Uses of Participle Future Minor Prophets

8/13/2019 Uses of Participle Future Minor Prophets

1/10

Yavor MILTENOV (Sofia)

USES OF PARTICIPLE FUTURE

IN THE SLAVONIC TRANSLATION OF THE MINOR PROPHETS WITH

COMMENTARY

The Slavonic Catena in prophetas collection was compiled at the end of 9th c. or the

beginning of 10th c. in Preslav.1 Originally the translation was written in Glagolitic and than

transliterated into Cyrillic. It seems that the archetype corpus might have been brought

together in two or three consecutive stages in a short period of time:2

Initially, the Old Testament books have been processed. The exact Biblical text has

been taken from another source, different from Theodorets Interpretatio XII prophetas

minores , so there is no doubt that it had been provided before the excerption of commentaries

from the catena version began. Most recent studies point at the diversity of variant readings

(coinciding with Alexandrian, Lucianic, Origens Hexapla and Theodoret of Cyrrhus

versions) in the Minor Prophets translation. No analogous situation is known in any Greek

manuscript, therefore, it is not impossible to presume a collation of several Old Testament

versions.

Then exegetical commentaries have been added. They originate from Theodoret ofCyrrhus Interpretatio XII prophetas minores , given, though, in a considerably abridged and

revised form.

Finally, the collection has been supplemented with briefvitae for each of the

sixteen prophets. They can be traced back to three different sources, including the versions of

Dorotheus of Tyre, Epiphanius of Salamis and Greek menologia and synaxaria.

Unfortunately, the Slavonic version still has no fulleditio critica .3 The second

volume of N. L. Tunickijs work ( 1918) has been lost and the manuscript

published by R. Zlatanova ( 1998a) lacks significant portions of text. In aprevious paper (M i l t e n o v 2009) a comparative study between copies of Minor Prophets

with commentary has been made. The analysis of the variant readings revealed that there are

two branches in the manuscript tradition. The Russian branch includes copies, which ascend

to the manuscript copied in 1047 by Upyr Lihij. The most representative witness is 89from RGBMoscow, f. 304.I, the Trinity Laura of St. Sergius collection, written in the 15th

16th c.,4 which is considered as a major source in Tunickijs edition. The South Slav branch is

represented by the Middle Bulgarian defective copy F.I.461 kept in RNBSt. Petersburg,


2/10

written ca. end of 14th c.,5 published by R. Zlatanova. These two branches follow a common

protograph independently of one another.

If compared to the Russian copies analyzed, the text of the Minor Prophets with

commentary found in the earliest copy F.I.461 shows numerous deviations from the Old

Bulgarian archetype. After eliminating over 450 cases of text transpositions, omissions,

various mistakes, lexical replacements and intentional emendations in the South Slav copy

and about 50 cases of the same type in the Russian copies, now we have the original readings

reconstructed. This allows a study on the lexical features of the translation.

One of the most interesting lexical characteristics of the Minor Prophets with

commentary is the appearance of the participle - which will happen, occur, emerge;

future, forthcoming, impending. Most scholars argue that the form - derived from

is the only trace of a future participle, attesting for an old, extincts-formant future tenseparadigm (see J a g i 1906, 1952: 174, 1952: 277, 1961: 127132, 1964: 260, B i r n b a u m 1995 and literature cited there).However, R. Aitzetmller (A i t z e t m l l e r 1968) defends a little bit different hypothesis:

the participle - is not connected to future tense and its meaning coincides not with

GreekT , , but with. Therefore, it is not a remnant of thes-suffixedfuture tense, but a past participle, formed to Unterschied zwischen (unbegrenzt) seiend

(-

) und (geworden) seiend ( -

) ausdrcken zu knen (A i t z e t m l l e r

1978: 199). According to Aitzetmller the participle was derived from the aorist form of

, and can be formally connected to the third plural following the generation pattern of all

nt-participles. This view is not commonly accepted and modern grammars cite it very seldom,

but, however, in some recent publications it is fully adopted and the existence of Slavonics-Future is rejected (see W h a l e y 2000: 2021, and cited literature).

Church Slavonic dictionaries do not contain all uses of this participle. The traditional

scholarly view is that - is rarely found in medieval monuments, thus creating the

impression that it might have had the status of an isolated, lexicalized remnant, used as if by

accident in medieval texts. Therefore, the numerous examples, found in the Russian copies of

the Minor Prophets with commentary, are quite surprising:6

(1) Hosea 1:1Tht, 1r18:w U w! "# $$$

% ! & " '"(7 (cf. Hosea, introduction: {

>S ... [ Tp !p )

(2) Hosea 10:10Tht, 8r18-19:( "#U #)# )

% * (& (no exact Greek parallel)


3/10

(3) Joel, introduction, 10v25:+ %& w! % * ! ",

"# ("# $ % " >S [ & T " T'(

) p *{ )

(4) Joel 1:14

Tht, 11v4-5: # * % * (no exact Greek parallel)(5) Joel 2:2Tht, 11v30:) % !* #& (&(no exact Greek parallel)

(6) Joel 2:26Tht, 13r9:# "# #( w % !* * (no exact Greek

parallel)

(7) Amos 4:4Tht, 17r27:.& ""./ ,# ! w % * (.* 0* (no exact Greek

parallel)

(8) Amos 5:5, 17v22-23: #& 1 % (sic, all other Russian witnesses use

correct % ; p +" , - *! ! )

(9) Obadiah, introduction, 21v20: "#U % 2 1(w(& ("/ )

0 1 23' )

(10) Obadiah 1:14Tht, 22r34-35: ) .2 .% #"#3 & w

% * ( 'S *! - 4 5# - T )

(11) Jonah, introduction, 23r9: % 0 (& 1 10 % ( 2. !

"#(p [ T *6 ') [ [ 6" )

(12) Nahum 1:1Tht, 31v7: # % 4 # ! (6' ) 7 86

9 )(13) Nahum 3:8aTht (there is an erroneus transposition of the whole commentary after Nahum

3:5a in the South Slav copy), 33r9:(+ "#U #& ! . ) ! "2" !

" % " 5".%(no exact Greek parallel)

(14) Habakkuk 2:1Tht, 34v34:) & ' (& % ( w % * (noexact Greek parallel)

(15) Habakkuk 2:2Tht, 34v37: #& "# ! )!0 ( % & % /

(([ 4 :p4 6 p ; T'/


4/10

(17) Habakkuk 3:5Tht, 36v11:#$$$ ""6 , % ! (& (... ;

) T )

(18) Habakkuk 3:19Tht, 38r6: & #% ( % , ,# "70 #0

(5) ') [ @ '( [ A 5"B '? 4 p4 p *: )

(19) Zephaniah, introduction, 38v7:"") )0 & ""8 9.& &%0)

": 9(# (the correct &% is found in other Russian copies; 'S %

" C :? ) 9 7 >3? )

(20) Zephaniah, introduction, 38v7:"#+ % $$$ &(; p [

T... )

A detailed analysis shows that the participle - occurs 20 times in theSlavonic translation of the Minor Prophets with commentary. All instances could be attested

only after a thorough comparison between the copies, because in the South Slav witnesses

- was either changed to#;- or it is not found at all due to a lost text. These

facts reveal once again, that lexical and lexicographic studies should be preceded by

comparative textological review. Otherwise, important characterstics of the original text may

be omitted and remain unrecorded.

Uses of - are not limited to the text of the Minor Prophets with commentary.

They can be found in other texts of the catena version, prepared in Preslav. Dictionaries attest

for the following examples:

(21) Daniel 8:19:


5/10

(26) Isaiah 1:7Bas12: & "#& ""8 9./ % ! .% %# () { - )

F )

(27) Hezekiah 4:3Tht:,. # & % % !": 9(&( p % @{4

p T:& ) ) & >3; )(28) Jeremiah 28:17Tht: # % * & 7( & U (no exact Greek

parallel)

(29) Baruch, introduction: % ! #& ( % ! 2& !(no exact Greek parallel)

Another early translation, which often attests for the participle -, is the

collection of Thirteen Sermons by Gregory the Theologian, an Old Bulgarian translation

dated at the end of 9th

or the beginning of 10th

c. (earliest copy dates from 11th

c.). Nineexamples were excerpted from it13:

(30) 76a: ) ("& "00 .& 0( (G 'S

H & T I )

(31) 87a: & '(& ")(& (&(1 * 56 :J

)

(32) 103a: "; ).0, " & " ,(K '

:"4 p ! T L = " )(33) 108a: ( >> >(Tp '{ { { @I { )

(34) 108c: #" (& 2 ( ( #" "(&

( #'& #"& >(= 'S 9 { 7 :6'4 p {

5: & 9" p MNH )

(35) 354d: . #0 (* 5 @ { T )

(36) 358c: & #. " '((O P T =&

?: )

(37) 366c: "2 " # "( '(& #& (({

; I Q; { O )

(38) 366c: "( '(& #& ( . & ( & ( (;

I Q; { O{ p - 6 T )The Izbornik of Symeon (earliest copy dates from 1073), was translated in the end of

9th or the very beginning of 10th century. Byzantine anthology, also gives three examples for


6/10

-. In two cases the text is identical to above cited passages from the Thirteen

Sermons by Gregory the Theologian:14

(39) 120d121a:( > >, cf. (33)

(40) 121b: #" (& 2 ( >( > #"& "(( #'& #" , cf. (34)

(41) 159c: > ; #& > )#& (& '& & .& #&

"#(R [ A( = ) [ E "6 ' *&4 ; =

{ E E "{ 5"& : )The participle is also found once in hymnography in the Canon for Prophet

Jeremiah (earliest copy dates from 11th c.), which clearly has Old Bulgarian provenance:15

(42) 4r: #& (& "# ) () & T T9 %" ; )

The data discussed aboveprove that in the Minor Prophets catena version participle

- has the following Greek counterparts:T and { T (3, 10, 11, 15,

17, 20), (16), { 0 (9), { 9 (12, 19),

(1, 18), and *! ! for % (8). Most of the examples are found in the

introductory parts and commentaries, which undoubtedly have East Bulgarian origin, but in

one case (8) - is used in the Bible text as well. The situation is the same in the othersources analyzed, where - has the following counterparts: and {

(30, 31, 33=39, 34=40, 36, 37), T and { T (35, 38, 42), (32),

{ [ E for % (41). Contrary to Aitzetmllers opinion, these data prove that

- corresponds in meaning precisely toT (3, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 35, 38, 42),

(16, 30, 31, 33=39, 34=40, 36, 37), even to future participles (1, 9, 12, 18, 19), and

there is no single case of as Greek equivalent. What is more, - is used

mostly in prophetic discourse (""6 % !? "# % &? #

% ? % w % *? #&2#0 % ?etc.), where the difference

between past, present an future is very clearly underlined, cf. (10, 15, 16, 23, 25, 29, 30,

33=39, 38). - can express not only which will happen, occur, emerge, but also

which will exist, be, as some examples show (16, 33=39, 38, see also negative forms 8, 22).

The lexeme is also found in the Athanasius of AlexandriaOrationes contra Arianos ,

translated by Constantine of Preslav at the end of 9th beginning of 10th c.:

(43) (=&) % : 9 (? ) 2 16


7/10

It can be assumed that this particular example does not imply a future participle

(flesh isborn and created ), but rather a neologism, derived by the aorist form of. This

assumption is supported by the fact that none of the examples in the other Slavic sources

attests for - as corresponding to. Besides, this Greek parallel is a specific

term word,17 which requires a specific Slavic counterpart. The language of Constantine of

Preslav is rich in neologisms andhapax legomena ,18 so its investigation should be a priority

for the Slavic medieval studies. Thus, more reliable interpretations of this single example (43)

could be done only after a detailed study on theOrationes contra Arianos translation. At this

point of research it should be considered as an exception, not as a rule (thus A i t z e t m l l e

r 1968, 1978: 199, W h a l e y 2000: 2021).

In conclusion, the participle (this probably is the form for m. nom. sg., cf.

(8), * is not attested) should be considered a typical lexical marker for texts of EastBulgarian origin. Its intentional replacement in the South Slav manuscript F.I.461 (in both

Bible text and commentaries) indicates that in 14th c. was already unusable

archaism. However, in the end of 9thbeginning of 10th c. the participle was actively used, at

least in the dialect of the scribes, who prepared the Old Testament books with commentaries,

the collection of Thirteen Sermons by Gregory the Theologian, the Symeonic Florilegium

(Izbornik), and the Canon of Jeremiah. The possibility that (some of or parts of) these

translations were made in one and the same school, even by one and the same translators, canbe approved or rejected only after a future detailed linguistic investigations, which must

accumulate enough data about other identical translation principles and linguistic features of

the texts compared.

A i t z e t m l l e r, R. 1968. Das angebliches-Futurum des Slavischen. In: Studien zur

Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift fr Wilhelm Brandenstein. Innsbruck, 1116.

A i t z e t m l l e r, R. 1978. Altbulgarische Gramatik als Einfhrung in die Slavische

Sprachwissenschaft. (Monumenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris,). Freiburg.B i r n b a u m D. J. 1995. The Church Slavonic Future Participle from a Comparative Perspective.

Die Welt der Slaven,, 40, 1, 7692.

J a g i , V. 1906. Einige Streitfragen. 9. Das Futurum des Stammes-. Archiv fr Slavische

Philologie, 28, 3536.

L a m p e G. W. H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford.

M i g n e, J.-P. 1858, 1859. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca. Ed. J.-P. Migne. T. 3536,

Paris. T. 81. Paris.

M i k l o s i c h, F. 18621865. Lexicon palaeo-slovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum.

Vindobonae.


8/10

M i l t e n o v, Y. 2009. The Slavonic Translation of the Minor Prophets with Commentary a

Textological Approach. Scripta & e-Scripta, 7, 135179.

T h o m s o n, F. J. 1998. The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament. In: Interpretation of the

Bible. Ljubljana Sheffield, 605920.

T r e v i s a n, P. 1939. Trevisan, P. San Basilio. Commento al profeta Isaia. 12. Turin.V a j s, J. 1908. Propheta Habacuc. (Analecta Sacrae Scripturae ex antiquoribus codicibus glagoliticis.

Prophetae minores.). Praha.

W h a l e y, M. L. 2000. The Evolution of the Slavic (be)come-Type Compound Future. Dissertation.

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of the Ohio State University. The Ohio State University.

Z l a t a n o v a, R. 1992. Zur slawischen bersetzung des Zwlfprophetenbuchs. Anzeiger fr

slavische Philologie, 21, 159181.

Z l a t a n o v a, R. 1994. Zur kritischen Ausgabe des altbulgarischen Zwlfprophetenbuchs. Das Buch

Ioel. Anzeiger fr slavische Philologie, 22, 207241.

, . . 1999. . -! . , . ., " , . " . 2003. #$ % XI

(! ). . &$. ' . &$. ($ . . , . " ." . &%.

$ ) , . 1871. &$ * $ ($ XIII + ( ( &( ! ) XI . -! .

$ ) , . 1875. $), . XIII + $ ($ ( ( &( ! ) XI . -! .

, . 1952. ,$ ( *. " .+ ., # , . 1857. -( . ( "

$/ . II. ! *. . 1. " . , , . 1998. $$ ( 0. ( 0

($ . !$ $ . #. . 1.). 1. , , . 1998b. ( 2 (0) (0

($. In: "$ (. ) 40-$3

) $ (1 . 4 !. 1, 470501. , , . 2002., , . ( ". ( . In:

56789:6;


9/10

1991, 1993. (( (( 1073 .).. 1. &$ . 1. . 2. ,) -$. 1.

. 2008. ($. In: & 0 $ . 1, 93103.

, &. &. 1893. "* $ $ * ( (/* (. . 1. -! .

, # . ? . 1918., # . ? . *. ( $- ($. . - , &, , $ &*. !$ .

, " . 1964.@) / *. . 1. " .

Authors Address:

52 Shipchenski prohod Blvd., bl. 17, Institute of Bulgarian Language Prof. L. Andreychin.

[email protected]

1 See the latest studies which summarize the information about the history of the translation, include

reviews of different hypotheses and extensive bibliography: Z l a t a n o v a 1992, 1994, 1998: 4046, 1998b, 2002, T h o m s o n 1998: 850859, 1999: 163166, 2008: 102103. 2 The following reconstruction of the history of the text is based on comparison between the translation

and the copy of the Biblical text accompanied by Theodoret of Cyrrhus commentaries (published by M

i g n e 1859: 15451988). The history of the text will be considerably different, if future investigations

discover an identical Greek parallel.3 Parts of the catena version have been published several times. The Books of Hosea, Joel, Amos,

Obadiah, and Jonah are published by N. L. Tunitskij ( 1918) according to manuscript 89, kept in RNB-Moscow, f. 304.I, the Trinity Laura of St. Sergius collection. The Books of Joel,

Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and fragments of Zechariah and Malachi, are

available in Zlatanova ( 1998). The latter edition follows the Bulgarian copy in RNB-St. Petersburg, F.I.461. A Russian copy of the Book of Habakkuk with removed commentaries is

published by J. Vajs (V a j s 1908: 3642). For reconstruction of the Books of Joel, Jonah and Malachi

see Z l a t a n o v a 1994, 1998b, 2002. Thus, only fragments of the Books of Zechariahand Malachi are in disposal through printed editions, while the Books of Zephaniah and Haggai remain

unedited.4 & , , 18781879: 89. The catena version of the Minor prophets is found on ff.1r50r.5 The most detailed description of the manuscript and bibliography see in 1998: 41,4879. The catena version of the Minor prophets is found on ff. 185r10225r9, 333v2334v14, 336r9

337v30. The second copy of this branch GIMMoscow, P. I. Shtukins collection, 507, dated 1475,298 ff. has inherited all features of F.I.461, which is its indirect source.

6 The text was excerpted from the most accurate copy, found in the Russian manuscript 89, kept inRGBMoscow, f. 304.I, the Trinity Laura of St. Sergius collection. It was compared to the Bulgarian


10/10

copy, published by R. Zlatanova ( 1998), codex F.I.461 from RNB-St. Petersburg,

where traces of - were completely wiped out. Greek parallels follow M i g n e 1859. If the

text is from Theodoret of Cyrrhus Interpretatio, it is marked by Tht as in R. Zlatanovas edition.7 This example is also cited in+ , # 1857: 116, M i k l o s i c h 18621865:51.8 The example is cited in 1893: 209.9 The example is cited in 1893: 209.10 The example is cited in 1893: 209, without a reference from the commentary ofwhich Biblical book and verse it was excerpted.11 According to P.S. Kuznetsov ( 1961: 131132) examples from the catena versionexceed 80 (!) in number. This is the only publication that introduces some data, which is not found in

Church Slavonic dictionaries, but, unfortunately, without giving Greek parallels, Bible references andfull list of all uses of -.12 This commentary is attributed to Basil the Great. Greek text follows T r e v i s a n 1939.13 See the work of. S. Budilovich ( $ ) 1871: 47). The present paper cites the textaccording to the edition of the same scholar ( $ ) 1875), based on the manuscript RNBSt.Petersburg Q.( .I.16, 11th c. The Greek parallels follow M i g n e 1858.14 Text cited according to Symeonic Florilegium (Izbornik) edition ( 1991)and the index verborum ( 1993). Both follow the oldest codex 1043 (31-d)from the Synodal collection of GIMMoscow, dated from 1073.15 The text follows the edition of the 11th c. Menaion of Putjata, 202 from the Sofijskoe sobranie inRNBSt. Petersburg ( , " 2003). The Greek paralles follow the publication of R.Krivko ( 2008: 330).16 The example is cited in 1893: 205.17 On the uses (including in the Arian conception of Christ) and confusion (including in Greek

manusripts, containing Athanasius works) between and as theological terms, see La m p e 1961: 310313, esp. 312.18 Including##for , &for , #for (, which occur

in Orationes contra Arianos translation only. This means##, &, #and - are Constantine of Preslav neologisms, invented to give expression to resultative (Perfect)

action or state and derived from the Aorist forms of.

Documents

Uses of Participle Future Minor Prophets