The Un’taneh Tokef, the Dies Irae, and Romanos’ Parousia: Evidence of Liturgical Conversation between the Church and the Synagogue

On Rosh Hashanah, it is inscribed, and on Yom Kippur, it is sealed — how many shall pass away and how many shall be born, who shall live and who shall die, who in good time, and who by an untimely death, who by water and who by fire, who by sword and who by wild beast, who by famine and who by thirst, who by earthquake and who by plague, who by strangulation and who by lapidation, who shall have rest and who wander, who shall be at peace and who pursued, who shall be serene and who tormented, who shall become impoverished and who wealthy, who shall be debased, and who exalted. But repentance, prayer, and righteousness avert the severity of the decree.1

Perhaps the most moving prayer in the High Holiday services is the Un’taneh Tokef (We Attribute Power). It is recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in the prayers leading into the Kedushah before the open ark. The prayer describes how God judges all creatures on the earth below and the angels above. God’s creatures pass before him like sheep beneath the shepherd’s staff. On Rosh Hashanah their reward or fate is inscribed and on Yom Kippur it is sealed. The prayer inspired contemporary arrangements, such as that of Yair Rosenblum and the famous rendition by Leonard Cohen.2

The Un’taneh Tokef is a piyyut “a term from the Greek poietes (poet) denoting a form of poetic composition for synagogue use.”3 The prayer is considered a silluk, the finale of a series of piyyutim leading into the Kedushah.4 Jewish tradition attributes the prayer to Rabbi Amnon of Mainz, a legendary 11th-century sage. Orthographic, linguistic, and structural evidence, however, suggests the prayer is much older. It is perhaps an early Byzantine composition from the Land of Israel. Much more interesting is its relationship to the Roman Dies Irae (Day of Wrath) and the Byzantine Parousia by Romanos. A comparison suggests an early Jewish-Christian liturgical conversation in theme and hymn structure.5

History and Origins

Legendary Origins

The thirteenth-century work, Or Zaru’a, attributed to Chaim ben Issac, describes the legend of R. Amnon of Mainz. The oldest account is found in a marginal note, the Vilna edition of the b. Talmud, folio 36a, circa 1400.6 According to the legend, Amnon was a revered sage in Mainz who had become friends with the Archbishop. After some time, the Archbishop pressed Amnon to convert to Christianity. Amnon wavered in his faith, finally agreeing to meet the Archbishop at his cathedral and undergo conversion. However, as the High Holidays approached, he regained his faith, changed his mind, and did not meet the bishop at the appointed time. Enraged, the bishop had Amnon arrested, ordered his hands and feet cut off, and sent Amnon home on top of a shield. The following Rosh Hashanah, Amnon was carried into the synagogue for the Mussaf prayer. As the Hazzan was about to recite the Kedushah, Amnon stopped him and asked that the Hazzan allow him to recite a prayer.

Rabbi Amnon recited his awe-inspiring composition, the Un’taneh Tokef, and then expired. Three days later, Rabbi Amnon appeared in a dream to R. Kalonymus ben Meshullam of Mainz . . . and taught him the prayer. He [Kalonymus] wrote it down as a memorial to the martyrdom of Rabbi Amnon so that all congregations should recite it on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.7

Early Byzantine Origins

While this legend has great homiletical value, historians wonder about the historicity of the account. First, there is no corroborative evidence apart from the marginal note of the existence of the sage. Second, elements in the legend suggest it evolved as a homily teaching the importance of faithfulness in the face of persecution as Jews approach the High Holidays. The name אמנן Amnon is a variation of אמונה, faith, because the story depicts a sage’s faith through his martyrdom, or kedushat hashem, sanctifying God’s name. Moreover, the lesson teaches Jews to persevere in the face of persecution and come before God on the High Holidays, with resilience as Amnon did. Third, there was another legendary martyr who lived earlier, Amnon of Oria in Southern Italy, who was also martyred for his faith in 925 CE, and the story of Amnon of Mainz may have grown out of this historical event.8

An older version of the prayer was found in the Machzor Yannai, a collection of piyyutim attributed to the unknown poet Yannai, who lived in the Galilee in the late fifth century CE. This places its composition during the Byzantine period. A surviving fragment is contained in Or. 5557. G, folio 68a in the British Museum.9 Zulay suggested that even if there existed an Amnon of Mainz and any part of the legend was historical, the original note in the Vilna Talmud never claimed that Amnon wrote the poem, but merely that he recited and perhaps adapted it.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the ונתנה תוקף originated . . . during the Byzantine rule. The German legend does not state that R Amnon composed the poem but that he recited it before his death.10

Moreover, the piyyut has thematic and structural elements resembling early Byzantine liturgy known as kontakion. The similarities suggest an early Jewish-Christian liturgical conversation, which will be discussed below.11 These structural similarities place the composition in the early Byzantine period. Wieder placed the composition as early as the third century CE, reasoning that its poetic structure is simpler than later Byzantine piyyutim. Moreover, it lacks many of the flourishes and complexities found in fifth through eighth-century compositions.

The . . . u-nethanneh toqef . . . seems certainly to ante-date the rise of the artistic piyyut, as may be inferred from the simplicity of its style which is devoid of the artificial devices of the paytanic productions.12

Origins in the Land of Israel

There is significant evidence that the piyyut was composed in the land of Israel between the third and fifth centuries CE. First, an early fragment containing the piyyut was found in the Cairo Genizah storehouse and among manuscripts from the land of Israel. Moreover, fragment 5557 G, folio 67b-68b contains Palestinian rather than Babylonian pointing.13 Second, the prayer contains numerous quotations from sources from the land of Israel, including the Mishnah, Genesis Rabbah, Pirkei Avot, and the Jerusalem Talmud. Two citations in the Babylonian Talmud were also found in the Jerusalem Talmud.14 Below are examples of citations from sources in the Jerusalem Talmud. The citations below follow the Sefaria community translation and paragraph arrangement.15

Who judges, and reproves, who knows all (¶ 2, Pirkei Avot 4:28-29)

You remember all things that are forgotten (¶ 2, m. Ta’anit 2:4)

In it lies each person’s insignia (¶ 2, Sifrei d’varim, p. Berakhot 8:2)

How many will pass away…how many will be born (¶ 4, m. Pirkei Avot 5:21)

Repentance, prayer, and righteousness avert the severe decree (¶ 4, Gen. R 44:12; p. Ta’anit 2:1)

If they repent, you receive them immediately (¶ 5, Pirkei Avot 5:11)

But You are the king who lives eternal. (¶ 6, Shacharit Yotseir)16

Third, the formula, ותשובה, ותפלה, וצדקה, repentance, prayer, and righteous deeds avert the severe decree, found in the Jerusalem Talmud, p. Ta’anit 2:1, are worded differently in the Babylonian Talmud, צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעש, charity, crying out, changing one’s names, and changing one’s deeds (b. Rosh Hashanah 16b), further suggesting an earlier formulation.17 Fourth, the prayer contains an obscure phrase that is difficult to translate,
כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן, kiv’nei maron. This phrase is found in m. Rosh Hashanah 2:1

וְכָל בָּאֵי עוֹלָם יַעַבְרוּן לְפָנֶיךָ כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן All creatures…parade before you as a herd of sheep18

כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם עוֹבְרִין לְפָנָיו כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן All creatures pass before Him like sheep (m. Rosh. 1:2)19

However, the word מָרוֹן is not attested elsewhere, and Jastrow defined it to mean sheep merely based on traditional interpretations.20 In b. Rosh Hashanah 18a, sages attempted to translate the phrase, concluding it is a תרגימו, a foreign word.21 Wieder argues it is a corruption of a Greek phrase כבנומרון ki[vi]numeron, from the Greek νουμερον meaning a troop of soldiers. “And all mankind passes before Him like a troop of soldiers.”22 Golinkin explains, “In other words, the Mishnah says that God counts us on Rosh Hashanah as soldiers are counted, one at a time.”23

This reading is attested in older copies of the prayer and Jerusalem Talmud: (a) The Genizah text of the prayer in the British Museum Or. 5557. G, fol. 68a, (b) the 1929 Kaufmann Codex edition, and (c) the 1523 edition of the Jerusalem Talmud p. Ta’anit 2:1. The spelling is preserved. However, the phrase is divided into two words in (d) MS. Parma 3007, (e) MS Halberstamm 67, (f) the Mahzor Roma Casal Maggiore 1485, and (g) Mahzor Roma Rimini 1521.24 The Greek phrase in early manuscripts further supports an early Byzantine composition in the land of Israel.25

Taken together, the poetic structure, orthographic evidence of the obscure phrase kivinumeron, paleographic evidence of the Palestinian pointing of fragment 5557 folio 67–68, and the prayer’s inclusion with other Palestinian fragments in the Cairo Genizah point to its composition in the land of Israel in the early Byzantine period.

Church and Synagogue in Liturgical Conversation

Two medieval Christian hymns looking forward to the Day of Judgment share enough similarity to the Un’taneh Tokef that scholars believe there was an historical connection with the earlier piyyut. They are the Byzantine Kontakion, and the Roman Catholic Dies Irae.

Kontakion

Romanos the Melodist was a late 6th-century Hebrew-Christian hymn composer living in Constantinople. He composed Byzantine hymns known as Kontakion, poetic hymns, and sermons in the Byzantine liturgical tradition, which were made up of multiple stanzas rooted in the Syriac Church tradition.26 Church tradition held that Romanos was “of the Hebrew Race” and that he included Hebrew words and forms in his compositions.27

It appears that Romanos was born a Jew and that he occupied a high office at the imperial court . . . one will probably see a confirmation of this fact in the absence of almost all anti-Jewish polemics in his hymns.28

In Wieder’s study of Romanos’ Kontakion, he argues it is structured similar to Jewish piyyutim, and contains references to themes found in the Mishnah and the Un’taneh Tokef.

Dies Irae

Thomas of Celano (1200–1265) a Franciscan hymnist is believed to have written the Dies Irae (The Day of Wrath).29 This Latin poem describes the last judgment on which the trumpet is sounded, and God judges the living and the dead. It is structured in 19 stanzas, each building in crescendo ending with “Pie Jesu Domine, Dona eis requiem. Amen.” (Pious Lord Jesus, Give them rest).30

Comparison

Wieder analyzed the themes and structure of both Romanos’ Parousia and Celano’s Dies Irae, showing that they follow those of the Un’taneh Tokef, suggesting a liturgical conversation. “The resemblance is obvious. While some motifs go back to Daniel 7, the motifs . . . show Jewish-apocalyptic sources for Romanos’ hymn and the Dies Irae.”31 The following comparison (see Exhibit A on page 69) is from Planer.32

The parallels indicate a liturgical conversation between early Christian and Jewish Liturgy. While Prelipcean argues that the Parousia reflects Romanos’ Jewish background, Werner claims the conversation was both ways. Prelipcean notes the Jewish apocalyptic themes, similar structure to the Un’taneh Tokef, and Jewish words Romanos borrowed.33 Werner explains, however, that the poetic structure of piyyutim was influenced by early Byzantine and Greek forms.

The external form of Jewish hymns betrays unmistakable Byzantine traces. The Byzantine and the Latin poems [Dies Irae] show the same Jewish conceptions but are couched in typically Byzantine [and] Middle Latin fashion; the Latin stanzas with the three rhyming lines. 34

Werner argues from the following: (a) Internal acrostics in Byzantine Kontakion borrow from Biblical and post-Biblical forms. (b) Many lines of the Un’taneh Tokef are isosyllabic, that is, poetic verses where each line has a fixed number of syllables. Werner suggests that it was uniformly isosyllabic in its original composition. He cites the 11th-century manuscript by Anatoli of Otranto.35 Moreover, Planer’s arrangement of the prayer in 45 lines suggests it was isosyllabic.36 (c) Themes: “The diction of early [Byzantine] hymns [is] inseparably connected with and replete with biblical, Talmudic, and midrashic passages and illusions.”37

In summary, the Un’taneh Tokef, Dies Irae, and Romanos’ Parousia are case studies of a Jewish-Christian liturgical conversation that took place from the 3rd to 5th centuries CE through the 11th century. This conversation is evident in the thematic content, structure, and language of three important pieces still recited today. While it seems that early Byzantine hymns were rooted in Jewish themes, it also appears that Jewish piyyutim were influenced by Byzantine culture. An influential composer amid this conversation was an early Hebrew-Christian still venerated in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Implications for Messianic Judaism

A study of the Jewish-Christian liturgical conversation evident in the Un’taneh Tokef leads to three implications. First, it is evidence of the early Jewish legacy in the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition. Romanos was among many Hebrew Christians significant in the early Church who contributed liturgy and theology and exercised leadership. His Parousia is one of many hymns carrying forward. While this discussion was limited to the Un’taneh Tokef, the Peri Pascha is also worthy of mention. It is one more example of Hebrew-Christian contribution to ancient Christian liturgy. The Peri Pascha was a Passion liturgy composed by Melito of Sardis (190 CE), following the order and structure of the Haggadah. Many scholars suggest it was used for early Paschal Feasts, making it the oldest example of a Hebrew-Christian Haggadah.38

Second, this Jewish-Christian conversation is evidence of the Christian contribution to Jewish liturgical development. Jewish prayer evolved and grew under the shadow of the Church. It was influenced by Christian culture. This is evident in the Byzantine style of the piyyut, and it is heard among the European melodies of Jewish chant. Third, it is evidence that the so-called parting of the ways happened over many centuries, not decades. While Romanos’ Parousia is dated in the 6th century, the Dies Irae may be as late as the 11th century, yet still bears the Hebrew-Christian fingerprints of the Church’s Jewish legacy.

Perhaps the parting of the ways is entirely open-ended. As the Church continues to unearth Jewish contributions buried in her liturgical traditions, it reminds us of the theological and liturgical connection between the Church and the Synagogue.

---

1. 1 “ונתנה תקף,” Sefaria.org, https://www.sefaria.org/Unetaneh_Tokef, 4.

2. 2 Leonard Cohen, Who by Fire, Who by Water, Song (Los Angeles: CBS Records, 1974), https://genius.com/Leonard-cohen-who-by-fire-lyrics.

3. 3 Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer: The Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rites (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1996), 26.

4. 4 Nulman, 29.

5. 5 I am grateful for the work of Eric Werner (“Hebrew and Oriental Christian Metrical Hymns: A Comparison.” Hebrew Union College Annual 23, no. 2 [1950]) for his analysis of the similarities of these prayers; Alexandru Prelipcean (“Γένος Μέν Ἐξ Ἑβραίων or the Jewish Origin of Romanos the Melodist,” Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu 11, no. 2 [February 2019]), who explored the history of this liturgical conversation; and John Planer (“The Provenance, Dating, Allusions, and Variants of Un’taneh Tokef and Its Relationship to Romanos’s Kontakion,” Journal of Synagogue Music 38 [Fall 2013]) for his exhaustive critical study of the text of the Un’taneh Tokef.

6. 6 Gotthard Deutsch, “Amnon of Mayence,” in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Kopleman Foundation, 1906), 525, https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1416-amnon-of-mayence-mentz.

7. 7 Nulman, 805.

8. 8 Who by Fire, Who By Water: Un’taneh Tokef, ed. Lawrence Hoffman (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2010), 19.

9. 9 Naphtali Wieder, “A Controversial Mishnaic and Liturgical Expression,” Journal of Jewish Studies 18, no. 3 (1967): 3.

10. 10 Eric Werner, “Hebrew and Oriental Christian Metrical Hymns: A Comparison.” Hebrew Union College Annual 23, no. 2 (1950), 425.

11. 11 Werner.

12. 12 Wieder, 3.

13. 13 Planer, 175, 179.

14. 14 Planer, 176–77.

15. 15 “ונתנה תקף.” https://www.sefaria.org/Unetaneh_Tokef?tab=contents

16. 16 Planer, 176–77.

17. 17 Planer, 174.

18. 18 “ונתנה תקף,” para. 3.

19. 19 “M. Rosh Hashanah 1:2,” Sefaria.org, n.d., https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.1.2.

20. 20 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Online, vol. 1 & 2 (UK: Sepharia.org, 1903), 839.

21. 21 Planer, 173.

22. 22 Wieder, “Naphtali Wieder, ‘A Controversial Mishnaic and Liturgical Expression,’ Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1-4 (1967-1969),” 1.

23. 23 David Golinkin, “Essay: Solving a Mahzor Mystery,” The Jerusalem Post, October 8, 2005, Online edition, sec. Opinion, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/essay-solving-a-mahzor-mystery.

24. 24 Wieder, “Naphtali Wieder, ‘A Controversial Mishnaic and Liturgical Expression,’ Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1-4 (1967-1969),” 3.

25. 25 Planer, 173.

26. 26 John Phillimore, “Saint Romanos,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13154a.htm.

27. 27 Alexandru Prelipcean, “Γένος Μέν Ἐξ Ἑβραίων or the Jewish Origin of Romanos the Melodist,” Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu 11, no. 2 (February 2019), 199–208, https://doi.org/10.2478.

28. 28 P.Maas Cited in Werner, 424–25.

29. 29 Charles Habermann, “Dies Irae,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1913), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13154a.htm.

30. 30 “Dies Irae,” https://www.franciscan-archive.org/de_celano/opera/diesirae.html.

31. 31 Wieder, “Naphtali Wieder, ‘A Controversial Mishnaic and Liturgical Expression,’ Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1-4 (1967-1969),” 427.

32. 32 Planer, 182–83.

33. 33 Prelipcean.

34. 34 Werner, 428.

35. 35 Werner, 429.

36. 36 Planer, 168–69.

37. 37 Werner, 431.

38. 38 On Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and Other Material Related to the Quartodecimans, ed. Alistair Stewart-Sykes (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001).