1. Der Universitäts- und Landesbiblothek Düsseldorf, Ms. D 1, pp. 216^r-v (University and State Library Duesseldorf, urn:nbn:de:hbz:061:1-112892. The manuscript is a Third-Party Property [permanent loan by the City of Duesseldorf to the University and State Library Duesseldorf]). The images of the manuscript appearing in appendix B and in the notes to line 3 have been released under the CC-license CC BY-NC-ND.

2. See the version in Matthew 6:9–13 in the textual apparatus of Weber, Robertus, ed., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1983)Google Scholar, and in the apparatus of Deshusses, Jean, ed., Le sacramentaire Grégorien (Fribourg: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992), 1:91, 320Google Scholar.

3. Semmler, Josef, “Ein Karolingisches Meßbuch der Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf als Geschichtsquelle,” in Das Buch in Mittelalter und Renaissance, ed. Hiestand, Rudolf (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1994), 36–38, 46–47Google Scholar; Bischoff, Bernhard, “Die Liturgische Musik und das Bildungswesen im frühmittelalterlichen Stift Essen,” Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 157 (1955): 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finger, Heinz, “Spuren von Griechischkenntnissen in Frauenklöstern und Kanonissenstiften des frühen Mittelalters,” in Fromme Frauen als gelehrte Frauen, ed. Klueting, Edeltraud and Klueting, Harm (Köln: Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, 2010), 65–68Google Scholar.

4. For a fuller description of the physical condition of the manuscript and the basis for dating its different parts, see Huth, Volkhard, “Die Düsseldorfer Skaramentarhandschrift D 1 als Memorialzeugnis,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 20 (1986): 213–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. The Latin double consonants are normal in the words where they appear, follow typical orthography, and are therefore not indicative of how they were pronounced. Regarding the doubling in line 7 see the notes for that line.

6. Bourgain, Pascale and Hubert, Marie-Clotilde, Le latin médiéval (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 121Google Scholar. See also Politzer, Frieda N. and Politzer, Robert Louis, Romance Trends in 7^th and 8^th Century Latin Documents (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 13Google Scholar; Kent, Roland Grubb, The Sounds of Latin (Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press, 1932), 55, 57Google Scholar.

7. Rashbam's description might be illustrating the phonological reality he himself experienced in Ashkenaz/France; or possibly the phonological reality of the Sephardic sources he is quoting; or it might be a theoretical explanation for orthographic phenomena he encountered, with no basis in any phonological reality in the medieval Jewish world. See references in Ronela Merdler, “Rabbi Shemuel Ben Meir (Rashbam) ve-ha-dikduk ha-ʿivri” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2004), 99–100. For gemination in modern Ashkenazic Hebrew, see Morag, Shlomo, “Pronunciation of Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 2007), 16:558–59Google Scholar; and in Hebrew, Mishnaic, Bar-Asher, Moshe, Torat ha-ẓurot shel leshon ha-mishnah (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik and the Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2014), 1:71–72Google Scholar. Origen's attestation is not conclusive; see Yuditsky, Alexey Eliyahu, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit shel taʿatike Origenes (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2017), 36–43Google Scholar, especially paragraph 2.1.7.3.6 there, but also p. 233 n. 964.

8. See Bourgain and Hubert, Le latin médiéval, 123, and for early Latin, Kent, Sounds of Latin, 38.

9. As it is also in Greek. See Yuditsky, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit, 22–23.

10. Laufer, Asher, “Hirhurim ʿal ha-hagiyah ha-kedam-ʾashkenazit,” in Kol le-Yaʿakov, ed. Sivan, Daniel and Halevi-Kirtchuk, Pablo-Yitzhak (Beʾer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2003), 266Google Scholar; Morag, “Pronunciation of Hebrew,” 16:558; Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem and Leiden: Magnes and Brill, 1982), 15–17, 154Google Scholar; and Catane, Moshe, ʾOẓar le'aze Rashi (Jerusalem: self-pub., 2006), 2:13Google Scholar, and other remarks throughout both volumes illustrating how rare the usage of <ס> is in Rashi's transcriptions. These instances are usually attributed to later Italian additions.

11. Kent, Sounds of Latin, 41, 51, 60–62; Wright, Roger, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982), 106Google Scholar; Cravens, Thomas D., “Phonology, Phonetics, and Orthography in Late Latin and Romance: The Evidence for Early Intervocalic Sonorization,” in Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Wright, Roger (London: Routledge, 1991), 54–59Google Scholar; Carmen Pensado, “How Was Leonese Vulgar Latin Read?,” in Wright, Latin and the Romance Languages, 194. There is a similar phenomenon in Hebrew, discussed in Bar-Asher, Torat ha-ẓurot, 1:61–62, 64.

12. Bourgain and Hubert, Le latin médiéval, 121; Kent, Sounds of Latin, 52–54; Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance, 105–6; Pensado, “How Was Leonese Vulgar Latin Read?,” 194, 198.

13. See especially Kent, Sounds of Latin, 45–46; and Politzer and Politzer, Romance Trends, 7–10; Thomas J. Walsh, “Spelling Lapses in Early Medieval Latin Documents and the Reconstruction of Primitive Romance Phonology,” in Wright, Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages, 213; and in a different context in Bourgain and Hubert, Le latin médiéval, 120.

14. This is the reconstruction of Lapide, Pinchas, Hebrew in the Church, trans. Rhodes, Erroll F. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 7–8Google Scholar; Schulte, Joseph, “Ein Hebräisches Paternoster in einem Missale des 9. Jahrhunderts,” Biblische Zeitschrift 6 (1908): 48Google Scholar; and Carmignac, Jean, “Hebrew Translation of the Lord's Prayer: An Historical Survey,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Tuttle, Gary A. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 21Google Scholar.

15. Politzer and Politzer, Romance Trends, 11; Kent, Sounds of Latin, 148–49.

16. In fact, all these forms combined appear in the Hebrew Bible only four times: Exodus 19:22, Leviticus 10:3, 2 Chronicles 29:34, and 2 Chronicles 31:18.

17. These forms are rare also in rabbinic literature. See M. Tamid 1:4; Sifre Devarim, pis. 306 (Finkelstein ed., p. 342); Y. Berakhot 14a, Maʿaser Sheni 52c, Taʿanit 64b, and Kiddushin 64a; B. Rosh Ha-shanah 21b, Yevamot 79a, Ketubbot 59a, Kiddushin 6b, 7a, 48a, 51b, and 56b, Bava Kamma 99a, Bava Batra 143a, Ḥullin 115a; T. Kiddushin 4:2.

18. Segmentation of different levels of literacy skills can be found in Kanarfogel, Ephraim, “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory in the Jewish Communities of Medieval Europe,” in Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History, ed. Boustan, Raʿanan S., Kosansky, Oren, and Rustow, Marina (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 250–70, 397–404Google Scholar; Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith, “Learning to Read and Write in Medieval Egypt: Children's Exercise Books from the Cairo Geniza,” Journal of Semitic Studies 48 (2003): 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Difficult, but apparently not impossible. See Schulte, “Ein Hebräisches Paternoster,” 48.

20. Politzer and Politzer, Romance Trends, 7–10; Kent, Sounds of Latin, 45–47.

21. See ben Meir, Rabbi Shmuel (Rashbam), Dayyakut me-Rabbenu Shemuʾel, ed. Merdler, Ronela (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2000), 40, ll. 8–13Google Scholar.

22. Nehemiah 1:6, 11, and all other instances of the form תְּהִי modifying the word יָד and its declensions, or a subject-less clause.

23. See examples in Yuditsky, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit, 104–6.

24. Though the position that the suffix -ְךָ is synthetic and unnatural to the Hebrew tradition is no longer accepted in academic literature (see Blau, Joshua, Torat he-hege ve-ha-ẓurot shel leshon ha-mikraʾ [Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2010], 153–54, and n. 12Google Scholar), the suffix -ָךְ cannot be completely discarded. References to these sources can be found in Ben-Ḥayim, Zeʾev, “Ẓurat ha-kinuyim ha-ḥavurim ךָ, -תָ, -הָ- bi-mesorotehah shel ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit,” in Sefer Assaf, ed. Cassuto, Moshe David, Kelner, Joseph, and Guttman, Joshua (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1943), 66–99Google Scholar, as well as in Steiner, Richard C., “From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of -ָךְ and –ָהּ,” Hebrew Annual Review 3 (1979): 157–74Google Scholar.

25. Cravens, “Phonology, Phonetics, and Orthography,” 53–65; Pensado, “How Was Leonese Vulgar Latin Read?,” 191–96; Kent, Sounds of Latin, 51, 55.

26. See our discussion above of the word <hemalchuthah>.

27. Kent, Sounds of Latin, 40, 55–57, 64n3; one must also note that the letter is absent from the list in Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, 105–6.

28. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, ed. Parry, Donald W. and Tov, Emanuel, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2013)Google Scholar.

29. Kent, Sounds of Latin, 64n6.

30. Ibid., 67–68.

31. Ibid., 67.

32. Discussion of the early stages of this phenomenon can be found in Bar-Asher, Torat ha-ẓurot, 1:56–57. See also Yuditsky, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit, 79–80.

33. See the note provided in Schulte, “Ein Hebräisches Paternoster,” 48. This is also the transcription of the letter <צ> in the word ארץ in the next line.

34. Among the consonants suggested to explain this are [θ̣], [ṣ́], ['ɬ], and [t͡ɬʼ]. The exact identity of the consonant is of no consequence here, but one can find an extensive discussion and bibliography in Kogan, Leonid, “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, ed. Weninger, Stefan et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011), 54–151Google Scholar, and in Steiner, Richard C., The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1977)Google Scholar.

35. Federbush, Unlike Shimʿon, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1967), 140Google Scholar. For other pronunciations of this letter see Kent, Sounds of Latin, 54–55, 60–62; Bourgain and Hubert, Le latin médiéval, 121.

36. For a more detailed analysis on the ultrashort vowels in Mishnaic Hebrew see Bar-Asher, Torat ha-ẓurot, 1:56–57.

37. It is hard to address the erasure of the <a> at the end of line 4, as this appears to be an involuntary phenomenon relating to the end of all lines, the page being faded or otherwise worn.

38. One could perhaps suggest an improved breaking point in <kaua // samaim>. See Finger's note on the nature of the Greek-Latin translation: Finger, “Spuren von Griechischkenntnissen,” 79. See also Bischoff, “Die Liturgische Musik,” 192.

39. See McGrade, Michael, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Music, ed. Everist, Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 33–34Google Scholar.

40. See Kent, Sounds of Latin, 50.

41. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 8.

42. See Laufer, “Hirhurim ʿal ha-hagiyah ha-kedam-ʾAshkenazit,” 259–75.

43. Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim, 140; Schulte, “Ein Hebräisches Paternoster,” 48.

44. Kent, Sounds of Latin, 60–62, and similarly, Yuditsky, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit, 40. If the translator was Jewish or ex-Jewish, the likelihood of this increases, as a person of Jewish background might well use linguistic features of different registers and languages, or scribal practices from various regions; see Aslanov, Cyril, “From Latin into Hebrew through the Romance Vernaculars: The Creation of an Interlanguage Written in Hebrew Characters,” in Latin-into-Hebrew, ed. Fontaine, Resianne and Freudenthal, Gad (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1:69–84Google Scholar; Arenson, Sarah, “Medieval Jewish Seafaring between East and West,” in Seafaring and the Jews, ed. Kashtan, Nadav (London: Routledge, 2000), 33–46Google Scholar. This could be relevant to several of the linguistic notes in this paper, but especially here. It was verbally suggested to me that there could be a graphic change from the letter <y>, but as one cannot mistake the <g> appearing twice in succession, I think a phonetic explanation is best.

45. Bar-Asher, Torat ha-ẓurot, 1:62–63; Yuditsky, Dikduk ha-ʿivrit, 23–24; and in detail in Naeh, Shlomo, “Shete sugiyot nedoshot bi-leshon Ḥaza”l,” in Meḥkere Talmud B, ed. Bar-Asher, Moshe and Rosenthal, David (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 364–92Google Scholar. It is almost impossible to read an entire sentence in rabbinic literature, whether deriving from late ancient talmudic and midrashic texts or medieval texts, without encountering this trait.

46. Kent, Sounds of Latin, 58–59; Bourgain and Hubert, Le latin médiéval, 123.

47. Barring the conundrum of the letter <k> in line 4, for which I have no satisfactory solution.

48. I hesitantly add the letter <h> in the sequence <hz> that is possibly the vorlage of the letter <k> in line 4; see my notes there.

49. The reading here follows the reading offered in my discussion above, though alternate solutions exist.

50. Assuming the word <tuum> is read as a single syllable; see Kent, Sounds of Latin, 46.

51. See previous note.

52. Assuming the digraph <ie> was pronounced as two syllables. The remark of Kent, Sounds of Latin, 47, pertains to original Latin diphthongs that underwent monophthongization in speech as well as in writing, and not to the reading of new diphthongs that penetrated the language at a later stage. I also postulate that the four untranslated syllables were read aloud and were not merely graphic line fillers, since there is no clear graphic indication that they should not be read besides the fact that they remain untranslated, something that would not have been immediately obvious to choir members who were not fluent in Hebrew. If these words were not read, we are left with only six syllables.

53. The “natural” position of the vowel-letter <kauassamaim> is in this line and not the next; see Kent, Sounds of Latin, 62–64.

54. I have not counted the two (three? See my footnote to paragraph 1 in the list heading this section) instances of the letter <h>, which might have been consonantal, adding a bit to the length of the soundvoice.

55. I am discounting the letter <h> in the word <thamia> (see previous note), nor am I counting the letter <a> in that same line, as it can be read as a worn-out <d>. If it was actually intended to be an <a>, an entire syllable must be added to the count.

56. I am not counting the digraph <gg> as a consonant-vowel sequence (like Kent, Sounds of Latin, 60), as the resulting vowel sequence seems unlikely; but it is entirely possible that one should count seven syllables in this line instead of six.

57. See Susan Boynton, “Plainsong,” in Everist, Cambridge Companion to Medieval Music, 9–14. For a visualization of this, see Kelly, Thomas Forrest, Early Music: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Lines 1–4, and possibly line 6 (see the footnote pertaining to that line). Line 7 is less important here as it is the final bar and could be subject to different musical considerations than the other lines.

59. McGrade, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” 33; and see the discussion of line 5 above for other signs to indicate this to the choir.

60. See Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3^rd ed., rev. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 45Google Scholar.

61. For the Lord's Prayer as a standard part of church liturgy, see Boynton, “Plainsong,” 15. For the transference of a melody from one text to another, see Karp, Theodore, Aspects of Orality and Formularity in Gregorian Chant (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998), 162–79, 317–18Google Scholar.

62. For a survey of the history and textual state of the Sacramentarium Hadrianum, see Hen, Yitzhak, The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul (London: Boydell Press, 2001), 74–78, 140–47Google Scholar; and Semmler, “Ein Karolingisches Meßbuch,” 43–45.

63. Semmler, “Ein Karolingisches Meßbuch,” 46–47.

64. Hen, Royal Patronage, 74–78, 140–47; Hoffmann, Hartmut, Schreibschulen des 10. Und des 11. Jahrhunderts in Südwesten des Deutschen Reichs (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2004), 1:1–2Google Scholar.

65. Gamber, Klaus, Codices liturgici latini antiquiores (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Feiburg Schweiz, 1988), 1:412Google Scholar; suppl. vol. A1:101. The Imperial Abbey of Corvey in Germany and the medieval writing center of the same name should not be confused with the Corbie Abbey in France, though the names are similar. A colony from the Corbie Abbey founded the Imperial Abbey of Corvey in the ninth century.

66. Hoffmann, Hartmut, Buchkunst und Königtum im Ottonischen und Frühsalichen Reich, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1986)Google Scholar, chapter 4, “Corvey.”

67. Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance, XII–IX; Pensado, “How Was Leonese Vulgar Latin Read?,” 190–92, 201.

68. See Boynton, “Plainsong,” 11–12; McGrade, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” 26–45.

69. A summary of the history of these marks can be found in Boynton, “Plainsong,” 9–25; McGrade, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” 26–45. Details regarding the function of these marks in relation to the subject at hand can be found in Kelly, Early Music, 24–25; Robert Curry, “Music East of the Rhine,” in Everist, Cambridge Companion to Medieval Music, 177–79.

70. For a more in-depth review of Gregorian chant and its function, usage, and influence, see Boynton, “Plainsong,” 9–12, 17–20; Curry, “Music East of the Rhine,” 172–73; McGrade, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” 26–27; Kelly, Early Music, 14–24.

71. See Bischoff, “Die Liturgische Musik,” 191–94, especially p. 192. For the paleographic-philological background for this system, see McGrade, “Enriching the Gregorian Heritage,” 33–34, 38–39; Curry, “Music East of the Rhine,” 173–74.

72. In a similar way to the different readings of Riello, Giorgio, “Things That Shape History: Material Culture and Historical Narratives,” in History and Material Culture, ed. Harvey, Karen (London: Routledge, 2009), 24–46Google Scholar. One can obviously add to the scopes mentioned here. See, for example, Kathryn Margaret Rudy, “Kissing Images, Unfurling Rolls, Measuring Wounds, Sewing Badges and Carrying Talismans: Considering Some Harley Manuscripts through the Physical Rituals They Reveal,” Electronic British Library Journal (2011): 1–56.

73. This is an extremely broad topic, and much has been written about it. A comprehensive and detailed description would be out of place here, especially considering the vast time and regions the wide-ranging term “Middle Ages” covers, but suffice to say, outdated research delves into lachrymose historical description, with Jewish-Christian cooperation contextualized as isolated, sporadic events. See Kessler, Edward, An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 102–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a specifically linguistic context of such description, see Stacey, Robin Chapman, “Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century England: Some Dynamics of a Changing Relationship,” in Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Signer, Michael Alan and van Engen, John (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 340–45Google Scholar; Haramati, Shlomo, ʿIvrit ba-goyim (Jerusalem: Yaron Golan, 2002), 18–20Google Scholar. Some researchers have pointed out the affinity born of enmity, such as Albert, Bat-Sheva, “Adversus Iudaeos in the Carolingian Empire,” in Contra Iudaeos, ed. Limor, Ora and Stroumsa, Guy G. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 119–42Google Scholar; Geiger, Ari, “What Happened to Christian Hebraism in the Thirteenth Century?,” in Jews and Christians in Thirteenth-Century France, ed. Baumgarten, Elisheva and Galinsky, Judah (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 54–55Google Scholar. This type of description has since fallen out of favor, replaced by an attempt to redefine the relationships and boundaries between medieval Jews and Christians throughout the Middle Ages. See Kanarfogel, Ephraim, “Approaches to Conversion in Medieval European Rabbinic Literature: From Ashkenaz to Sefarad,” in Conversion, Intermarriage, and Jewish Identity, ed. Hirt, Robert S., Mintz, Adam, and Stern, Marc (New York: Urim, 2015), 217–57Google Scholar; Tartakoff, Paola, “Testing Boundaries: Jewish Conversion and Cultural Fluidity in Medieval Europe, c. 1200–1391,” Speculum 90 (2015): 728–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Examples of close relationships and mutual influences can be found in Kessler, Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations, 111–16; Haramati, ʿIvrit ba-goyim, 20–22; Geiger, Ari, “Bikoret parshanit ʿal perushim yehudiyim ba-perush ha-literali shel Nicholas de Lyra,” Shenaton le-ḥeker ha-mikra ve-ha-mizraḥ ha-kadum 18 (2008): 225–45Google Scholar; Geiger, “What Happened to Christian Hebraism?,” 49–63; Albert, “Adversus Iudaeos in the Carolingian Empire,” 119–42.

74. See Aslanov, “From Latin into Hebrew through the Romance Vernaculars,” 1:69–84, particularly pp. 82–84; Gad Freudenthal, “Latin-into-Hebrew in the Making: Bilingual Documents in Facing Columns and Their Possible Function,” in Fontaine and Freudenthal, Latin-into-Hebrew, 1:5968. Special mention should be made of Rosén, Haiim B., Hebrew at the Crossroads of Cultures (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 41–53Google Scholar, regarding Hebrew words that entered Latin. Some research has also gone into finding linguistic differences between the religious groups. See Fudeman, Kirsten A., Vernacular Voices (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 36–44, 57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75. Kessler, Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations, 119–23; Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim, 144–85.

76. See Haramati, ʿIvrit ba-goyim, 13–17; Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 7–19; Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim, 134–43; Geiger, “What Happened to Christian Hebraism?,” 49–63. Increased attention was given to this subject in the twelfth century, see Signer, Michael A., “Polemic and Exegesis: The Varieties of Twelfth-Century Hebraism,” in Hebraica veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. Coudert, Allison P. and Shoulson, Jeffrey S. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 21–32Google Scholar.

77. Rosén, Hebrew at the Crossroads of Cultures, 55–79, especially pp. 56–58, 61–64.

78. One might anecdotally refer to Geiger, “What Happened to Christian Hebraism?,” 55, regarding the rise of Christian knowledge of Hebrew in the thirteenth century: “This change is not surprising as diminished intellectual contact between Jews and Christians forced the Christians to develop an independent capacity to read Jewish texts.” See also p. 56, regarding the Dominican Hebrew schools.

79. Freudenthal, “Latin-into-Hebrew in the Making,” 1:64: “All Latin-into-Hebrew translators were Jews.” See also Albert, Bat-Sheva, “Anti-Jewish Exegesis in the Carolingian Period: The Commentaries on Lamentations of Hrabanus Maurus and Pascasius Radbertus,” in Biblical Studies in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Leonardi, Claudio and Orlandi, Giovanni (Firenze: Sismel Edizioni delGalluzzo, 2005), 176, 190–92Google Scholar. The position that “the Jewish Pseudo-Jerome” could not have been Christian is at least partially based on the idea that only a Jew would know any Hebrew; see Pseudo-Jerome, , Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel, ed. Saltman, Avrom (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 3–23Google Scholar; Gorman, Michael, “The Commentary on Genesis of Angelomus of Luxeuil and Biblical Studies under Lothar,” in Studi Medievali 40 (1999): 565n26, 589, 599–600Google Scholar.

80. See Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim, 139–40.

81. I have heard this argument verbally from several researchers.

82. The only problem that is still a thorn in my side is the letter <k> in line 4. As I do not have any satisfying explanation for this, I permit myself to ignore it at this time as it offers no evidence of a specific type of error that could hint at the philological history of this text, or the identity of the translator or scribe.

83. See Olszowy-Schlanger, “Learning to Read and Write in Medieval Egypt,” 47–69; Kanarfogel, “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory,” 250–70, 397–404; Ehrenschwendtner, Marie-Luise, “Literacy and the Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. Marsden, Richard E. and Matter, Ann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 704–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I will mention here the mistranslation of “sicut in celo & in terra,” and the grammatical sex of the word תהא. See also Karp, Aspects of Orality and Formularity, 4.

84. I leave this question to the historians, though I fear one cannot come to a definite answer regarding this text. Some knowledge of Hebrew circulated among Christians in the ninth century, but Christians also interacted with Jews at that time. See Smalley, Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 40–45, 77–82; Heil, Johannes, Kompilation oder Konstruktion? Die Juden in den Pauluskommentaren des 9. Jahrhunderts (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1998), 197–205Google Scholar. It should be noted that most works on the knowledge of Hebrew in the church are focused on exegesis using passive knowledge of Hebrew, and not on putting active skills to use in order to create a new text. See Albert, “Anti-Jewish Exegesis in the Carolingian Period,” 178. See also Kanarfogel, “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory,” 250–270, 397–404; Olszowy-Schlanger, “Learning to Read and Write in Medieval Egypt,” 47–69.

85. Wright, Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages; Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France; Rosén, Hebrew at the Crossroads of Cultures; Aslanov, “From Latin into Hebrew through the Romance Vernaculars,” 1:69–84; Bischoff, “Die Liturgische Musik,” 192; Finger, “Spuren von Griechischkenntnissen,” 65–68; Atkinson, Charles M. and Sachs, Klaus-Jürgen, “Zur Entstehung und Uberlieferung der ‘Missa Graeca,’” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 39 (1982): 113–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86. See Finger and Atkinson in the previous note.

87. Atkinson and Sachs, “Zur Entstehung und Uberlieferung,” 113–19, 132–41.

88. See Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 11.

89. Noted by Bischoff, “Die Liturgische Musik,” 192; Finger, “Spuren von Griechischkenntnissen,” 60–83 ; and Atkinson and Sachs, “Zur Entstehung und Uberlieferung,” 113–45. See also appendix B, where one can clearly see how the Greek Pater Noster was issued in Greek characters, while the Hebrew employed Latin characters.

90. This is illustrated also in the modern presentation of songs: usually, for known songs only the lyrics are shown, but in unfamiliar songs or in playing instructions such as sheet music the individual syllables are laid out. So, for example, in Carole King's “You've Got a Friend” one might spell it out as “you've got a frie - e - end.” This presentation would be vital to a performer who does not know the song well, especially if they are expected to sing it with little or no command of the English language; though this format is not representative of any dialect of spoken English outside of the realm of music. Melisma in Gregorian chant, including migrant melisma and melismatic notation, is discussed by Karp, Theodore, Aspects of Orality and Formularity in Gregorian Chant (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

91. See the reviews of Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim; Haramati, ʿIvrit ba-goyim; and Lapide, Hebrew in the Church. For example, one could suggest a musical background to some of the “strangeness” Lapide records in pp. 9–10 (though a thorough linguistic examination is obviously in order): the division of words might be congruent with musical measures, and the missing word “amen” might have been obvious to a professional singer practiced in the rendition of the Latin Lord's Prayer (which includes this word in the same musical position). These are only mere speculations, and every medieval Christian Hebrew text deserves its own particular reflection.

92. Binterim, Anton Joseph, Epistola Catholica Secunda (Mogontiacum [Mainz]: Müller, 1824), 119Google Scholar.

93. Nostitz-Rieneck, Robert von, “Essener Sacramentare,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 12 (1888): 732–33Google Scholar.

94. Schulte, “Ein Hebräisches Paternoster,” 48.

95. Federbush, Ha-lashon ha-ʿivrit be-Yisraʾel u-va-ʿamim, 140.

96. Ibid.

97. Carmignac, “Hebrew Translation of the Lord's Prayer,” 21.

98. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 7–8.

99. Semmler, “Ein Karolingisches Meßbuch,” 51–53.