921

THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE

CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER UP TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY

by
Catherine M. MACROBERT

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, Great Britain

The first translation of the Psalter into Old Church Slavonic is known to have been made by SS. Cyril
and Methodius between 863 and 869; but no MSS survived from this time and the earliest witnesses,
probably of the 11th century, reveal the existence of at least three distinct redactions of the text, each
based on independent consultation of Greek and exhibiting distinctive choices of Church Slavonic
wording. By the end of the 14th century three more redactions had been produced in the South Slav
lands, and there is also evidence of redactional activity among the East Slavs.
This paper is based on full collation of fifty MSS dating from the 11th to the 15th centuries. The rela­
tionships posited between these MSS and the various redactions for which they provide evidence are
presented in tabular form, and each redaction is characterized by selections of variant readings which
can be referred back to variation in the Greek textual tradition.

Verna, da sta prvi prevod psalterja v staro cerkveno slovanscino pripravila sveta Ciril in Metod med leto­
ma 863 in 869. Toda iz tega casa se niso ohranili nikakrsni rokopisi in najbolj zgodnje price, verjetno iz
11. stoletja, razkrivajo obstoj vsaj treh razlicnih redakcij besedila, od katerih vsaka temelji na neodvis­
nem preverjanju grscine in kaze dolocen izbor cerkvenoslovanskega izrazja. Ob koncu 14. stoletja so v
juznoslovanskih dezelah nastale se tri redakcije, izpricana pa je tudi redakcijska dejavnost med vzhod­
nimi Slovani.
Ta prispevek temelji na celotni primerjavi petdesetih rokopisov iz obdobja od 11. do 15. stoletja. Raz­
merja, ki domnevno obstajajo med temi rokopisi in razlicnimi redakcijami, za katere pricajo, so pred­
stavljena v obliki preglednice. Vsaka redakcija je oznacena po izboru razlicnih branj, ki jih je mogoce
primerjati z razlicico v grskem besedilnem izrocilu.

I. Introduction

The Psalter figured among the earliest Biblical translations into Church Sla­
vonic, carried out in the late 9th century by SS. Cyril and Methodius, 1 and was proba­
bly the book of Scripture most widely used and quoted among the Orthodox Slavs
throughout the medieval period. Yet its textual tradition has received limited and spo-

1 See Vie de Methode, chapter 15, in A. Vaillant, Textes vieux-slaves (Paris: lnstitut des etudes slaves,
1968), 53.
 INTERPRETATION OF TIIE BIBLE
- 922

radic scholarly attention. Substantial work was done in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries by Archimandrite Amfiloxij, V. I. Sreznevsky, V. A. Pogorelov, M. Valjavec,
]. Vajs and above all by V. Jagic, whose articles still offer the most comprehensive and
penetrating analyses of the early versions of the text. As can been seen from the ap­
pended bibliography, however, there followed a period of neglect; and when interest
revived in the second half of the 20th century scholars sometimes found themselves
retravelling paths already traversed.
Moreover, progress in this area is beset by two fundamental difficulties. One is
the dearth of readily available source material: manuscripts are published for their
beauty-which is no guarantee of their textual significance or reliability-or else for
their age and good state of preservation-which may well reflect limited use and mar­
ginal status in the textual tradition. The appended list of manuscripts consulted, which
contains most of the material extant from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries and the
greater part of what is known from the 14th century, provides eloquent support for
the latter point: the handful of manuscripts which has survived from the early period
is small out of proportion to any reasonable estimate of the number of psalters which
must have existed, and the survival rate of copies made for everyday purposes, with­
out commentary or fine illumination, is lower still. Presumably such manuscripts dis­
integrated through constant use.
The second difficulty also stems from the nature and use of the text: as a Scrip­
tural and liturgical book, the Church Slavonic Psalter was subject to recurrent scrutiny
and revision, in order both to ensure consistency with one or other standard Greek
version and also to maintain or impose conformity to the linguistic norms and transla­
tional requirements of the time. Existing manuscripts were corrected, more or less
thoroughly, and then might serve as exemplars; new copies were compiled from
older ones, which might reflect more than one version of the text. The scribe who
copied a newly introduced revision of the Psalter, even if he worked from a single
good exemplar, surely knew better, perhaps by heart, the earlier version which was to
be superseded, and might very easily revert now and then to the old familiar wording
of the text. Thus contamination between redactions is not merely commonplace in
this tradition, but must be regarded as intrinsic to its development.
Notwithstanding these obstacles, increased availability and study of early manu­
scripts has made it possible to identify at least seven redactions of the Church Slavo­
nic Psalter up to the 15th century. In the 11th century we already have clear evidence
of four distinct versions. What is here termed Redaction 1 2 is modestly attested by the
Sinai Glagolitic Psalter and by Croatian Glagolitic manuscripts of the 14th century.

2 Sometimes known as the 'Archaic' or 'South Slavonic' redaction.

 Ca1herine M. MAcROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
923 --

However, Redaction I stands in a close relationship to the Church Slavonic translation

of the commentated psalter traditionally ascribed to S Athanasius of Alexandria, and
the two traditions are generally taken together as evidence for the original translation
of SS Cyril and Methodius, the more so since, as Vlasek and Garzaniti have shown,
their wording is mirrored in quotations from the Psalter found in other Old Church
Slavonic texts. These two versions have been long and thoroughly studied and their
principal witnesses have been published in facsimile or critical editions by I. Bercic, V.
Jagic, S. Sever'janov,J. Vajs,J. Hamm, I. Dujcev and M. Altbauer.
The Church Slavonic translation of the commentary on the Psalms by Theo­
doret of Cyrrhus is also attested from the 11th century. This version, which displays a
range of striking differences from Redaction I and the Pseudo-Athanasian commen­
tary, has been investigated in some detail by Pogorelov and Lepissier, though the ear­
liest complete manuscript, which dates from the 15th century, has unfortunately not
as yet been published. Until recently Redaction 11 3 was less well known: its distin­
guishing characteristics were extrapolated from 13th- and 14th-century manuscripts
by V. Jagic and V. A. Pogorelov, but its age, and even its status as a distinct redaction,
were in doubt. The publication by M. Altbauer and Lunt of the Sinai Cyrillic Psalter has
now established the existence of Redaction II as early as the 11th century; most of the
psalter manuscripts which survive from the East Slavonic area up to the end of the
14th century are primarily affiliated to this redaction, and its influence can be dis­
cerned in South Slavonic manuscripts of the 13th and early 14th centuries, even when
they adhere in the main to Redaction I.
The 14th century saw widepread and repeated efforts to correct the Church
Slavonic versions of the Psalter and other books of Scripture. In the South Slavonic
lands they produced three distinct (though possibly related) revisions, referred to
here as Redaction III,4 Redaction IV and the redaction of the Norov Psalter. Redaction
III, as I. Bujukliev pointed out, is attested by the first half of the 14th century in Bulgar­
ian and Serbian manuscripts and has been found by Cesko in East Slavonic sources
some decades later; she and Karaforova have analysed in detail the characteristics of
this version, and two of its principal witnesses have been published by Dzurova and
by Dufrenne and her collaborators. Redaction IV is reflected in East Slavonic manu­
scripts of the late 14th and 15th centuries whose orthography, according to Cesko, in­
dicates South Slavonic antecedents; at the end of the 15th century it was incorporated
into the full version of the Bible commissioned by Archbishop Gennadij of Novgorod
and thence into the Ostrog Bible printed in 1581, from which the modern Synodal

3 Sometimes known as the 'Russian' redaction, because it is attested earliest and most frequently­
though not exclusively-in manuscripts written in the East Slavonic area.
4 Sometimes known as the 'Athonite' redaction.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE --
924

covery and publication of the highly literalistic version known so far only in the No­
rov Psalter, a 14th-century Bulgarian manuscript.
Similar endeavours to improve the text appear to have been made at about the
same time in Russia, but with less clear-cut results. A number of 14th-century East Sla­
vonic Psalter manuscripts betray compilatory revision, drawing on both the Pseudo­
Athanasian commentated Psalter and that of Theodoret; apparently, however, this ac­
tivity did not culminate in a redaction which enjoyed any widespread or prolonged
authority.
The appended diagram is intended to give an approximate idea of the interplay
of redactions and the resulting complexities of textual affiliation among the manu­
scripts consulted for this study. Apart from So/ and Kip, which have been assessed on
the basis of their variant readings as supplied by V. Jagic and E. V. Cesko, unpublished
manuscripts have been collated with the Bologna Psalter. Sin, Lob, Par, Hval and Kiev
have been consulted selectively in the light of earlier work on their textual peculiari­
ties. In the diagram continuous lines indicate primary affiliation to one or other redac­
tion; where two or more manuscripts stand in a row and are underlined, they share
the same primary affiliation and provide mutually corroborative evidence either for
the parent redaction or at least for a particular stage in its transmission. Broken lines
indicate secondary influence of a redaction on an individual manuscript which is
primarily affiliated to some other redaction, i.e. contamination. Arrowheads at either
end of a continuous line interrupted by a question mark imply that the chronological
relationship between two redactions, or, in the case of Mih, between a redaction and a
manuscript, is open to doubt; at the end of a broken line an arrowhead indicates sec­
ondary influence on a manuscript from a later redaction, i.e. correction. Manuscripts
displayed in brackets are fragmentary but important early witnesses.
Redactions are enclosed in boxed lines, and are placed immediately above the
earliest manuscripts from which they can be extrapolated. Thus their position in the
vertical dimension, which represents time, indicates only the stage by which they are
known to have existed, not necessarily the dates at which they were produced. There
is no solid ground for supposing that any of these redactions represents a completely
new translation, made without reference to preceding versions; on the contrary, they
share substantial elements which presumably go back to the original translation of the
9th century, as is implied in the diagram by the lines which link the redactions attested
in the 11th century on the one hand with the translation of SS. Cyril and Methodius
and on the other with their 14th-century successors. This community of tradition ex­
tends to the place which these Church Slavonic versions occupy in the wider history
of the transmission of the text: Vajs' demonstration that Redaction I of the Church
Slavonic Psalter derives from the so-called 'Lucianic' Greek redaction holds, not sur-
 Catherine M. MAcROBERT, THE TEXTIJAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PsALTER ...
925-

prisingly, for subsequent Church Slavonic redactions as well. Although some of the
variant readings which characterize Redactions I and II and the translation of the Pseu­
do-Athanasian commentary are better attested in the early Western tradition, as Lau­
rencik and Pantelic have shown, there is (pace Lepissier) no compelling evidence for
translation from Latin even at an early stage.
At the same time, the redactions are diffentiated from each other (with the pos­
sible exception of Redaction I and the Pseudo-Athanasian commentated Psalter) by
systematic grammatical peculiarities, by characteristic choices of vocabulary and trans­
lation technique, and occasionally by substantive differences in interpretation. These
divergences, which have parallels in the textual traditions of other Church Slavonic
translations of Scripture, would be sufficient in themselves to suggest that revision
proceeded on the basis of comparison with the Greek text;5 but in addition they are
associated with sets of characteristic variant readings which clearly derive from Greek.
The tabulated examples which follow are by no means an exhaustive list of Greek
variants which might account for the divergent readings of the Church Slavonic psal­
ter tradition; rather, they are a selection of the most telling and well attested instances,
which provide the most solid evidence in support of the view that each Church Sla­
vonic redaction started from a slightly different version of the Greek Psalter. Thus
those kinds of variant which could equally well have arisen in Greek or independently
in Church Slavonic, such as reminiscences from one part of the text to another, varia­
tion between singular and plural of nouns or between the tenses of verbs, are mini­
mally represented. By the same token, a number of variant Greek spellings, which in
the context of the Greek tradition would be trivial, are included in the tables, not only
because they give rise to sharply divergent readings in Church Slavonic, but also be­
cause their persistence in the transmission of a given redaction, in the face of the spo­
radic verification of individual manuscripts against Greek, presumably reflects con­
temporary popular understanding of certain passages in the Psalms. Most of the Greek
variants listed here are common enough to appear in the critical apparatuses of A. Ra­
hlfs, R. Holmes and]. Parsons or F. Field; 6 but in a few places a hypothetical Greek
variant, indicated by a question mark, has been supplied where no other explanation
of the Church Slavonic seems plausible.

5 Even the East Slavonic compilatory revisions of the 14th century reflect consultation of the Greek at
some points, e.g. in Ps 108:6 and 8, where the words oui/JoAO!; and tirwic01r�, normally left untranslated
as technical expressions, are rendered respectively as obl''gatai 'false accuser' and nabdenie 'office' in
the manuscripts T28 and Amf
6 A. Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vanden­
hoeck and Ruprecht, 1979); R. Holmes and}. Parsons, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectioni­
bus 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1832); F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt 1-2 (Oxford: Cla­
rendon Press, 1875).
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
- 926

It must be emphasized that these tables offer a simplified and schematic picture
of what is actually to be found in the Church Slavonic manuscripts. The readings at­
tributed to the various redactions are in each case taken from the earliest more or less
complete witnesses available; 7 where these have lacunae, as in the early tradition of
Redaction II, and have to be supplemented by more recent manuscripts, early readings
are preferred to divergent later ones. Manuscripts whose text is significantly contami­
nated have been excluded from consideration. In this way it is possible to present a rea­
sonably clear-cut textual profile for each redaction, rather than launch the reader into a
vast and foggy sea of variants culled indiscriminately from all the available manuscripts.
The picture which emerges is consistent with the relationships between redac­
tions posited in the diagram. The early redactions are quite sharply distinguished both
from each other and from the later ones; the most idiosyncratic is perhaps Redaction
II, which is characterized by some unusual and surprising variants. Redactions III and
IV have much in common, yet each goes its own way at certain points. I have not yet
had opportunity to investigate the distinctive readings of Nor in full, but even the
comparative evidence presented here shows that it does not fully coincide either with
Redaction III or with Redaction IV. However, underlying continuities can also be per­
ceived, particularly between Redaction I and Nor, between Redactions II and III, and
between the version of the psalms contained in Theodoret's commentary and the re­
dactions of the 14th century.
No set of variants is put forward to distinguish between Redaction I and the
Pseudo-Athanasian commentary. This might seem only natural, since scholarly opinion
has tended to treat these as essentially the same, or at least very closely related ver­
sions. In fact, as can be inferred from the table of divergences among witnesses for the
two versions, the reason lies rather in their unpredictable inconsistencies. Even when
the Latinate readings of Lob and Par are excluded as they have been here, patterns are
scarcely to be discerned; and it is disconcerting to note that Sin, supposedly the earli­
est and linguistically most conservative Church Slavonic psalter, tends to agree with
the later redactions against the witness of some or all of the other manuscripts com­
monly thought to preserve the tradition of SS. Cyril and Methodius. In the face of such
textual variation, which must result from widespread early attempts at emendation, it is
hard to find any principled way of deciding which readings are most likely to go back
to the original translation of SS. Cyril and Methodius. The absence of secure and objec­
tive criteria for preferring one variant to another becomes apparent if one compares
this list with the reconstruction of St. Methodius' translation of the Psalms recently pub-
7 For Redaction I and the Pseudo-Athanasian commentary, I have used Sin, Tol, Pog, Bon, Lob, Par and
Vin; for Theodoret's commentary, 7/177, checked where possible against Cud; for Redaction II, S6,
Har.Jar, Plj and Bel; for Redaction III, Tom, Kar, UB34 and Mun; for Redaction IV, Kip and Gen.
 Catherine M. MA.cROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
927 -

lished by D. Dunkov, or if one considers the discrepancies between his editorial deci­
sions and those ofTheissen in so brief and unproblematic a text as Ps 22.
The problem which has just been outlined accounts for a basic structural fea­
ture in the diagram of textual relationships: the shaded bar placed between the 10th
and 11th centuries symbolizes our ignorance of what happened during the first 150-
200 years of this tradition. It is possible to take an optimistic view of this gap in our in­
formation, by assuming that the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition enjoyed such respect that
it was not lightly tampered with, that in the manuscripts of Redaction I and the
Pseudo-Athanasian commentary that tradition has been preserved with relatively mi­
nor and piecemeal modifications, and that new discoveries may enable us to recon­
struct the original state of the text with reasonable confidence. This is no empty hope:
publication of the second Glagolitic psalter manuscript discovered on Mt. Sinai in
1975 and ascribed by Tarnanides to the 11th century will surely cast fresh light on this
early stage in the development of the Church Slavonic Psalter text.
A more pessimistic view, however, is that the translation made by SS. Cyril and
Methodius in the later 9th century for the benefit of the Moravian Slavs was subjected
to such comprehensive linguistic and textual revision when it passed into the hands of
the South Slavs in Bulgaria and Macedonia at the end of that century that its original
form and characteristics are no longer accessible to us. No doubt this is a matter for re­
gret; but reconstruction of an ultimate prototype is not the only reason for studying a
textual tradition. It is to be hoped at least that the analysis of variants presented above
will be useful to scholars who wish to determine the redactional affiliation of medieval
Church Slavonic psalter manuscripts not included in this study. In addition, the classi­
fication of Greek variants offered here may point the way towards elucidating changes
in the reception of the Greek text of the Psalter in the later medieval period.·

The research for this paper was carried only with the support of the British Academy and its Humani­
ties Research Board.
1. Textual Development of the Church lavonic Psalter up to the 15th Century

10th C.

I
\ \
------ ___ __
,,,
'
'
' '' '
''
'
'''
''
'''
''
''
llthc. '
'' '
'' ''''
'' '
'
' '' ' ''
(Eug S6 ' ''
'' '
' ' '

\
'' '' ' ''
'''
' ''
' '''
''
12th C. ' ' ' ' '
' '' '
' '''' '
' ' ' ''

\
Toi Har '' ' '
' '' '''
' '' '
' '''' '
13thc. '' '.

--,-
''
' '' '.' '
' '' '''' ''
f63 f62 '' ' '' '''
''
' '' ' '' '
'
T27 ''''' '''''' '
14th C. '
'
(6d �3 :P2
..... .... ':
'
''' '
''

15th c.
 Catherine M. MAcROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
929 �

2. Characteristic Greek Variants in the Church Slavonic Redactions of the Psalter

a) Variants Shared by Redaction I and both Commentated Versions

Ps44:9 a1ro{:Jfiecwv RI+ Ps-ATh
am:i (:3a(}£(i)V RIIRIiiRIV Nor
Ps47:4 iv rai� f:3aecmv RI+ Ps-ATh
tv rai� /3a(}fat RIIRIiiRNNor
Ps57:5 aan:ioov wqxiJv RI+ Ps-ATh Nor
aan:io� wept;� RIIRIiiRIV
Ps57:6 cpaQµaxov w RI+ Ps-ATh
cpa(}µaxom:at RIIRIil RIV Nor
Ps83:11 OiXciV RI+ Ps-ATh
OiXctV µt RIIRIIIRIV Nor
Ps104:42 ov oi@t:w r<fj A/3Qaaµ RI+ Ps-ATh
wv 11"(}0(; A/3Qaaµ RIIRIiiRIV Nor
Ps134:6 €1l'OtryOFV O XV(}tO� RI+ Ps-ATh
erroiryacv RII
0 XV(}to� €1l'OtryOcV RIil RIV Nor

b) Variants Shared by Redactions I and II and the Pseudo-Athanasian

Commentary (and Nor)
Ps26:12 c� XdQa� RI+ Ps-ARII Nor
c� 1/JVX� ThRIIIRIV
Ps44:18 µvryafhjaowai RI+ Ps-ARII
µvryafhjaoµai ThRIii RIV Nor
Ps89:5 frry RI+ Ps-ARII
lfrt ThRIilRIV Nor
Ps90:3 QVOcrai µc RI+ Ps-ARII
QVOcra[ Oc ThRIiiRIV Nor
Ps118:49 rov A6yov . .. <!> RI+ Ps-ARII Nor
raiv A6ywv ... wv ThRIiiRIV
Ps 118:120 TWV ewoAaiv? RI+ Ps-ARII
TWV X(}tµarwv ThRIil RIV Nor
Ps131:15 -r,jv XT/Qav RI+ Ps-ARII
11JV ihjQaV ThRIIIRNNor
Hab 3:19 ev rai� <fx5ai� RI+ Ps-ARII
cVrrJ.
, - dx>-n RIII Kip Nor
 INTERPREfATION OF TifE BIBLE
- 930

c) Variants Shared by Redaction I and the Pseudo-Athanasian

Commentary
Ps 39:9 rfk X<X(}Oia£" RI+ Ps-A
rfk xoiA.ia£" Th RII RIII RN Nor
Ps 46:9 hri n:avra Ta ffJvr/ RI+ Ps-A
fn:i Ta @v71 Th RII RIII RN Nor
Ps 49:18 µera µoixwv RI+ Ps-A
µera µotxov Th RII RIII RN Nor
Ps 70:20 miA.at av,jyayi£" µE RI+ Ps-A
11:CXAlV av,jyayi£" µE Th
av,jyayt£" µe RII RIII RIV Nor
Ps 97:5 Tip fkf/) iJµ<iJv RI+ Ps-A
Tip XV(}t<p Th RII RIil RIV Nor
Ps 138:20 £(lei£" RI+ Ps-A
i(Jci£" earat? RII
fgtmai £0'r£ Th Rill RN Nor
Isa 26:18 in:0{71aa£" RI+ Ps-ARII
fn:otfpaµev RIIIKipNor

d) Variant Shared by Redaction II and Theodorefs Commentary

Ps 33:23 xarawxvvihjaovrai? RII Th
'IUTfµµclfpovatv RI+ Ps-ARIii RIV Nor

e) Distinctive Variants in Theodoret's Commentary

Ps 10:4 an:o/3Ain:ov01v rr,v oixovµiw]v Th
an:o/3Ain:ov01v RI+ Ps-ARII RIil RN Nor
Ps 34:24 µiJ tmxa(JciTfaav µoi oi
fx{}(Joi µov Th; Dec
µiJ in:tXa(Jci,.,aav µ01 RI+ Ps-ARII RIii RIV Nor
Ps 44:12 11:QOO'XVVTJOOVOl V Th
11:(JOO'XVVTJOfl£" RI+ Ps-ARII RIII RIV Nor
Ps 51:7 fxriAat ... µeravamcvaat Th;Nor
fxnki? ... µETavaawvact RI+ Ps-ARII RIil RIV
Ps 70:20 n:ciltv av,jyayi£" µ£ Th
mi.lat av,jyayi£" µ£ RI+ Ps-A
av,jyayt£" µe RII RIii RIV Nor
Ps 77:64 oil x,l,avaO,jaovrat Th
oux ooavotJrJaav. RI+ Ps-ARII RIII RIV Nor
 CatMrine M. MAcROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
931-

Ps 89:12 1tc1ra1&uµtvov; Th; Par Lob

1C£1CeOT/µEVOD; RI + Ps-A RII RIII RIV Nor
Ps 118:17 (fpoµat Th
(;Ja6v µs RI + Ps-ARIIRIIIRIV Nor
Ps 137:5 iv mis ooo� Th
iv -ralsq>Oa� RI + Ps-A RII RIII RIV Nor
Ps 140:6 !JO&vffr,aav Th
IJOUV,pt,/O"av RI+ Ps-A RII RIII RIV Nor

f) Distinctive Variants in Redaction II

Ps 52:2 iv w� imTl}&vµam RII
iv -ra� avoµiats RI + Ps-A ThRIII RIV Nor
Ps 62:2 i1te1:afJrJ ao1 1J aa{!; µau RII
nooan:Mis ao1 1J aa{!( µav RI + Ps-A ThRIII RIV Nor
Ps 68:14 rijs ouvaµsws? RII
WV woo; RI + Ps-A Th RIII RIV Nor
Ps 70:19 fJa.vµama RII
µsyaMla RI+ Ps-A ThRIII RIV Nor
Ps 73:17 Ta O(JW? RII
ra 6Qta RI + Ps-A ThRIII RIV Nor
Ps 84:5 0 CfW'rT}{J 1Jµ<i}V RII;Parlob
rwv CTWTTJ{?iwv ryµwv Sin + Ps-A ThRIII RIV Nor
Ps 107:10 bt1:svw RII; Par Lob
im{3alt.w Sin+ Ps-A ThRIil RIV Nor
Ps 134:6 inoiriasv RII
ino{riasv 6 XV{JtQs RI+ Ps-A Th
0 XV{_)tQs £1COiT/CfcV RIII RIV Nor
Ps 138:20 £{leis lcnai? RII
£{leis RI+ Ps-A
E{?tara{ tars ThRIII RIV Nor

g) Variant Shared by Redactions I and III

Ps 5:4 i1t6!/)oµat RI + Ps-A RIII
ThRII RIV Nor

h) Variants Shared by Redactions II and III

Ps 98:4 ev{rorriras RII RIII
s�a RI + Ps-A Th Nor
 INTERPRETATION OF TIIE BIBLE
- 932

Ps140:9 E'X(}VI/XXV RIIRIil

auvwnjaavw RI+ Ps-A ThRIV

i) Variants Shared by Redactions III and N (and Nor)

Ps34:18 eeoµoAoy,jaoµa{ aot RIilRIV Nor
e,oµoAoy,jaoµai aoi XV()t£ RI+ Ps-A ThRII
Ps42:2 'X(}awiwµa RlllRIV Nor
lax� RI+ Ps-A ThRII
Ps48:17 1/ �a avrov Rlll Kipr? Gen
1) �a wv olxov avrov RI+ Ps-A ThRII Nor
Ps65:7 r<j} &amj(ovn RlllRIV Nor
w� &arr6/;ovat RI + Ps-A ThRII
Ps69:3 Aoyt(6µevot RIiiRIV Nor
{3ovA6µevot RI + Ps-A ThRII
Ps80:13 xara TO: £1CL TTJ&Vµara RlllRIV Nor
xara TO'.£" imOvµi� RI + Ps-A ThRII
Ps118:112 fxAtva RlllRIV Nor
fx..ltve? x..livov? RI+ Ps-A ThRII
Ps151:4 EV Tip &la{<p RIIIRIV
EV T(j> i,Ua RI+ Ps-A ThRII Nor
Deut32:ll axncaom RIii Kip
OX£1faG£l RI+ Ps-ARII Nor?
Isa 26:10 av µiJ µafJn RIii Kip
1(�Os" ov µiJ µalJrl RI+ Ps-ARU Nor

j) Distinctive Variants in Redaction III

Ps118:136 ecpvAa,av RIII
icpvAa,a RI+ Ps-A ThRIIRIV Nor
Ps147:3 {}£[� Rlll
-r,:{}d� RI+ Ps-A ThRII Nor
6-rt dfhJ�? RIV
Ex 15:11 ev�� RIII
EV ooeai� RI + Ps-ARU Kip Nor
Deut32:36 rraeaAEAvµivo� RIII
rcai;:iaAclvµivo� xai
e?vl£Aotm5r� RI + Ps-ARII Kip Nor
Hab 3:13 WV aciiaat W� XQta-ro¾
aov M.rjAv&a� RIii
 Catherine M. MACROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SLAVONIC PSALTER...
9333333

TOO a&aai row; %Qiaxovc, aov RI + Ps-A RII Kip Nor

k) Variants Shared by Redaction IV, Theodoret's commentary and Nor

Ps 55:8 &OEIS Th RIV Nor
orioEig RI + Ps-A RII RIII
Ps 118:39 raKQi^iara Th RIV Nor
rdg evroAag RI + Ps-A RII RIII

1) Variant Shared by Redactions II and IV

Ps 34:11 avecrTTjaav? RII RIV
avaordvreg RI + Ps Th RIII Nor

m) Distinctive Variants in Redaction IV (and Nor)

Ps 16:3 bieiQaoag RIV Nor
envgcoaag RI + Ps-A Th RII RIII
Ps 39:18 (pgovng RIV
fpQOvnel RI + Ps-A Th RII RIII Nor
Ps 47:8 aovzjpt^ag RIV Nor
ovvrgfyei RI + Ps-A Th RII RIII
Ps 57:12 si eonv 6 &eog RIV
&Qa eonv 6 &eog RI + Ps-ATh RII RIII Nor
Ps 95:13 TT)V yrjv? RIV
TT)V oiKOVi^evr]v RI + Ps-A RII RIII Nor
Ps 118:81 eig rov Adyov RIV
etg rove, Adyouf RI + Ps-A Th RII RIII Nor

3- Divergences among Witnesses for Redaction I and the

Pseudo-Athanasian Commentary

Ps 20:10 QijoEig Sin Pog Bon Par Lob Gri

on dTJaeig Tol Vin Sof Th RII RIII RIV Nor
Ps 21:9 ei tetei Sin RII Sin Rii
on &eAei Pog Bon Tol Vin Sof Par Lob Gri
Th RIII RIV Nor
Ps 24:17 e£dyaye Sin Th RII RIII RIV
gvaai Pog Bon Tol Vin Sof Par
Lob Gri Dec Nor
 INTERPREI'ATION OF TIIE BIBLE
- 934

Ps 26:9 µq iyxaraAfa[ls Sin Dec Th RII RIII RIV Nor

µq V1ff(}LO[lf; Pog Bon Toi Vin Sof Par Lob Gri
Ps 34:8 am:tfj ... ytVWO'XEl ... Sin Dec Th RII RIII RIV Nor
E'X(}Vt/)£ ... avr6v ... 1CWElTal
avw[f; ... ytvwo,wvmv ... Pog Bon Toi Sof Par Lob Gri
f'}{,(}vljxxv ... a&ro!Jf; ...
1CEOOVVTat
Ps 39:15 &iAOVTEf; Sin Bon Sot? Par Lob Gri
Dec RII RIii RIV Nor
,loy1(6µevo1 Pog Toi Vin Th
Ps 39:18 V1C£(}aamcmk Sin Toi Gri Th RII RIii RIV Nor
(JVO'r7Jf; Pog Bon Vin Sof Par Lob Dec
Ps 43:8 i�wA&J'(}EVOaf; Sin Pog Toi Vin Sof Gri RII
xarno;rvvas Bon Par Lob Dec Th RIii RIV Nor
Ps 59:14 TO!Jf; {W/30VTaf; T/� Sin Pog Bon Vin Sof Th
RII RIii RIV Nor
WVf; i1Caviamµiv0Vf; ryµiv S6!
TOVf; ix,fJ(}OVf; f/fJ(J)V Par Lob Gri Dec
Ps 91:15 ht Sin Dec Th? RII RIII RIV Nor
TOTE Pog Bon Toi Vin Sof Par Lob Gri
Ps 103:27 Evxat(}OV Sin Gri Dec RIii RIV Nor
Etf; ?lal(}OV Pog Bon Toi Vin Sof Par Lob Th RII
Ps 106:19 E(JVOEV Sin Par Lob Gri Dec RII
fawa£V Pog Bon Toi Vin Th RIII RIV Nor
Ps 107:5 µiya i1Cavw rwv oV(}avdiv Sin Gri Dec Th RII RIil RIV Nor
iµcyaAVVO-,, iJwf; rdiv OV(}avdiv Pog Bon Toi Vin Sof Par Lob
Ps 107:9 avrur,µ1/)tf; Sin Dec RII RIii RIV Nor
'X(}amiwms Pog Bon Toi Vin Sof Par Lob Gri Th
Ps 111:8 ov µq aoovllfi Sin Pog Toi Vin Sof Par
Lob Gri Dec RII
ov µq cpof3Tfllfi Bon Th RIii RIV Nor
Ps 118:127 ras ivro,lcif; Sin Pog Toi Gri Dec Th RII RIii RIV Nor
rov v6µov? Bon Sot? Par Lob
Ps 134:12 ,lmp Sin Pog Par Lob Gri Dec
Th RII RIii RIV Nor
oov,¼> Bon Toi Vin Sof
Ps 136:6 Ws iv (1.(}Xfi Sin Bon Toi Gri Dec Th RII RIii RIV Nor
iv aexfi Pog Sof Par Lob
 Catherine M. MAcROBERT, THE TEXTIJAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
935 -

Ps 138:24 tv iµoi for:[ Sin (superscript)Pog Toi Vin SofPar Lob

GriDecTh RII
tv iµoi Bon RIil RIV Nor
Deut 32:39 fyw Eiµt &�? Sin (superscript)Par Lob GriDec RII
fyw Eiµt Pog Bon Vin Sof RIiiKip Nor
Deut 32:43 evto;rvacfrwc:rav av-r6v SinPogKip
tvio;rvc:ra@c:rav av-rtfj RIII Nor?
tv,o;rvc:ra-rwc:rav Bon Sof?Par Lob Gri Dec RII
Isa 26:20 included Sin RIIIKip Nor
omitted Pog Bon Sof GriDec RII

4. List of Manuscripts Consulted

a) 11th-Century MSS
Sin = the Sinai (Glagolitic) Psalter, published by S. Sever'janov and by M. Alt­
bauer and supplemented by I. C. Tarnanides.
Evg= the Eugenius commentated psalter fragment, published by N. P. Grinko­
va and V. V.Kolesov.
Slue = the Sluck fragment, published by I. I. Sreznevskij.
Cud= the Cudov commentatedPsalter, published by V. A.Pogorelov.
S6 = MS 6 in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, published by M. Alt­
bauer and H. G. Lunt and supplemented by I. C. Tarnanides; also the Byc­
kov psalter fragment, published by I. C. T6th.

b) 12th-Century MSS
Toi= the Tolstoj commentatedPsalter, MS F.I.23 in the Russian National Public
Library in St. Petersburg; variant readings published in V. Jagic's edition
of Pog and Bon.
Har = the Harvard Psalter, MS Typ. 221, in the Houghton Library, Harvard
University; used in part to supplement the edition of S6 by M. Altbauer
and H. G. Lunt.

c) 13th-Century MSS
Sf62 = an antiphonal Psalter, f. 728, MS 62 in the Russian National Library in St.
Petersburg; eight folia held in the same library as f. 588, MS 6.
S/63 = an antiphonal psalter, f. 728, MS 63 in the Russian National Library in St.
Petersburg.
Pog = thePogodin commentatedPsalter, published by V. Jagic.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
- 936

Bon = the Bologna commentated Psalter, published by V. Jagic and by I. Ducev.

Ban = MS 1 in the Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia.
Gri= the Grigorovic Psalter, f. 87, MS 4 (M. 1687) in the Russian State Library in
Moscow.
T27 = f. 381, MS 27 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents (RGADA)
in Moscow.
S8 = MS 8 in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, published by M. Alt­
bauer and supplemented by I. C. Tarnanides.
Mih= the Mihanovic Psalter, MS III a 49 in the archive of the Croatian Academy
of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb; three folia held as MS 4494/1 in Zagreb
University Library.

d) 13th- and 14th-Century MSS

Dec= the Decani Psalter, f. 182, MS 17 in the Russian National Library in St. Pe­
tersburg.
Rad= the Radomir Psalter, MS I.l.13 in the Zographou monastery on Mt. Athas;
one folium held in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, MS n.I.11.
Bel= fragments in five Belgrade archives: MS 36 in the University Library, MS
331 in the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, MS 589 in the
National Library, MS 314 in the Library of the Belgrade Patriarchate, and
two unnumbered bifolia in the Museum of Applied Arts.
Plj = MS 80 in the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Pljevlja; seven folia held in
the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, MS
45.8.263.

e) I4th-Century MSS
Am/= the Simonovskaja Psalter, published by Archimandrite Amfiloxij.
Pee= MS 68 from the Patriarchate at Pee.
Sof= the Sofia commentated Psalter, written in 1337, MS 2 in the Library of the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia; variant readings published in V.
Jagic's edition of Pog and Bon.
Bue = the Bucharest commentated Psalter, written in 1346, MS Acad. 205 in the
Library of the Roumanian Academy of Sciences in Bucharest; variant
readings published in V. Jagic's edition of Pog and Bon.
Par = a commentated Psalter, MS 324 in the Library of the Serbian Patriarchate
in Belgrade.
Kar = the Karadimov Psalter, MS 1138 in the National Library in Sofia; also the
Sopov psalter fragment, MS 454 in the same library.
 Catherine M. M.4CROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SLAVONIC PSALTER ...
937 �

UB34 = MS 34 in the University Library in Belgrade.

Tom = the Tomic Psalter, published by A. Dzurova.
Mun = the Munich Psalter, published by S. Dufrenne et al.
Nor = the Norov Psalter, published by E. V. Cesko et al.
Jar = MS 15482 in the Historical Museum inJaroslavl'.
Pog2 = f. 588, MS 2 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Pog3 = f. 588, MS 3 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Fg/1 = MS F.rr.1 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Fg/2= MS F. rr.2 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Fg/3 = MS F. rr.3 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Fg/4 = MS F. rr.4 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
S/60 = f. 728, MS 60 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
Sj64 = f. 728, MS 64 in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.
8662 = f. 304, MS 8662 in the Russian State Library in Moscow.
T28= f. 381, MS 28 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents (RGADA)
in Moscow.
T33 = f. 381, MS 33 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents (RGADA)
in Moscow.
T34 = f. 381, MS 34 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents (RGADA)
in Moscow.
Luc = MS Acq. e doni 360 in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence;
written in 1384.
Lob = the Lobkowicz or Prague Psalter, written in 1359, published by J. Vajs.
Par = the Paris Psalter, published byJ. Vajs.

f) 14th- and 15th-Century MSS

Ox = MS e Mus 184 in the Bodleian Library in Oxford.
Kiev = the Kiev Psalter, written in 1397, published by G. Vzdornov and T. A. Ju­
rova.
Vat = MS Slavo. 8 in the Vatican Library.
Hval= the Psalter included in the Hvalov Zbornik, written in 1404, published by
H. Kuna et al.

g) 15th-Century MSS
Kip = the Kiprianovskaja Psalter, f. 173, MS 142 in the Russian State Library in
Moscow; variant readings published in the edition of Nor by E. V. Cesko
et al.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
- 938

S9a = the Psalter of Pop Ioann, MS 9a in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt.
Sinai.
7/177 = a commentated Psalter, MS 7/177 in the State Historical Museum in Mos­
cow.
Vin = the Vienna commentated Psalter, written in 1463, published by J. Hamm.
Gen = the Book of Psalms contained in the Gennadius Bible, written in 1499;
published by G. Freidhof.

Bibliography
Archimandrite Amfiloxij, Drevte-slavjanskaja Psaltir' Simonovskaja do 1280 goda 1-4 (2nd ed.; Moscow: L. F. Sni­
girev, 1880-1881).
Altbauer, M., Psalterium sinaiticum. An 11th century Glagolitic Manuscript from St. Catherine's Monastery, Mt.
Sinai (Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1971).
Altbauer, M., Der atteste serbische Psalter (Slavistische Forschungen 23; Cologne/ Vienna: Bohlau, 1979).
Altbauer, M., and H. G. Lunt, An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus' (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute, 1978).
Arnim, B. von, Studien zum altbulgarischen Psalterium Sinaiticum (Veroffentlichungen des Slavischen Instituts
der Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universitat Berlin 3; Leipzig, 1930).
Arnim, B. von, "Beitrage zum Studium der altbulgarischen und altkirchenslavischen Wortbildung und Oberset­
zungskunst," Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 32
(1931), 952-1024.
Bercic.':, I., Ulomci svetoga pisma ovojega uvjeta staroslovenskim jezikom 2 (Prague, 1864).
Bujukliev, I., "Kam vaprosa za sastestvuvaneto na nova redakcija na slavjanskija prevod na psaltira," Xiljada i sto
godini slavjanska pismenost 863-1963. Sbomik v cest na Kiri/ i Metodij (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, 1963), 171-177.
Bujukliev, I., "Sopov psaltir (tekst i komentar)," Biilgarski ezik 13 (1963), 234-254.
Bujukliev, I., "La nouvelle redaction de la traduction slave du Psautier et son rapport avec le fond grec," Actes du
premier congres international des etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes 3 (Sofia: Bulgaria Aca­
demy of Sciences 1969), 381-384.
Cesko, E. V., "Vtoroe juznoslavjanskoe vlijanie v redakcii psaltyrnogo teksta na Rusi XIV-XV vv.," PalaeobuJ­
garica 5:4 (1981), 79-85.
Cesko, E. V., "Ob afonskoj redakcii slavjanskogo perevoda psaltyri v ee otnosenii k drugim redakcijam," Jazyk i
pis'mennosf srednebolgarskogo perioda (ed. E. V. Cesko, E. I. Demina et al.; Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 60-93.
Cesko, E. V., "Redakcija i osobennosti perevoda psaltyri Tomica," Starobiilgarskata literatura 14 (1983), 37-58.
Cesko, E. V., "Kirillo-mefodievskij perevod Psaltyri i srednebolgarskie pravlenye redakcii. Struktura slova i relja­
cionnye elementy," Studia slavico-byzantina et mediaevalia europensia 1 (ed. P. Dinekov et al.; Sofia:
Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies, 1988), 217-230.
Cesko, E. V., et al., Norovskaja psaltyr'. Srednebolgarskaja rukopis' XIV veka 1-2 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, 1989).
Dufrenne, S., S. Radojicic, R. Stiebel, and I. Sevcenko, Der serbische Psalter 1-2 (Wiesbaden: Dr. L. Reichert,
1978-1983).
Dujcev, I., Bolonski psaltir (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1968).
Dunkov, D., Die Methodbibel Die Psalmen (Kritische Ausgaben altbulgarischer Texte 3; Vienna: O. Kronsteiner,
1994),
Dzurova, A., Tomicov psaltir 1-2 (Monumenta slavico-byzantina et mediaevalia europensia 1; Sofia: Kliment
Ohridski University Press, 1990).
Freidhof, G., Auszuge aus der Gennadius-Bibel (1499). Nr. 1: Der Psalter (Specimina philologiae slavicae 5;
Frankfurt am Main: 0. Horbatsch and G. Freidhof, 1974).
Garzaniti, M., "I salmi nell'Evangeliario e nell'Apostolo (X-XI sec.)," Die slawischen Sprachen 35 (1994), 113-149.
 Catherin, M. MacROBERT, THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER ...
939-

Grabar, B., "Osobitosti grafije i jezika glagoljskog Frasciceva psaltira," Litterae slaVicae Medii Aevi Francisco
Venceslao Mares Sexagenario Oblatae (ed.]. Reinhart; Munich: Sagner, 1985), 75-96.
Grinkova, N. P., "Evgenievskaja psaltyr' kak pamjatnik russkoj pis'mennosti XI v.," Izvestija Otdelenija Russkogo
Jazyka i Siovesnosti 29 (1924), 289-306.
Grkovic-Mejdzor, J., Jezik "Psaltira" iz stamparije Crnojevica (Podgorica: Montenegrin Academy of Sciences,
1993).
Hamm, J., Psalterium vindobonense. Der kommentierte glagolitische Psalter der Osterreichischen National­
bibliothek (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Schriften der Balkan­
kommission, Linguistische Abteilung 19; Vienna: B6hlau, 1967).
Hamm,J., "K istorii drevneslavjanskogo perevoda psaltyri," Kul'turnoe nasledie drevnej Rusi (ed. V. G. Bazanov
et al.; Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1976), 359-363.
Jagic, V., "Obrazcy jazyka cerkovnoslavjanskogo po drevnejsim pamjatnikam glagoliceskoj i kirillovskoj pis'me­
nnosti" (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1882).
Jagic, V., "Cetyre kritiko-paleograficeskie stat'i (prilozenie k otcetu o prisuzdenii Lomonosovskoj premii za
1885 god)," Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk 33 (1884),
37-73.
J agic, V., "Ein unedierter griechischer Psalmenkommentar," Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen­
schajten, Phil.-hist. Klasse 52:1 (1906), 1-95.
Jagic, V., "Zwei illustrierte serbische Psalter" (� introduction to J. Strzygowski, "Die Miniaturen des Serbischen
Psalters der K6niglichen Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Munchen"), Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 52:2 (1906), 1-95.
Jagic, V., Slovenskaja psaltyr. Psalterium bononiense (Vienna: Gerold; Berlin: Wiedmann; St. Petersburg: C. Ric­
ker, 1907).
}uric-Kappel, J., "Der Psalter des Hval-Codex - zur palaografischen und grammatikalischen Charakteristik,"
Wiener slavistischesjahrbuch 30 (1984), 23-42.
]uric-Kappel, J., "Die Stellung des bosnischen Psalters (1404) innerhalb der verwandten slawischen Texte,"
Wiener slavistischesjahrbuch 38 (1992), 37-52.
}uric-Kappel, J., "Hrvatskoglagoljski psaltiri i Cirilometodska tradicija," Prvi hrvatski slavisticki kongres (zbornik
saietaka i nacrtaka) (ed. S. Damjanovic and K. Nemec; Zagreb: Hrvatsko filolosko drustvo, 1995), 187-
188.
Karacorova, I., "Kam vaprosa za Kirilo-Metodievskija starobalgarski prevod na psaltira," Kirilo-Metodievski studii
6 (1989), 130-245.
Karacorova, I., "Leksikata na Cudovskija psaltir iz preslavskata redakcija na starobalgarskite bogosluzebni knigi,"
Bdlgarski ezik 34 (1984), 53-61.
Karacorova, I., "Osobenosti v teksta na Radomirovija psaltir," Palaeobulgarica 14:4 (1990), 47-60.
Koceva, E., I. Karacorova, and A. Atanasov, "Nekotorye osobennosti slavjanskix psaltyrej na materiale XI-XVI
vv.," Polata k"nigopis'naja 14-15 (1985), 26-75.
Kolesov, V. V., "Evgenievskaja psaltyr", Acta Universitatis Szegedensis de Jozsef Attila nominatae. Dissertationes
slavicae 8 (1972), 58-69.
Kuna, H., et al., Zbornik Hvala Krstjanina 1-2 (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1986).
Laurencik, J., "Nelukianovska i'tenf v Sinajskem faltaff," Slovanske studie (ed. J. Kurz et al.; Prague: Vysehrad,
1948), 66-83.
Kurz,]., "O nove nalezenem emauszkem charvatskohlaholskem zlomku zaltare," Slavia 22 (1953), 81-104.
Lepissier,J., "La traduction vieux-slave du Psautier," Revue des tJtudes slaves 43 (1964), 59-72.
Lepissier, ]., Les Commentaires des Psaumes de Theodore/ (Paris: Institut des etudes slaves, 1968).
Lixaceva, O. P., "Sluzebnaja psaltyr' kak osobogo roda sbornik," Problemy naucnogo opisanija i faksimil'nogo
izdanija pamjatnikov pis'mennosti (ed. M. V. Kukuskina and S. 0. Smidt; Leningrad: Biblioteka Aka­
demii Nauk SSSR, 1981), 222-241.
Lofstrand, E., Slavonic Parchment Fragments in Sweden. I. Paroemiarion, Triodion, Psalter (Acta Universitatis
Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Slavic Studies 16; Stockholm, 1984).
Lunt, H. G., "The Byckov Psalter," Slovo 25-6 (1976), 255-261.
MacRobert, C. M., "Two for the Price of One: the Psalter MS Pee 68," Oxford Slavonic Papers NS 22 (1989), 1-33.
MacRobert, C. M., "The Greek Textological Basis of the Early Redactions of the Church Slavonic Psalter," Pa-
laeobulgarica 14:2 (1990), 7-15.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
- 940

MacRobert, C. M., ''What is a Faithful Translation? Changing Norms in the Church Slavonic Version of the Psal­
ter," The Slavonic and East European Review 69 (1991), 401-417.
MacRobert, C. M., "The Systems of Supplementary Penitential Texts in the Psalter MSS Pee 68, Belgrade 36, and
Pljevlja 80," Oxford Slavonic Papers NS 24 (1991), 1-22.
MacRobert, C. M., "Two Lykewake Psalters: The MSS Vasteras/UUB5/UUB6 and Jaroslavl' 15482," Scando-Sla­
vica 38 (1992), 108-127.
MacRobert, C. M., "Translation Is Interpretation: Lexical Variation in the Translation of the Psalter from Greek
into Church Slavonic up to the 15th Century," Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 43 (1993), 254-284.
MacRobert, C. M., "A Missing Link in the Early Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter (the Tolstoy, Sluck, Euge­
nius and Vienna Psalters and MS 34 of the Moscow Synodal Typography)," Wiener slavistisches Jahr­
buch 39 (1993), 57-81.
MacRobert, C. M., ''The Textual Tradition of the Oxford Serbian Psalter MS e Mus 184," Polata k"nigopis'naja 25-
26 (1994), 146-154.
MacRobert, C. M., "Problems in the Study of the "Athonite" Redaction of the Psalter in South Slavonic Manu­
scripts," Studies of Medieval South Slavic Manuscripts: Proceedings of the 3rd International Hilandar
Conference Held from March 28 to 30, 1989 (ed. P. Ivie; Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and
Arts, 1995), 195-213.
MacRobert, C. M., "The Classificatory Importance of Headings and Liturgical Directions in Church Slavonic Psal­
ters of the 11th-15th Centuries," Byzantinoslavica 57 (1996), 156-181.
MacRobert, C. M., "The Historical Significance of the Frolov Psalter (Russian National Library, F.n.1.3)," Die Welt
der Slaven 42 (1997), 34-46.
Miklosich, F., "Psaltir s tumacenijem, pisan 1346 za Branka Mladenovica," Starine 4 (1872), 29-62.
Naumow, A. E., "Fragmenty psalmowe w ewangeliarzu Ostromira," Litterae Slavicae Medii Aevi Francisco Ven­
ceslao Mares Sexagenario Oblatae (ed. I. Reinhar� Munich: Sagner, 1985), 231-240.
Pantelic, M., "Zapadne varijante u staroslovenskim psaltirima," Simpozium 1100-godisnina od smrtta na Kiri/
Solunski 2 (Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1970), 291-299.
Pastrnek, F., "Die griechischen Artikelkonstruktionen in der altkirchenslavischen Psalter- und Evangelieniiber­
setzung. I - In der Psalterubersetzung," Archivfur slavische Phi/ologie 35 (1913), 366-391.
Pogorelov, V. A., Psaltyri (Biblioteka Moskovskoj Sinodal'noj Tipografii 1:3; Moscow: Sinodal'naja Tipografija,
1901).
Pogorelov, V. A., Cudovskaja Psaltyr XI veka: otryvok. Tolkovanija Feodorlta Kirrskogo na Psaltyr v drevne­
-bolgarskom perevode (Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka 3:1; St. Petersburg: Otdelenije russkogo ja­
zyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1910).
Pogorelov, V. A., Tolkovanija Feodorita Kirrskogo na Psaltyr v drevne-bolgarskom perevode. Rassmotrenie spis­
kov i issledovanie osobennostej Psaltyrnogo teksta (Warsaw: Varsavskij ucebnyj okrug, 1910).
Pogorelov, V. A., Slovar k tolkovanijam Feodorita Kirrskogo na Psaltyr v drevne-bolgarskom perevode (Warsaw:
Varsavskij ucebnyj okrug?, 1910).
Scepkin, V., Bolonskaja psaltyr (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1906).
Sever'janov, S., Sinajskaja psaltyr: Glagoliceskij pamjatnik XI veka (Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka 4; Pet­
rograd: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, 1922).
Simi<', M., "Odnos hrvatskoglagoljskoga psaltira prema Sinajskom psaltiru," Prvi hrvatski slavisticki kongres
(zbornik sai:etaka i nacrtaka) (ed. S. Damjanovic and K. Nemec; Zagreb: Hrvatsko filolosko drustvo,
1995), 191-192.
Sreznevskij, I. I., Drevnie slavjanskie pamjatniki jusovogo pis'ma (Sbornik statej ORJaS 3; St. Petersburg: Impe­
rial Academy of Sciences, 1868), 155-165.
Sreznevskij, V. I., Drevnij slavjanskij perevod psaltyrl. lssledovanie ego teksta i Jazyka po rukopisjam XI-XIV v.
(St. Petersburg: V. S. Balasev, 1877).
Stiebel, R., "Die geschichtliche Einordnung zweier bulgarischen Psalter der 13. Jahrhunderts, dargestellt am Bei­
spiel der Gestaltung von Ps. 118," Pdrvi me±dunaroden kongres po balgaristika, Sofija 23 Maj - 3 ]uni
1981. Dokladi. Bdlgarskata kultura i vzaimodejstvieto i sds svetovnata ku/tura I. Kulturata na sredno­
vekovna Bdlgarija (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1983), 353-366.
Tarnanides, I. C., The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai
(Thessaloniki: Mount Sinai and Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, 1988).
 Catherine M. MacROBERT, THE l'ExTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SLAVONIC PsALTER . ..
941 �

Theissen,U.,"Hauptprobleme bei der Rekonstruktion des altbulgarischen Psalters. Psalm 22 ('Der gute Hirte'),"
Die slawischen Sprachen 35 (1994),5-15.
Todorov,A.,"Psalmy novoj casti Byckovskoj psaltyri," Palaeobulgarica 14:l (1990), 49-71.
Toth (Tot),I. H.,"Byckovskaja psaltyr' XI v.," Acta Universitatis Szegedensis dejozsefAttila nominatae. Disser­
tationes slavicae 8 (1972),71-114.
Toth (Tot),I. H.,"Sluckaja psaltyr'," Acta Universitatis Szegedensis de JozsefAttila nominatae. Dissertationes s/a­
vicae 15 (1982),147-191.
Vajs,J.,Psalterium palaeoslovenicum croatico-glagoliticum 1 (Krk / Prague: Academia palaeoslovenica Veglen­
sis, 1916).
Vajs,J., "Zaltar Frascicuv," Slavia 1 (1922-1923); 269-284; 2 (1923-1924),304-309.
Vajs, J., "Ktere recenze byla fecka predloha staroslovenskeho pfekladu faltare?" Byzantinoslavica 8 (1939-
1946),55-86.
VaJjavec, M., "O prevodu psalama u nekijem rukopisima hrvatsko-srpsko i bugarsko-slovenskjem," Radjugosla­
venske akademije98 (1889),1-84; 99 (1890),1-72; 100 (1890),1-64.
Verdiani, C., "Il salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense. Codice paleoslavo del 1384," Ricerche s/avistiche 3 (1954),1-29.
Verescagin, E. M., "Priem parallelizma v psaltyri i vyjavlenie smyslovyx svjazej mezdu slovami pervogo literatur­
nogo jazyka slavjan," Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie (1975:2),60-72.
Verescagin, E. M., "0 tematiciskix gruppax leksiki v psaltyri," Izsledvanija vdrxu istorijata i dialektite na bdlgar­
skija ezik: Sbornik v pamet na K Mircev (ed. V. L Georgiev; Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
1979),83-87
Vlasek,J.,"Po stopach archetypu staroslovenskeho pfekladu falmil," Studia palaeoslovenica (ed. B. Havranek;
Prague: Academia,1971),389-392.
Vzdornov,G.,and T. A Jurova,Kievskaja psaltir' 1397: Issledovanie Kievskoj Psaltiri (Moscow: Iskusstvo,1978).
Widniis, M., "Ein unbekanntes Psalterfragment aus Vasteras in Schweden," Die Welt der Slaven 15 (1970), 388-
395
Widniis (Vidnes), M., "Neizvestnyj otryvok psaltyri iz Vesterosa v Svecii," Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury
26 (1971),352-356.
Xristova, B.,"Bojanskijat psaltir ot XIII v.," Starobdlgarska literatura 7 (1980),90-94.

Summary
Catherine M. MAcROBERT
THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE CHURCH SIAVONIC PSALTER UP TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY

Study of the early translations of the Psalter from Greek into Church Slavonic has to contend with sev­
eral difficulties: a dearth of information about the time,place and circumstances in which versions were made; a
poor rate of survival for MSS before the 14th century; and a tendency to compilation from earlier textual tradi­
tion in the production both of new versions-therefore better termed redactions-and of individual MSS. The
distinction between a redaction and a scribe's efforts to correct his text, though inevitably not clear-cut, de­
pends on use of sources: a redaction is a version of the text whose variants exhibit systematic consultation of
Greek,as well as characteristic choices of Church Slavonic wording,whereas a scribe's corrections may simply
be taken from the various Church Slavonic redactions available to him.
The first translation is known to have been made by SS. Cyril and Methodius between 863 and 869; but
no MSS survived from the 9th to 10th centuries, and the earliest witnesses,probably of the 11th century, already
reveal the existence of at least three redactions. The revision of Scriptural and liturgical Church Slavonic
translations which took place in the 14th century produced another two (arguably three) redactions in the
South Slav lands, as well as some less systematic redactional activity among the East Slavs.
Each redaction is characterised by selections of variant readings which reflect: a) variation in the Greek
textual tradition; b) distinctive interpretation of the Greek wording. These findings are based on full collation of
fifty MSS from the 11th to 15th centuries; the relationships posited between these MSS and the various redac­
tions for which they provide evidence are presented in tabular form, with a list of the present locations of the
MSS. There is also a bibliography of related studies.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
� 942

Povzetek

Catherine M. MAcROBERT
BESEDILNO IZROCILO V CERKVENOSLOVANSKEM PSALTERJU
DO PE1NAJSTEGA STOLETJA

Preucevanje prevodov psalterja iz grscine v cerkveno slovanscino se mora spopasti z vec tezavami: s
skopimi podatki o casu, kraju in okoliscinah, v katerih so bili narejeni prevodi; malo rokopisov je ohranjenih iz
casa pred 14. stoletjem; nagnjenje do izbiranja iz zgodnejsega prevajalskega izrocila pri sestavljanju tako novih
prevodov, zato bi bilo bolje reci redakcij kot novih rokopisov. Razlikovanje med redakcijo in pisarjevim priza­
devanjem, da bi popravil svoje besedilo, je odvisno od uporabljanja virov, ceprav razlika ni vedno ocitna. Re­
dakcija je razlicica besedila, kjer variance jasno kazejo upostevanje grskega besedila in tudi znacilno izbiranje
besed v cerkveni slovanscini. Pisarjevi popravki pa so preprosto lahko vzeti iz raznih cerkvenoslovanskih re­
dakcij, ki so mu bile na voljo.
Prvi znani prevod sta izdelala sveta Ciril in Metod v letih 863-869; vendar se iz 9. in 10. stoletja ni ohra­
nil noben rokopis. Najzgodnejse pricevanje, verjetno iz 11. stoletja, ze kaze vsaj tri redakcije. Revizija svetopi­
semskih in bogosluznih cerkvenoslovanskih prevodov v 14. stoletju je prinesla se dve (mogoce tri) redakcije v
juznoslovanskih dezelah in tudi nekaj manj sistematicne redakcijske dejavnosti med vzhodnimi Slovani.
Znacilnost vsake redakcije je izbiranje razlicic branja; te odsevajo: a) razlicico grskega besedilnega izro­
cila; b) posebno razlago grskega besedila. Te ugotovitve so podprte z natancnim primerjanjem petdesetih roko­
pisov od 11. do 15. stoletja. Razmerja med temi rokopisi in raznimi redakcijami, o katerih pricajo, so predstavlje­
na v obliki preglednice s seznamom, kje so ti rokopisi <lanes. Dodana je bibliografija sorodnih studij.