# The Old Serbian Version of the *Antiochene Recension* of Samuel-Kings: Some Preliminary Issues in Textual Criticism

*Alessandro Maria Bruni ("Ca' Foscari" University of Venice)*

This paper deals with the second Church Slavonic (hereafter abbreviated as *Slav*) version of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings (1-4 Kingdoms in Septuagint), which was undertaken in the Balkan region (in all probability) in Serbia, no later than in the early fifteenth century<sup>1</sup> . It is today preserved in two Serbian manuscripts: one dating back to 1418 (National Research Library of Odessa, Ukraine, n° 6 = *Slav*O) 2 and the other 1523-1543 (Moscow, Russian State Library, f. 87 N° 1-1684, ff. 210-373 = *Slav*M) 3 . This translation closely replicates a recension of the Septuagint of 1-4 Kgdms that is commonly linked with the name of Lucian of Antioch, a theologian who was martyred in 312 CE and, accordingly, is widely known as the *Antiochene* or the *Lucianic* text (hereafter LXX*<sup>L</sup>* ). Research into the Lucianic *Slav* 1-4 Kgdms (hereafter *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* ) is still in the beginning stages. Consequently, this report is a work-in-progress paper. The few remarks offered here demonstrate how the study of this almost unexplored manuscript legacy is particularly relevant to the textual criticism of the Bible; its inclusion in comparative research may open new avenues of investigation into the textual history of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* .

#### 1. *The LXXL of Samuel-Kings and the Old Greek text*

The books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings (1-4 Kgdms) pose serious challenges for biblical scholars, given the major textual differences between the

<sup>1</sup> According to the colophon of *Slav*O (ff. 332-334), this version was carried out in 1416 (Popruženko 1894: 1-4). Authorship has been attributed to Constantine of Kostenets (ca. 1380- after 1427) or to his contemporary, the monk Gabriel of Hilandar, who is known for having rendered from Greek the Catena in Job (Thomson 1998: 762- 763). In Nikolova's view, the translation was however undertaken in the fourteenth century by a representative member of the Tarnovo Literary School (Nikolova 1995: 62). 2

Močul'skij 1890: 5-6; Popruženko 1894; Kopylenko *et al.* 1960: 550; Korol'-

kova *et al*. 1963. 3 Viktorov 1879: 3-4. This manuscript was discovered by Grigorovič in Ohrid (Grigorovič 1877: 184). Folios ff. 210-373 are thought to have been written by the Hieromonk Vissarion of Debar (See: Nikolova 1995: 62 and 1996: 363-402; Turilov 2004: 545).

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

*Contributi italiani al XVI Congresso Internazionale degli Slavisti. Belgrado, 20-27 agosto 2018*, a cura di Maria Chiara Ferro, Laura Salmon, Giorgio Ziffer, ISBN 978-88-6453-723-8 (online), ISBN 978-88- 6453-720-7 (print), CC BY 4.0, 2018 Firenze University Press Alessandro Maria Bruni, *The Old Serbian Version of the Antiochene Recension of Samuel-Kings: Some Preliminary Issues in Textual Criticism*, pp. 203-214, © 2018 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-6453- 723-8.17

, *Slav*O would preserve a text closer to the original than *Slav*M,

. Moreover, the Russian scholar was the first to estab-

remains unpublished and still awaits to be

and should

, whose authors

S.M. Kul'bakin undertook a comparative textual examination of some passages of 1 Sam (1 Kgdms) that he carried out by taking as a basis selected South and East Slavic sources dating from the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries. According to

since in 1 Sam 5:6,9; 6:4,18; 9:8, 23, 27; 10:2; 17:43; 19:4; 24:4 the latter would display textual contamination with the previously existing Slavonic version of the book, dating back to the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) period (late

 on a Lucianic model10. In more recent times, a number of other studies have also been produced. On the one hand, several readings from *Slav*O were included by D. Dunkov in his edition of the Old Church Slavonic (supposedly Glagolitic) version of 1-4

therefore not have been used for such a purpose12. On the other hand, S. Nikolova expressed the opinion that *Slav*O and *Slav*M derive from a common, untraced, exemplar of middle Bulgarian and not Serbian origin13. Finally, R.V. Bulatova

studied in detail: nowadays no systematic collation of its two testimonies, *Slav*<sup>O</sup> and *Slav*M, is available. Moreover, this tradition has not yet been investigated

were not aware of the existence of a Slavonic text15. This last point is not surprising since this secondary tradition is usually not even mentioned in studies dealing with the textual history of Samuel-Kings16. A rare exception is Tov's

to be thoroughly collated with evidence found in LXX and other secondary sources such

<sup>9</sup> Some scholars ascribe this earliest translation to Methodius, while others to Gregory the Presbyter (see: Thomson 1998: 758; Alekseev 1999: 120-122; Bruni 2016b: 437). 10 Kul'bakin 1901: 23, 44.

 is a new translation based on a different Greek prototype. <sup>13</sup> With the aim of substantiating the hypothesis of a Bulgarian origin of the translation, Nikolova (1995: 62) refers to Lavrov's (1914: 305-306) remarks concerning the use of nasal vowels in *Slav*<sup>M</sup>. These characters are, however, to be found in the first part of *Slav*M only, in which the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) Octateuch is preserved

Kgdms11, even though the manuscript is a witness to *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

3. *The Crucial Issue: The Nature of the Lucianic Text in Slav-LXXL*

in the light of the apparatus of the reference edition of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

published a paper on the accentual system of *Slav*O14.

As of mid 2017, the *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

as the Armenian version (*Ibidem*). 8 Kul'bakin 1901: 23-25, 43.

11 Dunkov 1995-1996.

(ff. 1-209; see, e.g., ff. 116v-117). 14 Bulatova 1995.

15 Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989-1992. 16 See above bibliography (footnotes 5 and 6).

<sup>12</sup> *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

his conclusions8

ninth-early tenth century)9

lish the reliance of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

existing testimonies. Within this framework, a crucial, yet unsolved, issue lies in the appraisal of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* , a text-type found in only five Byzantine minuscule codices (N° 19, 108, 82, 93, 127; previous *sigla* of the first four: *b*, *o*, *c<sup>2</sup>* , *e2* ) 4 . This group significantly deviates from the rest of the Greek tradition, but finds parallels in some Latin, Syriac and Armenian sources. The denomination *Antiochene* or *Lucianic* recension is to be understood conventionally: the redaction was shown to be composed of different layers, the earliest of which was named *proto-Lucianic*, since its characterizing readings are to be found in several sources preceding the historical Lucian, namely the Qumran scrolls (Q), Josephus (J), thе *Vetus latina* (VT) and the writings of some Church Fathers5 .

Several scholars assume that LXX*<sup>L</sup>* constituted (or probably constituted) the Old Greek (OG) text of LXX (namely its earliest textual stratum), which was translated from a Hebrew source, differing from the Masoretic text (MT). The analysis of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* is especially relevant in the case of 1 Sam, since it has been suggested that the former derives from the same archetype of 4QSama . In a different opinion, however, LXX*<sup>L</sup>* is not believed to plainly represent the OG. Doubts have been mainly voiced regarding those parts of the translation that, in virtue of a hebraizing revision, are commonly known as the *kaige*-sections. Moreover, the claim has been made that OG readings must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, since neither LXX nor LXX*<sup>L</sup>* directly represent the original translation. Recently, Kreuzer's studies have brought new arguments in support of the identification of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*with the OG, but the question seems to be still open, especially because the process of the preparation of the Göttingen editions of LXX Samuel-Kings is in progress6 .

#### 2. *Overview of past research on Slav-LXXL*

Over more than a century, Slavicists very rarely addressed the question of the textual analysis of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* . The two major contributions on this topic date from the late eighteenth century. In 1894 M.G. Popruženko published a short monograph on *Slav*<sup>O</sup>*.* Along with the edition of excerpts from the biblical text and from the marginal notes, which include readings from "the Three" (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion)7 and from J, he presented a brief sketch of the grammatical features and of the orthography of the manuscript. Some years later

<sup>4</sup> Reference critical edition: Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989-1992.

<sup>5</sup> Fischer 1951; Spottorno 1995; Tov 1999; Piquer *et al.* 2008; Torijano Morales 2012.6 For reference bibliography see (at least): Barthélemy 1963; Brock 1996; Cross

<sup>1964;</sup> Fernández Marcos 1994; Hugo 2010 and 2013; Kauhanen 2012; Kreuzer 2015; Rahlfs 1911; Tov 1999; Taylor 1992-1993; Ulrich 1978. 7

In *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* the number of the available readings from "the Three" is consistently higher than assumed by Popruženko (1894: 123-129), at least if looking at 1 Sam in manuscript *Slav*M (see: Bruni 2016b: 442-443). This new material awaits editing and

S.M. Kul'bakin undertook a comparative textual examination of some passages of 1 Sam (1 Kgdms) that he carried out by taking as a basis selected South and East Slavic sources dating from the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries. According to his conclusions8 , *Slav*O would preserve a text closer to the original than *Slav*M, since in 1 Sam 5:6,9; 6:4,18; 9:8, 23, 27; 10:2; 17:43; 19:4; 24:4 the latter would display textual contamination with the previously existing Slavonic version of the book, dating back to the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) period (late ninth-early tenth century)9 . Moreover, the Russian scholar was the first to establish the reliance of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* on a Lucianic model10.

In more recent times, a number of other studies have also been produced. On the one hand, several readings from *Slav*O were included by D. Dunkov in his edition of the Old Church Slavonic (supposedly Glagolitic) version of 1-4 Kgdms11, even though the manuscript is a witness to *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* and should therefore not have been used for such a purpose12. On the other hand, S. Nikolova expressed the opinion that *Slav*O and *Slav*M derive from a common, untraced, exemplar of middle Bulgarian and not Serbian origin13. Finally, R.V. Bulatova published a paper on the accentual system of *Slav*O14.

## 3. *The Crucial Issue: The Nature of the Lucianic Text in Slav-LXXL*

As of mid 2017, the *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* remains unpublished and still awaits to be studied in detail: nowadays no systematic collation of its two testimonies, *Slav*<sup>O</sup> and *Slav*M, is available. Moreover, this tradition has not yet been investigated in the light of the apparatus of the reference edition of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* , whose authors were not aware of the existence of a Slavonic text15. This last point is not surprising since this secondary tradition is usually not even mentioned in studies dealing with the textual history of Samuel-Kings16. A rare exception is Tov's

<sup>9</sup> Some scholars ascribe this earliest translation to Methodius, while others to Gregory the Presbyter (see: Thomson 1998: 758; Alekseev 1999: 120-122; Bruni 2016b: 437). 10 Kul'bakin 1901: 23, 44.


204 *Alessandro Maria Bruni*

in the appraisal of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

The analysis of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

a different opinion, however, LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

of LXX Samuel-Kings is in progress6

the textual analysis of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

uila, Symmachus, Theodotion)7

In *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

4

5

existing testimonies. Within this framework, a crucial, yet unsolved, issue lies

group significantly deviates from the rest of the Greek tradition, but finds parallels in some Latin, Syriac and Armenian sources. The denomination *Antiochene* or *Lucianic* recension is to be understood conventionally: the redaction was shown to be composed of different layers, the earliest of which was named *proto-Lucianic*, since its characterizing readings are to be found in several sources preceding the historical Lucian, namely the Qumran scrolls (Q), Josephus (J),

the Old Greek (OG) text of LXX (namely its earliest textual stratum), which was translated from a Hebrew source, differing from the Masoretic text (MT).

Doubts have been mainly voiced regarding those parts of the translation that, in virtue of a hebraizing revision, are commonly known as the *kaige*-sections. Moreover, the claim has been made that OG readings must be assessed on a

translation. Recently, Kreuzer's studies have brought new arguments in support of the identification of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*with the OG, but the question seems to be still open, especially because the process of the preparation of the Göttingen editions

Over more than a century, Slavicists very rarely addressed the question of

date from the late eighteenth century. In 1894 M.G. Popruženko published a short monograph on *Slav*<sup>O</sup>*.* Along with the edition of excerpts from the biblical text and from the marginal notes, which include readings from "the Three" (Aq-

grammatical features and of the orthography of the manuscript. Some years later

2012.6 For reference bibliography see (at least): Barthélemy 1963; Brock 1996; Cross 1964; Fernández Marcos 1994; Hugo 2010 and 2013; Kauhanen 2012; Kreuzer 2015;

tently higher than assumed by Popruženko (1894: 123-129), at least if looking at 1 Sam in manuscript *Slav*M (see: Bruni 2016b: 442-443). This new material awaits editing and

Fischer 1951; Spottorno 1995; Tov 1999; Piquer *et al.* 2008; Torijano Morales

the number of the available readings from "the Three" is consis-

Reference critical edition: Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989-1992.

.

been suggested that the former derives from the same archetype of 4QSama

dices (N° 19, 108, 82, 93, 127; previous *sigla* of the first four: *b*, *o*, *c<sup>2</sup>*

thе *Vetus latina* (VT) and the writings of some Church Fathers5

Several scholars assume that LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

case-by-case basis, since neither LXX nor LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

2. *Overview of past research on Slav-LXXL*

Rahlfs 1911; Tov 1999; Taylor 1992-1993; Ulrich 1978. 7

, a text-type found in only five Byzantine minuscule co-

is especially relevant in the case of 1 Sam, since it has

, *e2* ) 4 . This

. In

.

directly represent the original

constituted (or probably constituted)

is not believed to plainly represent the OG.

. The two major contributions on this topic

and from J, he presented a brief sketch of the

<sup>12</sup> *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* is a new translation based on a different Greek prototype.

<sup>13</sup> With the aim of substantiating the hypothesis of a Bulgarian origin of the translation, Nikolova (1995: 62) refers to Lavrov's (1914: 305-306) remarks concerning the use of nasal vowels in *Slav*<sup>M</sup>. These characters are, however, to be found in the first part of *Slav*M only, in which the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) Octateuch is preserved (ff. 1-209; see, e.g., ff. 116v-117). 14 Bulatova 1995.


to be thoroughly collated with evidence found in LXX and other secondary sources such as the Armenian version (*Ibidem*). 8

Kul'bakin 1901: 23-25, 43.

Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*1:1-25:30. Such an arrangement of 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kgdms) is

4 Kgdms begins at the reign of Rehoboam25. On the other one, a very interesting marginal comment is to be found alongside the translation of 4 Kgdms 1:1 (333v)26. This note tells us that in the original the copyist had before his eyes 4 Kgdms started precisely at this point, while in other testimonies at the reign of Rehoboam27. Whether such an alternative structure was Slavonic or Greek, is unfortunately not specified by the Serbian glossator. Regardless of this, it is however evident that the author of *Slav*M, or of its archetype, deliberately ori-

A first text-internal comparative analysis of *Slav*M with LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπορεύθη ζητεῖν τὰς ὄνους Κις τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ29.

duced the following results. This source includes several readings that belong to the ancient textual layer of the *Antiochene* recension. Accordingly, a positive response to Tov's question28 may now be given: the Serbian tradition

*Lucianic* textual stratum. With an aim to providing an initial illustration of this crucial textual feature, an edition of selected passages of *Slav*M is offered

*Slav*M (fol. 220v): и въста саѹль, и поеть единого ѿ отрочищь оц҃а своего съ собою. и

<sup>25</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 313: Начело цр҃твїа четврьтааго, ровѡамова, сн҃а соломѡнова. цр҃скыих четврьтаа:~. <sup>26</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 333v: и ѿвръже сѧ мѡавь въ ꙇл҃ы по вънѥгда ѹмрѣти ахаавѹ [καὶ

ἠθέτησε Μωὰβ ἐν Ισραὴλ μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ᾽Αχαάβ *(Ibidem*)]. 27 *Slav*M, fol. 333v: въ иꙁводе сем ꙁде пишет кон‹ь›цъ цр҃твїа ·г҃· го· начинает же

цр҃кїих ·д҃· ти охоꙁїино цр҃ство: индѣ же ѿ ровоамова црс҃тва начинает. 28 Tov 1999: 480.

: καὶ ἀνέστη Σαουλ, καὶ παρέλαβεν ἓν τῶν παιδαρίων τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ

The analysis of *Slav*M proves that this unique feature is not due to scribal mistakes, but instead intentionally appears to replicate a lost prototype. In this regard the following observations can be made. On the one hand, before

11:42 codex *Slav*M inserts a heading informing the reader that

11:42-22:54 and 4

has pro-

tradition, known today thanks to a

as a whole, but also to the *proto-*

according to *Slav*M, 4 Kgdms consists of 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

not to be found elsewhere.

single secondary witness.

entated his work towards a different LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

5. *Proto-Lucianic Readings in Slav <sup>M</sup>*

represents a new witness not only to LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

поиде искати ослета кусова оц҃а своего.

29 Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989: p. 23.

3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

below.

I. *1 Sam* 9:3

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

1972 (1999) paper on the proto-Lucianic problem in Samuel-Kings, in which reference is expressly made to the Slavonic version. In this contribution, the fundamental question was raised as to whether *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* is based on the ancient textual layer of the five Greek testimonies of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* only, or whether, being chronological *post-Lucianic*, it reflects LXX*<sup>L</sup>* as a whole17. This crucial issue, which was left unanswered by Slavicists18, currently remains at the very core of research into this tradition19.

With the aim of clarifying the nature of the Lucianic text in *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* , the present writer embarked on a preliminary assessment of the major textual features of the Old Serbian version of Samuel-Kings. At a first stage the circumstances imposed to limit autoptic analysis to *Slav*M only, due to the temporary inaccessibility of *Slav*O (in this case available data necessarily derived from scholarly literature)20. Despite these constraints, research has produced encouraging results that envisage new prospects for comparative textual criticism and reveal the importance of this Serbian tradition for the textual history of the LXX*<sup>L</sup>* of these books.

## 4. *Τhe Internal Division of 3-4 Kgdms in Slav <sup>M</sup>*

In 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kgdms) codex *Slav*M displays distinctive textual features that cannot fail to capture scholars' attention. The text's arrangement in this manuscript only partially corresponds to that of *Slav*O and of other *Lucianic* witnesses21. Textual affinity is in fact limited to the incipit of 3 Kgdms that in all these sources starts at 3 Kgdms 2:1222. The subsequent textual organization is however completely different, since *Slav*M ends 3 Kgdms at 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 11:4123 and begins 4 Kgdms at 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 11:4224. Consequently,

<sup>17</sup> Tov 1999: 488.

<sup>18</sup> See: Nikolova 1995; Thomson 1998; Alekseev 1999.

<sup>19</sup> Bruni 2016a: 403 and 2016b: 442.

<sup>20</sup> Information on *Slav*<sup>O</sup> is based on Popruženko's description (1894: 41-54) and Kul'bakin's remarks (1901).

<sup>21</sup> See: *Mosqu.Syn.gr*. 31, fol. 318v, as well as other Eastern and indirect sources such as *Vat.Syr*. 162, J and Theodoret.

<sup>22</sup> Tov 1999: 480. See also Popruženko's description (1894: 49)

<sup>23</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 313: и ѹспе соломѡнъ съ оц҃ы своими и погребоше его въ градѣ дв҃довѣ ѡц҃а его [καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Σαλωμων μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν πόλει

Δαυιδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ *(*Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1992: 38)]. 24 *Slav*M, fol. 313: бысть же ꙗко ѹслыша ꙇеровѡамь. сн҃ь наваѳовь. и еще сыи въ егїптѣ, ꙗкоже бѣжаль бѣ ѿ лица соломѡнова. и сдѣ тамо въ егїптѣ, ꙗко ѹмрет соломѡнъ. и исправлꙗеть и приходить въ градь свои, въ сарїра иже въ горѣ ефремѡвѣ [ἐγένετο δέ, ὡς ἤκουσεν ᾽Ιεροβοὰμ υἱὸς Ναβάτ, ἔτι ὢν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὡς ὅτε ἔφυγεν ἐκ προσώπου Σολομῶντος καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ὅτι τέθνηκε Σολομῶν• καὶ κατευθύνει καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Σαρειρὰ τὴν ἐν ὄρει ᾽Εφραίμ *(Ibidem*)].

according to *Slav*M, 4 Kgdms consists of 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 11:42-22:54 and 4 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*1:1-25:30. Such an arrangement of 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kgdms) is not to be found elsewhere.

The analysis of *Slav*M proves that this unique feature is not due to scribal mistakes, but instead intentionally appears to replicate a lost prototype. In this regard the following observations can be made. On the one hand, before 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 11:42 codex *Slav*M inserts a heading informing the reader that 4 Kgdms begins at the reign of Rehoboam25. On the other one, a very interesting marginal comment is to be found alongside the translation of 4 Kgdms 1:1 (333v)26. This note tells us that in the original the copyist had before his eyes 4 Kgdms started precisely at this point, while in other testimonies at the reign of Rehoboam27. Whether such an alternative structure was Slavonic or Greek, is unfortunately not specified by the Serbian glossator. Regardless of this, it is however evident that the author of *Slav*M, or of its archetype, deliberately orientated his work towards a different LXX*<sup>L</sup>* tradition, known today thanks to a single secondary witness.

## 5. *Proto-Lucianic Readings in Slav <sup>M</sup>*

A first text-internal comparative analysis of *Slav*M with LXX*<sup>L</sup>* has produced the following results. This source includes several readings that belong to the ancient textual layer of the *Antiochene* recension. Accordingly, a positive response to Tov's question28 may now be given: the Serbian tradition represents a new witness not only to LXX*<sup>L</sup>* as a whole, but also to the *proto-Lucianic* textual stratum. With an aim to providing an initial illustration of this crucial textual feature, an edition of selected passages of *Slav*M is offered below.

I. *1 Sam* 9:3

206 *Alessandro Maria Bruni*

fundamental question was raised as to whether *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

cient textual layer of the five Greek testimonies of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

chronological *post-Lucianic*, it reflects LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

of these books.

4. *Τhe Internal Division of 3-4 Kgdms in Slav <sup>M</sup>*

11:4123 and begins 4 Kgdms at 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

18 See: Nikolova 1995; Thomson 1998; Alekseev 1999.

<sup>22</sup> Tov 1999: 480. See also Popruženko's description (1894: 49)

ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Σαρειρὰ τὴν ἐν ὄρει ᾽Εφραίμ *(Ibidem*)].

19 Bruni 2016a: 403 and 2016b: 442.

research into this tradition19.

of the LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

17 Tov 1999: 488.

Kul'bakin's remarks (1901).

such as *Vat.Syr*. 162, J and Theodoret.

1972 (1999) paper on the proto-Lucianic problem in Samuel-Kings, in which reference is expressly made to the Slavonic version. In this contribution, the

which was left unanswered by Slavicists18, currently remains at the very core of

the present writer embarked on a preliminary assessment of the major textual features of the Old Serbian version of Samuel-Kings. At a first stage the circumstances imposed to limit autoptic analysis to *Slav*M only, due to the temporary inaccessibility of *Slav*O (in this case available data necessarily derived from scholarly literature)20. Despite these constraints, research has produced encouraging results that envisage new prospects for comparative textual criticism and reveal the importance of this Serbian tradition for the textual history

With the aim of clarifying the nature of the Lucianic text in *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

In 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kgdms) codex *Slav*M displays distinctive textual features that cannot fail to capture scholars' attention. The text's arrangement in this manuscript only partially corresponds to that of *Slav*O and of other *Lucianic* witnesses21. Textual affinity is in fact limited to the incipit of 3 Kgdms that in all these sources starts at 3 Kgdms 2:1222. The subsequent textual organization is however completely different, since *Slav*M ends 3 Kgdms at 3 Kgdms-

<sup>20</sup> Information on *Slav*<sup>O</sup> is based on Popruženko's description (1894: 41-54) and

21 See: *Mosqu.Syn.gr*. 31, fol. 318v, as well as other Eastern and indirect sources

<sup>23</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 313: и ѹспе соломѡнъ съ оц҃ы своими и погребоше его въ градѣ дв҃довѣ ѡц҃а его [καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Σαλωμων μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν πόλει Δαυιδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ *(*Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1992: 38)]. 24 *Slav*M, fol. 313: бысть же ꙗко ѹслыша ꙇеровѡамь. сн҃ь наваѳовь. и еще сыи въ егїптѣ, ꙗкоже бѣжаль бѣ ѿ лица соломѡнова. и сдѣ тамо въ егїптѣ, ꙗко ѹмрет соломѡнъ. и исправлꙗеть и приходить въ градь свои, въ сарїра иже въ горѣ ефремѡвѣ [ἐγένετο δέ, ὡς ἤκουσεν ᾽Ιεροβοὰμ υἱὸς Ναβάτ, ἔτι ὢν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὡς ὅτε ἔφυγεν ἐκ προσώπου Σολομῶντος καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ὅτι τέθνηκε Σολομῶν• καὶ κατευθύνει καὶ

is based on the an-

,

only, or whether, being

11:4224. Consequently,

as a whole17. This crucial issue,

*Slav*M (fol. 220v): и въста саѹль, и поеть единого ѿ отрочищь оц҃а своего съ собою. и поиде искати ослета кусова оц҃а своего.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ ἀνέστη Σαουλ, καὶ παρέλαβεν ἓν τῶν παιδαρίων τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπορεύθη ζητεῖν τὰς ὄνους Κις τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ29.

<sup>25</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 313: Начело цр҃твїа четврьтааго, ровѡамова, сн҃а соломѡнова. цр҃скыих

четврьтаа:~. <sup>26</sup> *Slav*M, fol. 333v: и ѿвръже сѧ мѡавь въ ꙇл҃ы по вънѥгда ѹмрѣти ахаавѹ [καὶ

ἠθέτησε Μωὰβ ἐν Ισραὴλ μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ᾽Αχαάβ *(Ibidem*)]. 27 *Slav*M, fol. 333v: въ иꙁводе сем ꙁде пишет кон‹ь›цъ цр҃твїа ·г҃· го· начинает же цр҃кїих ·д҃· ти охоꙁїино цр҃ство: индѣ же ѿ ровоамова црс҃тва начинает. 28 Tov 1999: 480.

<sup>29</sup> Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989: p. 23.

II. *1 Sam* 9:24

*Slav*M (fol. 222): и въꙁдвиже приставникь бедрѹ, и еже на нѥи жрьт±внаа, и постави ѥ прѣд самѹилѡм. и рече самѹиль къ саѹлѹ, се ѥсть свѣдѣтел±ство, прѣдложи прѣд се и ꙗждь. ꙗко въ свѣдѣтел±ство положих ти се ѿ людеи, и ꙁрѣꙁѹи и ꙗде саѹль съ самѹилем въ дн҃ь ѡн±.

*The Old Serbian Version of the Antiochene Recension of Samuel-Kings* 209

με εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ κυρίου μου, καὶ κατάξω σε ἐπὶ τὸ σύστρεμμα τοῦτο. καὶ

*Slav*M (fol. 271): и ам±мѡнѹ бѣше дрѹгь, и име емѹ иѡнаѳань, сн҃ь самаїа брата

 *Slav*M (fol. 279v-280): и медь, и масло. и ѡв±це, и млѣчные тел±цѣ. и принесоше

дв҃дѹ, и людѣмь его ꙗсти, и иꙁ немощи жеждѹщїих въ пѹстыни.

: καὶ τῷ Ἀμνὼν ἑταῖρος, καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωναθάν, υἱὸς Σαμαὰ τοῦ

: καὶ μέλι καὶ βούτυρον καὶ πρόβατα καὶ γαλαθηνὰ μοσχάρια, καὶ προσήνεγκαν τῷ Δαυὶδ καὶ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ ἐσθίειν, ὅτι ἔλεγον τὸν λαὸν πεινᾶν

*Slav*M (fol. 280): и ѹстрои дв҃ь людїи третїе. едино, въ рѹцѣ иѡавли. второе, въ рѹцѣ авесѣ брата иѡавлꙗ, сн҃а сар҃рѹина. третїе въ рѹцѣ ѵѳїигет±ѳѣанїна. и рече цр҃ь

*Slav*M (fol. 328v): и рече ахаавь илїи. обрѣтели ме враже мои. и рече илїа ѡбрѣтох. ꙁанѥже сътвориль еси въсѹе, еже сътворити лѹкавое прѣд гм҃ь еже прогнѣвати его.

*Slav*M (359v-360): тъкмо ꙁанѥже растръже се ꙇи҃ль ѿ домѹ дв҃дова. и въцр҃ише над

: καὶ εἶπεν Ἀχαὰβ πρὸς Ἠλίαν Εἰ εὕρηκάς με, ὁ ἐχθρός μου; καὶ εἶπεν Ἠλίας Εὕρηκα, διότι πέπρασαι μάτην τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου

: πλὴν ὅτι ἐρράγη ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου Δαυίδ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν ἐφ᾽

: καὶ ἐτρίσσευσε Δαυὶδ τὸν λαόν, τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἰωὰβ καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἀβεσσά, ἀδελφοῦ Ἰωὰβ υἱοῦ Σαρουία, καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἠθὶ τοῦ Γεθθαίου. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν λαόν Ἐκπορευόμενος ἐκπορεύσομαι

ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ34.

дв҃дова. и иѡнаѳань бѣше мѹдрь ѕѣлѡ.

καὶ ἐκλελύσθαι διψήσαντα ἐν τῇ ἐρέμῳ36.

къ людѣмь, исходе исхождю и аꙁь съ вами.

τοῦ παροργίσαι αὐτόν• τάδε λέγει Κύριος38.

собою ꙇеровѡама сн҃а наваѳова.

ἑαυτοὺς τὸν Ἰεροβοὰμ υἱὸν Ναβάτ39.

38 Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1992: 68.

καὶ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν37.

ἀδελφοῦ Δαυίδ. καὶ Ἰωναθὰν ἦν φρόνιμος σφόδρα35.

VII. *2 Sam* 13:3

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

VIII. *2 Sam* 17:29

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

IΧ. *2 Sam* 18:2

Χ. *1 Κgs* 20:20

ΧΙ. *2 Κgs* 17:21

 *Ibid.*: 86. *Ibid.*: 122. *Ibid.*: 141. *Ibid.*: 141.

<sup>39</sup> *Ibid.*: 133-134.

тако гл҃ѥт <г҃ь>

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ ἦρεν ὁ μάγειρος τὴν κωλέαν καὶ τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, καὶ παρέθηκεν αὐτὴν ἐνώπιον Σαούλ. καὶ εἶπε Σαμουὴλ τῷ Σαούλ Ἰδοὺ μαρτύριον• παράθες αὐτὸ ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ φάγε, ὅτι εἰς μαρτύριον τέθειταί [: παρατέθηκα] σοι παρὰ τοῦ λαοῦ• ἀπόκνιζε. καὶ ἔφαγε Σαοὺλ μετὰ Σαμουὴλ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ30.

III. *1 Sam* 10:2

*Slav*M (fol. 222): и се ти ꙁнаменїе, ꙗко помаꙁа те г҃ь властѣлина над дѡстоанїем своим. да ꙗкоже аще ѿидеши днс҃ь ѿ мене, обрѣщеши два мѹжа при гробѣх рахїлїнѣх, въ прѣдѣлѣх венїаминовѣх въ сїлѡмѣ поживша велико […].

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ τοῦτό σοι τὸ σημεῖον ὅτι κέχρικέ σε Κύριος εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐπὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ• ὡς ἐὰν ἀπέλθῃς σήμερον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσεις δύο ἄνδρας πρὸς τοῖς τάφοις Ῥαχὴλ ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις Βενιαμὶν μεσημβρίας ἁλλομένους μέγαλα […]31.

IV. *1 Sam* 10:23

*Slav*M (fol. 223v): и тече самѹиль и поеть его ѿонѹд. и ста саѹль посрѣд людїи, и въꙁнесе се ѿ въсѣх людїи паче подобїа и повыше.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ ἔδραμε Σαμουὴλ καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖθεν. καὶ κατέστη Σαοὺλ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ὑψώθη ὑπὲρ πάντα τὸν λαὸν ὑπερωμίαν καὶ ἐπάνω32.

V. *1 Sam* 16:14

*Slav*M (fol. 233v): и дх҃ь гн҃ь ѿстѹпи ѿ саѹла и ѡбладаше его дѹхь лѹкавь ѿ г҃а, и давлꙗаше его.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἀπέστη ἀπὸ Σαούλ, καὶ συνεῖχεν αὐτὸν πνεῦμα πονηρὸν παρὰ Κυρίου, καὶ ἔπνιγεν αὐτόν33.

VI. *1 Sam* 30:15

*Slav*M (fol. 254): и рече дв҃дь, аще наведеши ме на вѡин±ство се. и рече, клъни ми се ѹбо въ г҃а не ѹмрътвити ме, и не прѣдати ме въ рѹцѣ гп҃дїна моего. и наведѹ те на вѡин±ство се. и клет се емѹ.

LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτὸν Δαυίδ Εἰ κατάξεις με ἐπὶ τὸ σύστρεμμα τοῦτο; καὶ εἶπεν Ὄμοσον δή μοι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ θανατῶσαί με καὶ μὴ παραδοῦναί

<sup>30</sup> *Ibid.*: 25.

<sup>31</sup> *Ibid.*: 26. Some textual affinity can also be found with the Old Latin translation: VL (L115) *In finibus Beniamin in Selom* [въ сїлѡмѣ] *in bachallat salientem magna stadina (*see: *Ibidem).* On the importance of the VL for the study of the *proto-Lucianic text see*: Tov 1999; 479 n. 12.

<sup>32</sup> Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989: 28.

<sup>33</sup> *Ibid.*: 47.

με εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ κυρίου μου, καὶ κατάξω σε ἐπὶ τὸ σύστρεμμα τοῦτο. καὶ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ34.

VII. *2 Sam* 13:3

208 *Alessandro Maria Bruni*

*Slav*M (fol. 222): и въꙁдвиже приставникь бедрѹ, и еже на нѥи жрьт±внаа, и постави ѥ прѣд самѹилѡм. и рече самѹиль къ саѹлѹ, се ѥсть свѣдѣтел±ство, прѣдложи прѣд се и ꙗждь. ꙗко въ свѣдѣтел±ство положих ти се ѿ людеи, и ꙁрѣꙁѹи и ꙗде саѹль съ

*Slav*M (fol. 222): и се ти ꙁнаменїе, ꙗко помаꙁа те г҃ь властѣлина над дѡстоанїем сво-

*Slav*M (fol. 223v): и тече самѹиль и поеть его ѿонѹд. и ста саѹль посрѣд людїи, и

*Slav*M (fol. 233v): и дх҃ь гн҃ь ѿстѹпи ѿ саѹла и ѡбладаше его дѹхь лѹкавь ѿ г҃а,

*Slav*M (fol. 254): и рече дв҃дь, аще наведеши ме на вѡин±ство се. и рече, клъни ми се ѹбо въ г҃а не ѹмрътвити ме, и не прѣдати ме въ рѹцѣ гп҃дїна моего. и наведѹ те на

<sup>31</sup> *Ibid.*: 26. Some textual affinity can also be found with the Old Latin translation: VL (L115) *In finibus Beniamin in Selom* [въ сїлѡмѣ] *in bachallat salientem magna stadina (*see: *Ibidem).* On the importance of the VL for the study of the *proto-Lucianic* 

μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ ὑψώθη ὑπὲρ πάντα τὸν λαὸν ὑπερωμίαν καὶ ἐπάνω32.

: καὶ ἔδραμε Σαμουὴλ καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖθεν. καὶ κατέστη Σαοὺλ ἐν

: καὶ πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἀπέστη ἀπὸ Σαούλ, καὶ συνεῖχεν αὐτὸν πνεῦμα

: καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτὸν Δαυίδ Εἰ κατάξεις με ἐπὶ τὸ σύστρεμμα τοῦτο; καὶ εἶπεν Ὄμοσον δή μοι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ θανατῶσαί με καὶ μὴ παραδοῦναί

: καὶ τοῦτό σοι τὸ σημεῖον ὅτι κέχρικέ σε Κύριος εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐπὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ• ὡς ἐὰν ἀπέλθῃς σήμερον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσεις δύο ἄνδρας πρὸς τοῖς τάφοις Ῥαχὴλ ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις Βενιαμὶν μεσημβρίας ἁλλομένους μέγαλα

ь ѿ мене, обрѣщеши два мѹжа при гробѣх рахїлїнѣх,

λαοῦ• ἀπόκνιζε. καὶ ἔφαγε Σαοὺλ μετὰ Σαμουὴλ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ30.

въ прѣдѣлѣх венїаминовѣх въ сїлѡмѣ поживша велико […].

въꙁнесе се ѿ въсѣх людїи паче подобїа и повыше.

πονηρὸν παρὰ Κυρίου, καὶ ἔπνιγεν αὐτόν33.

: καὶ ἦρεν ὁ μάγειρος τὴν κωλέαν καὶ τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, καὶ παρέθηκεν αὐτὴν ἐνώπιον Σαούλ. καὶ εἶπε Σαμουὴλ τῷ Σαούλ Ἰδοὺ μαρτύριον• παράθες αὐτὸ ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ φάγε, ὅτι εἰς μαρτύριον τέθειταί [: παρατέθηκα] σοι παρὰ τοῦ

II. *1 Sam* 9:24

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

III. *1 Sam* 10:2

[…]31.

IV. *1 Sam* 10:23

V. *1 Sam* 16:14

VI. *1 Sam* 30:15

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

<sup>30</sup> *Ibid.*: 25.

<sup>33</sup> *Ibid.*: 47.

*text see*: Tov 1999; 479 n. 12.

и давлꙗаше его.

вѡин±ство се. и клет се емѹ.

32 Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989: 28.

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

самѹилем въ дн҃ь ѡн±.

им. да ꙗкоже аще ѿидеши днс҃

*Slav*M (fol. 271): и ам±мѡнѹ бѣше дрѹгь, и име емѹ иѡнаѳань, сн҃ь самаїа брата дв҃дова. и иѡнаѳань бѣше мѹдрь ѕѣлѡ.

LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ τῷ Ἀμνὼν ἑταῖρος, καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωναθάν, υἱὸς Σαμαὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Δαυίδ. καὶ Ἰωναθὰν ἦν φρόνιμος σφόδρα35.

VIII. *2 Sam* 17:29

 *Slav*M (fol. 279v-280): и медь, и масло. и ѡв±це, и млѣчные тел±цѣ. и принесоше дв҃дѹ, и людѣмь его ꙗсти, и иꙁ немощи жеждѹщїих въ пѹстыни.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ μέλι καὶ βούτυρον καὶ πρόβατα καὶ γαλαθηνὰ μοσχάρια, καὶ προσήνεγκαν τῷ Δαυὶδ καὶ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ ἐσθίειν, ὅτι ἔλεγον τὸν λαὸν πεινᾶν καὶ ἐκλελύσθαι διψήσαντα ἐν τῇ ἐρέμῳ36.

IΧ. *2 Sam* 18:2

*Slav*M (fol. 280): и ѹстрои дв҃ь людїи третїе. едино, въ рѹцѣ иѡавли. второе, въ рѹцѣ авесѣ брата иѡавлꙗ, сн҃а сар҃рѹина. третїе въ рѹцѣ ѵѳїигет±ѳѣанїна. и рече цр҃ь къ людѣмь, исходе исхождю и аꙁь съ вами.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ ἐτρίσσευσε Δαυὶδ τὸν λαόν, τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἰωὰβ καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἀβεσσά, ἀδελφοῦ Ἰωὰβ υἱοῦ Σαρουία, καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἐν χειρὶ Ἠθὶ τοῦ Γεθθαίου. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν λαόν Ἐκπορευόμενος ἐκπορεύσομαι καὶ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν37.

Χ. *1 Κgs* 20:20

*Slav*M (fol. 328v): и рече ахаавь илїи. обрѣтели ме враже мои. и рече илїа ѡбрѣтох. ꙁанѥже сътвориль еси въсѹе, еже сътворити лѹкавое прѣд гм҃ь еже прогнѣвати его. тако гл҃ѥт <г҃ь>

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : καὶ εἶπεν Ἀχαὰβ πρὸς Ἠλίαν Εἰ εὕρηκάς με, ὁ ἐχθρός μου; καὶ εἶπεν Ἠλίας Εὕρηκα, διότι πέπρασαι μάτην τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου τοῦ παροργίσαι αὐτόν• τάδε λέγει Κύριος38.

ΧΙ. *2 Κgs* 17:21

*Slav*M (359v-360): тъкмо ꙁанѥже растръже се ꙇи҃ль ѿ домѹ дв҃дова. и въцр҃ише над собою ꙇеровѡама сн҃а наваѳова.

 LXX*<sup>L</sup>* : πλὴν ὅτι ἐρράγη ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου Δαυίδ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς τὸν Ἰεροβοὰμ υἱὸν Ναβάτ39.

<sup>34</sup> *Ibid.*: 86.

<sup>39</sup> *Ibid.*: 133-134.

<sup>35</sup> *Ibid.*: 122.

<sup>36</sup> *Ibid.*: 141.

<sup>37</sup> *Ibid.*: 141.

<sup>38</sup> Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1992: 68.

*rukopisa*, Beograd 1995, pp. 53-70.

logical Review", LVII, 1964, pp. 281-299.

*1418 g. "Knigi Carstv" na osnove akcentologičeskogo analiza*, in: I. Grickat, P. Ivić, D. Stefanović, G. Babić (ured.), *Proučavanje srednjovekovnih južnoslovenskih* 

*of Discoveries in the Judean Desert*, "Harvard Theo-

*cher der Könige*, Salzburg 1995-1996 (= Die Slawi-

*queno de la Biblia Griega*, I. *1-2 Samuel*, Madrid 1989 (= Textos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros" de la Biblia

*queno de la Biblia Griega*, II. *1-2 Reyes*, Madrid 1992 (= Textos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros" de la Biblia

*gint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings*, Leiden 1994.

*Königsbucher*, "Studia Anselmiana", XXVII-XXVIII,

*sessment of the Recent Research*, in: P. Hugo, A. Schenker (eds), *Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History,* Leiden

*tem und Neuem in 2 Samuel*, in: S. Kreuzer, M. Sigismund (hrsg.), *Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung*, Göttingen 2013 (= De Septuaginta Investigationes, 4), pp. 109-

Göttingen 2012 (= De Septuaginta Investigationes, 3).

*kopisi Odesskoj gosudarstvennoj naučnoj biblioteki im. A.M. Gor'kogo*, "Trudy Otdela Drevnerusskoj Literatu-

Bulatova 1995: R.V. Bulatova, *K dialektnoj charakteristike rukopisi* 

Cross 1964: F.M. Cross, *The History of the Biblical Text in the Light* 

Dunkov 1995-1996:D. Dunkov (hrsg.), *Die Methodbibel*, V-VIII. *Die Bü-*

Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1989: N. Fernández Marcos, J.R. Busto Saiz, *El Texto Antio-*

Políglota Matritense, 50). Fernández Marcos *et al.* 1992: N. Fernández Marcos, J.R. Busto Saiz, *El Texto Antio-*

Políglota Matritense, 53). Fernández Marcos 1994: N. Fernández Marcos, *Scribes and Translators: Septua-*

Fischer 1951: B. Fischer, *Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier* 

1951, pp. 169-177. Grigorovič 1877: V.I. Grigorovič, *Očerk putešestvija po evropejskoj Turcii,* Moskva 1877. Hugo 2010: P. Hugo, *Text History of The Books of Samuel: An As-*

2010, pp. 1-22.

132.

Hugo 2013: P. Hugo, *Die antiochenische Mischung: L zwischen Al-*

Kauhanen 2012: T. Kauhanen, *The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel*,

Kopylenko *et al.* 1960: M.M. Kopylenko, M.V. Rapoport, *Slavjano-russkie ru-*

ry", XVI, 1960, pp. 543-553.

schen Sprachen, 42, 45, 47, 48).

#### *6. Conclusions*

Research presented in this paper represents a first attempt towards a comprehensive analysis of the textual features of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* against the background of the Greek testimonies of the *Antiochene* recension of Samuel-Kings. Despite being preliminary, the undertaken work indeed looks to be promising.

The most notable implication of the current study is that *Slav*M was shown to be a new witness to the ancient textual layer of the *Lucianic* recension, namely to the *proto-Lucianic* stratum. Moreover, the analysis has furthermore provided indirect evidence of the existence of a lost edition of LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 1-2 Kings that featured an alternative subdivision of the books, according to which 4Kgdms consisted of 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>* 11:42-22:54 + 4 Kgdms-LXX*L* 1:1-25:30. The simultaneous presence in the Serbian version of text-internal *proto-Lucianic* elements makes it very likely that this arrangement dates back to Late antiquity and not merely to the Middle Ages. Consequently, the hypothesis may be advanced that this *Slav* translation provides scholars with a new window into the textual history of *Antiochene* recension of Samuel-Kings and, ultimately, into the OG text of these books. Accordingly, this Serbian tradition can safely be placed at the very center of the debate surrounding one of the most complex issues facing contemporary biblical scholarship.

#### *Literature*


210 *Alessandro Maria Bruni*

prehensive analysis of the textual features of *Slav*-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

Research presented in this paper represents a first attempt towards a com-

The most notable implication of the current study is that *Slav*M was shown to be a new witness to the ancient textual layer of the *Lucianic* recension, namely to the *proto-Lucianic* stratum. Moreover, the analysis has furthermore pro-

11:42-22:54 + 4 Kgdms-LXX*L* 1:1-25:30. The si-

Peterburg 1999 (= Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte Neue Folge A: Slavistische For-

*blication intégrale du texte des fragments du "Dodécaprophéton" trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d'une étude sur les traductions et recensions greques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l'influence du rabbinat palestinien,* Leiden 1963.

in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds)*, Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible*, 1A. *Overview articles*, Leiden 2016,

*tions*, in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds)*, Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible*, 1B: *Pentateuch, Former and* 

*Latter prophets*, Leiden 2016, pp. 436-445.

of the Greek testimonies of the *Antiochene* recension of Samuel-Kings. Despite

featured an alternative subdivision of the books, according to which 4Kgdms

multaneous presence in the Serbian version of text-internal *proto-Lucianic* elements makes it very likely that this arrangement dates back to Late antiquity and not merely to the Middle Ages. Consequently, the hypothesis may be advanced that this *Slav* translation provides scholars with a new window into the textual history of *Antiochene* recension of Samuel-Kings and, ultimately, into the OG text of these books. Accordingly, this Serbian tradition can safely be placed at the very center of the debate surrounding one of the most complex issues facing

Alekseev 1999: A.A. Alekseev, *Tekstologija slavjanskoj Biblii*, Sankt-

Barthélémy 1963: D*.* Barthélémy, *Les devanciers d'Aquila. Première pu-*

Brock 1996: S.P. Brock, *The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1 Samuel,* Torino 1996. Bruni 2016a: A.M. Bruni, *1.4.10: Old Church Slavonic Translations*,

Bruni 2016b: A.M. Bruni, *3-5.2.7: Old Church Slavonic Transla-*

schungen 24).

pp. 393-408.

being preliminary, the undertaken work indeed looks to be promising.

vided indirect evidence of the existence of a lost edition of LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

against the background

1-2 Kings that

*6. Conclusions*

consisted of 3 Kgdms-LXX*<sup>L</sup>*

contemporary biblical scholarship.

*Literature*


*tament*, in: J. Krašovec (ed.), *The Interpretation of the Bible*: *The International Symposium in Slovenia*, Shef-

*chean Text to Text Criticism in Kings: Rahlfs' study of the Lucianic Recension Revisited (1 Kgs 1:3, 36; 40, 41, 45)*, in: P. A. Torijano Morales, A. Piquer Otero (eds), *Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense*, Leiden-Boston 2012 (= Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 158), pp. 325-343.

*lution of the Problem*, in: Id., *The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint*, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, pp. 477-488 (or. ed.: "Revue biblique",

*pedija*, pod red. Patriarcha Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi

Thomson 1998: F.J. Thomson, *The Slavonic Translation of the Old Tes-*

field 1998, pp. 605-920. Torijano Morales 2012: P.A. Torijano Morales, *The Contribution of the Antio-*

Tov 1999: E. Tov, *Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Toward a New So-*

LXXIX, 1972, pp. 101-113). Turilov 2000: A.A. Turilov, *Vissarion*, in: *Pravoslavnaja ėnciklo-*

Ulrich 1978: E. Ulrich, *The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus*, Missoula 1978.

Viktorov 1879: A.E. Viktorov, *Sobranie rukopisej V.I. Grigoroviča*,

Moskva 1879.

Aleksija II, VIII, Moskva 2004, p. 545.


212 *Alessandro Maria Bruni*

Korol'kova *et al.* 1963: E.G. Korol'kova, Ž.N. Kravčenko, *Slavjanskie rukopisi* 

Kreuzer 2015: S. Kreuzer, *The Bible in Greek. Translation, Transmis-*

Kul'bakin 1901: S. Kul'bakin, *Otčet Otdeleniju russkogo jazyka i slove-*

Lavrov 1914: P.A. Lavrov, *Paleografičeskoe obozrenie kirillovskogo pis'ma,* Petrograd 1914. Močul'skij 1890: V.N. Močul'skij, *Opisanie rukopisej V.I. Grigoroviča*,

Nikolova 1995: S. Nikolova, *K istorii teksta knig Carstv v slavjanskoj* 

Slavs, 3), pp. 54-68. Nikolova 1996: S. Nikolova, *Răkopisi za Visarion Debărski i tekstova* 

1996, pp. 363-402. Popruženko 1894: M.G. Popruženko, *Iz istorii literaturnoj dejatel'nosti v* 

Piquer *et al.* 2008: A. Piquer Otero, A. Torijano, J. Trebolle Barrera, *Sep-*

Rahlfs 1911: A. Rahlfs, *Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher* (Sep-

Spottorno 1995: M.V. Spottorno, *Josephus' Text for 1-2 Kings (3-4 King-*

Taylor 1992-1993: B.A. Taylor, *The Lucianic Manuscripts of 1 Reigns*, I.

vard Semitic Monographs 50-51).

Odessa 1890.

(9), pp. 29-41.

*nerusskogo proischoždenija Odesskoj gos. naučnoj b-ki im. A.M. Gor'kogo*, "Izvestija na narodnata biblioteka i bibliotekata na Sofijskija dăržaven universitet", 1963, 3

*sion and Theology of the Septuagint*, Atlanta 2015.

*23 dekabrja 1898 g.*, Sankt-Peterburg 1901.

*snosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk o zanjatijach v knigochraniliščach Moskvy i Peterburga s 25 sentjabrja po* 

*pis'mennosti*, in: W. Moskovich, S. Schwarzband, A. Alekseev (eds), *Ioudaɪ̈kē archailogia: In Honour of Professor Moshe Altbauer*, Jerusalem 1995 (= Jews and

*tradicija na Starija zavet*, in: *Bălgarskijat XVI v.*, Sofija

*Serbii XV veka: Knigi Carstv v sobranii rukopisej No-*

*tuagint Versions, Greek Recensions, and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian, and Georgian Versions of III-IV Regnorum*, in: H. Ausloos *et al.* (eds), *Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of* 

*doms)*, in: L. Greenspoon, O. Munnich (eds), *VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies*, Atlanta 1995, pp. 145-152.

*Majority Text*; II. *Analysis*, Atlanta 1992-1993 (= Har-

*vorossijskogo universiteta,* Odessa 1894.

*Early Judaism,* Leuven 2008, pp. 251-281.

tuaginta-Studien 3), Göttingen 1911.


## *Abstracts*

#### Alessandro Maria Bruni

*La versione serba antica della recensione antiochena dei libri di Samuele e dei Re: alcune questioni preliminari di critica del testo*

Il contributo è dedicato all'antica traduzione slava meridionale dei libri biblici di Samuele e dei Re, preservata in due testimoni serbi dei secoli XV-XVI. Questa versione è un testimone indiretto della cosiddetta recensione antiochena o lucianea della *Septuaginta*, pervenutaci in soli cinque codici manoscritti greci di epoca bizantina. Il presente lavoro si configura come un primo tentativo di studio comparato del testo slavo con il suo originale greco. Particolare attenzione è prestata all'individuazione delle cosiddette lezioni protolucianee e all'analisi di alcune caratteristiche testuali del tutto uniche che sono rinvenibili nella tradizione serba.

#### Алессандро Мария Бруни

*Древнесербский перевод "Антиохийской" редакции книг Царств: предварительные текстологические заметки*

Доклад посвящен южнославянскому переводу книг Царств, сохранившемуся в двух сербских рукописях XV-XVI вв. Этот текст восходит к так называемой "Антиохийской" или "Лукиановской" редакции Септуагинты, полностью известной лишь в пяти византийских списках. В работе совершается первая попытка сравнительного изучения славянской версии и греческого оригинала. Особое внимание уделяется выделению "протолукиановских" чтений, а также анализу ряда уникальных текстологических особенностей сербской традиции.

### *Keywords*

Bible; Old Testament; Textual Criticism; Septuaginta; Serbian Manuscripts.

*Contributi italiani al XVI Congresso Internazionale degli Slavisti. Belgrado, 20-27 agosto 2018*, a cura di Maria Chiara Ferro, Laura Salmon, Giorgio Ziffer, ISBN 978-88-6453-723-8 (online), ISBN 978-88-

La recezione nella Russia del XVI secolo dei testi antilatini di

I rapporti religiosi e culturali all'interno dell'unico *sistema letterario slavo-*

Si tratta di un codice, databile agli anni '70-'80 del XIV secolo, di redazione serba, ortografia di Raška, scritto in un monastero sul monte Athos, con ogni probabilità a Hilandar. Contiene la traduzione di opere anti-latine di due

Nilo Cabasilas. Del primo troviamo lo scritto *Contro Giovanni Becco*<sup>4</sup>

8v), una breve opera nella quale Gregorio si contrappone alle *Epigraphai*<sup>5</sup>

patriarca di Costantinopoli Giovanni Becco: quest'ultimo aveva raccolto testi patristici in favore del *Filioque* e li aveva ordinati in dodici capitoli, ciascuno preceduto da una sintesi ad opera dell'autore. Gregorio dedica una breve confu-

\* La ricerca per questo contributo è stata condotta nell'ambito di un post-doc presso il *Centro di Studi Cirillo-metodiani* di Sofia nell'anno 2016-2017. Essa si è sviluppata nel confronto e con l'aiuto di molti colleghi, tra i quali desidero ringraziare in particolare: Aleksander Naumow, Angel Nikolov, Oleg Vital'evič Pančenko, Ol'ga Sergeevna Sapožnikova, Anatolij Arkad'evič Turilov, Elena Vladimirovna Uchanova e i colleghi del dipartimento manoscritti del GIM, della RGB di Mosca e della RNB di San Pietroburgo.

Cfr. Scarpa 2012: 91-93 e la bibliografia ivi riportata. Ivi è indicata anche la

 Per quanto riguarda il fenomeno nuovo delle traduzioni di opere contemporanee cfr. Naumow 1976: 21 (traduz. p. 19); Prochorov 2009; Scarpa 2012: 23 (e la biblio-

<sup>4</sup> Cfr. Sinkewicz 2002: 138 (n. 2). Per l'edizione del testo greco si veda Palamá 1962: 161-175; per l'edizione della traduzione slava secondo Moskva, GIM, *Sin.* 383 si

ti da una zona all'altra e dalla recezione e trasmissione di testi, prodotti o tradotti in un ambito, che vengono accolti, copiati e trovano nuovi utilizzi in un altro. Il presente contributo intende studiare un caso specifico di questo fenomeno, che a nostro parere mostra diversi elementi di interesse. Al centro della nostra attenzione sarà la recezione in Russia del manoscritto Moskva, GIM, *Sin.* 3832

sono testimoniati e veicolati anche dalla migrazione di manoscrit-

al manoscritto, Gregorio Palamas e

(cc. 1r-

del

Gregorio Palamas e Nilo Cabasilas\*

*Marco Scarpa (Università di Messina)*

*ecclesiastico*<sup>1</sup>

1

2

3

5

grafia ivi citata).

veda Popov 1875: 296-314.

PG 141: 613-724.

e delle opere in esso contenute.

Cfr. Naumow 1976.

datazione stabilita mediante le filigrane.

autori bizantini pressoché contemporanei3

6453-720-7 (print), CC BY 4.0, 2018 Firenze University Press