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.