Reimagining Apocalypticism: Apocalyptic Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Writings. Ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso and Matthew Goff. SBL: Atlanta, (No 57), 2023. 579 pp. ISBN 978-1-62837-533-6.
The paper discusses a medieval South Slavonic text referring to the Book of Daniel in the framework of the Chronicle of Johannes Zonaras contained in manuscript No. 105 which is kept in Zograf Monastery. The author believes that this Slavonic version of the Chronicle was compiled by Konstantin Kostenečki. The author compares the version of the Book of Daniel in the Zograf manuscript with older Slavonic translations and versions of the Book of Daniel known to him to highlight the differences and the specific Constantine’s approach that is somewhat unique for this book from the Bible. This comparison makes it evident that Zograf 105 preserves a unique version of this biblical book which is not known to medieval Bulgarian and Greek written traditions. The juxtaposition is carried out on structural and lexical levels.
The author presents the usage of some of the major Bible quotations in the Slavonic version of De Christo et Antichristo by Hippolytus of Rome. Mainly Old Testament quotations are examined, as well as the longer ones from Revelation. Among them, there are quotes from Genesis, the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Daniel which are compared to the same places in Prophetologium (Grigorovič No. 2 / М.1685, RGB), in the so-called Catena in Prophetas (Saint-Trinity Lavra No. 89, RGB) and where possible with the commentaries of Hippolytus In Danielem, and other early Slavic translations of the Scripture as well. The quotations from Revelation are compared with some later translations of this book in order to underline their importance and usage. The lexical analysis is not the main focus of the conducted study, but it is inevitable when the quotations are compared with biblical manuscripts. Тhe main aim and scope of the article is to highlight how the biblical quotations were approached by the translator. The large-scale comparisons made show how the medieval Slavonic biblical versions vary, depending on the function of the texts translated.
Subject: Scripta Medieval Studies Linguistic History of Literature Keywords: HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME Bible quotes Slavonic translations Book of Isaiah Book of Daniel RevelationThe article has two main focuses – first, it follows the most significant and important Antichrist myth researches, and secondly, the Greek tradition of De Christo et Antichristo by Hippolytus of Rome and the Slavonic versions of the text. The Slavonic witnesses are examined according to their omissions, additions, grammatical and morphological variations, and also some of the changes in the Bible quotations are highlighted. This work does not pretend to present new information on the Greek sources but to demonstrate how important the Slavonic translation is to the interpretation of the Greek original. The most interesting results are pointed out in the relation with the Greek text itself, where the proximity between the Greek fragment of Meteora Monastery 573 and the Slavonic tradition is presented.
The article highlights the Greek manuscripts, containing Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentarii in Danielem, the history of their research and their content, as well as the relation among them and the Slavonic translation. The author reveals all Greek and Slavonic sources, known today, and demonstrates how the two versions of the text correspond to each other. The main focus is placed on the cod. Meteoron 573, of the tenth century, proven to be the closest and mostly related to the Slavonic translation. This matter was profoundly revealed by comparison of contents, titles and structure of the texts of both versions, which is briefly presented in this paper.
The article traces the dissemination of the Slavonic version of Commentaries on The Book of Daniel by St. Hippolytus of Rome. All known Slavonic copies of the Commentary are examined, the transmission of the text and the translation itself. For the first time the macrostructure of the known copies is fully examined and the differences in them are shown. The connection demonstrated between the Pogodin Folia of the 11th–12th century and other witnesses containing the text of the Commentaries is discussed. It is proved that they have a common archetype. Also, preliminary conclusions on the language of the translation are made.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.