THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE INTO THE SLAVIC LANGUAGES: BIBLICAL CITATIONS IN THE LIVES OF CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE FIRST SLAVIC BIBLE TRANSLATION

that first translation? These questions are far easier to ask than they are to answer. All the textbooks, and virtually all the scholars, agree that the first Bible translations were done by Constantine-Cy-ril (d. 869) and Methodius (d. 885). Most suggest that the transla-tions were done probably no earlier than 855 and obviously no la-ter than 885. Some insist they were done in Constantinople before the brothers left on their mission, while others insist with equal fervor that they were done “in the field”, during the brothers ' stay in Great Moravia, wherever that may have been. Sooner or later e-very scholar cites as proof of these answers the two great medieval monuments which describe Constantine and Methodius ' lives and deeds, the Vita Constantini (henceforth VC) and the Vita Methodii (VM). The former is extant in over seventy manuscripts, the oldest of which dates only to the second half of the fifteenth century, however. Traditionally, and probably also correctly, the author of this hagiography is considered to be Methodius, who may have written it immediately upon Constantine-Cyril's death in Rome. The latter text is extant in far fewer (16) manuscripts, however the oldest of them is part of the Uspenskij sbornik, which is usually da-ted as twelfth century. The author of the VM is unknown, but tradi-tion again ascribes it to one of Methodius ' successors, and internal evidence suggests it was written before the end of the ninth century. So much has been known and accepted as accurate since the nineteenth century, when Slavic studies, including Cyrillo-Methodian studies, began; little has changed since then. Can we, should we, who stand on the threshold of the twenty-first century, be satisfied with these answers? Of course, yes, we should be satisfied if these answers are in fact correct. On the other hand, perhaps little has changed in the study of these fundamental questions because the old approaches to them have been exhausted or discredited. Perhaps it is time to turn once again ad fontes, t