Possible solutions to the mysterious ἀναπληρῶν in St. Paul’s tongues-speech discourse of I Corinthians 14.
Table of Contents
- The Ἀναπληρῶν in the English Bible
- Greek Dictionary Definitions
- The The Ἀναπληρῶν in Translations
- Biblical References
- Possible Jewish Connections to the Ἀναπληρῶν
- The Alexandrian view of the The Ἀναπληρῶν
- The Ἀναπληρῶν and the Amen
- Concluding Thoughts on Paul and the Ἀναπληρῶν
The Apostle Paul referred to the word ànaplērõn,1 ἀναπληρῶν as part of the highly controversial section on the gift of tongues. The word only occurs once (I Corinthians 14:16) and is not the central part of the discussion but adds to the difficulty with the speaking in tongues sequence. Discovering the historical meaning may offer a clue that may work towards unlocking this difficult topic. On the other hand, the pittance of data may reaffirm the obscurity.
Indeed, this word only occurs once in the entire New Testament, and it is here in I Corinthians 14. It is also found once in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament): Daniel 9:2 (more on this further below.)
English translation tradition influences most readers to think otherwise. It leads one to think there was nothing controversial or problematic in the use of this word. However, ἀναπληρῶν is far from settled about its true nature.
This ambiguity necessitates delving into ancient Greek dictionaries, Latin and Syriac translations, Church and Talmudic literature. They should help to gather some much-needed clues.
For those who want the conclusion before the details, the study revealed three possibilities:
ἀναπληρῶν pointed to the section Paul wrote on speaking or interpreting tongues as a liturgical rite. It has nothing to do with the supernatural or a psychological state. The Latin text, the Jewish equivalent, half of the major ancient Greek Dictionaries, and a text attributed to Cyril of Alexandria define the ἀναπληρῶν as an occupation—someone who would take the speech, whether foreign, high-priestly, specialized or articulate, and transfer it into a language that the ordinary person would understand.
One could argue that no one conclusively knows what this word means and should be left transliterated as anapleron2 in English translations. This argument is a strong option given the paucity of information.
As previously mentioned, tone can argue there is nothing of consequence that needs consideration. The King James translation has it as “how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen.” The passage refers to the general audience not understanding the speech or prayer. There is no controversy.
The rest of the article will examine the options with a particular focus on the first one. The first option needs more explanation while the other two are self-explanatory.
It is necessary to alert the reader that this exploration builds on other findings that display the Corinthian assembly adopted liturgical customs from the synagogue. This idea is drawn from previous research queries such as the The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church, and Greek, Hellenic Judaism and the problem tongues of Corinth among others.3
Now, it is time to get into the details.
English Bible tradition supports that the ἀναπληρῶν was referring to the laity not understanding the speaker. They do not support a reading of ἀναπληρῶν as an appointed person in the church.
Here are some examples of how ἀναπληρῶν was translated.
King James Version (Cambridge ed): “how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen.”
New International Version (1984): “how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen.””
New American Standard Bible (1995): “how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen.”4
More recent translations have taken a less-literal approach to resolve this ambiguity:
New Living Translation (2007): “how can those who don’t understand you praise God along with you?”
New International Version (2008): “how can an otherwise uneducated person say “Amen.””5
One should not rest a case of Biblical interpretation on English Bible tradition alone. In this case, it is necessary to backtrack and look at the historical evidence in two ways; first of all to trace how the Greek word ἀναπληρῶν transmitted through the English Bible translation history. Secondly, to try and develop a clearer picture of what the word ἀναπληρῶν means through the extensive use of dictionaries, ecclesiastical, and other literature.
Ἀναπληρῶν is a participle based on the verb ἀναπληρόω. It is found in I Corinthians 14:16 as a present active masculine nominative singular. Some of the dictionaries support the English Bible translations emphasizing a group of listeners unable to understand, while others support the position theory. Here is a listing demonstrating the variances.
Group of Listeners Unable to Understand
Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon supports the contemporary English translations.6 This result is not a surprise as this dictionary specializes in classical Greek sources. It does not focus on Biblical or Patristic sources. One must carefully note that this dictionary cites this word as Doric or Aeolic one—not Attic. If correct, this omission is important. It demonstrates that this word may have only been used in the Corinthian locale, which was Doric. Paul potentially was referring to a problem sourced and created by the Doric-speaking Corinthian congregation.7
Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, captures the spirit of the English translation and offers this as his definition. “Locum impleo to fill the place, occupy the room of anyone.”8
Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon is very general, and it agrees with the English Bibles above, or to a lesser degree, it could be someone assisting the layperson in understanding.9
The Position Theory
The following dictionaries emphasize ἀναπληρῶν as an intermediary between leadership and the congregation. This person attended to the needs of the laypeople, ensuring they understood the liturgical rites and the words behind them. It was not necessarily an official office nor filled by the priesthood.
The Greek-Latin Dictionary, Stephanus’ Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, understands it as a person who helps complete a task. The ἀναπληρῶν is someone who completes, supplies, sometimes finishes, sits among the uneducated, and to satisfy the uneducated on the word.10
The Dictionnaire Grec-Française also agrees with Stephanus. The ἀναπληρῶν is someone who provides information such as missing words, stands in for someone else, and carries out a task.11
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker’s (BAGD) “The Greek English of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,” suggests that the above English translations are weak.12 It surmises that ἀναπληρῶν is a person or position that is replacing or representing those of the lay population. It is independent of τοῦ ἰδιώτου the layman. It should not be used as an adjective that further describes a layman because these are different entities.
The Ἀναπληρῶν in Translations
Perhaps clues can be found from translations based on the Greek.
I Corinthians 14:16 according to the Latin Vulgate shows and important clue:
“qui supplet locum idiotae.”13 — He who supplies the place of the uneducated.
The Latin clearly makes the passage to mean that ἀναπληρῶν and τοῦ ἰδιώτου are two totally different entities. The ἀναπληρῶν is doing something on behalf of the τοῦ ἰδιώτου.
However, the Douay-Rheims English translation of the Latin tends to obscure this, “how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say, Amen.”14 This may be the start of where the ambiguity began in the English translations.
The Syriac text may offer some clues. The Syriac translation is heavily dependant, often too literal, with the source Greek ones.
ܗܰܘ ܕ݁ܰܡܡܰܠܶܐ ܕ݁ܽܘܟ݁ܬ݂ܶܗ ܕ݁ܗܶܕ݂ܝܽܘܛܳܐ ܐܰܝܟ݁ܰܢܳܐ ܢܺܐܡܰܪ ܐܰܡܺܝܢ
A traditional translation has: “How can one who occupies the place of the unlearned say Amen.” (Translated by George Lamsa)15 but a more literal one is: “how can the one who fills in the blanks on behalf of the common person say amen?”
The word ܡܡܰܠܶ is the one to particularly note. It is an an active participle that suggests someone with the role of taking whatever was instructed, spoken, or possibly sung during the assembly and converting it into a language or explanation easily understood by the lay audience.
Another text consulted was from the great theologian and scholar, Franz Delitzsche, who translated the New Testament into Hebrew in the late 1800s.
הָעֹמֵד בְּמַצַּב הַהֶדְיוֹט אֵיךְ יַעֲנֶה אָמֵן 16
“How will he who stands in the position of the layman say amen.”
Delitzsche did not seem to take any side to this and was ambiguous.
As previously stated, there is one reference to ἀναπληρῶν in the Bible outside of Paul’s work: Daniel 9:2. It is found in a later version of the Septuagint completed by Theodotion and written in its verbal form ἀναπλήρωσιν. The earlier version of the Septuagint has συμπλήρωσιν.
The meaning of ἀναπλήρωσιν which centers around fulfilling or completing a task, fits within the semantic range discussed in this investigation. One clue that may help is its later entrance into the Septuagint which suggests that is a word introduced into the Jewish vocabulary at a later date.17
The Possible Jewish Connections to the Ἀναπληρῶν
It is apparent from Paul’s words and grammar that ancient Jewish liturgical customs are interwoven in his work. The “Amen” construct that Paul used in I Corinthians 14:16 suggests that the expression ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου is representative of an office, function, or common liturgical practice. We are not sure today what he was referring. Later Jewish literature gives three possibilities.
Before proceeding, one must interpret the following information with caution. Paul Bradshaw, a specialist in early Church liturgy warns any researcher against making simplistic parallels between early Christianity and later Judaism. Judaism made a substantial shift in identity after the destruction of the Temple. Therefore, it is not necessarily reflective of Second Temple Judaism or the first 40 years or so of Christianity. For this reason, one cannot directly use later Jewish writings as antecedents for early Christian liturgy. On certain occasions, Christians borrowed traditions from the Jewish world, and at other times, tailored an alternative solution to show their distinct identity. The Jewish world also reacted in likewise manner and borrowed from Christians.18 If one takes Bradshaw’s argument further, some features were accidental between Christianity and Judaism. Others were adopted and evolved, and some were borrowed from a common source of either the highly dominant Greek or Persian cultures. The boundaries are not clear.
However, there are two caveats to this argument. First of all, we do not have alternative literature or data to build a better case. It is the best we have. Secondly, the later literature demonstrate a progression of some sort of some liturgical features while others may be later inventions. The New Testament writings may represent a primitive form of these same liturgical aspects that had not yet been codified into a universal or standard one. One can, perhaps, reverse-engineer some of the later concepts into a more flexible and simplistic original concept. One can theoretically apply this method to first-century practice.
Paul J. Tomson, one of the foremost authorities on the intersection of early Christianity and Judaism, believes that the description of ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου is odd and not of Greek origin. He explains it as a Greek derivative of the שליח צבור, Shaliach Tzibbur. This office is a well known position in the Jewish liturgy.
. . .the expression ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, hardly understandable in Greek, seems to be an equivalent of the Hebrew שליח צבור shaliah tsibbur, ‘representative of the community’. In Rabbinic literature this term indicates a person who prays aloud in front of the congregation and thereby vicariously fulfils the duty of those unable to pray. This function could be exercized by any member except a minor and, as we have seen, a woman. The congregation members confirm his prayer in their name by responding ‘Amen’. Something similar it seems to be the situation here. The word ἰδιώτης means ‘commoner’ and here seems to indicate ‘one unable to pray’. In v23f it designates the inexperienced who, as the ‘unbelieving’, cannot follow the uninterpreted pneumatic prayer. Ἁναπληρεῖν τὸν τόπον means ‘taking the place’, ‘representing’ someone. It seems to stand for the Hebrew term שליח, ‘legal agent’ or ‘representative’; apparently responds ‘Amen’ to pneumatic blessings said by other community members in the name of ‘commoners’, who probably cannot follow such prayer. At any rate the similarity is such that we seem to be faced with grecisized halakhic term.19
Some readers are likely asking at this point, what is a shaliach tzibbur?
A Hebrew-Roots based Christian website described this ancient position as this:
The shaliach tzibbur functions as the representative of the community who recites the prayers on behalf of the people. Some prayers are said by everyone, and some are recited aloud by the shaliach tzibbur, to which the congregation responds “Amen” (the chazzan (cantor) is specially trained in Jewish music (cantillation) and liturgy for this role).20
What both of these quotes have in common is that there are few substantiations of their assertions. There is not enough literary data found to establish that the shaliach tzibbur existed during the first century. Tomson’s analysis is insightful but lacks a direct connection.
The prominent Jewish ethnomusicologist, Abraham Zebi Idelsohn, in his study on early Jewish liturgy, gives more prominence to the chazzan over the shaliach tzibbur when it comes to the first-century Jewish liturgy.21 This office first started as a person who kept order and conducted various civil, educational or other duties. It later evolved into a liturgical leader.
In the last period of the second Temple, care-takers or beadles22 in general were called chazzanim. After the fall of the Temple and the collapse of political independence, the communal functions of the chazzanim melted away; and only the Synagogue retained the chazzan as a beadle. Little by little, there was relegated to him the recitation of minor parts of the service. Yet, during the Talmudic period, the chazzan was never permitted to function as precentor23 or reader of the Bible in the public service, unless he was a learned man, conversant with the prayers, and might, like everyone else, be thus distinguished. But the time of distress in the sixth and seventh centuries compelled many communities, for lack of able men, to entrust the chazzan–beadle with the function of precentorship, inasmuch as he was always present in the synagogue. He was first permitted to read the weekly portions of the Pentateuch and Prophets and translate them into the vernacular, the Aramaic idiom spoken in Palestine and Babylonia at that time. For some time a distinction was drawn between the function of reading the Bible and that of leading in prayer. And still in the ninth century the partaking of the chazzan in the prayer was of subordinate character.24
He further adds comments that align it to this discussion on the ἀναπληρῶν and the adoption of Jewish customs in the earliest Christian rites:
Early in the Talmudic period the service was divided between two officers. One was invited to recite the Shema including the benedictions connected with it. He as a rule used to sit among the congregants. After he was through, another man was invited to stand up before the pulpit facing the direction of Jerusalem to recite the prayer proper, i.e., the Amida (seven benedictions on Sabbaths and holidays, and eighteen on week days). On Sabbaths and Festivals the first precentor recited the morning-prayer (Shachrith), and the second additional-prayer (Musaf). The office of the second precentor was regarded as superior to the first. This custom has survived to the present day, and has influenced the song, in so much as the music of the Musaf is greater in quantity and more elaborate than that of the Shachrith.
. . .Together with the Psalms and parts of the Jewish ritual, the early Christians transplanted the institution of the precentor from the Synagogue into the Church. Just as in the Synagogue so also in the Church the solo recitation of the precentor became the chief part of the service. Similarly, the responsive form used in the Temple and the Synagogue was adopted by the Church, especially short refrains such as Amen, Hallelujah, Hosanna. The singer was called cantor, præcentor, pronunciator psalmi. Originally, in the Church, too, there was the reader (lektor) and the singer (cantor). The latter did not officiate in the Mass. As in the Synagogue so also in the Church an elevated stand was erected for the lektor from which place he read the Scriptures. However, gradually the precentor gave way to the choir; the choral antiphonal song replaced the solo recitation. Thus, the precentor has vanished completely in some churches, and in some churches this role has been reduced to an insignificant function; whereas in the Synagogue, the precentor preserved his importance in the service.25
The connection that Idelsohn developed between the chazzan and the church is an exciting one. Unfortunately, the bulk of it falls into the same error as the shaliach tzibbur. The source references he cites are typically fourth-century or later documents.
If one takes the general idea of chazzan in a more primitive form as a beadle in the first century, it fits better than the shaliach tzibbur.
Initial versions of this article promoted that the idiom actually may be the evolution of the Jewish office of the מתורגםן, meturgeman. However, further analysis revealed this insufficient.26
The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the meturgeman as:
The weekly lesson from the Pentateuch and the Prophets was read by a member of the congregation, and the meturgeman had to translate into the vernacular the Pentateuchal lesson verse by verse; . . . He did not limit himself to a mere literal translation, but dilated upon the Biblical contents, bringing in haggadic elements, illustrations from history, and references to topics of the day.27
The meturgeman was an office in the Jewish Aramaic world. Information on the equivalents or derivatives of a Jewish-Hellenist one are lacking.
The meturgeman died out as an active part of the Jewish liturgy around 1000 AD.28
Epiphanius described something potentially similar to the meturgeman being practiced in the early church, and this may add to the clue. The occupation of the meturgeman has a role in the Corinthian narrative but not in the context of the ἀναπληρῶν.29
The meturgeman, like the shaliach tzibbur, may have had a more primitive earlier form. Either of these potentially fit the description of the ἀναπληρῶν. This connection is very much in the subjective realm and has no concrete evidence. The chance of this being the correct interpretation is not good.
The shaliach tzibbur and the meturgeman are close approximations but neither are entirely satisfactory. The chazzan has more potential but there remains holes in this approach too. This mystery requires more information to solve.
Another clue is in a fifth-century or later text attributed to Cyril of Alexandria. They preferred to use the word κείμενος, keimenos, instead. Perhaps the writer believed the expression of the ἀναπληρῶν was an archaic word, or that it was a Doric expression that made no sense to the Alexandrian hearer.
The Cyril text would suggest an English paraphrase like this; “how will the person who helps the audience of the laypeople understand say the ‘Amen’?” Or as a paraphrase, “how would the person who takes a thought, speech, language, or argument, and clearly explains it to the regular common folk articulate in a way that they understand, say the ‘Amen’?”
According to Paul’s writing, the ἀναπληρῶν was distinctly tied into saying the amen. This relationship gives two options to pursue. If the ἀναπληρῶν is a person or office representing the congregation, then he would say amen on their behalf. If this word refers to the congregation or assembly, then it is the congregation saying amen..
This naturally makes one ask several questions. What did the Church and the Synagogue do throughout the centuries? Did the congregation or an individual on behalf of the congregation say amen? Analyzing their liturgies about the amen may serve as a source of interpretation for the original ἀναπληρῶν.
The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit the congregation saying a twofold amen, but the citations are less about liturgy and more about affirming community standards.32
The DSS does not produce enough clues. Once again, we are caught with the problem of later texts. What we do possess are likely redactions. The church was not overly concerned about maintaining a static liturgy based on earlier textual traditions but constantly adapting the liturgy to meet their current needs.33
At least in the case of Christian liturgical papyri, only one dates from the third century, and only a few exist from the fourth and fifth century.34
Even though this is true, it is desirable to see the outcome of such a problematic thesis of connecting later documents with earlier practices. Perhaps, one can look at the later ones to build at least a primitive picture of earlier times. For the sake of intellectual curiosity, we will let this theory run its course.
Christian Liturgies and the Amen
A preliminary answer is through the book, The Greek Liturgies: Chiefly from Original Authorities by C. A. Swainson. He compiled, published, and compared the liturgies and various manuscripts. The name of the liturgies are after high profile figures such as St. Mark, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. James, and more.
A personal examination of the various christian liturgies demonstrates they all have the congregation saying the amen. An intermediary of the congregation, who is called a deacon, never said the amen on their behalf.35
One could argue the aspect of the amen in the church did not change throughout each epoch. Consequently, the christian liturgies suggest ἀναπληρῶν as a congregational act. In opposition to this, the Alexandria idea of the κείμενος discussed above disrupts such a unified claim. This likely is no surprise to Ágnes T. Mihálykó, who recently completed her doctorate in ancient christian liturgies. She believes that there was no uniform liturgical development in early Egyptian Christianity.36
Jewish Liturgy and the Amen
An analysis of Jewish liturgies generally concludes that the congregation said the amen, but there was a definite exception.
The Kaddish is a Jewish prayer that honors the glory of God. Numerous different forms of this prayer are used in the Jewish community, including several forms which are used during daily prayer in a synagogue, shul, or temple. In addition, a special form of the Kaddish is said by mourners, causing some people to associate it specifically with mourning.38
This prayer usually concludes with the leader saying, וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן, veʼimru amen,, “and let us say amen”39 and the congregation following with an amen.
David de Sola Pool, a leading Jewish scholar during the mid-1900s, published a well-written and researched dissertation on the kaddish.40 The following quote goes into more details than necessary but if the reader takes a few moments, there are some important thoughts.
אָמֵן properly Hebrew meaning ‘verily, truly’ . . . is also a naturalised loan word in Aramaic and cannot therefore support the vocalisation ואִמְרו. As a response, it is used liturgically in the Old Testament and, a fact of special interest here, to seal closing doxologies. It was taken over very freely by the Christian Church and occurs 119 times in the New Testament. The Tanna R. Jose b. Zimra distinguishes three uses of שבועה : אמן affirmation, קבלה acceptance and אמונה faith. It was used constantly in daily life and in the synagogue service, and great importance was attached to it as a response, since it is the equivalent to saying the whole blessing. Therefore every doxology required an אמן from the congregation to complete it—the אמן of קבלה, the reader prompting with ואמרו אמן, the congregation responding אמן.41
On another note, if one looks at the lineage of the shaliach tzibbur in the post-Temple tradition, he is not to say amen on behalf of the congregation. This assertion especially relates to when a priest gives the priestly blessing. There was a point in late medieval times where this was a source of conflict. Only the congregation is to perform this affirmation in this circumstance.42
Peter J. Tomson provides a compelling argument that the congregation said the amen and provided a definitive connection to Jewish law.
Third, Paul’s argument presupposes that one who responds ‘Amen’ must have heard and understood the blessing. This is exactly what is stated in a halakha in the Tosefta, as explained in the Palestinian Talmud:
One should not answer with an “orphanized Amen” אמן יתומהת, nor a “snatched” Amen. . . What is an “orphanized Amen”? Rav Huna said: Someone obliged to say a blessing who responds [Amen] without having heard what he is responding to.”
This halakha is given an aggadic explanation by Ben Azzai, early second century CE, which allows a late first-century dating. 1Cor 14:16 brings us back another century.
Here we see Paul applying a set of halakhot regarding benedictions to the gentile church. As we shall see later the possibility of this application to gentiles is already present in the Rabbinic halakha and in itself no invention of Paul’s.43
Post-Temple Jewish practice leans towards the ἀναπληρῶν as the congregation saying amen and traces of such a theme can go back to the first century.
The reader is asking by this time, what did Paul understand the ἀναπληρῶν to mean? Although there are no concrete links to a single definitive solution, one has enough information to speculate on three possibilities.
The first: that it was an act of the congregation affirming a message, instruction, Bible reading, or prayer. If any of the above presentations were in a foreign language they did not understand, nor the provision of a simultaneous translation, then they could not say amen.
The second: that it was an act of a person representing the congregation affirming a message, instruction, Bible Reading, or prayer. The person could say the amen if he understood the language or the translation. The congregation would then follow his lead and respond amen after his prompting.
The third is an extrapolation of the second. The ἀναπληρῶν was a person who not only led the affirmation but acted as an intermediary between the leadership and the laity. The duty of the ἀναπληρῶν was to ensure understanding for the lay-people. His job was to transpose high priestly thoughts, complex lectures, liturgical themes and practices, religious jargon, or any difficult instruction for the average person to understand. The ἀναπληρῶν would unpack them in easy to comprehend concepts so that the congregation could follow him with an amen.
If the presentation was done in a language unfamiliar to the ἀναπληρῶν nor was a translation given, then he could not fulfill his duty. He could not give an amen because both himself and the congregation understood nothing.
My preference is the third option.
Some Charismatics and Pentecostals may want to add a fourth possibility after reading this document. The thinking may go this way. Paul thought the ἀναπληρῶν as someone who could evaluate whether a person was in a genuine state of linguistic ecstasy or a counterfeit. In this condition, the ἀναπληρῶν affirmed on behalf of the congregation the ecstatic message given by the presenter.
There is no documentation on this connection from a Charismatic or Pentecostal perspective. Pentecostals and Charismatics may naturally arrive at this conclusion based on their framework of Corinthian tongues being a language of ecstasy, jubilation, or a heavenly language.
This interpretation is not valid as it has no historical basis. There is no support from ancient jewish or christian literature to substantiate any claim of this nature.
This journey has uncovered later standardized liturgical rites that assist in understanding Paul’s world. However, one must remain cautious. Liturgical rites were still in flux during Paul’s time. It is difficult to reverse-engineer the later representations into a form that one could definitely attach the ἀναπληρῶν.
It is unfortunate that the English translators hardly, if at all, note the difficulty behind this word.
If this article’s foray into the meaning of this word does not suffice for the critical reader, it at least demonstrates that the meaning is complex and difficult to achieve any closure. At the minimum, one can accurately state that there is not enough data to conclude any fixed outcome. If that is the case, we should leave it transliterated in the English Bible without any reference to its definition. Any explanation should be left in the footnotes.
- transliteration provided by the lexilogos website. The article previously had it transliterated as anaplêrôn.
- or ànaplērõn
- For more extensive information see my complete series on the Tongues of Corinth
- The above three Bible samples taken from the Biblehub website.
- These two Bible samples taken from the Biblehub website.
- For more on the Doric language and Corinth, see my article, Greek, Hellenic Judaism and the problem tongues of Corinth
- E.A Sophocles. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1900. Pg. 149
- A Patristic Greek Lexicon. G.H. Lampe ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1978. Pg. 117
- Stephanus Vol. 1. Col. 506; my translation from the Latin.
- A. Chassang. Dictionnaire Grec-Française. Paris: Garnier Frères. 1865. No page numbers in book.
- BAGD 1979. Pg. 59
- This is from an 1878 version found at Google books. הברית החדשה There a number of versions floating around claiming to be his original copy. This is the closest I could find to the original.
- See Bibliotheca Augustana for side by side comparison of the standard and Theodotion versions of the LXX.
- Paul Bradshaw. Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal30-06-2008
- Peter J. Tomson. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. 1990. Pg. 143
- Jewish Music: Its historical Development
- “A beadle, sometimes spelled “bedel”, is an official of a church or synagogue who may usher, keep order, make reports, and assist in religious functions; or a minor official who carries out various civil, educational, or ceremonial duties on the manor.” —Wikipedia
- This is not a mispelling. “A precentor is a person who helps facilitate worship.” —Wikipedia
- Abraham Zebi Idelsohn. Jewish Music: Its historical Development. New York: Dover Publications. 1992. Originally published 1929. Pg. 106–107
- Abraham Zebi Idelsohn. Jewish Music: Its historical Development. New York: Dover Publications. 1992. Originally published 1929. Pg. 108
- Thank you to Bruce Edminster for pointing out this error.
- There are few pieces of literature on the history and demise of the meturgeman, and it leaves one to guess. We do know from Ecclesiastes Rabbah,compiled somewhere between the sixth-to-eighth centuries, that there were tension and negativity associated with this office. The phasing-out may have been earlier. See The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church for more details.
- see A Translation of Epiphanius on the Tongues of Corinth for more information.
- Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini In D. Joannis Evangelium etc., Edited by P. Pusey. Oxonii: Claredonian. 1872. Pg. 296. For a digitized version see Cyril of Alexandria on Tongues: the Original Texts under the 14:16–17 header.
- My translation
- It is quite common throughout the Scrolls, especially in rules about the community. “Amen” as searched in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill. 1999. I also looked into liturgical Psalm reading and other sources outside this book but found nothing of importance. My survey was a general one, and there may be additions to the statement about the amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls at a later date.
- Ágnes T. Mihálykó. The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction. An academia.edu introductory work promoting her full book. Pg. 2 “Because liturgical manuscripts tend to be designed for practical use, they reflect the actual usage of their community, rather than preserve antiquarian versions of texts no longer recited.”
- Ágnes T. Mihálykó. The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction. An academia.edu introductory work promoting her full book. Pg. 7 “The fact that there is only one specimen from the third century, and relatively few from the fourth and fifth, poses limits to the ‘search for the origins of Christian worship’ based on the papyri.”
- C. A. Swainson. The Greek Liturgies: Chiefly from Original Authorities. Cambridge: The University Press. 1884. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has an official Greek-English Liturgical text that contains numerous ancient liturgies.
- Ágnes T. Mihálykó. The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction. An academia.edu introductory work promoting her full book. Pg. 7 “The rewards of taking into account a wide range of anaphoras preserved on papyrus can be seen in the studies of Alistair C. Stewart and Bryan Spinks. With the help of their inclusive source basis they have questioned the prevailing notion that the Alexandrian church had only one typical anaphora structure, that of the anaphora of St. Mark, and have instead demonstrated that anaphora development in Egypt was far from uniform”
- There was a weak reference to a leader first stating an amen after the recitation of certain Psalms followed by the congregation, but there is little or no substantiation, so I will not add this to the list of a leader saying amen followed by the congregation.
- What is the Kaddish by Mary McMahon, July 20, 2020.
- My translation. Most translations have “say amen.”
- “Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool (May 16, 1885-December 1, 1970) was the foremost Sephardic rabbi in the United States during the middle decades of the 20th century.”https://www.jewishideas.org/article/rabbi-dr-david-de-sola-pool-sephardic-visionary-and-activist
- David de Sola Pool. The Kaddish: Inaugural–Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Leipzig: Druck von W. Drugulin. 1909. Pg. 42
- Shulchan Arukh: Orach Chaim 128:19 “אין ש”ץ רשאי לענות אמן אחר ברכה של כהנים: ” “The cantor is not permitted to answer “Amen” after the kohanim’s blessing.” –Hebrew text and translation as found at sefaria.org. Cantor in this instance is an English way of referring to the shaliach tzibbur. The Shulchan Arukh is a systematization of Jewish Law first produced in 1563 AD.
- Peter J. Tomson. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. 1990. Pg. 144