Comments on: Translating Rom 11:17 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/ – English & Swedish Blogs Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:25:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Robles http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/comment-page-1/#comment-22 David Robles Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:20:25 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=123#comment-22 Dr. Gerdmar THE HOLY GOSPELS or EVANGELISTARION ISBN 0-944359-17-5 and ACTS, EPISTLES, AND REVELATION or PRAXAPOSTOLOS ISBN 0-944359-18-3 are published in the US. The documentation in the volumes themselves state that it is a translation from the New Testament approved by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1902 (printed in 1912). It cites the following authorities; Theological School of Halki, Metochion of the Holy sepulchre in Constantinople, St George by the Gate of Adrianoupolis (from Aghia Sophia), St Demetrios Tatoulos( one from 1550, the other an ancient Byzantine text, manuscripts from the monasteries of Koutloumousiu, Karakallou, Xeropotamou, Iveron, Lavra all in Mt Athos, National Library of Greece, Library of Jerusalem ( Byzantine texts), Eclesiastical Academy of Petroupolis and the Textus Receptus. It seems the translators also used as reference many sources like the papyri, the uncial codices, the miniscule codices, the Nestle Aland's Greek New Testament, etc. I am not a New Testament scholar so I think it would be interesting if a scholar with your qualifications could evaluate this translation into English. Of course,because of their humility, I am unable to look into the academic qualifications of the monks and nuns doing the translation. But I would not be surprised if the ones doing the translation are of course scholars themselves. Dr. Gerdmar

THE HOLY GOSPELS or EVANGELISTARION ISBN 0-944359-17-5 and ACTS, EPISTLES, AND REVELATION or PRAXAPOSTOLOS ISBN 0-944359-18-3 are published in the US. The documentation in the volumes themselves state that it is a translation from the New Testament approved by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1902 (printed in 1912). It cites the following authorities; Theological School of Halki, Metochion of the Holy sepulchre in Constantinople, St George by the Gate of Adrianoupolis (from Aghia Sophia), St Demetrios Tatoulos( one from 1550, the other an ancient Byzantine text, manuscripts from the monasteries of Koutloumousiu, Karakallou, Xeropotamou, Iveron, Lavra all in Mt Athos, National Library of Greece, Library of Jerusalem ( Byzantine texts), Eclesiastical Academy of Petroupolis and the Textus Receptus. It seems the translators also used as reference many sources like the papyri, the uncial codices, the miniscule codices, the Nestle Aland’s Greek New Testament, etc.
I am not a New Testament scholar so I think it would be interesting if a scholar with your qualifications could evaluate this translation into English.
Of course,because of their humility, I am unable to look into the academic qualifications of the monks and nuns doing the translation. But I would not be surprised if the ones doing the translation are of course scholars themselves.

]]> By: admin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/comment-page-1/#comment-21 admin Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:48:58 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=123#comment-21 Briefly (since there are many interesting questions in your question ;)): The whole context of Romans point to Jews as being God’s peculiar people (the Jew first, then the Greek – both a privilege and as responsibility), and the context in Rom 9–11 clearly deals with the problem of physical Israel which does not receive Jesus as the Messiah. A close reading of Rom 11 shoes that Paul is keen to defend the privileged position of <em>physical</em> Israel, and it is clear from vv. 17–18 that he adminishes the gentiles to respect the calling of physical Israel. I think Israel as a historical body is the olive tree, whose calling never can be denied by God, whereas single branches can be broken off from Israel, at least during a time. Then all Israel will be saved, by faith in Jesus, according to Paul. Briefly (since there are many interesting questions in your question ;) ):
The whole context of Romans point to Jews as being God’s peculiar people (the Jew first, then the Greek – both a privilege and as responsibility), and the context in Rom 9–11 clearly deals with the problem of physical Israel which does not receive Jesus as the Messiah. A close reading of Rom 11 shoes that Paul is keen to defend the privileged position of physical Israel, and it is clear from vv. 17–18 that he adminishes the gentiles to respect the calling of physical Israel.
I think Israel as a historical body is the olive tree, whose calling never can be denied by God, whereas single branches can be broken off from Israel, at least during a time. Then all Israel will be saved, by faith in Jesus, according to Paul.

]]> By: admin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/comment-page-1/#comment-20 admin Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:41:58 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=123#comment-20 Thanks you for this positive information, David. Is this translation spread in the US, or where? I think the old translation has served as legitimation for a supersessionist reading. Thanks you for this positive information, David. Is this translation spread in the US, or where?
I think the old translation has served as legitimation for a supersessionist reading.

]]> By: David Robles http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/comment-page-1/#comment-19 David Robles Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:04:26 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=123#comment-19 From the Orthodox New Testament, Published by Holy Apostles Convent, 1999; Rom. 11:17 "And if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in AMONG THEM, and became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, cease boasting against the branches". Archbishop Theophylact of Bulgaria, an 11th century Byzantine scholar and royal tutor to the son of Emperor Michael VII, comments on verse 25 that "the hardness hath not happened to the whole of Israel, but a part of it. For many believed, whom God forknew, as he says earlier, and again in the future they shall believe" (Theophylact's commentaries are a reflection of John Chrysostom's teaching). The Orthodox New Testament is a translation of the Official Greek New Testament text as published and approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople 1912, compared to the Textus Receptus. It includes a verse by verse patristic commentary from many Church Fathers. From the Orthodox New Testament, Published by Holy Apostles Convent, 1999;
Rom. 11:17 “And if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in AMONG THEM, and became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, cease boasting against the branches”. Archbishop Theophylact of Bulgaria, an 11th century Byzantine scholar and royal tutor to the son of Emperor Michael VII, comments on verse 25 that “the hardness hath not happened to the whole of Israel, but a part of it. For many believed, whom God forknew, as he says earlier, and again in the future they shall believe” (Theophylact’s commentaries are a reflection of John Chrysostom’s teaching).

The Orthodox New Testament is a translation of the Official Greek New Testament text as published and approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople 1912, compared to the Textus Receptus. It includes a verse by verse patristic commentary from many Church Fathers.

]]> By: Martin http://www.andersgerdmar.com/blog/translating-rom-1117/123/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Martin Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:46:23 +0000 http://www.andersgerdmar.com/?p=123#comment-18 Thanks for sharing this discovery. One question that arises as I read this is; could it be that Paul is talking about the messianic jews? After all, "christianity" at that time contained probably more than 50% jews. The audience of the letter to the Romans was messianic jews in Rome, right? Considering this, How do you conclude that jews that do not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah are still part of the real tree? (I am not in the business of judging jews or being "highmined" (v20). This is just for the sake of the debate;) Regards, Martin Thanks for sharing this discovery.
One question that arises as I read this is; could it be that Paul is talking about the messianic jews? After all, “christianity” at that time contained probably more than 50% jews. The audience of the letter to the Romans was messianic jews in Rome, right?

Considering this, How do you conclude that jews that do not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah are still part of the real tree?

(I am not in the business of judging jews or being “highmined” (v20). This is just for the sake of the debate;)

Regards, Martin

]]>