"In principio erat sermo" : Erasmus of Rotterdam delibarations of the meaning pf "Logos" in the first verse of the prologue of the Gospel of John

Streszcz. po ang., bibliogr.

The aim of this article is twofold. First of all, it is an attempt to introduce forgotten and rather overlooked text in Erasmian studies, namely Erasmus’ Apologia de loco "In principio erat sermo". Written and published in 1520, Apologia was a detailed answer to a controversy which aroused around Erasmus’ latin rendering of the first verse of Joannine Prologue. His arguments for rendering λόγος as sermo can be summarized on the basis of criteria of grammatical correctness and suitable style according to the rules of ancient rhetoric. These reasons based on the grammar and style obviously did not fulfill Erasmus’ commentary as he also paid attention to the universal nature of language (both divine and human), namely the relation between the word conceived in mind and uttered in language (λόγος ένδιάθετος - λόγος προφορικός). As such it is the second issue here discussed. Following Augustine’s and Hilary’s treatises on Holy Trinity, Erasmus not only took over their terminology as well as taxonomy, but he also focused on the inalienable limits of human language in expressing and describing mysteries of faith. What is also noticeable, Erasmus was keen to use scholastic terminology (introduced by Boethius and developed by Aquinas) in his strife with interpretation of the Prologue. His theological polemic with Edward Lee shows that he understood well the Trinitarian taxonomy used in the Middle Ages, especially the question of the use of the article and anarthrous constructions of Greek syntax. The abundance of quotations from Erasmus’ and his predecessors’ works and commentaries illustrates syncretic on fact sources and nature of Trinitarian discourse in the threshold of modern times. This large corpus of associations, beginning with Origen, along with terminological provisions made by First Council of Nicaea, Church Fathers of forth and fifth century and finally metaphysical language of scholastic theology, features Erasmus’ work as an important and still not appreciated stage in the whole process of shaping theological terminology in Latin language. The very meaning of the key notions remained rather unaltered but the method of using them was distinctively modified. Clarity of language used in the theological controversies and sticking to the scope of orthodoxy was the major purpose of such strategy. After all, this paper may serve as an introduction to further studies concerning the foundations and origins of philosophical hermeneutics (in Gadamer's term) which are, as I have tried to give some of the convincing evidences, inherent in Erasmus’ thoughts on language.