Talk:Clement of Ohrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Hi there,

Does anyone know if St. Clements cake is anything to do with this article or related to the saints?

Thanks

Contents

[edit] Origin of Clement - Macedonia

Kliment Ohridski (Clement of Ohrid) is one of the most important educator, translator, writer and literacy contributor for all Slavic people in the 9th and begining of 10th century. He was born in Macedonia and of Macedonian ethnicity, although in that time there was not big distinction and "national awareness" like today. He followed the great accomplishments of the brothers from Solun (Salonica), Kiril and Metodij, who led the Slavic people to the path of progress. 3500 students enrolled the University of Ohrid, which was founded by Kliment. He is considered as one of the creators of the "Kirilica" alphabet which is official alphabet of countries Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Russia, Mongolia and others (more than 200 million people use Cyrillic alphabet).

Latin: Clement of Ohrid Macedonia Macedonian Cyrillic: Климент Охридски Македонија

To view properly Cyrillic in your browser click on View->Encoding->Cyrillic (Windows)

Georgi Kozinakov Austin, Texas

[edit] Clement's birthplace

"... according to his hagiography by Theophylact of Bulgaria, Clement was born in southwestern Bulgaria, in the region of Macedonia."

I was unable to verify the above assertion through available translations of Theophylact's text. Neither that Theophylact mentioned Clement's birthplace, nor any particular region of Bulgaria. Therefore, I suggest that direct quotations be provided from the abovementioned work -- or from any other original source not mere speculations by modern historians -- testifying that Clement was indeed born in the geographical region of Macedonia. If not, then the above assertion should be removed. If someone were to provide a valid quotation of Chomatian's testimony that Clement was a born Bulgarian, that could be included instead. Apcbg 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to return to this issue again. If the birthplace of Clement is not mentioned, than why should that statement stay? Can annyone source the statement about Clement's birthplace? Bomac 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I protest

And of course fellow wikipedians, as always when an article somehow related to Republic of Macedonia or FYROM if you insist is in question we always see the point of view ONLY from the perspectives of the official historiographies of it's neighbouring countries (?!) like: Republic of Bulgaria and/or Greece and/or Albania and/or Serbia but never the POV of the RoM/FYROM side. Excuse me for my cynicism please, but a fact is that: he was Kliment OHRIDSKI. Ohrid is in Republic of Macedonia where the Ohrid Literary school was opened, one of the oldest Universities in the world that gave litteracy and education to all the slavic nations and which is still keeping Clement's traditions by gathering slavists from all around the world on various symposiums, seminars etc. that are held there. These are facts accepted by the whole world, while of course you can question St. Clement's "ethnicity" (though it's quite questionable itself was there really any "nationality" in this modern sence in those early medieval times?!),you can also argue over his place of birth and so on and so on, but a fact is a fact. OHRID is where he accomplished his life achievments and thus got the name OHRIDSKI, Ohrid was the University center that gave litteracy to Bulgarians, Russians and all the other slavic nations. So, without any need for an 'academic debate' and by any possible standards St. Clement from OHRID belongs to the history of Republic of Macedonia and thus the RoM/FYROM perspective of these topics should be absolutely taken into account.--Vbb-sk-mk 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


If you just take the time to read the story of Clement's life, as it was writtent by the Byzantine scholar Theophylact you would realize how ridiculous your argument sounds anywhere outside of FYROM and Serbia. Ohrid is without a doubt in FYROM, but then again Constantinople/Istanbul is in Turkey - is it fair that the Turks claim all Byzantine history and culture as their own? And please do not presume to think that Macedonia is the sole center of Slavonic culture on the Balkans - the main University of Sofia bore the name St. Clement of Ohrida long before there was a FYROM, or even a Yugoslavia. - Jo

Do you have any recent (after the dissolution of Yugoslavia) sources supporting your statement about Serbia? Apcbg 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ł


No the Turks can not claim byzantene history because they came to the region later and conquered Byzantium. Regarding the Macedonians and the macedonian ethnicity, the people that consider themselves macedonian, have lived on the territory for centuries, they didn't conquer anything, they were just there, they nurtured their own traditions and in one point in time they decided (being tired of others deciding for them) that the world should know that they are a diferent entity form the other people that lived in the region. It is normal that the people which transfered to them the traditions and customs, are considered a part of the Macedonian history as well since they are the ones that in the begining created, built and than had, this distinctive cultre! So this is a sound argument which implys that Clement was actualy macedonian, since the people that lived in that part of the balkan peninsula considered them selves macedonian, solely by the fact that their culture and language was diferent from the others, regardles of the timeline, because they weren't newcomers at any point of time!!! They were there and the identity either shaped over time, or was always present but not widely acknowledged, for whatever reason. Gogo 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You FYROM people are just incomprehensible. So, following your logic, Constantine the Great is a Romanian. This is what I call good reasoning: Some people decide to use the name of a region, shared by many nations as defining for their nationality, steal history from these other nations, then decide to call a random person, who lived on the whole Balkan peninsula and spoke some kind of slavic or greek language and accomplished something, a Macedonian, and, there you go, you have got your history. Face it people, your history began 1945. Now you will say, Israel was created 1945 and they are one of the oldest nations in the world. I will say NO, you Macedonians are the oldest nation in the world. Adam and Eve were Macedonians, right? (Definitely, if they lived anywhere in between the balkan peninsula and India;)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.44.229.21 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Climent is a saint of all the orthodox Slavs, not only Bulgarians!

Stop deleting my edits! Sveti Climent is a saint celebrated by all Orthodox Slavic People, and it is meaningless to label him as a Bulgarian Saint! In fact the reference link on this article says that he is a Slavic saint, developed the medieval Slavic literature, while working at the Bulgarian court!

And remember that Slavic is not equal to Bulgarian! The same goes for Sveti Naum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin taleski (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes but he was an ethnic Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Bulgarians did not exist at the time! Nor did ethnic Macedonians or Serbians or Croats or any other Southern Slavic ethnicity! 10 centuries ago there were only Ethnic Slavs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin taleski (talk • contribs)

Not true. There were certainly Bulgarians at that time and he was one of them.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then will keep on playing ping-pong with this page, until a moderator comes, or one of us goes to sleep!

And please tell me in what way did Ethnic Bulgarians differ from ethnic Macedonians and Serbes, or any other Slavic tribes in the 10-th century? -- Martin Taleski

Reverting this page without sources, against consensus will only get you blocked.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit is sourced, see the reference link at the bottom of the article! It was not my link =, i found it on this article... and it never says anything of a Bulgarian Saint

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

This page is not saying anything about ethnicity.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

from http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

Profile: Student of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius in Moravia and Panonia. Building on their work, he helped found Slavic literature and culture in Macedonia. He was the first Slavic writer, translated dozens of works, wrote a biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and founded the first Slavic university in Ohrid. Friend of Saint Naum. Served in the Bulgarian court. Taught from 886 to 893 at Kutmicevica, being a great influence on over 3,000 students, many of whom became priests and spread the Slavic liturgy through the region. Spiritual teacher of Saint Constantine the Presbyter. Bishop of Belica, the first organised Slav Church on the Balkan Peninsula. Bishop of Ohrid. Founded Saint Pantaleimonth's monastery.

Slavic: 4 Bulgarian: 0 (actualy 1, but it says it worked at the Bulgarian Court)

Again, no mention of ethnicity. And by the way: one of the Seven Apostles of Bulgaria, right at the beginning.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Did he proclaim to be an apostole of Bulgaria, or modern Bulgarian adopted him as their saint... What if we proclaim George Bush to be one of the Seven Apostoles of Macedonia? Will it make any difference in hi ethnicity? -- Martin Taleski

This is just your own interpretation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources!

Obolensky about St. Clement:

"... a Slav by birth, a first - generation disciple of Cyril and Methodius: his name — Clement of Ohrid." http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/obolensky_impact.html


Christian History Institute:

"Clement wrote over fifty books. He is considered the first Slavic writer." http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/07/daily-07-27-2002.shtml


Patron Saints:

"Student of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius in Moravia and Panonia. Building on their work, he helped found Slavic literature and culture in Macedonia. He was the first Slavic writer, translated dozens of works, wrote a biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and founded the first Slavic university in Ohrid. Friend of Saint Naum. Served in the Bulgarian court. Taught from 886 to 893 at Kutmicevica, being a great influence on over 3,000 students, many of whom became priests and spread the Slavic liturgy through the region. Spiritual teacher of Saint Constantine the Presbyter. Bishop of Belica, the first organised Slav Church on the Balkan Peninsula. Bishop of Ohrid. Founded Saint Pantaleimonth's monastery." http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

Martin taleski 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Language!

i've also changed the references of Old Bulgarian to Old Church Slavonic. This is because Old Slavonic was common for all the Slavic Tribes at the time, especially for the Southern Slavs, who did not have no differences in the language (a situation different from the one today!).

Even the link that said Old Bulgarian was referring to the Wikipedia page for Old Church Slavonic

Martin taleski 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More Sources about his Slavic (not Bulgarian) origin!

"St. Clement Slovensky of Okhrida and companions (Greek [of Slavic descent], missionary bishop in Bulgaria, d. 916) St. Cynllo (Welsh, 5th century)" http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009c7F


"Died at Okhrida, Bulgaria, on July 17, 916. Probably of Slavic descent and from southern Macedonia, he became a bishop during the reign of Khan Simeon, the first Slav to become a bishop." http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0717.htm#clem

Martin taleski 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic Origin!

I am reverting this page to the Slavic origin version... i think i have showed enough sources for this... if someone thinks otherwise, please discuss it here and back your claim with relevant sources... and i don't want to engage in edit warring any more...

Martin taleski 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are sources, that Ohrid was part of the Bulgarian Empire is undisputed. If you want an expert source by an author with a name how about Josef Safařík, a Slovak slavicist who calls him Bulgarian? Details here. Slav is too wide and too vague, it could cover most of Eastern Europe; he was from the state known as Bulgaria. Considering your sources don't contradict as Bulgarians are and were Slavs, I'm reverting.--Domitius 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all your source is in Bulgarian and Greek! I can find hundreds of sources in Macedonian, that say he was a Macedonian Saint, but i know that they are not true since Slavic Macedonians did not differ from Slavic Bulgarians at the time (not that they differ much today!)... they were simply southern Slavic Tribes living under the Bulgarian khanate (later empire)... and the people who had the power in the medieval Bulgarian State, up to the 10th century, were the Bulgarian (Tatar) aristocracy - the Boiljars.
So when Macedonian historians say that he is Macedonian, they rely on a single fact that he was born, and spent most of his life in Macedonia! On the other side Bulgarian historians claim that he is Bulgarian, again relying on a single fact that he was born under the Bulgarian Khanate, which controlled the region of Macedonia. Both claims overlook the fact that Southern Slavic nations were not differentiated at the time, and the terms such as Bulgarian or Macedonian did not have the same meaning in the Middle Ages, with the one today... and if you think that Slavic is to broad, than we can narrow it down to South Slavic, which might be more accurate.
Martin taleski 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Martine, the source was written by a well-known Slovak (not-Greek, not-Bulgarian) slavicist. Also, if you a subscriber to those ridiculous Macedonist theories that then Bulgarian = Tatar, we shouldn't be discussing until you've cited some sources. About Macedonia, you are wrong. During Clement's lifetime, Macedonia was in Thrace (map), so to call him a "Macedonian" is a ridiculous Macedonistic anachronism. As you have failed to cite any sources contradicting, how about "Bulgarian and Slav"? I'll add it.--Domitius 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all i have a great trouble understanding your sources... i don't know Greek, and i am very week at Bulgarian! Second, they are published on a site that has the goal of spreading bulgarian monopoly on the Balkan and especially on Macedonian History... so your link is unreliable as it can be, disregarding the fact that it is unintelligible!
And i am not subscriber to the Bulgarian = Tatar theory... i am just making a distinction between modern Bulgarians and medieval Bulgarians (Tatars) of the first Bulgarian Empire. And i have clearly expressed myself: "up to the 10th century".
And let me not forget... during Clements time, Macedonia was at the same place where it was for centuries. The Byzantine "thema" of Macedonia was located in Thrace only because the empire did not control the region of Macedonia at the time, and Thrace was the starting point of their ambition. Every byzantiologist explains that this "thema" did not coincide with the region of Macedonia, and they give a explanation similar to mine... don't make me scan Ostrogorsky and Obolensky... and BTW the second one clearly states that he is "Slav by Birth" (see abouve for the link)...
and i am no bargaining about "Bulgarian and Slav". It makes no sence, since at the time Bulgarians were Tatars, having a separate language from the Slavs. In fact, Clement played a great role in Slavization of the Tatars, since he spread Christianity in Slavic language... so eventually Tatars were converted to Christianity, and they did not have the Bible, other holy books and the liturgy translated in their language, and adopted Slavic language and were soon assimilated in the Slavic majority!
So, we are back to Slavic Martin taleski 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't POV or OR, this is LOL. You may not have heard about Kuber, a "Tatar" leader who settled in Macedonia and by the early 9th century united with Bulgaria, effectively rendering the local Slavic population ethnically the same as the one elsewhere in Bulgaria. But that's another thing, and I'm not going to explain why a sophisticated ancient eastern civilization isn't Tatar.
Your arguments arguments about the thema of Macedonia are clear nonsense which I'm not going to comment on. It is as clear as hell that Macedonia as it is today did not exist in the Middle Ages.
The Slavicization of the Bulgars was a process which had begun by the time, as evidenced by the practically zero Bulgar influence on modern Bulgarian. So basically Boris converted all Bulgarians to Christianity, chose the language of the people — the Old Bulgarian vernacular — as the liturgical language, and founded the Bulgarian literary schools which would influence the whole Slavic world. Is that clear?
You can't degrade someone who worked for and in Bulgaria and the Bulgarians to a "Slavic scholar" as you can't call Dimitar Berbatov a "Slavic footballer" — it may not be wrong, but it's ridiculous. "Bulgarian" already doesn't exclude "Slav" in the 9th century. Todor→Bozhinov 08:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: although I may consider your references to "Tatar" funny, they can also be regarded as offensive, and if you continue I'll report that. Please remain civil and don't be silly. Todor→Bozhinov 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To Martin: The very fact you call Bulgarians Tatars shows you have no historical knowledge or at least no knowledge based on facts. It is insulting, yes, is someone here calling you Bulgarian (the thing you find equally insulting) - no, so please, stop calling Bulgarian Tatars. It's like name-calling for God's sake --Laveol 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation!

Ok since we can not solve this by ourselves, i filled for meditation... the reason for know is very specific (this article), but i think we should expand it in a general discussion to solve the Bulgarian - Macedonian history dispute that has found its place on Wikipedia!

Martin taleski 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more like an Earth vs Republic of Macedonia history dispute. Todor→Bozhinov 08:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, why are you omitting steps from the dispute resolution process? Clearly, this discussion is not over and it's way too early for mediation (meditation???). If we really can't agree on a compromise (as it seems, we will agree), then we should invite a third party to comment and discuss with us. Only then should we resort to formal mediation. Todor→Bozhinov 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you all want a neutral 3rd party with some mediation experience (and no personal opinion at all about Clement of Ohrid or Bulgaria) I'd be happy to help out. Martin can you explain why you don't consider being part of the Bulgarian empire to be Bulgarian? Also if there are any other issues in dispute can you list them (but don't argue them yet)? jbolden1517Talk 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIG PROTEST FROM MACEDONIA

So in this article you are saying that If one teritory like Macedonia was conquered by the Bulgarian empire, all the people who are living on that teritory are becoming Bulgarians or when Aleksandar III The greath Macedonian conquered the all in that time known world, all the people on that teritory became Macedonians. I have no problem then it’s ok, because in that case all the Greeks are Macedonians and now I know why they are continuing to fignt against our name, and I don’t know what to say about Bulgarians because they didn’t exist in that time. But in some articles they say that Aleksandar is Bulgarian to. How lucky we Macedonians are. Everyone whants to be Macedonian in time when the world was called Macedonia, but now when we are small and peacefull contry everyone whants to take our history from us. I’m not surprised when Bulgarians or Greeks write articles like this one, but I’m surprised and dissapointed when other people in the world believe in the propagand against Macedonians. That is sad espesualy for the people who are not informed well like you. I’m Sorry because of my cynicism but that is how you respect us, so it’s not my fault. Pavel Kapricheski from OHRID place where Kliment Orhidski made the first university on slovenian language in the churche St. Pantelemon. Sorry about my grammar mistackes, ама јас сум Македонец и ништо друго поразлично од Александар III македонски и Свети Климент Охридски и многу други за кои што се води војна за да се вметнат во историите на нашите драги соседи и да се избришат од историјата на Македонија. За жал на сите антимакедонски пропагатори историјата на Македонија полека се враќа таму каде што припаѓа во Македонија. А особено нашата мила Грција уште малку ќе почне солзи да пушта поради фактот дека ја губи војната околу името, Македонија ќе биде секогаш тука да помогне на соседите па макар и да им дадеме марамче да си ги избришат солзите, зошто очигледно тешко им паѓа тоа што Александар повторно е тоа што отсекогаш бил Македонец. Сепак сме мирољубив и дружељубив народ. 'Bold text'

Yep, that was fun :). "But in some articles they say that Aleksandar is Bulgarian to. " - that's the first time I hear of such a thing. Are you sure you've heard it? --Laveol 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit war

  • About the quote calling him "Bulgarian": This is a primary source from a medieval Byzantine text. Byzantine texts are notoriously difficult to interpret when it comes to ethnic appellations. Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources to bolster up potentially contentious claims. Please find a reliable secondary source discussing his ethnicity, if you want to have a reference to that.
  • About the language he wrote in: He was not just a great writer in "the Bulgarian recension of Old Church Slavonic", he was one of the most significant writers of Old Slavonic as a whole. The precise dialectal nature of the Slavonic he wrote is pretty irrelevant in that context. The article on Old Church Slavonic seems to associate him more with a "Macedonian recension", actually, but I don't know anything about that. The differences were minor anyway, leave them to the linguists, not the nationalists. If you must have this issue mentioned, go read a good introduction to Old Church Slavonic and come back when you can make a competent informed summary of the linguistic differences between the various forms, and the philological situation of the surviving manuscripts and what evidence it provides for St Clement's original dialect. Have fun.
  • About the placename in the infobox: Holy lord, if people could just stop overloading infoboxes with irrelevant information. The infobox should just give a first orientation. Placename alone is enough; if you want to help the reader more, then why not just "Ohrid (Macedonia)"; the issue of what polity it was then part of can be treated in the text.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

About Clement of Ohrid as an integral part of the Bulgarian medieval culture, an article from a collection of Russian Academy of Sciences, dedicated to Macedonia:
"МАКЕДОНИЯ - ПРОБЛЕМЫ ИСТОРИИ И КУЛЬТУРЫ", Институт славяноведения, РАН, Москва, 1999, "РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯ О МАКЕДОНСКОМ "СРЕЗЕ" ПАЛЕОБОЛГАРИСТИКИ", И. И. Калиганов (Институт славяноведения РАН).
I need more time to give secondary source about his ethnicity. Greetings, Vulgarian 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
P. s. I'm afraid that the term "Macedonian recension" is interpreted speculatively in the article Old Church Slavonic because that recension was internal segment of the broader Old Bulgarian Language (as it is explained in the text of the Russian Academy, cited above). The article Old Church Slavonic treats these two lingustic levels, Old Bulgarian Language and Macedonian recension, as if they belong to equal category. - Vulgarian 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That may all very well be true, but the name of the language used in modern international scholarship is still simply Old Church Slavonic. This article is not about how Clement pronounced his "жд"s. Or are you going to write a section on that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This article could be developed in every possible way, so it could contain pure linguistic section as well. It is not a problem for me, but our question here is different. The name of the "superlanguage" (if I may express in this way) is "Old (Curch) Slavonic", but the name of its subdivision on the nearest lower level is "Old Bulgarian Language", not "Bulgarian recension" or "Macedonian recension". These recensions are subdivisions of the Old Bulgarian language, which on its part is subdivision of the Old Slavonic Language. The so called Macedonian recension wasn't something separate from the medieval Bulgarian state, policy, culture, language... The Ohrid Literary School was Bulgarian as was the Preslav Literary School. The idea that these two schools and their linguistic recensions were totally independent is an anachronistic product of the Yugoslav and subsequent Macedonian policies, which is in insoluble conflict with the historical records. This is clearly explained in the text of the Russian Academy of Sciences. By the way, I think we have to include a short explanation of Macedonian point of view in the article. Greetings, Vulgarian 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, "Old Bulgarian" and "Old Church Slavonic" might be terms operating on different levels of generality (in some people's usage at least). But if the dialectal differences between Ohrid and Preslav aren't relevant for us, why should those between Bulgaria and Moravia be? They are still minor. Fact is, "Old Church Slavonic" (the whole of it) is the level of generality on which this language is conventionally treated, for practical purposes. If our reader wants to find out more, they'll be led to an article dealing with - "Old Church Slavonic", as a whole. If they want to find out more, they might buy a book, which will be on, guess what? - "Old Church Slavonic". In the library, they'll have to ask their way to a bookshelf labelled - "Old Church Slavonic". Or they'll take a university language class, which will be about, you guessed it, "Old Church Slavonic". There simply are no encyclopedia articles, introductory text books, language classes etc that deal with just the Bulgarian part of it to the exclusion of other forms, therefore "Old Church Slavonic" is the most appropriate and most practical way of referring to it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the term "Old Church Slavonic" can't be a proper substitution for "Old Bulgarian Language" because of their different levels. Probably a better approach is to use both terms together, which will depict the two periods and trends of St. Clement's activity - Moravian and Bulgarian. He was not only one of the pupils of St. Cyril and Methodius and one of the first Slavic Christian writers, but also one of the founders of the Old Bulgarian Language, so I think we could not neglect this side of his importance. Note - he is described as "the first bishop in Bulgarian language" in Bulgarian medieval tradition so such definition isn't anachronistic. Greetings, Vulgarian 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you haven't even touched on my argument. As I've just explained, "Old Church Slavonic" is the better term exactly because of their different levels. That is: to the extent that the terms are actually used on these different levels. Because very often people just informally use "Old Bulgarian" and "OCS" as synonyms – in which case OCS is the internationally and scientifically established term. Where, on the other hand, people use "Old Bulgarian" as a specific sub-variety of OCS, as you seem to imply, I maintain that this distinction within OCS is still irrelevant. You'd have to bring reliable sources claiming that Clement is notable for establishing Old Bulgarian as as separate language distinct from other forms of Slavonic. I doubt those exist. All the sources you have of him being "the first bishop in Bulgarian language" etc are quite likely to be using the term in the first, more lose sense, in which case we can use OCS just as well.
What it was called in Byzantine times is pretty irrelevant here.
BTW, having been forced to write all this, I sincerely hope you initiated this discussion out of a genuine interest in Old Church Slavonic as a language, and not just out of an urge to cram the term "Bulgarian" into as many articles as possible, for the sake of the national feel-good factor. Because I detest that stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't even touched on my argument too. In fact you offer one-sided decision while there are many aspects in St. Clement's activity. I prefer a plural formula, which includes both terms. He is founder of the Old Bulgarian Language as well, some of the oldest signs of transition into grammar structure without cases (significant characteristic of modern Bulgarian and Macedonian languages, which differs from all other Slavic languages) are found in texts from his period. He is treated as one of the founders of the Bulgarian literature too. In his deeds there are aspects, which are closely connected with Bulgaria and Bulgarian culture, whether you like it or not. That's the point of view of the Russian Academy, cited above. The Russian text is named "About the "Macedonian" cut of the Paleobugaristic". Paleobulgaristic, not Paleoslavistic.
The medieval terminology could be very important. The term "Bulgarian language" in Old Bulgarian Language means also "Bulgarian people" in ethnic sense, therefore the concept of the separate ethnic language as leading element of separate ethnic identity existed in medieval Bulgarian mentality. This concept was clearly shaped after St. Clement's epoch, but nevertheless St. Clement was perceived as its opening stage in the medieval Bulgarian "mythology". I'm sorry, but these problems are relevant, they are traditional object of researches not only in Bulgaria (where they were one of the main interests for academician Dimitar Angelov, check his books "Образуване на българската народност", Издателство "Наука и изкуство", София, 1981 and "Българинът в средновековието. Светоглед, Идеология, душевност", Книгоиздателство "Георги Бакалов", Варна, 1985 for example), so I don't see any reason to ignore them.
Please, permit me not to comment your last accusation, it has no connection with these concrete scientific concepts, which I'm trying to explain you, and with my conceptions. Note, I include that term only in cases when it is verified with primary sources and interpreted by scientific methods. - Vulgarian 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)