www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Is Theodore of Tyre also "the Recruit"?

To indicate the need for a new translation, Fr. David has listed several points, link, the first being:



No question about the Gregory-George correction.

Regarding Theodore however: The Recension text Služebnik has Theodora Tirona, page 179 [patronagechurch.com], which I would have taken as indicating Theodore of Tyre. Also, all the sources I've checked (e.g. link [en.wikipedia.org]) have indicated that Theodore of Tyre and Theodore the Recruit are the same person, feast Feb. 17.

Also confusing is that the Recension Apostol lists Theodora Tirona twice, Feb. 17, page 640 [patronagechurch.com] , and Feb. 8, page 639 [patronagechurch.com]. Other sources indicate that the Feb. 8 Theodore is called the STRATELATES, ("the General"), also known as Theodore of Euphraita or Theodore of Heraclea.

Is it then that Theodore the Recruit is just another name for Theodore of Tyre?

St. Theodore Tyro (the Recruit) and St. Theodore Stratelates (the General) are different saints, so page 639 is a typo. Proclaiming that St Theodore Tyro is from Tyre, which he is not, is also a typo.

It would seem so, but is this a known error in the Recension text?


Who is "proclaiming" where he is "from"?


Where is he from?

The OCA calendar has him listed as St Theodore the Tyro (The Recruit)

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100547

And this from the GOA website http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints/432

As I recall "Tyro" has to do with his rank (recruit) rather than where he was from. I have seen an English translation of the Greek use "Tyre" in the Proskomidia but they also differentiate between him and St. Theodore Strateletes ("Of the holy Protomartyr and Archdeacon Stephen...of the holy Great Martyrs George the trophy-bearer, Demetrios Myrobletes, Theodore Tyre, Theodore Stratelates, and all the holy Martyrs..." or something along those lines).

In the UGCC English translation we use "Theodore the Tiro".

Thanks everyone for the information; please continue.

Also, I did ask a question which I reiterate, expand and rephrase:

Are the designations

1. Theodore the Recruit
2. Theodore (the) Tyro/Tiro
3. Theodore of Tyre

all referring to the same person?

If you read the links supplied 1&2 are one in the same, number 3 is an inaccurate corruption of #2.

I did read the links supplied; they state a position or explanation on the designation; it is not the only explanation. As the link I provided initially notes:

Then the burden of proof my dear deacon rests upon you, to prove that the one mentioned in the preparation is from Tyre by supplying the corresponding hagiography. As was mentioned in posts and links above that in the Greek, it is Tyro not Tyre.

Oh, I didn't realize that's how it works, but with good reason. You certainly have put me at a disadvantage in requiring that I prove what I have not said or proposed. In fact I even asked who said he was from Tyre (indicating it wasn't me), and I also asked where was he from (indicating I wanted to know). There were no replies even from those who apparently are sure he is Theodore We-don't-know-where-he's-from-but-it-certainly-isn't-Tyre.

On the other hand, there is a lot of maintaining in some links, without further assessment, that he is the "recruit" based on the Latin tiro. This is not implausible, but I ask then the comparable burden of proof for this -- which is explicit -- as required of me for what was not. Is the etymology giving warrant to the translation "recruit" established?

The only internet source I've located so far that at least provides a (scholarly?) reference is this:
link [newadvent.org].

Also, "hagiography" would not be my choice for "the burden of proof" (even here in having to prove what I did not maintain). Do you insist? The purpose of this thread, as I proposed it, is to inquire about the person -- presumably not persons -- behind the designations, and I would add that though the designation(s) may be disputed, they are found in common use e.g. The Holy Martyr Theodore of Tyre [holytrinityorthodox.com].

Yes and the editors of the RDL picked it up.


The 65 Liturgicon by calling St. Theodore: of Tyre (a city in Lebanon) rather than Tyro(a recruit). I checked BDW and Archbishop Joseph Raya of blessed memory made the same error.


Amasea according to the Prologue from Ohrid: http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=February&day=17&Go.x=4&Go.y=12
and the GOA website: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints/432

Thank you Father Deacon Lance, I did not think it was just me that saw that in the links.

There are two great matyrs named Theodore, both Roman soldiers. To distinguish one from the other their ranks were given. It seems Tyre being close to Tyro got mistakenly substituted along the way since it was more common to designate saints by where they lived than their military rank. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is alittle dated to be considered a scholarly source I think.

What then is the official clarification or correction if any?


“Proclaiming” sounds to me to be overstating their intent.

If, as I noted above, the etymology giving warrant to the translation "recruit" is established then it would tend to preclude "of Tyre". Is it so established? As I noted there is at least one scholarly opinion indicating that it is not.

It actually says there he “entered the army in the Marmarite regiment in the town of Amasea” and this is how he is called in the West, “of Amasea,” as noted in the links I provided above.

As to where he’s “from” there is some latitude ( see link in first post), where e.g. “St. Theodore is said to have been born in the East (Syria or Armenia are mentioned).”

-------------------------------------------------------------

The discussion is informative but I would raise a caution, even objection, in uncritically putting forth even a very generally held opinion, “the recruit,” as unassailable fact without addressing objections. If there is more evidence, then say what it is. The “recruit” designation was not objectionable to me when I asked the initial question, but there is a big difference between saying I read it on the internet and this, therefore, demonstrates a usage, and I read this on the internet (I “saw that in the links”) therefore that’s the only way it must be, all else is automatically wrong.

Also, I’m surprised by the monolithic understanding and insistence regarding the designation “of” as applied here and “from.” I’m sure there are many who understand, say, Anthony of Padua to be an Italian from Padua Italy and not, as is the case, someone born in Lisbon and a native son of Portugal. Avignon Popes were French and never left France yet they are Bishops of Rome without inferring or "proclaiming" they are "from" Rome.

Given the wealth of background on this issue, why the inability or reluctance to answer directly the actual question? One can disagree with a designation and say so while also speaking to the point. For example, if I ask, are St. Nicholas of Myra and St. Nicholas of Bari referring to the same person one can give an honest yes answer while also noting objections or qualifications to the designation Bari.

Looking at your reply, I have to say you remind of Don Quixote going after a windmill. I have found your posts in the past to be quite insight and informative. But with your intransigence in this matter, you are just making yourself look foolish not only to the forum community but to the lurkers that view this thread. Your one link is hardly scholarly, and your carrying on really should be better researched before taking such an immovable stance. I would strongly suggest you start with the Slavonic and Greek texts before carrying on any further.

Why doesn’t the liturgical commission just publish its documented research showing why each change it made was absolutely necessary? Inquiring faithful have a right to know. Why are they keeping this information from the faithful?

I agree with Father David. We need another translation. The 2007 is inaccurate. It has intentional changes to texts. It has intentional changes to the rubrics. It has numerous mistranslations. It has omitted words. It has omitted large selections of the Divine Liturgy. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right.

... should, at the very least, receive adequate and thorough answers.

I've asked (directly and indirectly) about this several times. Here are two instances.

A member of the IELC was explaining the translation change from "God loving bishop" to "whom God loves" and back to "God loving bishop." Previously he had vigorously defended and given a detailed rationale for "whom God loves"; I sensed he still thought that his rationale made better sense. He noted, however, that the bishops/IELC had commissioned an Orthodox scholar to research the issue; the findings gave rise to the final form. As something that would be of interest to scholars in general I asked if the research was available. He misunderstood the scope of my request and seemed stunned that I was inquiring into the inner sanctum, the deliberations of the bishops/IELC. I explained that I was only asking about the independent research and findings of the scholar being made available. He answered, correctly, that the decision to make the study available was in the hands of the bishops.

That is my recollection.

The other is about as good a short answer as there is. It has the merit of not being just my recollection; it is a direct quote of my bishop, William, from a letter to me of 29 May 2008:And twelve years is one good chunk of time to get it together!

The Recension text Služebnik has “Theodora Tirona”. I hope someone can more clearly unpack both the Slavonic and the Greek on this to see what the most literal translation might be. To recap, the 1964 gives “Theodore of Tyre” as does Raya BDW, the OCA (2003 Dallas edition), and Hapgood. ROCOR gives “Theodore the Tyro”. The 2008 OCA text gives "Theodore the Recruit". Articles like “of” and “the” make a huge difference in meaning. I hope the results of a scholarly review might be considered by those who will prepare the next edition of the Liturgicion (which I pray fervently is only months away!)

It is because I have faith that I stand for what is proper and just. The RDL is neither and we – as Catholic faithful – have the right of appeal and of having our voices heard in Rome.

The Liturgical Commission worked with the intention to revise the Divine Liturgy. That was wrong. Very talented, good men made a major mistake that needs to be corrected. The Liturgical Commission should now be directed to prepare a new edition. Start with the 1964 (since it is mostly memorized by the faithful) and correct only what is incorrect using the 1942 normative Ruthenian edition as the single standard from which to prepare a new edition that is as literally faithful as is possible (and in full conformance with both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam).

Well said, John.

Bishop William states that the RDL was the fruit of debate and scholarship; that the liturgical commission reviewed and approved it; and, that it was approved by Rome. He also states that one must "have faith."

What he doesn't say is that it is a true rendering of the Divine Liturgy. How could he?

And how could any Bishop ask us to have faith in a Creed from which a word has been dropped without the approval of an Ecumenical Council or approval of the Pope himself?

As to Rome's approval, well, that was Fr. Taft. I know that he is a liturgical scholar but do his credentials extend to matters theological?

Cardinal Newman, in one of his sermons, states:



http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume2/sermon22.html

Thank you for the compliment. Taking your words to heart I have reviewed all the posts in this thread, especially my own, and can honestly say, unmasked, that I stand behind what I have written and actually, a fortiori. My stand is to give all the designations a fair hearing; if there is intransigence, I see it in a "the recruit only" position?

I would agree that our "carrying on really should be better researched. " As to the "one" scholarly link -- which is one more than has been provided to the contrary -- perhaps you didn't understand. The link, the reference, is in the source:


That is, (Nilles, Kal. man., I, 105) is the reference; Nilles is the author, then the publication and location. The link to Nilles is provided in the source and gives in part: Nikolaus Nilles [newadvent.org]

I did check the Slavonic and provided links in the first post; if you have other Slavonic links or reference, please share them. I did also check the Greek of the Rome:1950 liturgicon that was the primary source for the RDL but didn't mention it for the obvious reason; see link [patronagechurch.com] . If you have other links or references for the Greek please share them.

I also found this which makes me reappraise my hitherto neutral position on what is the correct or the best rendering. link [nationmaster.com]

This is important because it establishes the connection with the city of Tyre. If this is accurate and if the Nilles explanation is correct, then the "of Trye" designation is well supported. On the basis of the facts produced in this thread, it is much better supported than the rendering "the recruit."

But all the facts are not in. More research is needed and checking out "Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis" (2 vols., 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896) tonight from my county library isn't going to happen. The RDL committee, however, in its twelve years of study should have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre." If only we knew what it was.

Fr. Deacon,

I suppose if you want to argue that "of Tyre" is as acceptable as "Recruit" you would be supported by common usage as we have ample eveidence of both usages.

The pragmatic side of me says that if you have two great matyr Theodores who were Roman soldiers and one is designated the general it makes sense that the other was designated by his rank, which in this case was recruit.

It is interesting the the Greek Liturgicon has only Theodore.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The irony here is that my initial position was even less demanding regarding an allowance for the "of Tyre" reading; it encountered some unyielding rejection.

Based on what has appeared in this thread to date, to me the evidence favoring "of Tyre" is very strong: "of Tyre" is more acceptable than "Recruit." That could change in an instant, however, with documentation supporting the RDL reading.

Once again, I have no problem with this view of the two Theodores since I see the terms as designations. The Geek Liturgicon from Rome is probably a more pristine version, stripped of embellishments and conflations that work their way into the text. Consider:Demetrios Constantelos
"Four Major Aspects of the Church's Faith and Experience"
From: Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church, Hellenic College Press, Brookline, Massachusetts 1998. link [myriobiblos.gr]

Designations are murky in themselves and the demands of idiom and inflection in the host and receptor languages can have an impact. A Holy Cross Greek parallel has e.g. (of) Nicholas of Myra for the Greek Nikolaou tou en Murois (of Nikolas the in Mura) mimicked in the article-lacking Slavonic as Nilolaa iže vo Murich (ch=x; see bottom page 178 [patronagechurch.com] ). One then finds in the (Holy Cross) proskomedia Theodōrōn Tērōnos rendered Theodore of Tyron and then listed in the book's Synaxarion as Theodōrou megalomarturos, Theodore the great martyr.

Even the "of" vs. "the" can be slippery. A search of the internet will affirm the ussages John of Damascus, John Damascene, and John the Damascene.

One also finds the idiom of the receptor language subtly modifying the literal, e.g. "St John Chrysostom' (c.347-407) the Golden Tongued" instead of the literal Golden-mouthed.

So one can safely say, for instance, the Tironian Theodore and then have to ask how is he called or known in acceptable English usage that doesn't violate or confound the original intent.

Consequently, the quite unwarranted dogmatic pronouncements in this thread against "of Tyre" should a reminder of caution for us all (and not meaning here for all Mankind).

Now here's a real hoot: the "Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis" is available online as a pdf! It turns out the often disparaged old Catholic Encyclopedia has provided a very interesting reference. [It was a real bonus to find out about Fr. Nilles, a remarkable man and quite a scholar, and who, though he taught in Austria, had strong links to the early American Catholic church and the Baltimore councils.]

Anyway, here is the link [books.google.com] to the page reference for Theodore of Tyre as given above (but see also p 97 for interesting details on the other Theodore, especially in relation to the Apostol entry; see first post this thread). The support for the "of Tyre" reading seems quite clear with referenced consonant sources provided. Nevertheless, over 100 years have transpired. We've been at this for only four days. In the twelve years -- TWELVE YEARS -- of research and debate leading to the RDL surely something must be available warranting, explaining:

link for full context

This is definitely a minor issue not worth the time. Certainly we would not spend 12 years of research on one saint mentioned in the rite of preparation. However, I rather think Nilles is not reliable on this point. "Tirona" simply means recruit (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, 1394). In 1962 F. Halkin published "The Life of Theodore the Recruit" in Analecta Bollandia LXXX (1962), pp. 308-324. For a more recent article, see "Theodora ad Amasea" in Bibliotheca Sanctorum XII, 238-242, which also emphasizes his military career. I would think that the reason Theodore is mentioned in the Rite of Preparation is precisely because he represented a very large social group in the Byzantine Empire, the soldiers.

I find the condescension of the very opening line appalling. This is so especially since it comes from the originator of the issue. There was time to make the change to a text and make a claim; there should be time to answer questions and explain or defend the claim as necessary. To put this in perspective, my time has worth also, such as the time I spent responding to a PM topic that you, Fr. David, initiated and sent to me, in which you will find, since you did not read it though it is dated 7/12/08, almost verbatim the question in my initial post. That simple question remains unanswered.

Stating "12 years of research on one saint" etc. as if something posted is invention. The unreliability of Nilles' statement, as it stands, is your unsupported opinion. The "Tirona" from Lampe demonstrates that you can find the word in the dictionary that you're looking for; see if Lampe has the word for Tyre.

The recent references are something I requested; thank you for providing them. I hope to look them up but since I don't live or work in the same building as a theological library it will take some time. Since specifics or quotes pertinent to the issues have not been provided, I hope I'll not be wasting my time with studies peripheral or neutral to the issue; for instance his "military career" figures into both designations.

Choosing a translation or inclusion or exclusion of liturgical text based on presumed social pressures -- "he represented a very large social group" -- is conjecture. It may be so. If so, I hope it worked to the good in its day; in my opinion in has not served us well in the present circumstance. For whatever importance a designation holds, as has been pointed out, there is none at all for Theodore in the text of the prokomedia of the Rome:1950 liturgicon that is give as the primary source for the RDL translation.

---------------------------------------------

The "of Tyre" vs. "the Recruit" designations, which for me even initially (read the thread title) seemed of the old "less filling, tastes great" variety, apparently are more controversial. My determination is that all "sides" get a fair hearing, and my judgment, with which others my differ of course, is that based on the actual facts presented so far, and not just what is alluded or pronounced, I don't see anything indicating a preference for "the Recruit." If there is such a preference, then explain it; otherwise, don't make it out to be more than it is.

Finally, this is an RDL translation topic, initially raised by an RDL proponent, to show the need for a new translation that is the RDL. To ask questions of those who produced it, to request their findings, even to disagree with their position on the basis of merit and facts, should not be considered unheard-of, ignored, or treated with disdain. The liturgy is everyones business in which we all can have a concern. If even the modest demands of inquiry that I have noted here were required and met before changes and revisions were made to liturgical texts, I think we as a church would be better for it.

The difficulty of posting on this Forum is that issues quickly become "ad hominem." For example, you find my response "condescending" and "appalling." I am only trying to defend our work after a long thread where in posts by "John Damascene," by "IM" and by the Administrator challenge the validity of our work, and also a post where you challenge: "The RDL committee, however, in its twelve years of study should have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre." If only we knew what it was."
It is a minor point, but seems to have been seized upon as yet another reason to discredit the work of the IELC. Yes, I (not the IELC) brought up this correction, and I believe it is a correction that is simple and obvious, not requiring extensive hagiographical documentation. I do not think this discussion invalidates the 2007 translation, and has at least one good effect, that we learn more about Theodore the Recruit.

I can understand that Father David is sensitive to all questions about his work, and that of the commission. But it is very wrong indeed for him to equate all questions to be the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. Asking questions and holding the view that the Divine Liturgy needs to be translated accurately and completely (following the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam) is not an ad hominem. A proper response is not to accuse the questioner of having nasty personal motives but rather to answer the questions and to provide the scholarship to support one’s answers. I am glad that Father David provides some references in this thread, but it is the exception as most of his posts contain no scholarship to support the positions he advances while those who support accurate and complete translations have offered ample scholarly references (and anyone who wishes to verify this can read the archives).

Father David considers the matter of translation under debate in this thread to be “a minor point”. He should consider that there are no minor points in liturgical translation. Every word from the first page to the last page deserves careful attention so that it is translated accurately and completely, and free from political agendas.

“Theodora Tirona” needs to be translated accurately. It is very reasonable for people to expect that the translators provide ample scholarship to support that their translation is literally accurate, and explain their translation in light of the existing translation (why it is so inaccurate it cannot be kept), and of other translations that are in common usage.

No. I found in the opening line (sentence) condescension and it, the condescension appalling, not your response. It is not "ad hominem"; I like you, I didn't like the opening remark. I would rather speak to the issues and leave this behind.

I know only too well how long this thread has been. We are free to post and respond or not as we see fit. And there are issues with the RDL that are a concern to a number of us; we express our concerns differently; take your choice but I hope they will be addressed. I would like to have mine addressed.

Please read the thread -- this resulted from an unwarranted disparagement of the "of Tyre" designation. I did not intend to be presumptuous but it is a legitimate point so I'll rephrase it as a question: Does the RDL committee have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre"?

Delving into the fine points of this “minor point” was hardly “seized upon” by me. I was, in a sense, forced into it by the lines of inquire of those eulogizing “the Recruit” and bashing “of Tyre” – read the thread. I only want that, no matter how minor it may be or seem, the actual nature of the change in translation/rendering from what it was, which happens to be "of Tyre" to what it is now, which happens to be "the Recruit" be accurately stated, based on facts if required; and that I should not be served baloney and told that it's steak.

This discussion has become one of methodology. I didn't intend for this but it is good that it happened. A translation invalidates itself in a sense by false arguments and claims.

Summing up, from my perspective, on the basis of what has been presented explicitly (not just references) in this thread, the following cannot stand as is:

link for full context


--------------------------------------


I’ve mentioned methodology and want to explore that further. I will start a thread to explore another point that Fr. David has mentioned:

From Liturgical Reform in the Byzantine Church, Presentation to Catechists, Saturday, August 12, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, link [davidpetras.com] on his website link [davidpetras.com]:

And link:


Unlike the present topic, this is a prominent item in the liturgy and I think we would all agree (?) that the 1965 liturgicon needed to be modified and improved here. The inquiry would be into the RDL rendering relative to the sources on which it was based and other relevant sources (if any). I invite all, especially those who had an interest here, to check it out and hopefully participate.

For me this was a unique thread that I intended to return to at the time, but the forum was an especially busy place then and other topics took over. Also for me, the next step would have been to check some references that were given, both pro and con, and this required access to a good theological library, doable but not very convenient. Since then many of those references are now, rather incredibly, available online. In particular the complete Latin and Greek Patrologia of Migne, Mansi, Denzinger and more ( link to patristica.net [patristica.net] ) and Lampe’s Lexicon ( link [ia600503.us.archive.org]), are available. Having them so easily accessible is, I would think, a scholar’s feast.

I had thought the point of the thread was straightforward: “Is it then that Theodore the Recruit is just another name for Theodore of Tyre”? Perhaps I should have asked it the other way around. The obvious answer is yes. The intent was not to directly challenge the new translation “the Recuit” but that the old “of Tyre” designation was not wrong in actual usage and, therefore, was not significant as a point for needing “another translation” in the sense that Fr. David indicated (see initial post). I had not expected the strong feelings expressed on the subject; these resulted in part because the topic expanded to considerations of the appropriateness of the use of Tyre itself as a designation. This is certainly legitimate but is a different issue. The acrimony in the opinions expressed surprises me to this day. Sadly this thread contains the last post by Fr. David who did us a service as the only member of the IELC to publicly engage in open dialog about the RDL on the forum and probably in general.

So Theodore of Tyre and Theodore the Recruit refer to the same person and both designations are in use. That is the point. Further legitimate questions, however, do arise:

(1) What is the correct translation of the Slavonic text? (Rome’s Greek just has Theodore, so no help there.)
(2) Does (1) even matter since the RDL departs at will from the Recension and even Rome’s Greek?
(3) How are the designations Tyre or Recruit supported as being appropriate or intended?
(4) How, when and in what form(s) did the designation(s) in (3) enter into the liturgy, into the liturgical text?

As a contemporary example of a designation that is correct but conveys a less obvious, even misleading, intrinsic meaning, consider the US Army command nicknamed Tropic Lightening based at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii (of Pearl Harbor 1941 notoriety). Certainly that’s tropical. But presently its 3d Battalion (Airborne), 509th Infantry Regiment is stationed at Fort Richardson, Alaska, not what one would designate at all as tropical. Yet its GI is of Tropic Lightening. That Tyre is a city, however, the “of Tyre” designation can convey a sense of a direct geographical connection that is most likely not the case for this St. Theodore.

What then is the original or proper designation and what is its meaning? For instance, what is the Slavonic’s тíрѡна - tirona intended to convey. Is it just a transliteration of a Greek version leaving the meaning unspecified. What Greek is it based on? What is the Greek spelling and what does it mean: the city of Tyre, an adjective like Tyronian or Tironian, or a Greek transliteration of the Latin word tiro meaning recruit? If the latter, why does the Greek here use a borrowed Latin word? A further complication is that there are a multitude of different spellings in the Greek.

By checking available references given in previous posts, it is now possible to give more focus to these questions even though not answering them definitively.

(To be continued)

Fr. David gives three references in support of the translation “the recruit.” For one he says

That he was a recruit is not questioned but how was he called at the time given, “the Byzantine Empire”; also, how was he first known after his martyrdom in ca. AD 306? I presently do not have access to this reference.

Fr. David also says
Again I don’t have access to this reference but the title would seem to provide the answer that he is “the Recruit.” Consider, however, this reference in a blog:
link [goudenhoorn.com]

So Halkin has “Théodore le Conscrit” but it is based on the Greek “Theodôrou tou tèrônos” and it is not clear what this Greek in the genitive, “tou tèrônos.” that is, of teronos, is wanting to convey. Halkin’s interpretation is “le Conscrit.” The BHG, unfortunately, seems not to be available (yet?) online and it should be checked since the footnote’s “Recruit (BHG 1764)” is the blog’s English rendering and interpretation and not necessarily what may be found in the original text.

Fr. David’s Lampe reference gives a definition of the (borrowed from Latin) Greek τίρων and several further references for its occurrence, p 1394:


All but one of these are available online and give a sense of how this term is used..

(to be continued)

Lampe’s references first give the best critical source followed in parentheses by the Migne reference. I only have access to Migne and the examples that follow are from Migne or other online sources as noted.

Mac. Aeg. hom. is homily 43 of Mark of Egypt ca. AD 390, PG34.777A, on the progress/potential of the Christian man (male) and has the Greek form οἱ τίρωνες, (Latin in the parallel translation, tirones) nom. pl., as one presumably lower-class group that is mentioned along with the poor and unskilled (οἱ ἰδιῶται). In the same volume PG34.832B, cust. cor., his writing Concerning the Care/Keeping of the Heart has τίρων, (Latin, tiro) singular.

Cod. Afr. is the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africae in Conciliorum Collecto Regia Maxima, Acta Conciliorum I.914; Canon XC, Concerning the Bishops of Numidea, has the two forms, τοῦ τιρωνάτου gen. sing. (Latin gen. pl., tironum) and τιρώνων (Latin gen. pl., tironum). I presume the genitive form τιρωνάτου is given in Lampe as the nominative τιρωνᾶτος, ὁ.

M. Eust. is martyrum Eustathii, PG.105.376, by Nicetae Paphlagonis, AD 890-900, a later work. In addition to the Greek with Latin translation along side, each page is split horizontally with his Oration XVIII in the top and S.Eustathii et Sociorum Acta Antiqua in the bottom section. Two forms are found on page 404, one in each of the two sections: τήρωνας (Latin, tirones) in the Oratio and τυρωνάτον (Latin, tironum) in the Acta.

The remaining example is Lampe's reference V. Pach. Φ, a vita Pachomii, and is not available online as a file.

These are general references, as Lampe indicates, to recruits or a recruit. And these are, as expected, examples of the Latin word tiro transliterated into the Greek with Greek inflections, and clearly demonstrate that this usage occurs, thus supporting the translation recruit. It was necessary to check these, however, to verify what they do not provide, viz., any direct link to Theodore, that is, they are good examples of general uses of the term but they are not actual examples forming a possible naming or designation of Theodore as "the Recruit." As will be seen Theodore certainly was know to be a recruit, so the designation is correct in general but the question remains, was this the intended meaning for how he was designated as, for example, in the Greek or Slavonic of liturgical texts, iconography, Patristic writings etc...

Some interesting examples directly linked to Theodore are given in the references provided in a previous post #303180 in this thread. In part:

This summarizes the conclusion of the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that is based on references and commentary in Nilles and these now need to be examined further and critically as was done with Lampe's references.

(to be continued)

Similar to Lampe, Nilles provides a number of references to Patristic sources. Nilles' work, however, is not a lexicon as is Lampe but a commentary on the liturgical calendar, and is actually addressing St. Theodore and how he is called and why. Nilles may not necessarily get it right and so his sources and interpretation need to be evaluated. For convenience, here is the relevant text, my redaction of page 105 from Nilles:


The entry is to Theodore toũ Tḗronos or Túrōnos, the toũ denoting a genitive giving Theodore of Teronos or Turonos. These are two of the several spellings and would just indicate Nilles' judgment or preference. He first mentions that Theodore is known by three names, of Amasea, of Euchaita, and the surname in question Tironis or Tyronis , derived from the Latin that may be written Tyro.

(to be continued)

Nilles says "Tiro quidem, non quod virtute tiro miles modo conscriptus esset" -- Tiro, indeed, not by way of being a soldier as a raw recruit -- and he then references the words attributed to St. Gregory of Nyssa in his panegyric (ἐγκώμιον) of the Holy and Great Martyr Theodore, giving the relevant text on which he bases his conclusion above, in the Greek, οὐκέτι νεόλεκτος ἦν τὴν ἀνδρείαν (no longer a neophyte-recruit he was being manly - ?) as in the referenced PG 46.741. The parallel Latin version of the PG here differs from Nilles' translation into Latin of the Greek text but similarly has "non jam amplius virtute tyro modo conscriptam gerens." Gregory (~AD 380) here uses the Greek word for conscript or recruit, νεόλεκτος, not the borrowed Latin tiro or tyro and he says nothing about how this relates to any surname for Theodore derived from tiro, tyro or Tyre etc.. Nilles, however, then conflates Gregory's comment with a much later text from a synaxarion (a lives of the saints) known as the Menologion of Basil II [en.wikipedia.org] (Byzantine Emperor, ~AD 1000), that does say the surname for Theodore is related to his membership for a brief time in the unit of the Turonaton. Nilles further references Nicephor Callistus [en.wikipedia.org](~AD 1320), his Hist eccles., PG146.473 which echoes the description in the Menologion though referring to the designation of the unit as of the Teronikou.

Here again there are differing spellings and the intended meaning of the designation is not clear to me. Theodore is a recruit, νεόλεκτος, but is that why he is said to be of Teronikou or Turonaton. Could the unit designation mean that this is a unit of recruits and the name is based on the Greek borrowing of the Latin tiro meaning novice, beginner, young man or recruit? How does the location of the source condition the usage and, therefore, intended meaning? For instance, in Lampe's examples from the Code of Canons of the African Church, the borrowing of a Latin word in Greek might be expected, parts of north Africa having a strong connection to Rome. Recall the canon where the use of tiro in the Greek text, as a Greek word, is found: Concerning the Bishops of Numidea, the locale that includes Hippo and (at a later time) the preeminent Latin father and bishop, Augustine.

As I said before, it would be very relevant to find out how and where the surname in question entered the liturgical text. The Menologion is not a liturgical document, however, it is a book prepared for the Byzantine Emperor and, I would think, reflects the understanding of the surname at the time, the late tenth century. This is much later but it does solidly document the usage and interpretation and even evolution of the term. It is the best attested of all the references given in the two sources (Lampe and Nilles) for the context and meaning of the surname as it was associated with Theodore directly, and this in a prominent and official manner. The original document is in the Vatican Library but is actually available in facsimile online Ms. Vat. gr. 1613 [digi.vatlib.it] !

Nilles' reference to pages 317-318 is misleading, and odd in being two pages since the Menologion devotes one page per saint, and it turns out those page numbers are not for Theodore in the Menologion. I did find him there, eventually, on page 407 (of 434). Here is the top part of the page showing the title and relevant text to be examined:



I find this text hard to read because of the particular calligraphy. Fortunately Nilles gives the relevant text, and with it as an aid, I believe it corresponds to the third line after the picture. It can be rendered, as Nilles also provides in his translation into Latin, ...

(to be continued)

Tiro ... since for a time he served in the cohort they called Tyronum (τυρωνάτον). Was there such a cohort (cohorte, τάγμα = regiment or brigade) at the time of Theodore? There was a Roman auxiliary regiment somewhat before Theodore's time called Cohors I Tyriorum [en.wikipedia.org] that was linked to Tyre, the city; I mention it here only as an example of a not implausible type of naming. Nilles is here giving the Greek transcription of the Menologion manuscript that is actually found in PG117.317, which I suspect is his source for this Greek text. This reference is not given by Nilles, however, but it is where his curious citation "pp. 317-318" comes from, and there in PG117(index) it is noted that it is the transcription of the Basilianum Menologiuim, "ex editione cardinalis Albani." Again, as best as I can make out, this -- Nilles' quote taken from PG117.317 as the text in the Menologion -- is an accurate, though not exact (see below) transcription of the text as given in the facsimile of the original in the Vatican archives.

In the title the reference to Theodore in the facsimile, again as best I can make out, looks like Θεοδώρου τόυ τήρωνος but it is slightly different in the PG transcription where it is Θεοδώρου τοῦ τύρωνος. In the first line of each Theodore is designated Θεόδωρος ὁ τύρων, and in the Latin of the PG, Theodorus Tyro, Theodore (the) Tyro. Then the text from the Menologion, νεωστὶ ... etc., however, as quoted by Nilles, explains that he is recently in the military in the regiment they call Τυρωνάτον (PG Latin: Tyronum). The similar explanation of Nicephor Callistus that Nilles footnotes as further corroboration has it even more explicitly that Theodore from the Tēron regiment is named Tirōn.

There is one further source available online, mentioned previously, Hippolyte Delehaye's Les Légendes Grecques des Saints Militaires [ia800503.us.archive.org], for consideration before summing up and trying to come to a conclusion based on the references considered.

Well it has turned out the conclusion must be delayed since, besides Delehaye, two more works have become available that provide additional insight.

Delehaye's work had been mentioned in a previous post of mine that quoted a footnote in a blog saying:
I had commented that the BHG was not available online but only later found that Delehaye's work is available, the link given in my previous post. (The blog footnote incorrectly identifies the BHG abbreviation as the Bibliographia Hagiographica Graeca when it is actually the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca link [ia800309.us.archive.org].) The blog footnote first mentions the work of Halkin. This is the same Halkin and reference brought to our attention by Fr. David in this thread Post303104, as I noted in Post418387. After some digging I found Halkin's article available online for viewing here page 308 [scribd.com]. Having this helps to clarify the content of the blog reference, what it is saying. It also illustrates the difficulties of interpreting Theodore's given surname because of presumptions that become attached as part of his name, presumptions that may be understandable but also can germinate a bias. For instance as I noted in a previously referenced posts, Fr. David says

.
Here at face value it seems Theodore is obviously called "the Recruit." But the blog gives it as The main title is about an "opuscule inconnu," an unknown/obscure booklet of Magister Nicephore Ouranos and it is only a parenthetical subtitle that has, in the original Greek (see below) in French translation, Théodore le Conscrit, and that thus becoming Theodore the Recruit, the Conscript, a designation that is an interpretation and designation of Halkin. This may already seem convoluted but there is even more to it as the blog footnote correctly gives a further detail.So, this article of Halkin is about Nicephorus Ouranos and it is Nicephorus as the author that Halkin writes about in pp 308-313. Then the actual Greek text of the "opuscule inconnu" of Nicephorus is on pp 313-324; the title on 313 is:

This is the actual title and it is not an unambiguous naming of Theodore as the Recruit/conscrit but analogous to the designation of the author as Nikephorou magistrou tou Ouranou, that is, Nikephor magister of Ouranos or Nikephor magister Ouranos, it is, applying in an analogous manner, Theodorou tou tērōnos, that is, Theodore of tērōnos or Theodore tērōnos.

To reiterate, this reference gives the 10th c. Greek of Nicephorus Ouranos' hagiographic work about Theodore (from a 13th c. manuscript), and Halkin is writing in 1962, not about Theodore per se, but about Nicephorus Ouranos.

Who then is this Nicéphore Ouranos [en.wikipedia.org]? A nice, short description is give in the body of the blog article with the much discussed footnote. That blog article [goudenhoorn.com], BTW, is entitled Fainting fits and their causes: a topos in two Middle Byzantine metaphraseis by Nicetas the Paphlagonian and Nicephorus Ouranos; it is authored by Dirk Krausmüller who writes:Nicaphorus/Nikephoros then was a magistros / μάγιστρος [en.wikipedia.org] of the same Emperor Basil II whose Menologion was discussed previously. Of the several different spellings for Theodore's surname, in both this Passio by Nicaphorus, as transcribed from a 13th c. Athonite Monastery codex, and the actual 10th c. Menologion of his emperor Basil II, the name/designation is essentially the same Θεοδώρου τόυ/τοῦ τήρωνος.

(to be continued)

I wanted to offer a conclusion but got diverted so do so now to not leave a "(to be continued)".

Going through the various Greek documents on Theodore it is usually noted that he was a tiro, a recruit or young soldier. None of these documents, however, title him as such. Where and why a designation for him enter common usage or the liturgy requires further study. That designation is itself open to interpretation. The closest such designation I found is from the Menologion: Θεόδωρος ὁ τύρων. This is reflected in the Recension's Slavonic тíрѡна - tirona, that is, a form of transliteration not translation. Rome's 1950 Greek liturgicon, favored by the RDL, gives only the name with no designation. This makes me want to see some further commentary and documentation on whether assigning the two feast days to Theodore "тíрѡна" is really a mistake -- since it is found in both the Apostol and the Služebnik -- or rather an intentional bypassing the issue, raised by recent scholars, that the two Theodores overlap to some extent.

So, in conclusion, Theodore was a recruit or young soldier but was not given a title as such in the primary documents I discussed. There is no evidence that he was from Tyre although he is know as "of Tyre" because of his presumed links to a military unit, also as I noted above, "recently in the military in the regiment they call Τυρωνάτον (PG Latin: Tyronum)." He is know that way, "of Tyre", and while I would not recommend it as a translation, it is one of those designations that we encounter and accept without questioning the literal designation: September through December are NOT the seventh through tenth months respectively; who would insist that GI Joe really means and should be called Galvanized Iron Joe. G.I. (military) [en.wikipedia.org]

Based on what I have discussed, there is no unqualified English translation of the Recension's тíрѡна, or the Greek manuscripts' forms of ὁ τύρων. English versions that transliterate are properly disinterested, neutral, in not forcing a translation.

Deacon Tony,

Your research and considerations are well presented. This could very easily be turned into a publishable article. Logos or St. Vlad's Quarterly or another publication would likely welcome a 2-3 page article.

John

John, thanks, I'll keep your recommendation in mind. -- DT