Bach’s annotations in Calov’s Bible commentary

If we don’t count the minor corrections, that Bach made in this 6-part Bible Commentary, some 400 marked passages remain. Interesting. We can see what triggered Bach when he read/studied the Bible commentary. At this website I publish all passages marked by Bach, translated into English with explanations and images (work in progress). Next to this, there are 14 marginal notes (glosses) that are worthwhile. Four of these deal with music.

The four annotations on music

These four remarks have been known since 1969 (Chr. Trautmann) and have been quoted and commented on many times – with varying expertise. A survey and short commentary you find below, but…

If you want to read them in their context, here are four links

– Exodus 15:20: Erstes vorspiel auf 2 Choren … zu musiciren.
– 1 Chronicles 26[25]: Dieses Capitel… wahres Fundament aller Kirchen Musik
– 1 Chronicles 28[29]: Ein herrlicher Beweis… Musica… mit angeordnet
– 2 Chronicles 5:13 Bey einer andächtigen musique… Gnadengegenwart

In particular, the three glosses in Chronicles deal with pre-figurations, types that tell us something about how church music should be valued. They are intriguing: Why did Bach write them down in this Bible commentary, a personal document? (H.-J. Schulze suggests: the result of didactic and apologetic reflection in the 1740s1’; Martin Petzoldt sees them as testimonies of self-reflection and self-affirmation2).

  1. Exodus 15:20 ‘NB. Erstes Vorspiel, auf 2 Chören zur Ehre Gottes zu musiciren.‘  [First prelude (or first example of a piece of music) to be performed with two choirs to the honor of God]
    This note is a comment on the “song of Moses and Miriam”, inserted by Bach at the moment that Miriam ‘responds’ to Moses’ song (v. 1-18), repeating the refrain (v. 21 = v. 1). The commentary (Calov/Luther?) uses the terms ‘echo‘ and ‘responsorium‘. Vorspiel in the sense of ‘preludium‘ (a piece of music that precedes the main music) does not really fit well here. It’s rather a ‘nach-spiel’ a post-ludium: Moses and the (male) Israelites were the first to sing, Miriam and the women answer, repeat the refrain. Therefore the suggestion is to hear ‘Vor-spiel’ as ‘antiphon‘ (which is also repeated after the biblical verse is recited). Vorspiel, however, can also be understood as Vor-bild (pre-image). Then it fits the typological interpretation of the OT, permeating the entire Calov/Luther commentary of the Old Testament. See the following comments on Chronicles. Another option is that Vor-spiel is influenced by ‘Vor-spielen‘ (playing in front of…) < German and Dutch ): to let hear, perform. Then the meaning becomes: ‘The first time a 2-chorale work is performed’. More on this in English (full context) – of in het Nederlands
  2. I Chron 25[26]: ‘NB. Dieses Capitel ist das wahre Fundament aller Gottgefälligen Kirchen Music. etc.‘ [This Chapter is the true foundation of all church music that pleases God, etc]
    This gloss we find at the beginning of chapter 25, to which it refers. From ch. 23 onwards, David is carefully organising the liturgy of the Temple service (continues until chapter 28). Chapter 25 deals with the musical organisation of the temple service. It deals with the ‘office’ of temple singers (this term includes instrumentalists as well), musicians all exempted from singing and playing to the honour of God, all day (24 hours). These musicians are called ‘prophets’. They proclaim the Word of God (in musical language). More in/with context (English). Meer kunt u hier lezen (NL)
  3. II Chron 28[29]: ‘Ein herrlicher Beweiß, daß neben anderen Anstalten des Gottesdienstes, besonders auch die Musica von Gottes Geist durch David mit angeordnet worden.‘
    [Beautiful demonstration (or splende example) that besides other forms of worship, music too was specially ordered (ordained) by God’s spirit through David.] This verse concludes the chapter, in which David hands over his duties to Solomon. The final sentence of this chapter is an encouragement: Solomon should not hesitate to call on the priests, Levites and other able men for all parts of the temple service. They will follow his orders. That is their office (Officium – ‘Ampt’) . That is how God has ‘ordered’ it: Siehe da die Ordnung. Calov (Luther?) hooks into this passage to underline once more that David (and Solomon) did not act on their own will in building the temple and organising worship, but here too acted according to God’s explicit instructions, mediated by the Holy Spirit. The temple service is thus ‘exemplary’, an eternal model. More in English.  Meer kunt u hier lezen in het Nederlands
  4. II Chron 5:13: ‘NB. Bey einer andächtigen Musique ist allezeit Gott mit seiner Gnadengegenwart.‘ [When devotional music is performed, God is always there with his graceful presence.]
    The link to the biblical text is clear. There we are told how God ‘takes up residence’ in the temple, symbolised by the cloud descending, while the priests blow trumpets and proclaim God’s mercy. The cloud is familiar imagery: it travelled with the people from Egypt (protective). It now descends on the temple under festive music (singing/instruments): God’s graceful presence: ‘Gnadengegenwart‘.3 This term is hard to translate into English, for it has a strong theological connotation: It refers to the way God’s grace (in Jesus Christ) manifests itself on earth. More with context (English).  Hier in het Nederlands.
    .

The remaining handwritten notes (10 items)

If we disregard all corrections (either simple spelling corrections or more complex, and also put aside the highlighted sections of text (the most interesting part, to which this website is dedicated), then 10 ‘marginal notes‘ remain (as far as I can see).

Six explicatures (making explicit what is in the text)4

NB: These marginal annotations do not communicate insights coming from Bach’s brain/head/heart, but are simple clarifications making explicit what is implicit, serving as mnemonic aids in reading.

  1. Zueignungsschrifft (Preface/dedication): vol I: ‘Ψ 119’ (identification of the quote in the text as coming from Psalm 119) click here
  2. Exodus 28:20: ‘1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12’. The 4×3 rows of gems from the High Priest’s breastplate are expertly explained in the commentary. They are numbered by Bach. NB: the full section is also marked in the margin (with ‘dashes’, red ink). – Something similar Bach did, albeit without numbering them, with the various ‘spices’ used in the incense offering (Exod. ).
  3. Ecclesiastes Vorrede: ‘ Summa Libris’ (indicating that in the body text, there is a summary of the book. – click here
  4. Joel 3:26[21]: ‘ Preces pro Ecclesia’. (Prayer for the Church). This identifies a long quote from a prayer by Luther
  5. Micha 17:20 ‘Gebeth’ idem for a prayer by Hiëronymus
  6. Daniel 12:7-12. Arabic numerals (numbers of years mentioned verbally in the text are noted with Arabic numerals in the margin).

Four additions, containing a reaction, a reflection.

  1. Gen 26:33: ‘ Ungefehr 1 Stunde von Erfurth, ist ein Dorf so diesen Nahmen hat. usw.“ [Appr. 1 hour from Erfurt is a village with the same name, etc.]
    This stands alongside Luther’s text, which gives an etymological explanation of the name ‘Saba’. Luther finds the Jewish rabbis’ explanation most convincing ‘Saba’ = source of the oath, and reports than at Erfurt there is also a village with the (same) name : ‘Schwereborn’ . That word is underlined by Bach. Bach informs about the distance : an hour on foot about 4-5 km. The point: Schwereborn = source of the ‘schweren’ = ‘schwören’ = source of the oath.
  2. Ex. 38:29 ‘Die summa der freijwilligen Opffer beträget fast in die acht Tonnen Goldes.‘ The sum total of 8 tonnes gold is Bach summary of the numbers mentioned in the text. There they are underlined. Very minutely – given the markings – Bach has followed the enumeration of the gifts of the people for the furnishing of the tabernacle (from v. 24. In 24 and 25 also underlining). Apparently Bach found the whole text very interesting. For enthusiasts: further research into precious substances, stone types, sacrificial offerings, spices: almost always … marked and/or underlined]. click here
  3. Lev. 18:16 ‘Scheinet dem Gesetze (so da ordnete dass ein Bruder seinem verstorbenen Bruder Saamen erwecken solt) contrair zu seijn. usw.‘ [Seems to contradict the Law, in which it is ordained that a brother should have intercourse for the offspring of his deceased brother, etc.] The law in question is Dt. 25:5-10, the levirate marriage. The commentary does not respond so much to the Bibel text itself as to Calov’s addition that the prohibition on sex with your brother’s wife also applies ‘after his death’. (underlined by Bach). This is not entirely correct, because … the law on the marriage of your sister-in-law (levirate), if your brother has no offspring, precisely prescribes that you must father an offspring with his widow.
  4. Lev. 26:38 ‘1700’ Bach writes below Calov’s ‘1600’ (not crossing it out). This refers to the number of years we live after the fall of Jerusalem ‘auff diese Stunde’ (until today). Calov’s arithmetic is acceptable, Bach greatly overestimates… unless he wrote it very late in his life. (Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE).

Conclusion

If you want to explore Bach’s copy of Calov’s Bible commentary, you should read the book Bach was reading, gleaning over his shoulder, so to speak. And then try to understand why Bach marked exactly that piece, that phrase in that section. You can do the exercise yourself if you are proficient in English. Here are all those 400 passages with markings (incl. their direct textual context).

  1. “Das Didaktische und Apologetische scheint in den 1740er Jahren vielerorts eine Rolle zu spielen; auch die Annotationen in den drei Bänden der sogenannten Calov-Bibel sollten in dieser Richtung einmal überdacht werden.” (Schultz, Bach-Facetten, p. 136) ↩︎
  2. “… Ergebnis des einsamen Austausches Bachs mit seiner Bibel… Es sind Reflexionen, resümeeartige Sätze, die selbstvergewisserenden Charakter tragen.” Petzoldt, ‘Beobachtungen..’ (Bach-Konferenz, 1985, p. 70) ↩︎
  3. In the original it is clear that Bach intends to write “one word”, using the German (double) hyphen. So the ‘technical term’ is intentional. One is free to write it with or without the hyphen: Gnadengegenwart, or Gnaden-Gegenwart, the latter also quite common. ↩︎
  4. By “explicature,” I mean a note that serves to make explicit something already present in the text, either implicitly or without sufficient clarity for immediate recognition. Unlike interpretive comments, which offer analysis, explanation, or opinion, explicatures are limited to clarifying factual or structural elements of the text. ↩︎