible scholars and enthusiasts might ask today is: Was biblical music “beautiful”? In other words, was it pleasant, agreeable, lovely—terms we associate today with beauty, as that concept is understood in the modern Western world.
However, the question itself may be anachronistic. That is, it reflects an attempt to judge an ancient phenomenon by modern criteria that may not be relevant to the biblical world. Concepts like “beauty,” “pleasantness,” or “agreeableness” as musical goals are products of a later aesthetic tradition, perhaps originally influenced by ancient Greek culture, or the result of cultural and aesthetic developments that occurred centuries and even millennia later in the West.
Does the Bible refer to the beauty of music?
If we search the Bible for explicit references to music being beautiful, pleasant, or agreeable, we find no direct evidence. A concordance search will show that the Bible simply does not address the question of music’s beauty.
Take the word ‘arev’ (pleasant), for example, which appears in Song of Songs 2:14—”for your voice is sweet, and your appearance is lovely.” But even here, it is difficult to claim this is about music in the auditory sense. The context is metaphorical and romantic, with the central image being the voice of a dove—a bird not considered a songbird, but rather one that coos. There is no necessity to interpret this as musical singing, and thus no clear indication of a concept of “musical beauty” in this verse.
Another example is in 1 Samuel 16, where David’s playing soothes King Saul and relieves him of an evil spirit. However, the text emphasizes the psychological effect of the music rather than its aesthetic qualities. It does not say the music was “beautiful” but that it served a practical purpose—calming a troubled soul.
The word ‘noam’ (pleasantness) appears in interesting contexts. It describes God’s name and, at times, individuals like David and Jonathan, or the ‘kinnor’ (lyre) as a musical instrument. It may be that David—associated with God’s name, with Jonathan, and with the lyre—is the common thread connecting to this term. Yet, once again, there is no explicit description of music as pleasant in the modern aesthetic sense.
The word ‘na’avah’ (lovely) usually denotes visual beauty and is sometimes linked with ‘tehillah’ (praise)—but it is unclear whether this refers to sung text or merely spoken words of praise. Nowhere is music explicitly described as beautiful or aesthetically pleasing in the modern sense.
Why not?
This does not mean that beautiful music did not exist in biblical times. It may very well have been moving, complex, even awe-inspiring. But the fact remains that the biblical authors did not deem this quality (i.e. beauty) worthy of mention. Perhaps it simply wasn’t important to them—or was so self-evident that it needed no elaboration. Alternatively, they may have regarded the concept of beauty—especially as it was expressed in surrounding cultures—as foreign, superficial, or even religiously or morally problematic.
What about later sources?
In later sources, there are even hints of discomfort with musical “pleasantness.” For example, Mishnah Arakhin (Chapter 2, Mishnah 6) notes that the hydraulic organ (hydraulis) was not used in the Temple because “its sound is pleasant and confuses the melody.” In other words, the pleasantness of its tone was seen as a problem. This might reflect cultural opposition to Hellenistic music—music that was maybe “too pleasant,” perhaps sensual or overly seductive, and therefore perceived as foreign to the spiritual values of Jewish worship.
Even so, we still do not know exactly what the term ‘pleasant’ meant in that context. It may not have meant “pleasant” in our modern sense, but rather something that simply did not align with the spirit of the Temple.
Conclusion
If the beauty of music in the Bible were a significant issue for the biblical writers, we would expect to find it expressed in the text. The complete absence of such references is perhaps a sign that this aspect was not central to the cultural or musical discourse of the period—at least not in the written record.
Yet it is important to remember: the absence of explicit descriptions of music as “beautiful” does not necessarily mean that beauty was absent. Music in the Bible can certainly be rich, powerful, multi-layered, and deeply meaningful—and perhaps in these very qualities lies its beauty.
In the coming chapters of this book, we will delve into the symbolic, ritualistic, and cultural dimensions of biblical music and discover its true richness. And if I may offer a small “spoiler”—it is precisely in this deep and unique space that the distinct beauty of biblical music may emerge. Not a beauty rooted in the Greek ideal of kalos, but one that belongs to a moral, religious world and carries a beauty all its own.
Further Reading:
Emmanuel Friedheim, “On the Question of How Jewish Society in the Land of Israel Confronted Music during the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmudic Periods,” Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv 132 (2009): 55–76 (in Hebrew).
Copyright © 2025 Guy Shaked. All rights reserved.
Posted: April 23, 2025, 11:00 (Jerusalem Time)
Modified: [date not specified]
