Glagolitic Script as a Manifestation of Sacred Knowledge

Abstract

It is argued that the Glagolitic alphabet was constructed as an ideographic illustration of sacred knowledge. The author attempts to demonstrate some basic ideas encoded in the forms of the letters. At the same time the alphabet seems to reveal the acquaintance of the inventor of the Glagolitic alphabet - St Cyril the Philosopher - with Semitic languages.

Headnote

Abstract

Boris Uspenskij

Glagolitic Script as a Manifestation of Sacred Knowledge

It is argued that the Glagolitic alphabet was constructed as an ideographic illustration of sacred knowledge. The author attempts to demonstrate some basic ideas encoded in the forms of the letters. At the same time the alphabet seems to reveal the acquaintance of the inventor of the Glagolitic alphabet - St Cyril the Philosopher - with Semitic languages.

Keywords

Glagolitic Letters; Sacred Symbolism; Nomina Sacra.

Abbreviations

Bible 1581 (Ostrog Bible): Biblïa sirec' knigy vetxago i novago zaveta, po jazyku slovensku, Ostrih 1581.

Codex Assemanius: See: Kurz 1929-1955.

Codex Clozianus: See: Dostál 1959.

Codex Marianus: See: Jagic 1883.

Codex Suprasliensis: See: Severjanov 1904.

Codex Zographensis: See: Jagic 1879.

Euchologium Sinaiticum: See: Nachtigal 1941-1942.

Freising folia: See: Isacenko 1943.

Kievan Missal: See: Nimcuk 1983.

Liber Sabbae: See: Scepkin 1903.

Ochrid Folia: See: Iljinskij 1915.

Ochrid Gospel: See: Grunskij 1906.

Psalterium Sinaiticum: See: Severjanov 1922; Altbauer 1971.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)

1. The question concerning the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet could be called a questio diabolica of Slavistics. It is difficult, indeed, to indicate another field in our studies in which so many lances have been broken with so little result achieved. Moreover, it is hardly possible to find a definitive solution of the question: this would presuppose a discovery of new historical sources which does not seem probable and cannot be an object of a purpose- ful research. We are compelled to look for new approaches, rather than new sources.

All the suggestions concerning the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet have by necessity a hypothetical character.

There are two contrasting hypotheses concerning this question: one of them suggests a natural origin for the Glagolitic letters, while the other presumes an artificial origin. The first hypothesis may be defined as palaeographic, the second as ideographic. Indeed, the first hypothesis presupposes a palaeographic development, whereas the second implies an ideo- graphic explanation.

2. According to the first hypothesis the Glagolitic alphabet goes back to some previ- ous, more ancient alphabet (or perhaps represents an unification of several ancient alpha- bets): in other words, it is a sort of elaboration of some other alphabet (or alphabets).

However no attempt to trace the historical roots of the Glagolitic script, i.e. to con- nect the Glagolitic alphabet with any other alphabetical system has proved successful. There exist a number of suggestions of this kind, but no convincing results have been achieved.

It is true that in many cases Glagolitic letters may remind us of graphemes of other alphabets. Thus, for example, they may evince a certain resemblance to Ethiopian letters1. However the similar signs are not correlated phonetically, nor have they the same numeri- cal or symbolic value: the similarity in form is not motivated, it is unsupported at the level of substance and, consequently, has to be recognized as coincidental. A further example: Ihor Sevcenko has pointed to a striking resemblance between certain Glagolitic letters and marginal reference signs found in numerous Greek manuscripts2. Again, we cannot be sure that this resemblance is not coincidental: we see no apparent motive for transforming these signs into letters. As Robert Auty put it, "The laws of probability alone make it likely that fortuitous similarities will frequently arise between letters of different systems"3.

The resemblance in form between Glagolitic letters and those of other alphabets must be supported at some different level, let us say, at the level of content as opposed to form. Similar signs must have something in common - they have to express similar sounds, or have to have the same numerical value, and so on. In other words, we are obliged to present explanations for the similarity of graphemes belonging to different languages, otherwise it is not convincing.

In some particular cases examples of this kind could be found in the Glagolitic alpha- bet. Indeed, some Glagolitic letters are very close to those of other alphabets with similar pronunciation. One could refer to the Glagolitic sha (?) which recalls the Hebrew shin (?). Another example is the Glagolitic dobro (?) which corresponds to the Greek minus- cule delta4. In both cases the correlating letters, Slavonic and Hebraic in the one case, Sla- vonic and Greek in the other, reveal similarities both in form and in pronunciation.

However these are only isolated cases. And isolated cases do not carry us very far.

3. An alternative hypothesis suggests that the Glagolitic alphabet was created artifi- cially, i.e. independently of existing alphabets. According to this hypothesis the Glagolitic letters for the most part were composed of three sacred symbols: the cross, the circle and the triangle.

The cross is obviously a symbol of Christ, the circle can be regarded as a symbol of the infinity and omnipotence of God the Father and the triangle becomes a symbol of the Holy Trinity. At the same time the circle as a solar symbol may also be associated with Christ as "sol justitiae" ("the sun of righteousness" - Malachi iv, 2).

The author of this hypothesis is Georg ( Jurij) Tschernochvostoff, a Russian emigré scholar who died prematurely. He was a student of Valentin Kiparskij and it was Prof. Ki- parskij who posthumously published his findings5.

Today this hypothesis have become increasingly popular among scholars. However, it is necessary to seek further arguments in support of the theory, otherwise it may be con- sidered a question of belief which can be neither proved or rejected. The idea is clearly too abstract, too arbitrary - it requires some additional argumentation.

4. One argument of this kind was indicated by Tschernochvostoff himself.

He pointed out that the Glagolitic letters ize (?) and slovo (?) present in reality the same figure, each being in an upside-down position in relation to the other. And he con- nected this with the abbreviated form of the name of Jesus: ??? 6 which corresponds to the Cyrillic and Greek abbreviations of this name7:

...

This idea bears conviction and is also stimulating. It allows us to see in the abbreviated Slavonic form of the name of Christ a special theological meaning which is not revealed in the corresponding Greek and Latin forms. The name of Jesus in the Glagolitic script constitutes a cycle, a full circle, and this indicates the word of God:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end8.

The Glagolitic representation of the name of Christ appears then as a sort of an ideo- gram, which corresponds visually, i.e. ideographically, to what Christ says of Himself in the Book of Revelation.

It should be remembered that the abbreviated form in itself is a sign of sacredness: only sacred names (nomina sacra) were abbreviated in ancient writing. - the fact evidently goes back to the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew script9.

It is also important to note that the Tetragrammaton - contrary to the etymolog y of the word - could be written not only with four letters (as yhwh ????) but also with two let- ters (as yy ?? or yh ??). The two-letter abbreviation of the name of God in the Hebrew Bible (the Tetragrammaton) was probably reflected in the two-letter abbreviation of the name of Christ - first in Greek and Latin and then in Slavonic writing.

5. The interpretation of the symmetrical relations between the letters ize (?) and slovo (?) seems quite plausible, and, moreover, appears very attractive. However, in order to accept this interpretation we must explain the analogous relation between the Glagolitic letters dobro (?) and vedi (?).

Indeed, in the Glagolitic script there are two pairs of letters presenting the same figure in a direct and an inverted position: ize (?) and slovo (?), on the one hand, dobro (?) and vedi (?), on the other. The relation between the members of each pair is the same. In each case we have one and the same figure, each being in the inverted position in relation to the other. In both cases the two letters - ize and slovo in the one case, dobro and vedi in the other - are contrasted at the horizontal axis.

It is necessary to stress that these are the only known cases of the symmetrical organi- zation of Glagolitic letters: no other pair of letters reveals such a relation.

If the forms of the letters ize (?) and slovo (?) go back to the abbreviation of the name of Christ, an analogous structure of the letters dobro (?) and vedi (?) cannot be casual. We must suppose that behind this analogy there is a significance. But what sort of significance?

In the opposite case, if the symmetrical relation of the letters dobro (?) and vedi (?) is casual and meaningless we are not entitled to find a concealed sense in the corresponding relation of the letters ize (?) and slovo (?).

The absence of an explanation for the relationship between the letters dobro (?) and vedi (?) turned out to be the weak link in the theory of Tschernochvostoff, throwing doubt on his interpretation of the relationship between the letters ize (?) and slovo (?) - i.e. throwing doubt on the connection between the forms of the letters ize and slovo and the abbreviated form of the name of Christ10.

6. I believe that the analog y between the two pairs of letters can be explained.

This analogy reflects the association of Jesus Christ and King David in which David is regarded as a typological (old testamental) prototype of Christ.

This association is very evident both in Greek and Latin writing where the name of David, like the name of Jesus is regularly presented in an abbreviated form, as a sa- cred name (nomen sacrum) - while all other names are given in the full form11! Ludwig Traube wrote in this connection: "Daß eine Kurzschreibung für ΔΑYΕΙΔ aufkam, erklärt sich wieder aus messianistischen Anschauungen und scheint ursprünglich, wenn wir die Wortbilder ins Auge fassen, eher vorchristlicher Zeit anzugehören, als bereits der typologischen Beziehung von David auf Christus graphischen Ausdruck zu geben"12.

Whereas in Greek the name of David is usually written as ΔΑΔ, in Latin it is written as DD - in two letters, like the name of Jesus, cf. Latin abbreviations for the name of Jesus: IC or IS, HS13. In Old Church Slavonic the name of David may be written as ?a?/??? (as in Greek), ??/?? (as in Latin) and ???/???14, but in the Glagolitic manuscripts we also come across the abbreviation ?? (= ??)15.

This abbreviation reveals a full analog y with the abbreviation ?? (= ?c) for the name of Jesus: in both cases we have a configuration of letters which present the same figure in a direct and a reversed position16.

It corresponds also to the two-letter spelling of the Tetragrammaton - which is re- flected both in the name of Jesus and in the name of David.

Significantly we find this abbreviation (?? = ??) in most ancient Glagolitic manu- scripts. We may suppose that it is the most ancient abbreviation of the name David in Slavonic writing. It is possible that originally this name could be written in the nominative case without a final letter er (?). The writing without a final er would have made the anal- og y with the abbreviated form of the name Jesus even more evident (cf. the abbreviations ??/?c - without er - for Jesus).

Similar to the Greek and Latin manuscripts only two names in Old Slavonic manu- scripts appear in an abbreviated form: Jesus and David: these two names alone were treated as nomina sacra17.

It should be noted that, contrary to the Greek and Latin abbreviations, the Slavonic abbreviation ??? (= ???) corresponds to the Hebraic form of David: ???.

In the Life of St Cyril we read that the saint studied Hebrew (Ch. viii, cf. also Ch. x)18 and we have sound grounds to believe that it was true19. Supposedly the acquaintance with Hebrew was reflected in the elaboration of the Glagolitic alphabet: some Glagolitic letters - in particular, the letter sha (?) - seem to be taken directly from the Hebrew al- phabet20. This acquaintance may have stimulated the abbreviation of the name of David as ??? (= ???).

At the same time the abbreviation ?? (= ??) appears as a specific Slavonic abbre- viation. It is explained by the association of Jesus and David. The Glagolitic form of both names - Jesus and David - manifests a symmetrical construction, which initiates and con- cludes with the same sign (in a direct and a reversed position), symbolizing the idea of a circle - the same idea which is expressed in the divine words:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

As a matter of fact the abbreviation ??? (= ???) can be explained both as a borrow- ing from Hebrew and as a development of the idea of the circle. The two interpretations are not in contradiction - they rather supplement one another, creating an effect of resonance, of mutual reinforcement21.

7. As was mentioned above there are at least two cases in which a Glagolitic letter reveals a striking resemblance to a letter of another alphabet of similar pronunciation: the Glagolitic sha (?) resembles the Hebraic shin (?), while the Glagolitic dobro (?) resembles the Greek minuscule delta.

Concerning the Slavonic sha (?) we may suppose that St Cyril took it from the He- brew alphabet. Analogously we may assume that the Glagolitic dobro (?) goes back to the Greek delta. At the same time the Slavonic vedi (?) was created artificially, by turning dobro upside down: St Cyril presented vedi (?) as an upside-down dobro (?). The point of departure in the last case was, one may surmize, the abbreviated form of the name David symbolizing the idea of a circle: if the first letter of the abbreviation coincides with the initial letter of this name in Greek, the second appears as its reverse.

Returning to the problem formulated earlier in this paper - whether the Glagolitic alphabet has a natural or an artificial origin - we may conclude that the truth lies between. In some cases St Cyril could take letters from other alphabets (occasionally we may identify the ornamentalization of Greek minuscule script), in other cases he could create Glagolitic letters artificially, presenting them as the result of a certain transformation. This transfor- mation as we have seen could be based on the association of the letters suggested by their combination in the form of a sacred name.

In some cases St Cyril could invert Greek letters. Thus the Glagolitic ? ("rtsi") may be treated as the Greek Ρ ("rho") turned according to the axes, vertical and horizontal (upside down and from right to left). Analogously the Glagolitic ? ("jest") can be regarded as the Greek Ε ("epsilon") turned according to the vertical axis (from right to left). The inversion of letters generally is characteristic of cryptography. This may be in conformity with the hy- pothesis of Eugenia Granstrem who suggested a connection between the Glagolitic script and Greek magical writing with alchemical and cryptographic signs22.

However in the majority of cases the letters seem to be created, not borrowed, in the Glagolitic alphabet. This corresponds to what is said in a eulogy on Cyril and Method where the saint brothers are named new apostles who invented new letters for a new lan- guage they created23.

8. The symmetrical images of letters - ize (?) and slovo (?), dobro (?) and vedi (?) - manifest a tendency to ascribe theological meanings to the Slavonic letters.

Characteristically the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet az? (?) appears as a cross which is obviously a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ, "The Word", who, accord- ing to St John the Theologian, was "in the beginning" ( Jn i, 1) and is "the beginning" ( Jn viii, 25; Rv i, 8). Placing the cross at the beginning of his alphabet St Cyril began it with a symbol of Christ24.

The identification of Christ with the Cross is clearly manifested in the Slavic lan- guages in which the word for cross (κp?c??) goes back to the name of Christ (a borrowing from Old High German krist, christ "Christ")25.

Georg Tschernochvostoff noted that the letters ize and slovo ?? (= ?c) symbolically forming the name of Jesus Christ are present in the first word of the Gospel of St John (Ic κo?? ?? C?o?o... "In the beginning was the Word...", Jn I, 1) which appears in the Paschal liturg y and which was the first word translated by St Cyril the Philosopher (in the Aprakos Gospel, the first book translated by him)26. As a matter of fact this word stands at the be- ginning of the Slavonic literary tradition27.

Both the Slavonic Gospel and the Slavonic alphabet begin with a symbolic designa- tion of Christ: the Slavonic Gospel begins with the name of Christ, the Slavonic alphabet begins with the sign of the Cross. A symbol of Christ appears to be at the beginning of both the paradigmatics and the syntagmatics of the Slavonic literature: indeed, it opens both the system of writing and the first text utilizing this system - the text of the Paschal cycle.

9. But how are we to explain the name az? for the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet (az? meaning "I", "myself " in Slavonic)? Why was the pronoun of the first person singular chosen as a name for this letter?

We could suppose that choosing the name of the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet St Cyril proceeded from the words ?γ? [varepsilon]?μι (Slavonic A?? ecM?, i.e. "I am"), which appears in the Bible as a self-definition of God (Jn vi, 20, viii, 24, 28, 58, xiii, 19, xviii, 5, 6; Mk vi, 50, xiii, 6, xiv, 62; Lk xxi, 8, xxii, 70-71; Mt xiv, 27; Dt xxxii, 39; Is xli, 4, xliii, 10, 25, xlv, 18, 19, xlvi, 4, xlviii, 12, li, 12, lii, 6)28. In its turn the Greek phrase (?γ? [varepsilon]?μι) goes back to the Hebrew 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh from the book of Exodus (Ex iii, 14), i.e. the name of God in the Hebrew Bible which God reveals to Moses on Mount Sinai: it reveals the definition of Christ as God, His identity with Yahweh.

The original Hebrew phrase of the response of God looks as a tautology. It means liter- ally "I am who I am" (and so it is translated in the Vulgate: Ego sum qui sum) or "I am what I am" (and so it is translated in the Slavonic Ostrog Bible of 1581: A?? ecM? e?e ecM?)29; as a mat- ter of fact, God says: "I am I" affirming His identity with Himself. Characteristically, in the next phrase of the Biblical text "I am" appears as a proper name: "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, - God says to Moses, - i am ('ehyeh) hath sent me unto you" (Ex iii, 14).

At the same time the Hebrew phrase may equally mean "I am the one who exists" and such is the translation in the Septuagint: ?γ? [varepsilon]?μι ? ?ν30; this is reflected in the tradi- tional text of the Slavonic Bible A?? ecM? c?? (or, sometimes, A?? ecM? co????). In the next phrase, consequently, we have then: ? ?ν ?π?σταλκ?ν μ[varepsilon] πρ?sfgr; ?μ?sfgr;; or in the Slavonic Bible: C?? ?oc?a (or: ?o?c??) M? κ? ?aM?31. Thus the phrase in question may express both the absolute existence of God and the idea of God as absolute subject32.

The translation of the passage under discussion by St Cyril has not reached us and, most probably, it was not translated at all in the initial version of the Slavonic Bible33. However St Cyril presumably was acquainted not only with the Greek and Latin transla- tions of the Bible but also with the original Hebrew text. Realizing the possibility of dif- ferent interpretations of the phrase in question ('ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh) he could understand it as a definition of God as absolute subject. This may have been reflected in the name of the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet.

Thus the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet appears as a cross (?) and means "I", the pronoun of the first person. Both the form and the name of this letter refer to Christ.

10. The Slavonic az? is correlated with the Greek alpha: both are names of first letters, az? being the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet, alpha being the first letter of the Greek alphabet. At the same time alpha is related to Christ, because He says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end". Both az? and alpha represent the beginning and at the same time both letters turn out to be associated with Christ..

In this way we can understand what Khrabr, a learned Bulgarian monk, says about az? and alpha in his treatise "On Letters", a eulogy of the Slavonic alphabet of the 10th century. According to Khrabr, St Cyril creating the alphabet for Slavs "began with az? like Greeks begin with alpha: so, - Khrabr concludes, - both [alphabets] begin with az?"34. As we see, az? and alpha are identified by Khrabr.

Khrabr says also: "The Jews have as their first letter aleph which means "study !". The child who is first brought to school is told: study!; this is aleph35. The Greeks in imitation say alpha [...]; for they say to a child in school: seek!, as alpha means "seek" in Greek. In a like manner Cyril made the first letter [of the Slavonic alphabet] az?"36. The beginning of this passage goes back to a scholium to the grammar of Dionysius Thrax where there is a tale about the creation of the Greek alphabet37. So the comparison of the names alpha and aleph has a Greek source; the original part of this discourse is the comparison of the Slavonic az? with the names alpha and aleph.

Thus the identification (or, rather, juxtapposition) of alpha and aleph is justified se- mantically since the names of the letters are acknowleged to have a similar meaning. The identification of az? and alpha can be deduced from the sentence "I am Alpha and Ome- ga..." (in Slavonic: Az? jesm? Alpha i Omega...). Finally the correlation between az? and aleph can be based on their form: both az? (?) and aleph (?) have a form of a cross. All the three letters are associated with the idea of beginning , and this is especially obvious in the case of the Slavonic az? which appears as a sign of the Cross, i.e. a symbol of Christ who is "the beginning" ( Jn viii, 25; Rv i, 8).

In the Christian thought the Cross is generally connected with the idea of begin- ning. It is usual to make the sign of the Cross when starting something38. It was ha- bitual, in particular, to make the sign of the Cross before learning the alphabet and, ideographically, this corresponds to the symbol of the Cross at the beginning of the Slavonic alphabet. A Slavic child in the Middle Ages beginning his studies was obliged to draw the Holy Cross before writing the letters of the alphabet, saying: "Holy Cross, help me!". Analogously before learning to read, it was considered necessary to write down the prayers "Lord Jesus Christ, our God, take pity on us" and "By the prayers of our Holy Fathers" - writing these prayers in the form of a cross39.

In a way this corresponds to the Byzantine and Irish custom of consuming letters before learning the alphabet. The letters of the alphabet were written with ink on a pat- en, then washed out with wine and the child beginning his studies drank the wine40. An analogy with the Holy Communion seems obvious: in a way it was a sort of com- munion with the Alphabet which was analogous to communion with Christ. As Herbert Thurston puts it, "the alphabet is to be regarded as symbolic of Christ because it is the expansion of the Α and Ω of the Apocalypse [...] In apparently all Western languages the alphabet was closely associated with the Cross and shared in the sacred character at- tributed to the latter"41. Characteristically in the rite of consecrating a church the bishop wrote down the letters of the alphabet on the floor or on a wall of the church in the form of cross42. And the names of the letters of the Slavonic alphabet probably form a text of the confession of faith43.

11. The words "I am Alpha and Omega" emphasize the sacred nature of the alphabet and it is no wonder that they acquire a special significance for St Cyril: God as Logos is defined in terms of letters - as the entire body of letters.

It remains to be said that these words were presumably pronounced by Christ in Ara- maic or Hebrew. Christ most probably spoke Aramaic (or "Syriac" as it was called) - or, at least, such was the common opinion in the Middle Ages - and hence the Aramaic language was considered sacred44.

Then in the original phrase - whether Aramaic or Hebrew - there stood aleph and tav, instead of alpha and omega, i.e. the names of the first and the last letters of the Hebraic (and, correspondingly, the Aramaic) alphabet45.

As has been mentioned before, the figure of the letter aleph (?) can be seen as a rep- resentation of the Cross. But also tav could be associated with the Cross. In Old Hebrew and Phoenician script this letter was presented as a cross, and this is reflected in the figure of the Greek letter tau: τ.

St Cyril certainly was aware that the Greek alphabet goes back to the Phoenician and he could reconstruct the original form of the Hebraic tav basing it on the form of the Greek tau - in any case he could associate these letters46.

Christian exegesis connects the words of the Book of Revelation about people with "the seal of the living God" on their foreheads with the words of Ezekiel about righteous men with tav (mark, sign) on their foreheads (Ezk ix, 4, 6). Originally tav meant a sign (cf. also: Gn i, 15) but it was identified with the sign of the Cross47.

Thus both the Hebraic letter tav and the Greek tau appear as symbols of the Cross48.

In this context the words "I am Alpha and Omega" may be read as "I am (the) Cross". This may be an additional basis for the definition of both the form and the name of the first letter of the Slavonic alphabet, as suggested above.

12. It may be seen that the Slavonic alphabet invented by St Cyril the Philosopher was intended as an ideographical manifestation of sacred truth.

The monk Khrabr in his treatise "On Letters", quoted above, argues that the Church Slavonic language is more holy than the Greek. Indeed, he says, Church Slavonic was creat- ed by a holy man - St Cyril the Philosopher - whereas Greek was created by pagan philoso- phers49. This thesis is usually understood in the context of the competition between Greek and Church Slavonic. It may however be taken literally: the Church Slavonic language was created by a saint and the system of writing created by him expresses Christian teaching. In this way a Christian philosopher was opposed to pagan philosophers.

When the Byzantine Emperor (Michael iii) declared his intention to send two broth- ers - Cyril (he bore the secular name Constantine at the time) and Methodius - to Mora- via as missionaries, Constantine-Cyril stressed that without an alphabet the effort would be in vain. And he added that if one invents an alphabet it is very easy to be accused of heresy (Life of St Cyril, Ch. xiv)50. The reason is clear: because according to St Cyril an alphabet for Holy Writ was intended to manifest Christian teaching.

Footnote

1 See: Prochorov 1992: 185-190.

2 See: Strakhov 2011.

3 Auty 1971: 42.

4 One could quote also the Glagolitic letters fert ([straight phi]) and fita (?) which correspond to the Greek phi and theta, but these cases are not so representative: Greek letters were obviously borrowed for the correct spelling of words of the Greek origin.

5 See: Tschernochvostoff 1995; Kiparskij 1958; Kiparskij 1964; Kiparskij, 1968. The hypoth- esis of Tschernochvostoff, until recently accessible in the exposition of Kiparskij, received the posi- tive response of a number of scholars. Apart from the quoted articles of Kiparskij, see in particular: Samilov 1970: 98; Auty 1971: 41-42; Tolstoj 1998: 53; Vereecken 1995: 7; Marti 1999: 178, note 13.

6 Tschernochvostoff 1995: 146; Kiparskij 1958: 316; Kiparskij 1964: 400; Kiparskij 1968: 93; Auty 1971: 44; Ivanova 1977: 29.

A supralinear bar over the letters is a sign of contraction: it signalizes a hidden meaning (also letters used as ciphers have this sign). Later on for the sake of simplicity I will omit the bar; it will be preserved, however, in quotations.

7 There are two homophonic letters in the Cyrillic alphabet with the phonetic value of [i]: ? and ?; both letters may be called ize (Uspenskij 1997: 252, 275, notes 36, 37). In the Glagolitic al- phabet there are even three letters, but two of them probably may be considered to be variants of the same letter: ? and ?/?. These letters did not differ in pronunciation, their value was exclusively or- thographical. They have been introduced in the Slavonic alphabet as signs for transliterating Greek words, mostly proper names. Thus in the Cyrillic alphabet ? obviously corresponds to the Greek iota (I) while ? corresponds to the Greek eta (Η). In Byzantine Greek the letters iota and eta had the same phonetic value, but it was considered necessary to distinguish them in spelling.

The Glagolitic ? may correspond in Old Church Slavonic Cyrillic texts both to ? and ?. In the Cyrillic manuscripts the abbreviated name of Christ is usually written with ? (as ?c) and only rarely with ? (as ?c). However in the Glagolitic manuscripts the abbreviated name of Christ is usu- ally written with ? (as ??) (see: Sill 1972: 107-112 and especially Table 10; Cremosnik 1925: 261; Strakhov 2011: 7-8). Only this form is attested in the Codex Assemanius and in the Kievan Missal; in the Euchologium Sinaiticum it occurs 37 times, while the alternative abbreviation with ?/? is found only 4 times. The same form (??) prevails in the Codices Marianus and Zographiensis, as well as in the Ochrid Gospel and the Ochrid Folia; it is present also in the Codex Clozianus (fol. 3v/ii, 75) although it does not prevail there. In general it may be said that this form is attested in all Church Slavonic Glagolitic manuscripts where an abbreviated form of the name of Jesus is present.

In Greek the abbreviated name of Christ was written with the initial iota (ΙΣ or ΙΗΣ, ΙΗ), never with eta (*ΗΣ), and the Glagolitic abbreviation ?? (as well as the Cyrillic ?c) obviously renders the Greek abbreviation ΙΣ. Thus we may conclude that the Glagolitic ? was originally correlated with the Greek iota, while the Glagolitic ?/? was correlated with the Greek eta. Concerning the correspon- dence between ? and ?, on the one hand, ? and ?, on the other, see: Vrana 1964; cf. also: Dobrev 1980: 43; Tkadlcik 2000: 24-25 (for a different point of view see, in particular: Durnovo 2000: 592-593).

8 Rv xxi, 6, xxii, 13, cf. i, 8, 17, ii, 8. Cf. also: Is xli, 4, xliv, 6, xlviii, 12.

9 Cf.: Traube 1907; Dobias-Rozdestvenskaja 1936: 188-190; Hurtado 1998: 660-663.

10 See in this connection: Vlasto 1970: 43, note c. Michael Samilov (1970: 101) suggested that the association between the Glagolitic letters dobro (?) and vedi (?) is based on the semantic association of the Slavonic words ??pa "faith" and ?o?po "good". This explanation is unconvincing.

11 See: Traube 1907.

12 Ibidem: 104. The form ΔΑYΕΙΔ, together with ΔΑYΙΔ, is attested in early manu- scripts of the Greek New Testament. In particular, it occurs in Tischendorf 's edition consulted by Traube.

13 Discussing the abbreviation ΔΔ in a later Greek manuscript, Ludwig Traube remarks: "Wir glauben nicht zu irren, wenn wir diese Form für eine Anlehnung an θsfgr; oder vielleicht schon an ιsfgr; halten" (Traube 1907: 105).

14 See: Sill 1972: 99-100 and Table 7; Cremosnik 1925: 259; Strakhov 2011: 10.

15 Cf. ???? Nom. Sg. in the Codex Marianus, fol. 9v ( Jagic 1883: 37), ???? Dat. Sg. in the Psal- terium Sinaiticum, fol. 17v; these abbreviations are not mentioned in the book of Ute Sill (1972) dedicated to the Old Church Slavonic abbreviated forms of nomina sacra and the first one is missing in the paper of Strakhov (2011: 10). Cf. also abbreviations of the possessive adjective in the Codex Marianus: ???? Nom. Masc. Sg., fol. 6, 10v, 25 ( Jagic 1883: 28, 39, 73), Acc. Masc. Sg., fol. 81 ( Jagic 1883: 196), ???a Gen. Masc. Sg., fol. 123v, 148 ( Jagic 1883: 292, 346), ???? Loc. Masc. Sg., fol. 81v ( Jagic 1883: 197). Such abbreviations of the possessive adjective are attested also in the Psalterium Sinaiticum (???? Nom. Masc. Sg., fol. 11, 24v, 27, 27v, 28v, 32v, 33v, 39; ???a Nom. Fem. Sg., fol. 16), in the Codex Zographensis (???? Nom. Masc. Sg., fol. 115, see: Jagic 1879, p. 70), in the Euchologium Sinaiticum (???? Nom. Masc. Sg., fol. 33v) and in the Codex Clozianus (???? Nom. Masc. Sg., fol. 1/ I, 38). Corresponding abbreviations of the possessive adjective are also present in the Cyrillic Liber Sabbae transcribed from Glagolitic original: ???? Nom./Voc. Masc. Sg., fol. 44v (bis), 47v, 66, 84v (bis), 137, Acc. Masc. Sg., fol. 137v, ???a Gen. Neutr. Sg., fol. 28, 137v, ???? Loc. Masc. Sg., fol. 138 (Scepkin 1903: 26, 29, 51, 72, 133, 134, 7, 134, 134).

Glagolitic manuscripts are usually published in the Cyrillic transliteration. When quo- ting such editions here and further on I reproduce Church Slavonic words (originally spelled with Glagolitic letters) in Cyrillic.

16 The abbreviation ?? occurs also as an abbreviated form of the word ???a "virgin". One could surmize that the symmetrical organization of the Glagolitic letters ize (?) and slovo (?), on the one part, and dobro (?) and vedi (?), on the other part, is based not on the association of Christ and David but on the association of Christ and Mary. However this does not seem prob- able. The abbreviation of the name David is much more frequent in the Old Church Slavonic texts than the abbreviation of the word ???a. Besides, the abbreviation of ???a, as a rule, is present almost exclusively in the Cyrillic manuscripts, not in the Glagolitic (the only exception being ???? Gen. Pl. in Euchologium Sinaiticum, fol. 88, where the word does not refer to the Mother of God: Mo?c?κ??cκ?x? ???? c????a?? ??c?e?). See: Sill 1972: 93, 168 (the author mistakenly quotes two forms ???? as an abbreviation of ???a in the Euchologium - only one case of this kind is attested in the manuscript).

17 See: Sill 1972.

18 Lavrov 1930: 11, cf. 20; Kantor 1983: 43, cf. 57; Florja 1981: 77, cf. 83.

19 See: Minns 1925: 94-95. He probably knew also other Semitic languages (Aramaic, or Syriac), see: Jakobson 1944; Horálek 1956.

20 See: Lavrov 1915: 11; Minns 1925: 96; Auty 1971: 43; Ivanova 1977: 22.

21 My interpretation of the Glagolitic abbreviation of the name of David (which was presented at the Vienna Slavistic conference "Wien und die slawischen Sprachen und Literaturen" in October of 1999) was not accepted by Prof. Heinz Miklas who suggested that the form ??/?? were "individual" cases which have to be explained as contraction of the form ???/??? (see: Miklas, 2007: 72, note 60; Miklas, 2007b: 15, note 52). According to Prof. Miklas this contraction was due to the lack of space. I find it hard to agree with this opinion. I do not believe that we are justified in defining a form as "individual" if we find it several times in different manuscripts. In the manuscripts available to me (Psalterium Sinaiticum and Codex Marianus) there is no lack of space when the name of David is presented as ?? (=??): contrary to Prof. Miklas' conjecture, the letters are set freely and there are no traces of letter supraposition. (One of the manuscripts, namely, Psalterium Sinaiticum is available in a facsimile edition, see: Altbauer 1971).

Rejecting my explanation Prof. Miklas puts forward his own. He suggests to transliterate the Cyrillic abbreviation ??c 'Jesus' which occurs in Codex Suprasliensis (??c?? Dat. Sg., see: Severjanov 1904: 351) into Glagolitic letters. As a result of this operation he obtains the form ???. This form, according to Prof. Miklas, represents the Crucifixion with Christ between the two thieves: on our right we have the Good Thief, and on our left the Bad Thief crucified upside down (the circle below allegedly representing his head). It is impossible to take this seriously. First of all the abbreviation ??c?- in Codex Suprasliensis is a unique case (it is attested only in one manuscript and occurs only once there). Besides, we find this abbreviation in a Cyrillic, not Glagolitic manuscript, a fact of no minor importance; it may well be that the Cyrillic ? corresponded to the Glagolitic ?/? while the Cyrillic ? corresponded to the Glagolitic ?, in which case the transliteration of ??c would produce quite a diffe- rent configuration of Glagolitic letters, and then we cannot refer to a representation of the Crucifixion. Finally, the Good Thief is normally represented on the right of Christ, not on our right; and there is no indication that the Bad Thief was crucified upside down. See: Miklas 2003: 190; Miklas 2004: 397; Miklas 2007a: 70-72; Miklas, 2007b: 15.

22 See: Granstrem, 1955.

23 "... [sic!] ... in: Kniazevskaja et al. 1971: 203, fol. 112?).

24 See: Granstrem 1955: 307.

25 In the Freising folia (written in Latin letters in Old Slovenian between 972 and 1039, most likely before 1000) - the oldest Slavic manuscript which reflects the tradition preceding the creation of the Slavonic alphabet by St Cyril - Christ is called Cruz (derived obviously from Latin crux "Cross") (Isacenko 1943: 77; ii, 89). Thus in some Slavic languages the name for the Cross goes back to the name of Christ, while in Old Slovenian, vice versa, the name of Christ goes back to the word meaning "Cross".

It was German missionaries who brought the word κp?c?? to Slavs (with the original meaning of Christ) and in that context this word acquired the meaning of Cross. When St Cyril the Philosopher and St Methodius translated the Bible and the liturgical texts into Old Church Slavonic in the 9th century they used this word with the meaning of the Cross.

26 See: Tschernochvostoff 1995: 147; Kiparskij 1958: 316; Kiparskij 1964: 400; Kiparskij 1968: 93-94. The Life of St Cyril describes (Ch. xiv) how the Philosopher having created the Slavonic alpha- bet began writing in Slavonic: "And immediately Constantine composed letters and began to write the language of the Gospel, that is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [Jn, i, 1] and so forth" (Lavrov 1930: 27; Kantor 1983: 67; Florja 1981: 87).

27 The same word appears in the beginning of the Slavonic Pentateuch, i.e. the Old Testa- ment Bible: Ic ... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i,1). See: Dobrev 1980: 43.

28 See: Fossum 1995: 127-129; Fossum 1985: 124-128; Wetter 1915; Zickendraht 1922; Manson, 1947; Zimmermann 1960a; Zimmermann 1960b; Williams 2000; Floss 1991.

29 Bible, 1581, fol. 26. The text of Ex iii, 14 in the Ostrog Bible does not correspond to the text of the Septuagint and it is not excluded that the editors of the Ostrog Bible translated this verse from Hebrew (see: Arranz 1991: 500; Arranz 1993: 14). It should be stressed that they could not depart from the text of the Vulgate, because we have in the Ostrog Bible the relative pronoun jeze "what" (in the case of translation from the Vulgate one should expect the pronoun ize "who"). The basic source of the Ostrog Bible was the Gennadian Bible of 1499 (State Historical Museum in Moscow, Synodal collection MS 915) the text of which was received by the Ostrog editors from Moscow (see: Alekseev 1999: 204). However in the Gennadian Bible we have a different reading ("A?? ecM? c??", fol. 34v) which corresponds to the text of the Septuagint. In this context a devia- tion from the text of the Gennadian Bible seems very significant: it means that this text did not satisfy the editors of the Ostrog Bible. There is some evidence that they could consult the Hebrew Bible (see: Lebedev 1890: 353; cf.: Evseev 1916: 86, note 2; Alekseev 1990: 70-71; Thomson 1998: 654, 680-681, cf. 652); probably they used the Antverp polyglotta of 1569-1572 (see: Alekseev 1990: 67; Nemirovskij 1985: 450).

Characteristically in Russian manuscript Bibles of the 15th-17th centuries the phrase in question ('ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh) could be written in Hebrew (in Cyrillic transcription or translitera- tion). See: Uspenskij 2012.

30 In order to express this idea, the translators of the Septuagint had to introduce a form of present participle, changing the syntactic structure of the phrase. As a result there is no tautolog y in the Greek translation, which is so evident in the Hebrew original.

31 See examples from a large body of manuscripts: Uspenskij 2012: 94-95.

32 The possibility of different interpretations of the phrase 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh, is conditioned by the ambiguity of the second verbal form 'ehyeh. It can be understood as a repetition of the same form which stands in the beginning of the phrase; then the second 'ehyeh has the same meaning of copula which has the first one. In this case the phrase means "I am what I am". Otherwise the second 'ehyeh could be understood as a verb with an autonomous meaning of being, existance; then the phrase means "I am the one who exists".

33 St Cyril translated only those texts of the Old Testament which are read in the Church, i.e. Prophetologium and Psalter. The passage under discussion (Ex iii, 14) is not included in the liturgical lessons and evidently was not translated. Later on Methodius translated the canonical books of the whole Old Testament but his translation only partly survived. At the beginning of the tenth century a new translation of the Octateuch was made in Bulgaria by the order of Tsar Symeon. The survived Slavonic manuscripts go back to this translation (see: Alekseev 1988: 134-135; Picchadze 1996: 10). The translation of Ex iii, 14 in these manuscripts correspond to the Greek text of the Septuagint; this doesn't tell us how St Cyril could understand the phrase in question.

34 Jagic 1896: 9, 12; Lavrov 1930:162; Kuev 1967: 189 et al.; Florja 1981: 102.

35 In a manuscript Russian Bible of the fifteenth century (Russian State Library in Moscow, Rumiantsev collection MS 31) the names of the Hebrew letters in the Lamentations of Jeremiah are accompanied by translations. Aleph (Lam. i, 1) is translated as "teaching" (Vostokov 1842: 56).

36 Jagic 1896: 9-10, 12-13; Lavrov 1930: 162; Kuev 1967: 189 et al.; Florja 1981: 103.

37 See: Dostál 1963: 242, 244; Ziffer 1995: 564-567; Florja 1981: 178. So also Eusebius of Cae- sarea (see: Dornseiff 1925: 27-28).

38 It was also usual to put a cross at the beginning of a document, see: Granstrem 1955: 307; Lavrov 1915: 26.

39 See: Jagic 1896: 143-149; Jacimirskij 1917: 49-55. About the special prayer to the Cross before the study of grammar, see: Cistovic 1868: 51; concerning the phrase "Holy Cross, help me!" see: Samilov 1970: 101.

40 See: Pradel 1907: 381; Averincev 1977: 205 (about the Byzantine custom); Thurston 1910: 625 (about the Irish custom). Cf. the motif of eating a book, which symbolizes the acquisition of knowledge: Ezk ii, 8-iii, 5; see in this connection: Loparev 1910: 30; Jacimirskij 1917: 54; Averincev 1977: 204-205. Characteristically in many countries it is usual to make cakes in the form of a letter (see: Dornseiff 1925: 17).

41 Thurston 1910: 629, cf. 630.

42 See: Thurston 1910; Dornseiff 1925: 74-75. Sometimes three alphabets were written: He- braic, Greek and Latin (the three languages on the titulus of Christ's cross).

About an apotropaic function of alphabet see: Jacimirskij 1917: 54.

43 See: Eriksson 1970.

44 See: Uspenskij 1996, p. 62. Cf.: Borst 1957-1963, i: 193, 254, 263-265, 276, 281-282, 287-290, 304, 332, 337, 346; ii/1: 449; iii/1: 1079, 1129, 1142, 1181, 1185, 1215, 1245; iii/2: 1497, 1751.

45 See: Dobrev 1980: 42; Ivanova 2004: 87.

46 Also Khrabr in the cited treatise "On letters" says that the Greek letters derived from the Phoenician (Jagic 1896: 11, 14; Lavrov 1930: 163; Kuev 1967: 190 et al.; Florja 1981: 104) - the source being the scholium to the grammar of Dionysius Thrax mentioned above (see: Dostál 1963: 243; Ziffer 1995: 564-567).

47 There is a tradition of tracing the cross on one's forehead: Rondet 1954.

48 See: Daniélou 1961: 143-152; Haman 2000. Concerning the association of the Greek "tau" with the Cross see especially: Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, iii, 22; cf. also: Rahner 1953; Dölger, 1958-1967, ii: 15-22; Vogel 1963: 39-40.

49 Jagic 1896: 11; Lavrov 1930: 164; Kuev 1967: 190 et al.; Florja 1981: 104.

50 Lavrov 1930: 27; Kantor 1983: 67; Florja 1981: 87.

References

Bibliography

Alekseev 1988: A.A. Alekseev, Kirillo-mefodievskoe perevodceskoe nasledie i ego istoriceskie sud'by (perevody sv. Pisanija v slavianskoj pis'mennosti), in: I. Kostiusko (ed.), Istorija, kul'tura, etnografija i fol'klor slavianskich narodov. x Mezdunarodnyj s''ezd slaistov; doklady sovetskoj delegacii (Sofija, sentjabr' 1988), Moskva 1988, pp. 124-145.

Alekseev 1990: A.A. Alekseev, Mesto Ostrozskoj biblii v istorii slavjanskogo teksta Svjascennogo Pisanija, in: Id. (ed.), Ostrozskaja biblija: sbornik statej, Moskva 1990, pp. 48-73.

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

Altbauer 1971: M. Altbauer (ed.), Sinajski psaltir, glagolski rakopis od xi. vek od manastirot Sv. Katerina na Sinaj, Skopje 1971.

Arranz 1991: M. Arranz, Une traduction du tétragramme divin dans quelques textes liturgiques slaves, in: R. Peric (ed.), Homo imago et amicus Dei. Miscellanea in honorem Ioannis Golub, Roma 1991, pp. 497-504.

Arranz 1993: M. Arranz, Une traduction du tétragramme divin dans quelques textes liturgiques slaves, in: W. Moskovich, S. Shvarzband, A. Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs, i, Jerusalem-Sankt-Peterburg 1993, pp. 11-19.

Auty 1971: R. Auty, Old and New Ideas on the Sources of the Glagolitic Alphabet, in: P. Dinekov et al. (eds.), Konstantin-Kiril Filosof: Dokladi ot simpoziuma, posveten na 11oo-godisninata ot smartta mu, Sofija 1971, pp. 41-44.

Averincev 1977: S.S. Averincev, Poètika rannevizantijskoj literatury, Moskva 1977.

Borst 1957-1963: A. Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel: Gescichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Völker, i-iv, Stuttgart 1957-1963.

Cistovic 1868: I.A. Cistovic, Feofan Prokopovic i ego vremja, Sankt-Peterburg 1868 (= Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti imp. Akademii nauk, iv).

Cremosnik 1925: G. Cremosnik, Kratice "Nomina sacra" u c[r]k[o]sl[ovenskim] spomenicima, "Slavia", iv, 1925, 2, pp. 238-264; 3, pp. 485-498.

Daniélou 1961: J. Daniélou, Les symboles chrétiens primitifs, Paris [1961].

Dinkler 1962: E. Dinkler, Kreuzzeichen und Kreuz, "Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum", v, 1962, pp. 93-113.

Dobias-Rozdestvenskaja 1936: O.A. Dobias-Rozdestvenskaja, Istorija pis'ma v Srednie Veka: Rukovdstvo k izuceniju latinskoj paleografii, Moskva-Leningrad 19362.

Dobrev 1980: I. Dobrev, Znakat T v glagoliceskite tekstove, "Ezik i literatura", 1980, 2, pp. 40-43.

Dolger 1958-1967: F.J. Dolger, Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kreuzzeichen, "Antike und Christentum", i, 1958, pp. 5-19; ii, 1959, pp. 15-29; iii, 1960, pp. 5-16; iv, 1961, pp. 5-17; v, 1962, pp. 5-22; vi, 1963, pp. 7-34; vii, 1964, pp. 5-38; viii-ix, 1965-1966, pp. 7-57; x, 1967, pp. 7-29.

Dornseiff1925: F. Dornseiff, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, Berlin 19252 (=°±'£§Y: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Weltbildes und der griechischen Wissenschaft, vii; reprint: Leipzig 1980).

Dostal 1959: A. Dostal (ed.), Clozianus: Staroslov.nsky hlaholsky sbornik Tridentsky a Innsbrucky, Praha 1959.

Dostal 1963: A. Dostal, Les origines de lfApologie slave par Chrabr, "Byzantinoslavica", xxiv, 1963, 2, pp. 236-246.

Durnovo 2000: N.N. Durnovo, Mysli i predpolo.enija o proischo.denii staroslavjanskogo jazyka i slavjanskix alfavitov, in: Id., Izbrannye raboty po istorii russkogo jazyka, Moskva 2000, pp. 566-612.

Eriksson 1970: K. Eriksson, The Slavonic alphabet as Credo, in: W. Hensel et al. (eds.), Das heidnische und christliche Slaventum: Acta ii Congressus internationalis historiae Slavicae Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis anno 1967 celebrati, Wiesbaden 1970 (= "Annali instituti slavici", vi), pp. 105- 120.

Evseev 1916: I.E. Evseev, O.erki po istorii slavjanskogo perevoda Biblii, Petrograd 1916.

Florja 1981: B.N. Florja, Skazanija o na.ale slavjanskoj pisfmennosti, Moskva 1981.

Floss 1991: J.P. Floss, "Ich bin meine Name": Die Identitat von Gottes Ich und Gottes Namen nach Ex 3, 14, in: W. Gross, H. Irsigler, Th. Seidl (eds.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburstag, St. Ottilien 1991, pp. 67-80.

Fossum 1985: J.E. Fossum, The name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, Tubingen 1985 (= Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, xxxvi).

Fossum 1995: J.E. Fossum, In the Beginning Was the Name: Onomanology as the Key to Johannine Christology, in: Id., The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, Gottingen 1995 (= Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, xxx), pp. 109-133.

Granstrem 1955: E.e. Granstrem, O proischo.denii glagoli.eskoj azbuki, "Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury", xi, 1955, pp. 300-313.

Grunskij 1906: N.K. Grunskij, Ochridskoe Evangelie, "Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti imp. Akademii nauk", xi, 1906, 4, pp. 157-164.

Haman 2000: M. Haman, Tau, in: Lexicon fur Theologie und Kirche, ix, Freiburg- Basel-Roma-Wien 2000, col. 1275-1276.

Horalek 1956: K. Goralek [Horalek], Sv. Kirill i semitskie jazyki, in: M. Halle, H.C. Lunt, H. McLean, C.H. van Schooneveld (eds), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the euroccasion of his sixtieth birthday, Den Haag 1956, pp. 230-234.

Hurtado 1998: L.W. Hurtado, The Origin of the Nomina sacra: A Proposal, "Journal of Biblical Literature", cxvii, 1998, 4, pp. 655-673.

Isa.enko 1943: A.V. Isa.enko, Jazyk a povod Frizinskych pamiatok / Sprache und Herkunftder Freisinger Denkmaler, Bratislava 1943 (= Opera Academiae scientiarum et artium Slovacae, i).

Ivanova 1977: T.A. Ivanova, Staroslavjanskij jazyk, Moskva 1977.

Ivanova 2004: T.A. Ivanova, Glagolica: novye gipotezy (Neskolfko kriti.eskich zame.anij po povodu novych issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke), "Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury", lvi, 2004, pp. 78-93.

Jacimirskij 1917: A.I. Jacimirskij, Melkie teksty i zametki po starinnoj ju.noslavjanskoj i russkoj literature, "Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti imp. Akademii nauk", xxii, 1917, 1, pp. 27-84.

Jagi. 1879: V. Jagi. (ed.), Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus..., Berlin 1879.

Jagi. 1883: V. Jagi. (ed.), Pamjatnik glagoli.eskoj pisfmennosti. Mariinskoe evangelie s prime.anijami i prilo.enijami / Codex Marianus glagoliticus, Berlin.Sankt-Peterburg 1883 (Reprint: Graz 1960).

Jagi. 1896: V. Jagi. (ed.), Codex slovenicus rerum grammaticarum, Sankt-Peterburg. Berlin 1896 (Offprint from: Issledovanija po russkomu jazyku, i, Sankt-Peterburg 1885-1895; reprint: Munchen 1968 [= Slavische Propylaen, xxv]).

Jakobson 1944: R. Jakobson, Saint Constantin et la langue syriaque, "Annuaire de lfInstitut de Philologie et dfHistoire Orientales et Slaves", vii, 1939- 1944, pp. 181-186 (See also: R. Jakobson, Selected Writings, vi/1, Berlin- New York-Amsterdam 1985, pp. 153-158).

Kantor 1983: M. Kantor, The Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini), in: Id., Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes, Ann Arbor 1983, pp. 25-33, 65-81.

Kiparskij 1958: V.R. Kiparskij, Otvet na vopros "Kakoj iz slavjanskich alfavitov drevnee...", in: Sbornik otvetov na voprosy po jazykoznaniju (k iv Me.dunarodnomu s"ezdu slavistov), Moskva 1958, pp. 315-316.

Kiparskij 1964: V. Kiparsky [Kiparskij], Tschernochvostoffs Theorie uber den Ursprung des glagolitischen Alphabets, in: M. Hellmann, R. Olesch, B. Stasiewski, F. Zagiba (eds.), Cyrillo-Methodiana: Zur Fruhgeschichte des Christentums bei den Slaven. 863-1963, Koln-Graz 1964 (= Slavistische Forschungen, vi), pp. 393-400.

Kiparskij 1968: V.R. Kiparskij, O proischo.denii glagolicy, in: Kliment Ochridski: Materialy za negovoto .estvuvane po slu.aj 1050 godini ot sm.rtta mu, Sofija 1968, pp. 91-97.

Kniazevskaja et al. 1971: O.A. Knjazevskaja, V.G. Demfjanov, M.V. Ljapon (eds.), Uspenskij sbornik xii-xiii vv., Moskva 1971.

Kuev 1967: K.M. Kuev, .ernorizec Chrab.r, Sofija 1967.

Kurz 1929-1955: J. Kurz (ed.), Evangelia. Asseman.v: Kodex Vatikansky 3. slovansky, i-ii, Praha 1929-1955.

Lavrov 1915: P.A. Lavrov, Paleografi.eskoe obozrenie kirillovskogo pisfma, Sankt-Peterburg 1915 (= enciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, iv/1).

Lavrov 1930: P.A. Lavrov, Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnej.ej slavjanskoj pisfmennosti, Leningrad 1930 (= Trudy slavjanskoj komissii AN SSSR, i; reprint: Den Haag-Paris 1966 [= Slavistic printings and reprintings, lxvii]).

Lebedev 1890: V. Lebedev, Slavjanskij perevod knigi Iisusa Navina po sochraniv.imsja rukopisjam i Ostro.skoj biblii: Issledovanie teksta i jazyka, Sankt-Peterburg 1890.

Loparev 1910: Chr. Loparev, Vizantijskie .itija svjatych viii-ix vekov, "Vizantijskij vremennik", xvii, 1910, pp. 1-224.

Manson 1947: W. Manson, The £¡¶ £§a§ of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament, "Journal of Theological Studies", xlviii, 1947, 191-192, pp. 137-145.

Marti 1999: R. Marti, Abecedaria: A key to the original Slavic alphabet. The contribution to the abecedarium sinaiticum glagoliticum, in: Thessaloniki: Magna Moravia. Proceedings of the international conference, Thessaloniki 16-19 October 1997, Thessaloniki 1999, pp. 175-200.

Miklas 2003: H. Miklas, Jesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes: Zu einigen Ratseln der glagolitischen Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbucnaja molitva, in: W. Honselaar, H. van der Taak, E. de Haard, A. Barentsen, J. Popovski (eds.), Time Flies: A Festschriftfor William R. Veder, Amsterdam 2003 (= Pegasus Oost-Europense Studies, ii), pp. 171-204.

Miklas 2004: H. Miklas, Zur Relevanz des neuen Sinaitischen Material fur die Entwicklung der Glagolica, in: M.-A. Durrigl, M. Mihaljevi., F. Vel.i. (eds.), Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam: Zbornik Radova z Me.unarodnoga znanstvenog skupa povodom 100.obljetnice Staroslavenske Akademije i 50.obljetnice Staroslavenskog Instituta (Zagreb-Krk 2.-6. listopada 2002), Zagreb-Krk 2004, pp. 389-399.

Miklas 2007a: H. Miklas, Schriftund Bild: Zur Darstellungsfunktion der Glagolica des Slavenlehrers Konstantin-Kyrill, in: M. Schnitter, E. Vavra, H. Wenzel (eds.), Vom Korper zur Schrift, Sofija 2007, pp. 47-75.

Miklas 2007b: Ch. Miklas, Po sledite na Konstantinova glagolica, "Palaeobulgarica", xxxi, 2007, 1, pp. 3-26.

Minns 1925: E.H. Minns, Saint Cyril really knew Hebrew, in: Mélanges publiés en honneur de M. Paul Boyer, Paris 1925 (= Travaux publiées par l'Institut d'études slaves, ii), pp. 94-97.

Nachtigal 1941-1942: R. Nachtigal (ed.), Euchologium Sinaiticum: starocerkevnoslovanski glagolski spomnik, i-ii, Ljubljana 1941-1942 (= Akademija znanosti i umetnosti v Ljubljani. Filozofsko-filolosko-historicni razred, i-ii).

Nemirovskij 1985: E.L. Nemirovskij, Illjumirovannyj èkzempljar Ostrozskoj biblii 1581 g. s rukopisnymi dopolnenijami, "Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury", xxxviii, 1985, pp. 446-450.

Nimcuk 1983: V.V. Nimcuk, Kyjivs'ki hlaholycni lystky: najdavnisa pam'jatka slov'jans'koji pysemnosti, Kyjiv 1983.

Picchadze 1996: A.A. Picchadze, K istorii cet'ego teksta slavjasnkogo Vos'miknizija, "Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury", xlix, 1996, pp. 10-21.

Pradel 1907: F. Pradel, Griechische und süditalienische Gebete, Beschwörungen und Rezepte des Mittelalters, "Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten", iii, 1907, 3, pp. 253-403.

Prochorov 1992: G.M. Prochorov, Glagolica sredi missionerskich azbuk, "Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury", xlv, 1992, pp. 178-199.

Rahner 1953: H. Rahner, Antenna crucis, v: Das mystische Tau, "Zeitschriftfür katholischen Theologie", lxxv, 1953, 4, pp. 385-410.

Rondet 1954: H. Rondet, Miscellanea Augustiniana: La croix sur le front, "Recherches de Science religieuse", xlii, 1954, 3, pp. 388-394.

Samilov 1970: M. Samilov, Das glagolitische Alphabet, in: W. Hensel et al. (eds.), Das heidnische und christliche Slaventum: Acta ii Congressus internationalis historiae Slavicae Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis anno 1967 celebrati, Wiesbaden 1970 (= Annali instituti slavici, vi), pp. 98-104.

Scepkin 1903: V. Scepkin (ed.), Savvina kniga, Sankt-Peterburg 1903 (= Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, i/2; Reprint: Graz 1959).

Severjanov 1904: S. Severjanov (ed.), Suprasl'skaja rukopis', i, Ca?κ?-?e?ep??p? 1904 (= Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, ii/1).

Severjanov 1922: S. Severjanov (ed.), Sinajskaja Psaltyr': Glagoliceskij pamjatnik xi veka, Petrograd 1922 (= Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, iv).

Sill 1972: U. Sill, "Nomina sacra" im Altkirchenslavischen. Bis zum 11. Jahrhundert, München [1972] (= Forum slavicum, xl).

Strakhov 2011: O.B. Strakhov, The Adventure of the Dancing Men: Professor Sevcenko's Theory on the Origin of Glagolitic, "Palaeoslavica", xix, 2011, 1, pp. 1-45.

Thomson 1998: F.J. Thomson, The Slavonic translation of the Old Testament, in: Interpretation of the Bible / Interpretation der Bibel / Interprétation de la Bible / Interpretacija Svetega pisma, Ljubljana-Sheffield 1998, pp. 605-920.

Thurston 1910: H. Thurston, The Alphabet and the Consecration of Churches, "The Month: A Catholic Magazine", cxv, 1910, January-June, pp. 621-631.

Tkadlcik 2000: V. Tkadlcik, Über den Ursprung der Glagolica, in: H. Miklas (ed.), Glagolitica: Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur, Wien 2000 (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse. Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, Philologische Abteilung, xli), pp. 9-32.

Tolstoj 1998: N.I. Tolstoj, Drevnjaja slavjanskaja pis'mennost' i stanovlenie ètniceskogo samosoznanija u slavjan, in: Id., Izbrannye trudy, ii. Slavjanskaja literaturno-jazykovaja situacija, Moskva 1998, pp. 49-63.

Traube 1907: L. Traube, Nomina sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlishen Kürzung, München 1907 (= Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, ii; Reprint: Darmstadt 1967).

Tschernochvostoff1995: G. Tschernochvostoff, Zum Ursprung der Glagolica, "Studia Slavica Finlandensia", xii, 1995, pp. 141-150.

Uspenskij 1996: B.A. Uspenskij, Vopros o sirijskom jazyke v slavjanskoj pis'mennosti: pocemu d'javol mozet govorit' po-sirijski?, in: Id., Izbrannye trudy, ii. Jazyk i kul'tura, Moskva 19962, pp. 59-64.

Uspenskij 1997: B.A. Uspenskij, Starinnaja sistema ctenija po skladam (Glava iz istorii russkoj gramoty), in: Id., Izbrannye trudy, iii. Obscee i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, Moskva 1997, pp. 246-288.

Uspenskij 2012: B.A. Uspenskij, Imja Boga v slavjanskoj Biblii (K voprosu o slavjano- evrejskich kontaktach v Drevnej Rusi), "Voprosy jazykoznanija", 2012, 6, pp. 93-122.

Vereecken 1995: Z. Vereeken, Nazvanija glagoliceskich bukv i iudejsko-christianskaja tradicija, "Palaeobulgarica", xix, 1995, 1, pp. 5-14.

Vlasto 1970: A.P. Vlasto, The entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs, Cambridge 1970.

Vogel 1963: C. Vogel, La signation dans l'Église des premiers siècles, "La Maison- Dieu", lxxv, 1963, pp. 37-51.

Vostokov 1842: A. Vostokov, Opisanie russkich i slavjanskich rukopisej Rumjancovskogo muzeuma, Sankt-Peterburg 1842.

Vrana 1964: J. Vrana, Glagoljski grafemi ... i njihova cirilska transkripcija, "Slavia", xxxiii, 1964, 2, pp. 171-181.

Wetter 1915: G.P. Wetter, "Ich bin es": Eine johanneische Formel, "Theologische Studien und Kritiken", lxxxviii, 1915, 2, pp. 224-238.

Williams 2000: C.H. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation of "Ani Hu" in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, [Tu.bingen 2000] (= Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe, cxiii).

Zickendraht 1922: K. Zickendraht, ELD, "Theologische Studien und Kritiken", xciv, 1922, 1-2, pp. 162-168.

Ziffer 1995: G. Ziffer, Le fonti greche del monaco Chrabr, "Byzantinoslavica", lvi, 1995, 3, pp. 561-570.

Zimmermann 1960a: H. Zimmermann, Das absolute ... als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel, "Biblische Zeitschrift", N.F., iv, 1960, 1, pp. 54-69; 2, pp. 266-276.

Zimmermann 1960b: H. Zimmermann, Das absolute "Ich bin" in der Redeweise Jesu, "Trierer theologische Zeitschrift", lxix, 1960, 1, pp. 1-20.