Saint Nikolaj Velimirovic

[ozgeorge]

Guys & Gals,
If you look over my posts, I think you'll find that nowhere have I suggested that "Ίουδαϊος" never means "Jew" in the New Testament.
What I am objecting to is the translation of "Ίουδαϊος" as "Jew" when it is clear in the context that it is best translated as "Judaean".

John 7:1
και μετα ταυτα περιεπατει ο Iησους εν τη γαλιλαια ου γαρ ηθελεν εν τη ιουδαια περιπατειν οτι εζητουν αυτον οι ιουδαιοι αποκτειναι

is translated in the New KJV as:
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.

but the New KJV has a footnote on the word "Jews" saying "That is, the ruling authorities."ÂÂ  So even the New KJV recognises an instance when "ιουδαιοι" does not simply mean "Jews", but refers to a specific group of Jews, in this case qualified by the information that it refers to "the ruling authorities."
Don't we have the same practice in our own language? When we say "Cappadocians"- doesn't this carry connotations that this land produced pious and heroic Orthodox Saints? Aren't the Cappadocians renowned for this? So when we call someone a "Cappadocian" we mean more than simply "an Orthodox Christian from Cappadocia."
In Greece today, the Florinians (Orthodox Christians in Florina) are renowned for their piety and traditionalism, whereas, the Athenians (in Athens) are known as "innovators" and "Holy Week Christians" (who do not strictly keep the fasts except in Holy Week). Both the Florinians and the Athenians belong to the Church of Greece, but the Athenians come from the city where "the ruling authorities" come (i.e. the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece).
Both the terms "Athenian Christian"ÂÂ  and "Florinian Christian" carry connotations and can be used with an "agenda".

Then we have instances like:

Luke 23:5
οι δε επισχυον λεγοντες οτι ανασειει τον λαον διδασκων καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και αρξαμενος απο της γαλιλαιας εως ωδε

Which the New KJV translates as:
But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place."

However, the New KJV (and most english translations) have missed one word in this passage which they fail to translate. The word "και" which is the 14th word in the koine passage above.
"και" has several meanings depending on the context- it can mean "and" or "even" or "both...and"("και....και")
So if we translate the passage without skipping this apparently problematic "και" we get either:

But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee to this place."
or
But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, even beginning from Galilee to here (i.e. Judaea)."

I wager that the second translation is correct, and the intended meaning is that the Jews living in the province of Judea (not all of Palestine) complain that Christ is stirring up the people in the provinnce of Judea, and He dares to do this even though He comes from the backwater of Galilee- He has stirred up Galilee and Samaria, but we in Judea will not tolerate Him.
A bit like how the Athenians complained when Archbishop Augustino of Florina would visit Athens from the "backwater" of Florina and admonished them for their laxity!

[sin_vladimirov]

Brother George, OK...

Lets start from the start and see how your ever changing oppinion developed here:

PAGE 1:
Here you are giving quotes from Romans and Corinthians using ENGLISH Translation. So far you have not developed this separation of Judeans and Jews.

PAGE 2:
Still no separation, even you are using JEWISH BOOGIES term so, we are OK to assume that there is no separation. On this page you have your FEAR OF GOD cry but we see no separation as yet. You finish this page with your remarks about St. Nikolaj, but we see no separation as yet.

PAGE 3:
On the page 3 you have a revelation and Lo and Behold you re-define languages of the world by YOUR  IBREI and IUDEI thing. One quote:""Jews" is "Ibrei" in koine, not "Ioudei". And when referring to the Jews in Romans 11, St. Paul never refers to them as "Ioudei" (Judeans) but "Israil" (Israel), because he is talking about the Jews, not the Judeans." (1). Then in the middle of this page you rock up with a handy map that proves nothing but is a handy little thing to make you look good. On this page you still have that separation.

PAGE 4:
Here you are twisting my words and using wrong analogies. On this page I make that misread about Mt 27, 25. And I apologise. But I still point out to you that your separation is wrong. On this page Veniamin asked a question and you answered him:"So, what ozgeorge is saying is that all Ioudei are Ibrei, but not all Ibrei are Ioudei.  Ioudei are thus a subset of Ibrei.  It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe to all Ibrei the actions of the Ioudei. Am I following this correctly?" To which you answer YES.(2) Further you go about pogroms. And toward the end I tell you how I hate people twisting my words to what you offer a "hand shake". You still continue separation. And you question KJV accuracy.

PAGE 5:
On this page you are also starting to question not just KJV but Orthodox translation of the Services and other English translation. Then you say:"here is a HUGE difference between saying "The Jews killed Christ" and "Jews in Judaea (i.e, Judaeans) killed Christ". The latter is linguistically more accurate, and the former has been used to justify progroms, pogroms, concentration camps, torture, dehumanization, gas chambers and the holocaust." (3). A gem, real gem. Then I give you 4-5 different references for word Jew. And this you just brush aside and go forward unrelenting to start talking about Greeks.

PAGE 6:
I love this page. Here you go to say that Christ is not Judean. And after I show you that he is, you just brush that aside to come to this page.



Well dear brother, you are a slippery little customer I will give you that.

1. Christ IS JUDEAN and not Galilean as you said.
2. JEW and JUDEAN are One the same thing (according to English and any other dictionary).
3. IBREI is not JEW, IBREI is HEBREW. IOUDEAN is JEW. (as per quotes (1) and (2))
4. Jews were not gassed because of the Bible. Your effort to change the language is not just wrong but also illogical. Because Adolf did not use KJV or any other English Version. If he did (which I doubt) he would use German Bible. And in German Bibles the word for Judean is JUDEN (which is the same word for Jew) German word for IBREI is HEBRÄER. (as per quote (3)).

So what else?

[ozgeorge]

Here you are giving quotes from Romans and Corinthians using ENGLISH Translation. So far you have not developed this separation of Judeans and Jews.

Before you go any further, let me ask you: am I the first person on earth who has questioned whether "ιουδαιοι" simply means Jews?
If you look at the Orthodox Study Bible in the footnotes for John 7:1 (p230) you will see that the footnote explains that "Jews" is to be understood to mean "the Jewish leaders". So "Jews" doesn't mean "all Jews", but refers to a specific group of Jews. And this is coming from an Orthodox Source.
Am I saying anything different by insisting that "ιουδαιοι" in this instance refers to a specific group of Jews?

Here is a list of the people who agree thatÂÂ  "ιουδαιοι" in John 7:1 refers to a specific group of Jews (taken from the list of the Overview Committee of the Orthodox Study Bible):
Archbishop Iakovos
Metropolitan Theodosios
Metropolitan Phillip
Metropolitan Christopher
Bishop Anthony
Bishop Demetrios
Bishop Dmitri
Bishop Kallistos
Bishop Maximos
Bishop Nicholas
Bishop Vsevolod
Fr. Conianaris
Fr. Anthony Gabriel
Fr. Stanley Harakas
Fr. Thomas Hopko
Fr. Alexander Veronis
Fr. Thaddeus Wojcik
Who all belong to the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in America.

Could you please provide me with a similar list of Orthodox Bishops and priests who agree with your new position that the word "ιουδαιοι" in John 7:1 simply means "Jews" and refers to all Jews?

[sin_vladimirov]

First of all, in my previous post I said that your effort to change language is not just wrong but also stupid.

I beg you to forgive me, as I said a harsh word that should not be said to anyone especially my Orthodox Brother. I beg you to forgive. It was improper of me to say that and I ask for forgiveness. Therefore, I have changed that word.


As far as this discussion is concerned, I wish to forfeit any further comments on this subject. I said what I said and it is a matter of my oppinion and record here. To that extent I have nothing further to add, and will endeavour to not add anything in the future. I find you argument wrong and of circular nature. That is something you have to deal with. I for one, have said things that I should not say, and not say it to my brother. Therefore to hell with any argument that will make me say thing like that again.

God bless you and please forgive.

[ozgeorge]

I said what I said and it is a matter of my oppinion and record here. To that extent I have nothing further to add, and will endeavour to not add anything in the future. I find you argument wrong and of circular nature.

My argument is of a circular nature?!!!

" "ιουδαιοι" always simply means "Jews" because I say so, even if Canonical Orthodox Bishops say otherwise....."

I have provided names of Orthodox Bishops who say that "ιουδαιοι" does not simply mean "Jews" in at least one instance in the Gospel, but refers to a specific group of Jews, and yet you have the gall and dare to call my argument "circular"!
I don't care if you call me "stupid", just don't say my argument is "circular" when clearly it is not.

[SouthSerb99]

Ozgeorge,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  I think your missing the greater point of what brother SV is saying.  While I tend to agree with your arguments here, his last post speaks volumes about him (at least to me), in as much as it shows great charachter.

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ We are all Orthodox here and yes, at times we have differing opinions on certain subjects.  I think he was just aiming to raise the discourse.  The greater point being, respect for each other.

  ÃƒÆ’‚  Oh, and I don't think your argument is circular, heck I don't even think it's round!!!

SV,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ I appreciate your statement greatly.  Thank you brother.

To all,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Sometimes I think the reason why we invite the RC's to chat here (or even the stray Muslim) is because it takes our focus of bashing each other. lol   Is it possible that we not degenerate into pointless name calling (which I am admittedly guilty of)?

[ozgeorge]

  ÃƒÆ’‚  I think your missing the greater point of what brother SV is saying.  While I tend to agree with your arguments here, his last post speaks volumes about him (at least to me), in as much as it shows great charachter.

I think his last post shows great character too, except for the "circular argument" bit!

I mean, come on! ..."Circular argument'?
I'm still flabbergasted!

And can I add that cliche buzz words like "circular argument" and "beating a straw man" - which are resorted to so frequently on this forum by people - really get up my nose
.....and I know....it's my problem, and I just have to deal with it!

[SouthSerb99]

And can I add that cliche buzz words like "circular argument" and "beating a straw man" - which are resorted to so frequently on this forum by people - really get up my nose
.....and I know....it's my problem, and I just have to deal with it!

Don't force me to consult "Logical Self Defense" and hit you up with some red herrings, straw men, glittering generalities, circular reasoning and my favorite.... SERBIAN REASONING!!!!  We can find a reason for everything! 

[ozgeorge]

and my favorite.... SERBIAN REASONING!!!!ÂÂ  We can find a reason for everything!ÂÂ  

LOL!  A bit like Greeks....and what do you do with a nation full of "geniuses" and "philosophers"?

[SouthSerb99]

LOL!ÂÂ  A bit like Greeks....and what do you do with a nation full of "geniuses" and "philosophers"?

Why do you think the two nations get along so well!  It's a wonder the egos can tolerate each other!!

[Marjorie]

My argument is of a circular nature?!!!

" "ιουδαιοι" always simply means "Jews" because I say so, even if Canonical Orthodox Bishops say otherwise....."

On the contrary, no one has said that. Julio has said repeatedly that *sometimes* the word means Judeans, and *sometimes* Jews in general.

Also, perhaps in quickly scanning my post, you missed my brief discussion of St John 7:1-2, which uses the term  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“ος in two different ways, and which happen to be the more common uses of the term in the entire New Testament. Otherwise, you would not say that I'm arguing for a single meaning of the term in every instance—indeed, you might have even seen my remark that the term is used unevenly throughout.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[ozgeorge]

On the contrary, no one has said that.

Marjorie,
I think I simply read too much into this:

2. JEW and JUDEAN are One the same thing (according to English and any other dictionary).
3. IBREI is not JEW, IBREI is HEBREW. IOUDEAN is JEW.

[observer]

I find it very interesting that SCOBA support this idea that the Judeans killed Christ (with Roman permission of course). The late Metropolitan Ioann of Petrograd did not think this way nor did many Russian heirarchs and saints.  May be this is a Slavic thing, but on second thoughts, I don't think so.  It 'smells' to me of EP political soup.  Some thing is cooking in the background, me thinks, maybe in a Lodge somewhere..  Now the Jews are no longer guilty of deicide: His blood be upon us an upon our children - must only refer to Judeans.... I must start studying the so-called "Orthodox" Study Bible for myself.

[ozgeorge]

The late Metropolitan Ioann of Petrograd did not think this way nor did many Russian heirarchs and saints.ÂÂ  May be this is a Slavic thing, but on second thoughts, I don't think so.ÂÂ  It 'smells' to me of EP political soup.ÂÂ  Some thing is cooking in the background, me thinks, maybe in a Lodge somewhere..ÂÂ  Now the Jews are no longer guilty of deicide: His blood be upon us an upon our children - must only refer to Judeans.... I must start studying the so-called "Orthodox" Study Bible for myself.

 I think it is a "Slavic" thing. And I think part of the reason for it is that the Russian Synodal Version translates "Judaean" as "Иудеи" and this is the same word for "Israelite" in Russian. There is no freemason plot on the part of the EP, just poor scholarship on the part of the Slavs.

Matthew 27:25 actually says:
"και αποκριθεις πας ο λαος ειπεν το αιμα αυτου εφ ÃƒÆ’ŽÂ·ÃŽÂ¼ÃŽÂ±Ãâ€š και επι τα τεκνα ημων."
Which translates into English as:
"And all the people answered, "His Blood be upon us and upon our children'."
"All the people"....SCOBA hasn't said anything that is not already in the Scriptures.

And if the Evangelist's intended meaning was that this refers only to the Jews, why doesn't he say "and all the Jews answered..." Yet he doesn't even say "and all the Judaeans answered...."

Was St. Matthew a freemason also?

[antiderivative]

I want to know more on the background of the book, Through the Dungeon Window. It was posthumously published, and if I'm not mistaken under the communist government in Serbia. The book is actually very contrary to much of his own actions. If one reads the Wikipedia article about St. Nikolai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Velimirovic), most of it is devoted to some big rant on his supposed antisemitism. It portrays so many assumptions as facts, such as claiming he was released from Dachau in 1944 and not actually liberated by U.S. troops in 1945. It makes it seem as if the account of him helping Jews escape is a fabrication, and says he had "special treatment" in prison. Does anyone know the complete origin of Through the Dungeon Window before it was published, or any record of its existence prior to being published?

[rakovsky]

Wow, the author really goes strong against Bishop Serbsky:

CANONIZING THE 'PROPHET' OF ANTI-SEMITISM: THE APOTHEOSIS OF BISHOP NIKOLAJ VELIMIROVIC AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF RELIGIOUS ANTI-SEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN SOCIETY
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342451.html

It mentions strangely:

at Dachau, for reasons that defy rational explanation, Velimirovic wrote some of his most anti-Semitic material.

Velimirovic's notes from Dachau, which he is said to have written surreptitiously on scraps of (toilet) paper, were assembled and edited only in the 1980s by his nephew, the former bishop of Sabac and Valjevo, Jovan Velimirovic. The work was first published in Germany in 1985

One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...

[Punch]

One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...

Of course the other obvious, but not politically correct, explanation could be that the Bishop’s views were based on Scriptural and Patristic writings, including the words of Christ Himself. 

[rakovsky]

One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...

Of course the other obvious, but not politically correct, explanation could be that the Bishop’s views were based on Scriptural and Patristic writings, including the words of Christ Himself.  

The obvious explanation is not that while undergoing Nazi tortures he was simply writing patristics on scraps of toilet paper, since he wrote:

All the modern catch-words of Europe have been composed by the Jews who crucified Christ, including democracy, and... pacifism

All these are the invention of Jews, or of the devil, the father of the Jews.

Everything else is less important or unimportant. But the most important thing is how Christian Europe managed to become the serving maid of the Jews...

That is not patristics. A saint under torture would most voluntarily and rationally write that "the most important thing" is to repent, love, hold fast to Jesus despite persecution, have faith, believe in God, obey the church, forgive, etc etc like so many other saints wrote while in prison.

It is not the most expected thing that a saint would voluntarily write on scraps of paper that "the most important thing" is that Jews or Satan invented "democracy" to make Europe serve the Jews, and that "everything else" like Jesus, defending Serbia, forgiveness, the Church, is unimportant.

In the Bible, it was only because the ancient Israelites couldn't rule themselves and wanted a king that God gave them one. So originally the ancient Israelites didn't have a king, but probably had assemblies of tribal elders like we see with other tent-dwelling peoples. Modern democracy originates from ancient Greece, the pre-Csarist Roman Senate, the 7th century Republic of Venice, the Veche of Novgorod, the medieval Polish parliament, and Russian peasant serf communes and peasants' councils.

It's anti-patristics to say that the "most important thing" is that European assembly-rule is from Jews or Satan, and that everything else like defending Serbia from Nazism, or holding fast to Jesus while tortured for one's Orthodox faith is less or unimportant.

It defies rational explanation that he wrote his strongest writings against Jews while tortured by Nazis for his faith. One defense made is that he was tortured into writing it, which sounds like a good explanation. The only problem is that he allegedly had some weaker antisemitism when he wasn't in prison.

[W.A.Mozart]

I need help... is there an English translation of the book Indijska pisma-Indian letters

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics > Topic: Saint Nikolaj Velimirovic