Plants in Exegesis: Difficulties in Medieval Slavonic Translations of John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrrhus

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aneta Dimitrova,

Prof. Dr. Margaret Dimitrova

Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

https://doi.org/10.53656/bel-2026-1s-5

 Abstract. This study¹ examines how medieval South Slavonic translators rendered Greek botanical terminology into Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and how their choices varied. Early translations from the 9^th – 11^th centuries tended to be contextual and flexible, while 14^th – 15^th-century translators preferred greater lexical and grammatical precision, frequently adopting Greek loanwords. Using different translations of the commentaries to the Song of Songs and of John Chrysostom’s De statuis as case studies, the article illustrates how botanical terms were interpreted differently according to the translators’ strategies and skill. Particular attention is given to plant names whose interpretation depended on theological commentaries, especially in late catena translations, where loanwords were introduced, but sometimes explanatory synonyms were added for clarity. These examples highlight the translators’ efforts to render Greek sources faithfully while remaining comprehensible to Slavic readership.

Keywords: hermeneutics, biblical commentaries, plants, translations of the Bible, Old Church Slavonic translations from Greek

 

1. The translators of Greek texts into Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian literary language) faced the challenge to render not only Christian terms but also cultural lexis typical of antique and medieval Mediterranean world. A significant part of the scientific and theological knowledge was out of reach of the general public. The audience of these texts was mainly the educated clergy and members of the royal court. Nevertheless, it was important that certain authors and works were available in translation not only for the needs of the aristocracy and the church, but also for providing prestige to Slavonic literature and for supporting the Christian worldview. Both biblical and exegetical texts abound in Near Eastern and Mediterranean realia, including designations of plants, and they were interpreted in a symbolic and spiritual manner, often through etymological approach (Moldenke & Moldenke, 2002; Musselman, 2007). There was not one single way of rendering specific, abstract, or unfamiliar notions. Different authors and translators had different approaches.¹ Some of the new words enhanced permanently the Slavonic vocabulary, whereas others were short-lived and were replaced by synonyms. Generally speaking, the translations from the earlier period (ninth–eleventh century) were more contextual, they preferred using synonyms, which could better render the nuances of the Greek terms. The translations in the fourteenth – early fifteenth century aimed at greater precision and often mirrored Greek grammatical and lexical structures.

The goal of this article is to discuss the reception of botanical designations in South Slavonic milieu with examples from two works translated in different periods: the commentary of Theodoret of Cyrrhus on the Song of Songs (henceforth Ct) in juxtaposition with the two earlier translations of this Old Testament book, and John Chrysostom’s homilies On the Statues in two translations.

2. Three medieval translations of the Song of Songs made from Greek are known to us: a) Cant₁, an early translation without commentaries made, in all likelihood, at the end of the ninth century; b) Cant_2, an early translation of a catena with commentaries of the biblical verses, made presumably in tenth-century Bulgaria; the catena contains commentaries by Philo of Carpasia, Hippolyte of Rome, Gregory of Nyssa, and others; and c) Cant_3, an early fifteenth-century translation of another catena with commentaries, known as Catena B₂ (C 81, Typus B in CPG IV (1980): 222 – 224), made by Konstantin Kostenečki in Serbian court or by a certain monk (Gavriil?) on Mount Athos. It contains the commentaries by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393 – 458/466), by the so-called Three Fathers: a compilation of the commentaries by Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335 – after 394), Nylus of Sinai (ca. 345 – ca. 430), and Maxim the Confessor (ca. 580 – 662), and the exegetical poem by Michael Psellus (1018 – after 1078).²

In contrast to the two earlier translations of this biblical book, the later translation of the catena version exploits more Greek loanwords to denote plants. There are different reasons for this choice of the later translator, including the perception of some lexemes as terms or a sense for their specific connotations in Greek. Another reason could be the polysemic character of such lexemes: sometimes theological interpretations in catena B₂ differ because they are based on different meanings of botanical designations. In what follows, examples of ad hoc borrowed Greek lexemes in the translation of catena B₂ will be given in comparison with the choices of the two earlier translators.

2.1. Example 1. ὄλυνθος Ct 2:13: пѫпъкъ (пѫпька) Cant₁– цвѣтъ Cant₂– олинтъ Cant₃

The word ὄλυνθος (ἡ συκῆ ἐξήνεγκεν ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς (LXX according to the edition of Rahlfs (2006) “the fig tree has put forth/ has developed/ has borne its first/ young/ unripe/ early fruit”) is used in the description of spring in the Song, when the flowers have appeared, pruning time has come, the vines are in blossom, giving forth fragrance (Ct 2: 12 – 13). The word is polysemic in Greek and could mean the fruit of the fig tree (winter or summer, wild or cultivated)³ or sterile male inflorescence of the caprifig (LSJ). In accordance with the Hebrew text, this lexeme in the Septuagint is thought to mean unripe, winter fig fruit.⁴ The earliest translator of the Song rendered ὄλυνθοι with пѫпкы (Алексеев, 1980, I, 12), a rare word in medieval Slavonic written sources, whose main form is reconstructed as пѫпъкъ by Franz Miklošič (Miklosich, 1865) in the same verse of the Song (also Alekseev, 2002: пѫпъкъі, Acc. Pl.) but it could be пѫпька too. The lexemes pup, popek, пъпка mean today ‘bud’ in South Slavic languages. The form without a suffix, пѫпъ, is used as a counterpart of the same Greek word in medieval Slavonic manuscripts that are thought to contain the early Slavonic translation of the Apocalypse 6: 13 звѣздьі съпадѫ съ небесе на землѭ ѣко смоковьница отъмѣтаѭщи пѫпъі своѧ отъ вѣтра велиѣ движима (SJS, but with a reconstructed archaic orthography) for ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τοὺς ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς ὑπὸ ἀνέμου μεγά­λου σειομένη. In this verse, it is considered to mean winter fig fruit which does not come to maturity but falls off in the spring (Thayer 2002, 444). It remains unclear if the translator(s) of the two verses discussed had in mind an intertextual link between them (in his commentary of Apocalypse Andrew of Caesarea (d. 637) makes such a link, see Andrew of Caesarea, 2011, pp. 98 – 99) and if the Slavic word пѫпъ(къ) had the meaning of unripe, green fruit, or rather it was chosen as the most appropriate counterpart of this Greek specific fruit designation for this context (if we judge from its etymology, a word with the root пѫп- could mean convex, protuberant things, such as bud, pimple, and could render the meaning ‘small, unripe fruits’, and even ‘siconium’),⁵ a counterpart that corresponds to Christian interpretations too.

The earlier catena translation attests a contextual rendition of the verse: смокъі изнесе цвѣтъ свои. In the commentary to it, it is explained: прѣжде плода цвѣтъ. Alekseev (Алексеев, 2002, p. 80) thinks that this phrase refers to Gregory of Nyssa’s commentary (Gregorius Nyssenus, 1986, 156.155.8 – 9), but this sentence explains that ὄλυνθος is a form of a fruit that appears before the sweet and ripe fruit, that is a temporary fruit: πρὸ τοῦ γλυκέος τε καὶ τελείου καρποῦ ὑπὸ τῆς συκῆς ἐν καρπῶν εἴδει προβαλλόμενον ὄλυνθος λέγεται (Gregorius Nyssenus, 1986, p. 155). The word цвѣтъ remained in Ostroh Bible of 1581 and even in Church Slavonic (Elisabeth) Bible of 1751. It is true that both spring flowers of the trees and winter fig fruit are short-lived and therefore this translation choice corresponds well to Christian interpretations. For example, Theodoret compares the people who have not been baptized with ὄλυνθοι that fall from the tree and do not develop into ripe fruit, in contrast to those people who are baptized. Both пѫпкы and цвѣтъ do not contradict this Christian interpretation, rather they well illustrate it, especially if an intertextual link to Apoc 6:13 is considered. The later translator, however, preferred the loanword олинѳы to render this orchardists’ term, but he, in order to make it clear for the readers, explained it with прѣдъплодїа, прѣдъплодьные смоквице, прѣжде плодъ смоковнице, newly coined words with clear meaning that corresponded well to the Christian interpretations.

2.2. There are several other cases in which the later translator preferred to use newly adaptated Greek borrowings to denote specific plants’ names, especially when the polysemy led to different theological interpretations put together in catena B₂:

Examples 2-3-4.

κύπρος Ct 4:12 ‘henna (Lawsonia inermis), henna-blossom, or camphor tree’ for the Hebrew kopher: цвѣтъ ‘bloom, blossom’ Cant₁ – купри Cant₃;

βότρυς τῆς κύπρου Ct 1:14 ‘a cluster of henna, flowering bunch’

гроздъ цвѣта ‘flowering cluster’ Cant₁

грезнъ зрѣлъ ‘ripe, mature cluster’ (according to the accompanying commentary, a tree from which myrrh is produced is viewed, probably commiphora myrrha: то же дрѣво любимьци строужемо даѥтъ плодъ мюра)

винꙗга кѵпрьскаа/ кѵпра ‘a flowering cluster, bunch of cypros’ Cant₃.⁶

Still, κυπρισμός Ct 7:13[12] ‘bloom’ is not rendered with a loanword in Cant₃, cf. ἤνθησεν ὁ κυπρισμός ‘(if) the blossom has bloomed’ (trans. By J.C. Treat, NETS, 2007, p. 665): процьвте цвѣтникь Cant₃, similar to процвьлъ цвѣтъ Cant_1. In his commentary, Theodoret explains the word κυπρισμός as τὸ ἄνθος ‘flower’, that is called “cyprismos”: ὅπερ ἐνταῦθα κυπρισμὸν προσηγόρευσεν. Here the translator used a loanword as a term, without morphological adaptation, and added a synonym: кѵ́прїсмо̀с ре́кше цвѣ́тникь.

2.3. In other sentences in the commentaries, the later translator uses newly adopted loanwords.

Example 5: δηλητήριον, τό (φάρμακον) ‘poison’: дилитирие/ дилитирионъ in the Commentary by Theodoret to Ct 1:7[6]. The later translator preferred a borrowing because the Greek etymon developed specific connotations in Greek. In Ct 1:7[6], the Bride expresses her fears that she might become like one who socializes with other shepherds. Theodoret regards them as heretics, conspirators and destructors who give δηλητήρια to their flocks instead of nourishing grass. The adjective δηλητήριος ‘destroying, killing’ is opposed to σωτήριος ‘saving’. In the second century, the grammarian Ptolemaeus discerned τὸ φάρμακον ἐπὶ ζωῆς (a medication that saves life) from τὸ δηλητήριον ἐπὶ θανασίμου (a medication that kills, deadly poison) (ΕΛ 2010). The later translator of Catena B₂ keeps this Greek word as a term having specific connotations and he adds an explanation of the borrowing, as in other cases, according to the context. He explains дилитирїа as пажити раждающи метилъ [pastures that produce fluke parasite] (this is the earliest attestation of the word метилъ).

3. 1. In texts that are not purely exegetical but rely strongly on the authority of the Scripture, similar problems arise with the translation of biblical quotations. In the next two examples from John Chrysostom’s homilies On the Statues, the translators had to choose between remaining faithful to the source and providing an unambiguous meaning of obscure content.

The homilies On the Statues were first translated in full in the 10^th century in Preslav, and again in the 14^th century on Mount Athos (Димитрова, 2024). They are not specifically exegetical, unlike many of John Chrysostom’s other homiletical series on various biblical books, but they provide interesting imagery from the natural world in metaphors, descriptions, and biblical quotations. As true representatives of the two main periods of Slavonic literacy, the early translation (hereafter P) is characterized by its archaic and flexible language, and the second one (hereafter A) demonstrates a more literal approach. Some of the words denoting plants in the text are the following: ῥόδον ‘rose’ – P шипъкъ / A роужа; ἴον ‘violet’ – P ионъ / A любичица; κρίνον ‘lily’ – P, A кринъ; ἐλαία ‘olive’ – P, A маслина (and ἔλαιον ‘olive-oil’ – P масло древѣно, древѣномаслие / A масло); σταφύλη ‘grapes’ – P грознъ / A гроздъ; συκή ‘fig tree’ – P смоква / A смоковьница; δρυμός ‘thicket’ – P дрѧзга / A дѫбрава, лѫгъ; νάπη ‘grove, glen’ – P дѫбрава / A ѫдоль; λειμών ‘meadow’ – P цвѣтильникъ, зима (understood as *χειμών), пристанище (understood as *λιμήν) / A садъ, раи; παράδεισος ‘garden’ – P овощьныи оградъ / A раи, and others.

3.2. Two biblical quotations give the opportunity for a deeper look into the translation and understanding of less familiar notions.

Example 6: σκοπός Hosea 9:10 ‘guardian, watchman; first fruit’

– translation P (10^th c.): стражецъ на смѡкви (‘watchman on the fig-tree’);

– translation A (14^th c.): смоква на смоковници (‘fig on the fig-tree’).

The first example contains the same image of an early fig as the one discussed above, but with a different corresponding term. The quotation is from Hosea 9:10: “Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors.”⁷ Ὡς σταφυλὴν ἐν ἐρήμῳ εὗρον τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ ὡς σκοπὸν ἐν (τῇ) συκῇ πρώϊμον εἶδον πατέρας αὐτῶν – P аки гроѕнъ ѡбрѣтѡⷯ в пустыни іил҃ѧ, ꙇ аки стражецъ на смѡкви раны видѣхъ ѡтца ихъ. The word σκοπός means ‘guardian, watchman’, but in this and other verses it denotes the early fruit of the fig tree. The Preslav translation of the homilies On the statues P follows the standard rendition in the early Slavonic translations as стражецъ на смѡкви, which corresponds faithfully to the Greek text. It stands very close to the full Preslav translation of this biblical book, cf.: акꙑ грознъ въ пѹстꙑни обрѣтохъ израилѣ, и акꙑ стражъ на смоковьници раньнѣ, видѣхъ отьцѧ ихъ.⁸ This metaphorical use has apparently posed problems to the understanding of the passage even in the Greek tradition, and in some manuscripts the word σκοπός ‘guardian’ was sometimes replaced with καρπός ‘fruit’, as attested in the variant readings to this verse in the Septuagint. The second Slavonic translation of the homilies A also preferred an explicit rendition: смоквѹ на смоковници ‘fig on the fig tree’, translating σκοπός as смоква ‘fig’.

Example 7: τερέβινθος Isaiah 1:30 ‘terebinth, Pistacia Terebinthus’

– translation P (10^th c.): теревинѳъ (loanword);

– translation A (14^th c.): теревинѳъ;

– earliest translation of Isaiah (Prophetologion / Parimejnik, 9^th c.): теровъ, тьрниѳъ (loanword);

– Preslav translation of Isaiah with commentaries (10^th c.): церъ (Quercus cerris).

The second quotation is from Isaiah 1:30: “For you shall be like an oak whose leaf withers, and like a garden without water” ἔσονται γὰρ ὡς τερέβινθος ἀποβεβληκυῖα τὰ φύλλα καὶ ὡς παράδεισος ὕδωρ μὴ ἔχων. Both translations of the homilies use the loan-word теревинѳъ ‘terebinth, Pistacia Terebinthus’ (Moldenke & Moldenke, 2002, pp. 178 – 179, pp. 193 – 199; Musselman, 2007, pp. 265 – 269). The same lexeme was used in the archaic translation of the Old Testament in the so-called Parimejnik (Prophetologion). e.g. теровъ in Grigorovich and тьрниѳъ in Zacharinski Prophetologion (see, e.g. SJS) However, in another early translation of this verse, the word τερέβινθος is rendered as церъ (Quercus cerris), and this is also the corresponding term in the Preslav translation of the commentary of St. Basil. The name of the tree τερέβινθος is mentioned several times in different books of the Old Testament, and is understood as a large deciduous tree, sometimes translated as ‘oak’. The two species have little in common in terms of taxonomy, and the context does not require strict botanical accuracy. The preferrence for the obscure borrowing теревинѳъ in both translations indicates either influence from the earliest translation of the Prophetologion, or a close adherence to the Greek text of Chrysostom’s homilies.

In conclusion, translation of biblical verses means interpretation. Obscure and polysemantic terms posed challenges to the translators, who might be influenced by the context, by the existing earlier translations of the Scriptures, and sometimes by the commentary tradition. Thus, the later translator of the Song of Songs used more loanwords than the earlier ones because he was confronted with different interpretations of the same biblical verses in the catena and because he aspired to render correctly the Greek botanical terminology interpreted in a spiritual sense by Theodoret. Still, in order to make the interpretations understandable, he explained some of the loanwords. Facing the challenge to translate an etymological explanation as a method of exegesis, he was lead in his lexical choices from the context.

 

NOTES

 

*Parts 1 and 3 were written by Aneta Dimitrova, part 2 by Margaret Dimitrova. The paper was presented with the support of Sofia University Marking Momentum For Innovation and Technological Transfer (SUMMIT) – 3.3 International cooperation.

 

1. On techniques of medieval Slavonic translators, see, among others, Минчева, 1985; MacRobert, 1993; Thomson, 1988; Тасева & Йовчева, 2006; Илиева, 2013; Христова-Шомова, 2016.
2. For an overview of the studies of these three medieval Slavonic versions of the Song, see Bruni, 2017 and Славова, 2022, p. 31, pp. 38 – In this paper, the examples from the two early translations are taken from the edition of Алексеев, 2002; the examples from the late translation of the catena from Димитрова, 2012.
3. See, for instance, edible fruit of the wild fig, summer or late fig (LEH), edible fruit of the wild fig (Muraoka, 2009, p. 494); edible fruit of the wild fig; sterile summer fruit of the cultivated fig (LSJ).
4. M. Pope’s translation from Hebrew the fig ripens her fruits (Pope, 1977, p. 365) and the following translations from Greek: The fig-tree has put forth its young figs (Brenton, 1851), The fig-tree has put forth its figs (J. C. Treat in NETS, 2007, 662); Смоковница принесла ранние ягоды свои (Юнгеров, 1916).
5. On the etymology of pǫp > пъп, пъпка, see, for instance, БЕР VI: 61-65; the meaning of пѫпъ in Apoc 6: 13 is formulated as unripe fruit, unripe fig in SJS, and as bud, unopened flower, unripe fruit in Sreznevskij III.
6. On the rendition of κύπρος in medieval Slavonic manuscripts and on the meaning of vinjaga, see Minčeva, 1991.
7. also Nahum 3: 12: “All your fortresses are like fig trees with first-ripe figs – if shaken they fall into the mouth of the eater.”
8. Златанова, 2022, 107. In the Old Church Slavonic translation of Theodoret’s commentary, this particular phrase is not discussed, see e.g. MS Moscow, Russian State Library, fund 304/I, Sv.Troice-Sergieva Lavra, no. 89, f. 7r.

 

REFERENCES

Dictionaries consulted:

БЕР (2002): Български етимологичен речник. Т. VI. София: Академично изд. „Проф. Марин Дринов“. [Balgarski etimologichen rechnik. V. VI. Sofia: Academic Press “Professor Marin Drinov”].

ΕΛ (2010): Μπαμπινιώτης, Γ. Ετυμολογικό λεξικό τής Νέας Ελληνικής γλώσσας. Ιστορία τών λέξεων. Αθήνα: Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας.

LEH: A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, compiled by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, & K. Hauspie, with the collaboration of G. Chamberlain. Revised ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.

LSJ: Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised ed. by H. Jones with the assistance of R. McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940; available at https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lexica.php

Miklosich, F. (1865). Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, emendatum auctum. Vindobonae: Guilelmus Braumueller. Available at www.monumentaserbica.branatomic.com/mikl/

Muraoka, T. (2009). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain, Paris, Walpole, MA: Peeters.

SJS: Kurz, J. et al. (red.), Slovník jazyka staroslověnského (Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae). T. 1–52. Praha: Academia, 1958–1997; available at (https://gulliver.gorazd.org/catalog/default/dashboard?lang=en).

Sreznevskii: Материалы для словаря древне-русскаго языка по письменным памятникам: труд И. И. Срезневского. Т. 1 – 3. Санкт-Петербург: Отделение русского языка и словесности Императорской академии наук, 1890-1912 [I. I. Sreznevskij, Materialy dlia slovaria drevne-russkogo iazyka po pis’mennym pamiatnikam. 1 – 3 vols. St. Petersburg: Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1890-1912) available at https://slavistik-portal.de.

Thayer, J. H. (2002), A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002, 5th printing (first ed. 1889).

 

 

REFERENCES

Alekseev, A.A. (1980). Pesn’ pesney v drevney slavyano-russkoy pis’mennosti. Chast’ 1. Institut russkogo yazyka.

Alekseev, A.A. (2002). Pesn’ pesney v drevney slavyano-russkoy pis’mennosti. Dmitriy Bulanin.

Andrew of Caesarea. (2011). Commentary оn тhe Apocalypse, trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. Catholic University of America Press.  (=The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 123).

Brenton, Sir L. C. L. (1851). The English translation of The Septuagint. Samuel Bagster & Sons  (1 st. ed. 1844)

Bruni, A. M. (2017). 13 – 17.2.7.2. Old Church Slavonic Translations [of Canticles]. In: A. Lange & E. Tov (Eds.) Textual History of the Bible (498 – 500). Vol. 1C. Leiden: Brill.

CPG IV (1980). Clavis patrum graecorum, 4. Ed. M. Geerard. Brepols.

Dimitrova, A. (2024). Dva tsyalostni yuzhnoslavyanski prevoda na Zlatoustovia sbornik Andrianti. – V: L. Taseva, A. Rabus, I. P. Petrov (red.). Uchitelnoto evangelie na Konstantin Preslavski i yuzhnoslavyanskite prevodi na homiletichni tekstove (IX – XIII v.). Filologicheski i interdistsiplinarni rakursi (365–386). IBTST – BAN.

Dimitrova, M. (2012). Talkuvania na Pesen na Pesnite v rakopis 2/24 ot Rilskata sveta obitel. Heron pres.

Gregorius Nyssenus (1986). Gregorii Nysseni opera, VI: In Canticum canticorum. Edidit Hermannus Langerbeck. Ed. altera (facsimile). Brill. (ed. prima 1960).

Hristova-Shomova, I. (2016). Bog be slovo: etyudi varhu hristianstvoto, vidyano prez prizmata na ezika. UI „Sv. Kliment Ohridski“.

Ilieva, T. (2013). Terminologichnata leksika v Joan-Ekzarhoviya prevod na “De fide orthodoxa”. Pechatnitsa „P. P. Slaveykov“.

Macrobert, C. M. (1993). Translation is interpretation: Lexical variation in the translation of the Psalter from Greek into Church Slavonic up to the 15th century. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 53, 254 – 289.

Mincheva, Α. (1985). Za prevodacheskite printsipi na Konstantin-Kiril. V: A. Ignatova & Kr. Stanchev (Sast.). Izsledvania po kirilometodievistika (116 – 128). Nauka i izkustvo.

Minčeva, A. (1991). Zum Wort “vinjaga” im Lexicon von Franz Miklošič. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 37, 41 – 50.

Moldenke, H. N. & Moldenke, A. L. (2002). Plants of the Bible. Kegan Paul.

Musselman, L. J. (2007). Figs, Dates, Laurel and Myrrh. Plants of the Bible and the Quran. Timber Press.

NETS 2007 = Pietersma, A. & Wright B. G.  (Eds). A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS]. Oxford University Press.

Pope, M. H. (1977). Song of Songs. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, London. (=The Anchor Yale Bible 7C).

Rahlfs, A. (2006). Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. (2nd ed.). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Available at Septuagint (LXX) – www.die-bibel.de.

Taseva, L. & M. Yovcheva (2006). Ezikovite obraztsi na atonskite redaktori. V: A. Davidov (otg. red.). Balgarska filologicheska medievistika. Sbornik nauchni izsledvania v chest na prof. dfn Ivan Haralampiev po sluchay 60-godishniya mu yubiley (221 – 240). UI „Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy“.

Thomson, F. J. (1988). Sensus or Proprietas Verborum. Medieval Theories of Translation as Exemplified by Translations from Greek into Latin and Slavonic. In: K. Trost, E., Völkl, E. Wedel (Hrsg.). Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internaionalen Tagung in Regensburg (17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method (675 – 691). Hieronymus.

Yungerov, P. (1916). Knigi Ekklesіast i Pesn’ pesney v russkom perevode s grecheskago teksta LXX, s vvedenіem i primechanіyami. Tsentral’naya tipografіa.

Zlatanova, R. (2022). Knigi na prorotsite Osiya, Sofoniya, Agey, Zahariya, Malahiya v starobalgarski prevod. Temto.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Aneta Dimitrova, Assoc. Prof.

ORCID: 0000-0003-1973-8462

Scopus Author ID: 57217613722

Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures,

Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

15, Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.

1504 Sofia

E-mail: anetagd@uni-sofia.bg

Prof. Dr. Margaret Dimitrova

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6370-0763

Scopus Author ID: 36625316300

Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures,

Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

15, Tsar Osvoboditel blvd

1504 Sofia

E-mail: marg@slav.uni-sofia.bg

Bel_01s_2026_Aneta Dimitrova