Perspectives on Sermo and Verbum

4 hours ago34 min read

« Le Mot, c´est le Verbe, c´est Dieu »--Victor Hugo, Contemplations, 1856

by Dr. Carlos Donate Alvira

Introduction

Years ago, when I was learning Latin, I came across the term that is the standard for word—it was verbum. Then while I also learned French in High School, I read Victor Hugo´s Contemplations, and came across the word “mot” which also means “word”, as does Verbe. This last term is a reference to Jesus Christ taken from the Latin Vulgate. As a Baptist, I thought both Verbe in French and Verbo in Spanish were “bad” translations. I expressed my opinions about them, and other words and phrases in a book condemning the Westcott and Hort textual additions, omissions and changes in modern translations stemming from corrupt manuscripts, and the Latin Vulgate. I still believe there is a lot of textual error in modern biblical translations, but in regards to this particular word, I have now come to realize it´s validity in our Bible. Having studied the issue more thoroughly, my research has produced a much greater outlook of “el Verbo”. I now understand that Verbo is indeed a legitimate translation for Logos. I am not against brothers and sisters whose Spanish translation says Palabra. What I am against is those who think Verbo is wrong.

In the discussion between proponents of the Latin sermo versus the Latin verbum, the bottom line is, who do we say is Christ? What is our definition of the Second Person of the Trinity? What are the theological implications that exist, if any, from translating the Johannie prologue from the Latin?

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:13-16 KJV

The same old question that was being asked way before Augustine, Jerome or Erasmus is being asked today by certain well intentioned people who have re-opened the old philological debate regarding the Incarnate Word. They are asking us what we believe about the Logos. These folks are questioning, and even impugning the legitimacy of how John 1:1 is being worded in our Spanish Bible which reads:

“En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.”

The Word in question is “Verbo”. This is the translation of the Greek Logos, or “Word”.

There are Catholics, Protestants and cults such as Jehovah Witnesses that render it as “Palabra”. Their authority for “Palabra” comes from Erasmus of Rotterdam, who offered the Latin word sermo in his 1519 Greek-Latin New Testament. Sermo means “speech”. His contribution of sermo as speech influenced humanists, rhetoricians, educators, linguists, and philologists of his day, such as Juan Luis Vives, the Valencian Spaniard who befriended and “overshadowed” him, and whose work on educational reform affected the Renaissance.

“Speech is the only benefit man hath to express his excellency of mind above other creatures. It is the instrument of society. In all speech, words and sense are as the body and soul. The sense is as the life and soul of language without which all words are dead. Sense is wrought out of experience, the knowledge of human life and action, or of the liberal arts, which the Greeks call 'Έγκυκλοαιδείαν. Words are the people's, yet there is a choice of them to be made; for verborum delectus origo est eloqitentiae. They are to be chose[n] according

to the persons we make speak, or the things we speak of^" --Tradendis Disciplinis, page 37

No doubt linguists of his day looked up to Erasmus for a deeper, more humane understanding of expression. Grammatically speaking, Erasmus argued that sermo in Latin is a masculine noun, as is the Greek logos; common sense, he said, would be to render an equivalent noun in Latin. He´s right! Verbum, the other Latin choice, is a neutral gendered noun. However, in Spanish, where it matters to us, early translators chose a feminine gendered noun, “la Palabra”. It is possible they were all following the trend to make sermo mean Palabra, a choice which has divided Hispania ever since, given the gender problem. Thus, in some Catholic and Protestant Bibles, and in the New World Translation (Jehovah´s Witnesses) in Spanish the verse reads: “En el principio era la Palabra”.

Do we really need a Spanish Bible that makes the Word a female? I can hear proponents for Palabra say, “But Brother Carlos, isn´t “Puerta”, and “Luz” all female nouns that refer back to Christ?” My answer is “yes”. However, the verse in question is not any of the other references that read “puerta” (the door) or “luz” (the light), etcetera. The truth the Apostle John is revealing is that “the Word is God”. God is masculine! Therefore, a feminine noun describing the Name of God in verse 1 seems awkward to many Hispanics.

So why are there differences in the Latin translation of the Logos? I think it was due to regional differences. Not all Latin speaking peoples of the entire Roman Empire back then spoke a standard, universal Latin, that is, not until perhaps after the VII Century. Prior to the III Century, Latinists basically divided Latin into two basic categories:

(a) European Latin

(b) African Latin

Whether or not this bifurcation of Latinity affected the use of certain words is hard to ascertain, but not impossible to accept. We must remember that the Old Latin spoken by the common class had admixture of paganism with Christianity, as attested by Dr. Antonio Moreno Hernandez. Dr. Hernández wrote an article entitled “La Vetus Latina Y La Confrontación Cultural Entre Paganismo Y Cristianismo” or “The Vetus Latina and the Cultural Confrontation between Paganism and Christianity”. (See Antigüedades Cristianas, Murcia, VII, 1990). He mentions that the Vetus Latina (not as Scripture, but the language itself) was unorganized, varied, and clashed with Roman tradition which also had elements of Greek. The VL was spoken in Europe and Northern Africa. Christians and non-Christians spoke it openly. Some have theorized it was also used and even developed by Jews, an idea most scholars are still debating. Hernandez concludes that there was no definite “Old Latin Bible”, but rather much variety, given its uncontrolled development and partial usage in Scripture. He quotes early “Fathers” whose mix of the Old and the New Latin reflected this phenomenon. This was why the RCC, after the IV Century, needed to unify and standardize and even purify Latin from pagan notions.

However, why did the Catholic Church choose verbum? Isn´t the Latin Vulgate corrupt? My response is that even though the RCC is hopelessly in error in so many doctrines, they are nonetheless in truth in some others, especially in the matter of the Holy Trinity. Verbum identifies the Person of Christ as a single word—the Word. Augustine defined him as “a vehicle of thought”, which meant he bears all the words of God since all eternity. According to Erasmus, Sermo was more precise because it described all the words of God. So, whenever Tertullian and others cited sermo, they were referring to all the words of Christ. Was he a master Latin linguist? Indeed he was. But his apology in favor of sermo is irrelevant to the issue. Our issue is the Spanish Bible! Herein he failed miserably. Erasmus opened “a can of worms” when at first he refused to include the Comma Johannie (1st John 5:7) which strongly defines the Trinity, and was therefore being accused of Arianism. He was a Hellenist at heart, comparing Christ to Prometheus or Proteus. In fact, sermo has an old Greek connotation to Hermes, a.k.a. as “Mercury” in pre-Catholic Rome, as we´ll see below. Mercurius, or Mercury, was Pope John II´s real name back in 553 a.d. He decided to change his name given the Roman pagan connotation. So for these reasons and much more, the RCC was at odds with Erasmus. They were not sure he was being poetical, or heretical. Albert Hyma, in his article on Erasmus which appears in the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, says “his aim was peaceful reform, not revolt”.

Now, we must address the position of proponents for sermo/Palabra. Some of them have written extensively defending Erasmus´ choice here. There is an ongoing debate between us Hispanics. Some of us use a Spanish revision that uses Verbo and others with Palabra.

Let us now consider the perspectives regarding the translation of Sermo and Verbum.

MR. STEFANO ARDUINI

Mr. Stefano Arduini´s internet Power Point presentation entitled “Metaphor, figurative language and translation: Some Essential Questions” is available at http://img.forministry.com/E/E2/E20E8F77-F498-4BA5-BF6BE722491C5963/DOC/Nida_school_2008_II_(Arduini).ppt Some of Mr. Arduini´s material is rather cumbersome to understand, but it’s his final slides and explanations relating to the translation of sermo and verbum that sheds some light as to their particular implications in theology. Before I cite Arduini, let´s see what Wikipedia has to say about him:

Stefano Arduini (born 1956) is a scholar of linguistics, rhetoric, semiotics and translation. He is Professor of General Linguistics and Semiotics at the University of Urbino (Italy), and Director of the European Centre for Publishing there. Arduini majored in Linguistics at the University of Bologna and was subsequently awarded a doctorate in Linguistics by the University of Pisa.

He is Senior Advisor to the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship in New York. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Alicante and at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, and an Honorary Professor at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos of Lima (Peru).

He is the editor of Koiné, a journal for translation studies, and a member of the editorial board of the journals Hermeneus (University of Valladolid, Spain) and Tonos, Revista de Estudios Filólogicos (University of Murcia, Spain). He is also on the advisory board of the journal Logo (University of Salamanca, Spain) and of the series Quintiliano, Retórica y Comunicación (University of Rioja, Spain).

No doubt this man knows a few things about linguistics and philology. However, please notice that Mr. Arduini is or was closely related to Mr. Eugene Albert Nida and the United Bible Society.

Arduini begins his discussion of sermo versus verbum by asking:

“Have you ever considered the semantic, cultural, and ideological consequences of mistranslation? What is gained by translating logos with verbum? What is lost? What is gained by translating logos with sermo? What is lost? To what extent does research into figurative language help us understand the gains and losses?

Arduini now enumerates and quotes Biblical translations of John 1:1 from numerous sources.

He then comes to a serious question: “But translating logos into verbum raises a few questions.” He proceeds to quote the definitions of logos according to early Latin thinkers.

LOGOS ACCORDING TO GREEK MENTALITY

The Greek term logos is strongly polysemous. It does mean 'word', but in Homer, for instance, it appears only twice with this meaning and only in its plural form. In fact, it can also mean the following:

expression, way of saying;
saying, telling, but also rumor, renown, news;
discourse, conversation, dialogue, discussion;
tale, narration, scientific and literary genres;
reason and reasoning;
explanation, justification, account, counting;
opinion, assessment;
relationship, correspondence, ratio, rationale, analogy;
divine idea or thought (e.g, in Plotinus).

He´s right—sermo has polysemous applications. Too many applications can be misleading, and the enemy could use it to create some false idea about the Logos. However, just because the word sermo is polysemous doesn´t mean that early Latin Christian writers actually embraced any sort of Greek pagan philosophy. Plotinus actually despised Gnosticism (see A.H. Armstrong, “The Cambridge History of Later Greek & Early Medieval Philosophy”, Cambridge University Press, 1967) although it would often creep into Christian thought. For this reason some Protestant Spanish Bibles since the 1800´s began to revise in John 1:1 and ever since say:

“y el Verbo es Dios”

Much better! It makes no sense to Hispanics to use a feminine Name like Palabra in reference to a masculine gendered God. Further on, we will demonstrate how “el Verbo” became the best option for translating Logos into Latin, then Spanish. There were numerous experts involved in the decision process, including theologians, linguists, philologists and rhetoricians. Their perspectives helped in the choosing a word that best fits the biblical narrative in John´s prologue.

LATIN DEFINITION OF THE LOGOS

Arduini continues his explanation of the logos, and now does so according to early Latin thinkers by listing its multiple uses: Latin translation of logos include ratio, sermo, oratio, verbum (which is closer to the Greek lexis, onoma, or sema.)

He´s right, but doesn´t mention the aforementioned case for a masculine gendered noun in John 1:1. We concur that sermo can be a number of things elsewhere. Now Arduini gets into actual implications of the respective ways of translating the logos.

“The history of translation and interpretation of Logos has had enormous consequences in the formulation of Christian orthodoxy. What are some of these?”

“Enormous consequences in the formulation of Christian orthodoxy”—this is of interest to me. Here we have an expert linguist philologist saying that words, especially those coming from pagan Rome and Greece, can affect formulations of Christian orthodoxy. I will expound on this later on when we get to Dr. William M. Short´s article. Let us continue with Arduini´s PowerPoint presentation.

Early conceptions of the Sermo/logos included “the idea of ideas”, “co-eternal, but not in the same sense”, etcetera. Later on early Christian writers, according to Arduini, tried to reconcile Pagan Greek philosophy of the logos in a Christian way. He mentions the writings of Justin, Eusebius of Cesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Cyrus, Gregory of Nazanzio, and Cyprian, whose biblical quote from John1:1 at first says sermo, but verbum later on. He mentions Novatian, who uses sermo and verbum interchangeably in other passages and in other contexts. Arduini quotes from De Trinitate:

"Verbum made itself into flesh and lived among us; in this way, it really had our body, because sermo really takes up our flesh".

Noticed the usage of both terms? Arduini now quotes Tertullian, famous for his usage of sermo. Tertullian understood Logos to be not just sermo, but ratio and virtus as well! This is a three-fold characterization of the Logos. Here is the quote from Apologeticum:

“Even among your wise men (Hellenistic philosophers), logos--which means sermo and ratio--was the creator of the universe (21, 10). For us too (Christians), sermo and ratio, as well as virtus through which God created everything, are but one substance which we consider the spirit. Sermo is in Him in so far as it pronounces itself, ratio assists when He decrees, and virtus presides when He accomplishes His work (21, 11).”

Note Tertullian’s three-fold, polysemous view of Logos: sermo (speech), ratio (rationality or reason) and virtus (power). Again, he quotes Tertullian,

“God is rational and ratio is in Him first, therefore everything proceeds from Him. This ratio is His mind. The Greeks called it logos, a term we use also to say sermo. This is why we usually translate in a simple way ´sermo was originally with God´. However, it would be better to consider ratio older, because God is not a speaker since the beginning but He is rational even before the beginning, and also because sermo, which consists in ratio, shows that it is preceded by the latter as far as substance is concerned. But it makes no difference. In fact, even when God had not spoken His sermo yet, He already had ratio and He had sermo in Himself. He was silently thinking and arranging within Himself that which he would later say by means of sermo… (5, 2-7).

In Apologeticum 21.17, Tertullian also used “Verbum Dei” in reference to the LOGOS, the Word of God!

“Quem igitur hominem solummodo praesumpserant de humilitate, sequebatur, uti magum aestimarent de potestate, cum ille verbo daemonia de hominibus excuteret, caecos reluminaret, leprosos purgaret, paralyticos restringeret, mortuos denique verbo redderet vitae, elementa ipsa famularet compescens procellas et freta ingrediens, ostendens se esse verbum dei id est LOGON illud primordiale, primogenitum, virtute et ratione comitatum et spiritu fultum, eundem qui verbo omnia et faceret et fecisset.”

Translation taken from http://archive.org/stream/apologydespectac00tertuoft#page/110/mode/2up:

“From his lowly guise they took him to be merely a man; so it followed that, confronted by his power they counted him a magician. For with a word he drove devils out of men, he gave light again to the blind, he cleansed the lepers, he braced up the paralytic, and to crown all he restored the dead to life by his word; he made the very elements his servants, he controlled the storm, he walked on the sea—showing he is the LOGOS of God, that is, the Word, original and first-begotten of God, attested by power and reason, upheld by Spirit, the same being who by his word still made us and made all things.”

Arduini sums up Tertullian analogy of sermo by saying simply:

Sermo is speech faculty
Sermo is the dialogical idea of logos
Sermo is a process rather than a static entity; it is that which can generate a creative force which in the beginning acted according to ratio.

Arduini´s final polysemous definition of the Logos in terms of rationality, and power comes from Lactantius, a North African Christian writer, or as humanists called him, “the Christian Cicero”, who lived from 240 a.d.-320 a.D. It is Arduini´s second quote of Lactantius (Divine Institutes) that caught my attention:

“Logos means both sermo and ratio, because it is the voice and the wisdom of God at a time. Not even Pagan philosophers ignore this divine sermo (4, 9). Logos represents God’s creative power.”

So here we have in summary what early Christians believed prior to the 4th Century. The Logos was being contextualized as a spoken force, divine and wise, but somewhat impersonal. It was a mixture of Pagan, platonic and Gnostic reasoning with Latin Christian doctrine. Next, Mr. Arduini mentions the man who did away with the polysemous, pagan understanding of the word Logos—Augustine of Hippo.

Arduini says that Augustine defined the Logos as verbum, “an individual word”. Arthur Hilary Armstrong, quoting from De Trinitate, says that Augustine used verbum to convey meaning, such as a vehicle of thought. In other words, in a vehicle called verbum (one thing) there can be many words incorporated, such as phrases, proverbs, and commandments. Still, it is one “vehicle”. What was Augustine trying to explain? He was trying to make people believe in the Person of Christ, because he sustained that the ultimate object of faith were not the words, speeches, reasoning’s nor discourses, but rather God´s Word (singular)—indeed, Jesus Christ Himself. He was trying to make the mind focus on the individuality of Christ, rather than in words themselves. With this standardization, Augustine eliminated the term’s dialogical implications. By this he meant that Christ should not be conceived as a semi-god negotiating between the living and the dead (See Short´s article below). The Logos assumes a more individual divine Persona, along with the Holy Spirit, separate from the Father, yet equal with Him, in other words, the Divine Trinity.

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” –Hebrews 1:1,2 KJV

According to Arduini, Augustine said that Jesus is that Divine Verbum-Logos possessed with individual will to create, to impart life, and light, and to destroy as well. The Divine Verbum-Logos takes the form of a human being to communicate His truth to man´s senses. Augustine was instrumental in standardizing the entire doctrine of the Word´s incarnation. No more monistic definitions of the Logos. No more impersonal “Reason” (sermo) by Philo.

“Philo, in his synthesis of Judaism and Greek thought, naturally hit upon the Logos as a union between the systems; hence his Logos retains qualities both of the Stoic Logos and the Hebrew Word of God. Philo's God is remote, unaffected by the world, without attributes, unmoving; hence He must have mediation to connect Him with the world. At times Philo's Logos is independent of God (because of God's remoteness); at other times the Logos is simply the Reason of God (because Philo's monism obliges God to act in the world through His mediating forces).” See the Farlex Free Dictionary Online under Logos, first entry.

No longer would Latin Christians confuse Christ´s gender with a feminine pronoun. This then settled the issue of sermo versus verbum within Latin Christianity. Augustinian rhetoric becomes the standard definition of the Logos and what follows is a 1,000 years of countless essays and copies of the Scriptures that render the Greek logos as Verbum in John 1:1. However, Augustine didn´t actually “reject” sermo in other passages! In his classic work, Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium 108.3, he said sermo was a valid alternative to verbum, but only in verses dealing with the words of God. That explains why Catholic Bibles have both verbum and sermo in other passages! See the list below. He was not trying to “change God´s name”.

Arduini now jumps to the Middle Ages to re-examine Logos, under the separate thinker and philologist of Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus was a Dutch humanist who argued in favor of a more polysemous definition of the logos. In Arduini´s words, “Preserving sermo would mean preserving the original polysemy because it offers a wider interpretative spectrum. Verbum would weaken the metaphor's power to produce diverse interpretations and would narrow it down towards one direction only.”

Erasmus argued that both terms were orthodox. To him they were synonymous in doctrine. See Apologia, 114A, 115A, 115C, 121D. What it became later on, however, was a tool so that others would once again begin to argue over the definition of the Logos.

Arduini makes several other comments in his PowerPoint presentation. One of the last things he does is to summarize the definition of both sermo and verbum on a theological plane:

“Sermo implies a theology of dialogue”. This is the broad definition of God´s words in general.
“Verbum implies a theology of monologue”. This is the proper Name of the Incarnate Word.

MARGARET O´ROURKE BOYLE

Let´s now consider the opinions of Margaret O´Rourke Boyle. Boyle´s essay (see “A Companion to Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism” by Jost and Olmstead, Blackwell Publishing) describes humanism´s triumph by Erasmus´ assertion of sermo.

“Erasmus marshals two arguments in defense of sermo: a bold transformation of the new philology into theological method and a submissive appeal to Christian tradition”.

Boyle begins to present Erasmus´ reasons for the change: first, as a new method for translating; second, to authenticate patristic quotes of sermo. Boyle and others argue that Patristic writers used Sermo and this proves it (sermo) was the authentic reading in John´s Gospel in Latin. But patristic readings demonstrate the reverse—they quote both. We must remember that quotes are often made from memory, and perhaps they quote from a variety of editions or versions. I can quote a verse from the NIV, that doesn´t mean the NIV is authentic!

So, Tertullian did use sermo quite a bit, but in Apologeticum 21.17, Tertullian also used “Verbum Dei” in reference to the LOGOS, the Word of God!

Translation taken from

http://archive.org/stream/apologydespectac00tertuoft#page/110/mode/2up:

What about Novatian? He too is often mentioned in defense of Sermo. But the fact is he too used Verbum. Thus, we read in his treatise entitled De Trinitate 13.2 we read, “Verbum autem hoc erat in principio apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum.” Or in English, « The Word also was in the beginning with God, and God was the Word. »

To this I add Dr. Marcel Battailon’s opinion found in his classical “Erasme et Espagne” or “Erasmo y España” (Erasmus and Spain) published by Fondo de Cultura Económica; ISBN- 968-16-1069-5, which quotes Erasmus who is on record for saying that his Latin New Testament “was not intended to replace the Vulgate, and that it was best read in private chambers by a select group of persons.” See the Bataillon´s book, pages 115-117.

She continues:

“The distinctive usage of sermo and verbum by classical authors substantiates Erasmus’ preference for sermo. The noun verbum signifies a word or a brief saying, such as a proverb or maxim; it is also frequently used to designate a definite part of speech, the verb, rhema. Its restricted application, therefore, does not satisfy the denotation of logos as speech rather than word. In the note on John 1:2 Erasmus explains, first, sermo more perfectly explains why the evangelist wrote logos, because among Latin speakers verbum does not

express speech as a whole, but one particular saying.”

Boyle correctly underscores Erasmus´ grammatical reasoning. He insists that Christ as Logos encompasses far more than just a word. To him, the single personified “word” sets limitations to the all-inclusiveness of the Logos. However, this broad Latin definition is simply taken out of context by Erasmus, as John 1:1, 2, 14, 1st John 5:7 and Revelation 19:13 are all referring to the Person of Christ, not the collectivity of His words.

Again, Boyle.

“Erasmus repeats that there is ‘‘no difference’’ between sermo and verbum… What he means is that there is no difference for orthodoxy whether one expresses Christ as sermo or verbum, since the Fathers use them interchangeably. Since the Church has not pronounced, the translation is not a matter for consensus,

but one that allows variety. In the annotation of John 1:2 Erasmus had stated, ‘‘My design lies in this: where variety is greater, more benefit proceeds.’’

Boyle underscores Erasmus´ assertion that doctrinally he saw nothing wrong with either sermo or verbum, but that sermo opens the discussion to variety and therefore to several interpretations. Also, the Church has in fact pronounced itself in favor of the Trinity in its Dei Verbum. However, the Trinity remains a doctrine which is still questioned by other certain proponents of sermo/Palabra.

Boyle continues:

In his textbook on composition, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, Erasmus had already instructed his schoolboy readers in the art of varying language by synonymy. Copious language is a ‘‘divine excellence.’’ ‘‘There is nothing more admirable or more splendid than a speech with a rich copia of thoughts and words overflowing in a golden stream,’’ he had instructed. Nature itself rejoices in variety. People more eagerly examine what is polished new by the art of copiousness. Without the variety of Proteus, the whole profit of speech is lost upon a bored audience. Why, then, should the Church, the community of divine oratory, weary men with homologous language? Copiousness is a sign of an eloquent Church.

Here we see once more that Erasmus is more poetical in his choice for sermo and other synonyms.

Boyle:

“Five times in his apology and at the beginning of his annotations on the Gospel of John also he reiterates that he only intended the translation for private reading in chambers. He disclaims any intention to rival the publicly read version of the text.”

As stated earlier, Erasmus was simply trying to offer an alternate, private reading, and wasn´t trying to question the legitimacy for verbum. Another author concurs with Boyle, in that Erasmus´ linguistic praxis in producing the Sermo edition beginning in 1519 is better understood as a “paraphrase” rather than an authoritative edition of the Latin Scriptures. See Mary Jane Barnett. Here is the link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2863366.

ERASMUS AND THE GENDER ISSUE

Margaret O´Rourke Boyle said, “Erasmus enlarges these arguments with two others. Surely, he persuades, the gender of sermo (male), which agrees with Christ, commends itself more than the neuter noun verbum.” This is true, however, in Spanish, as we have stated, the word Palabra is feminine, and Verbo is masculine, therefore the reverse argument is applicable to Erasmus who presented this argument in favor of sermo in his Apología.

Much more is said by Boyle and her opinions about Erasmus. Boyle delivers a powerful, but humanistic argument in favor of Sermo. In summary, Erasmus´ sole defense for sermo can be demonstrated in the following equation—

Sermo = Patristic Quotations + a broad rhetorical sense.

As we saw, patristic quotes are not 100% in favor of Sermo. Neither does Boyle relate its significance to the Spanish Bible. Nowhere in her essay is this addressed.

DR. WILLIAM M. SHORT

Now we come to Professor William Michael Short´s article entitled “Mercury in the Middle: Sermo Between the Discursive and the Divine”. The entire article can be read by clicking to the following link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1590514

Does it matter what pre-Christian Romans or Latins thought of Sermo? Dr. Short discusses in length the direct link that existed in the minds of pre-Christian Roman citizens whenever the term sermo was invoked. Ancient Rome had inherited much of Greek pagan culture, and in Greece there was a deity called Hermes, the semi-god of speech, mediating between the divine and the mundane. In Rome, Hermes was likened to Mercury.

Why is this so significant? Let us not forget that Barnabas and Paul were erroneously perceived as Jupiter and Mercury respectively.

“And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein”. Acts 14:12-15 KJV

The Bible teaches that men can make the mistake of associating their religious beliefs with paganism! If Paul could be confused with Mercurius or Mercury (or Hermes who is Sermo), then it stands that Sermo can be confused with somebody other than the Lord Jesus Christ! Paul said that “Jesus” is God. He called upon them to turn to Christ, and away from vanities. Today, millions of erred people think they are worshipping the Lord Jesus, when in fact they are worshipping vanities. Therefore, Dr. Short rightly says that Sermo has linkage to ancient Roman deities. As someone else has already said, “this is a bad shadow to cast upon Christ”.

Furthermore, Dr. Short makes reminds his readers that Sermo was also the patron of thieves! How could this be? Dr. Short:

“As we already known, Mercury is the god of speech, but in this capacity he is also the god of silence – these being contrary or rather complementary aspects of verbal communication: as Bettini (2000, 19) notes,[ parlare e tacere sono due facce di una stessa moneta, e Hermes, signore della comunicazione, le possiede entrambe]. Mercury‘s presence signals the interruption of speech, as emphasized by Plutarch‘s mention of a Greek custom according to which whenever silence occurs in some conversation, they say Hermes has entered the room.. Similarly, in Ovid‘s telling of Mercury‘s theft of Apollo‘s cattle (Met. 2.676-707), the old man Battus receives a cow from the god in exchange for his silence: when he betrays the god, Mercury turns him into stone –.the paradigm of inanimate silence. (Anderson 1997, 314). The belief that Mercury‘s presence brings about silence probably also relates to the god‘s patronage of thieves and his ability to silence the barking of dogs: in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, for example, Hermes went straight back again to the shining peaks of Cyllene, and no one encountered him on the long journey, nor did any dog bark… he went straight through the cave and into the rich inner chamber making no noise. (142-9).” Short´s article, page 17.

But of special interest to me is what Augustine said of sermo, which is interesting, because some have said that Erasmus ignored why Augustine chose for verbum instead of sermo. Had he read De Civitate 7.14 he would have found:

“quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius (sicut ea, quae de illo interpretantur, ostendunt, nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius, ideo et Ἑρμῆς Graece, quod sermo vel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinent, ἑρμηνεία dicitur, ideo et mercibus praeesse quia inter vendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare volucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur) – si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. ”

Translation:

“But if sermo itself is said to be Mercury (as what they explain about him demonstrates: for Mercury is said to have been named, as it were, medius currens because sermo runs in the middle between men; and he is Hermes in Greek, because sermo or translation, which at any rate pertains to sermo, is called hermeneia; and so he is also in charge of trade, because sermo occurs in the middle between buyers and sellers; the wings, too, which he has on his head and on his feet, they say mean that sermo is conveyed wingedly through the air; he is also said to have been called the messenger, because by means of sermo all our thoughts are expressed) – if, I say, Mercury himself is sermo, then even by their own confession he is not a god.”

Augustine rejected Sermo as a reference to the Person and Name of Christ “the Logos”, that is, as a proper noun, on the basis of its ancient correlation to Hermes, a semi-god, and therefore by default, not God at all! According to the mystical view of Mercury (or Hermes), he mediated between the living and the dead (page 17), which in my own opinion really conjures the idea of a medium, rather than a mediator; he was “the mythic embodiment of ambiguity and ambivalence, doubleness and duplicity, contradiction and paradox” (page 17, a quote from Hyde, 1998, 7). Nonetheless, sermo was used elsewhere by Augustine to refer to the words of God, as was verbum.

JEHOVAH´S WITNESSES

Why do Jehovah´s Witnesses render the Greek logos as Palabra in their Spanish version of the Scriptures? It is obvious that the Palabra allured by JW´s isn´t the same Palabra to Christians. Who is this pseudo-Palabra in JW doctrine? The “Palabra”, according to JW´s, is he who was created by Jehovah God to transmit his sayings, not Christ´s, who in this case was simply an assisting agent in God´s creation. This definition denies Christ´s deity. Heracleon, a 2nd Century Gnostic, and disciple of Valentinus, taught that the logos was not the Creator, but a means by which creation was brought about. His thesis has been the basic tenet for those who reject the Incarnate Word. His reference to logos has been used by Gnostics ever since. Heracleon said:

“All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.” The sentence: "All things were made through him" means the world and what is in it. It excludes what is better than the world. The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word. . . “Without him, nothing was made” of what is in the world and the creation. . . "All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge) to make the world, that is it was not the Word “from whom” or “by whom,” but the one “through whom (all things were made).”. . . It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, for "through whom" means that another made them and the Word provided the energy.”

Google search Origen´s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Fragment 1, on John 1:3.

I would hate to have a Spanish Bible that matches and reads just like the JW´s in John 1:1! New World Translators refused to use Verbum because it made Christ a Person equal with the Father.

LATIN BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS

These all show Verbum in John 1:1. There are about 450 old Latin manuscripts of the Bible, many which can be researched online. They all read “In principio erat Verbum”. I have had numerous contacts with Dr. Hugh Houghton, an expert on Latin biblical manuscripts. Here is what he said when I asked him about Latin biblical manuscripts:

“Dear Carlos, We have almost 450 manuscripts of John in Latin copied before the year 1000. None of these has 'sermo' in John 1:1. No Christian writer quotes John 1:1 with sermo after the year 500 (until Beza introduces it in his translation). So for at least 1000 years (and probably always) 'verbum' was the standard Latin reading.”

Interestingly, some people say that the Inquisition destroyed all the evidence in favor of sermo. Even if this were true, why would the RCC agree to publish a famous Bible in 1280 containing the reading? Another distorted accusation is that Latin Bibles featured online are “illuminated”, thus corrupt, and were never intended to circulate freely in the hands of Latin Christians. The accusation is intended to prove that Latin Bibles were not accessible to ordinary people, but were exclusively for the very wealthy or members of the clergy. However, the very fact that these Bibles were illuminated attests to their value, at least for collation by researchers. They were thus spared, or survived destruction. Besides, well documented historians have also said that reading levels in those days were not the same as ours today. Access to biblical codices would have been much more limited to all. Nonetheless, in North Africa, for example, biblical texts and books may have been available in churches or at the houses of lectors. Court records of the time describe how Bibles were widely available, even on sale in public markets. For more on this, see H.A.G. Houghton, Augustine´s text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts, 2008, Oxford University Press, Part II, page 22.

The oldest Latin codex containing Verbum is the 4th Century Codex Vercellensis. A thorough study of it online will show that it is anything but illuminated. On the contrary, it looks like a well-read Bible! Some have even suggested that the RCC is hiding the real evidence in the Beuron Monastery, from which “no one who enters is ever permitted to leave”. However, Dr. Houghton says:

“Beuron: several of my colleagues have visited Beuron and we collaborate closely with the Vetus Latina-Institute. Of course, as a monastery, Beuron is a secluded place, although recognized academics are able to apply to visit. But the majority of the resources they have assembled are available online in the "Vetus Latina Database" (www.brepolis.net), and there is little if anything else at the monastery for the study of the Old Latin versions that is not available elsewhere. There is absolutely no evidence for a conspiracy: all the evidence is available in the libraries of the world, and if Beuron were to keep something hidden it would reduce the value of the scholarly editions which the Vetus Latina-Institute is producing.

Best wishes,

Hugh Houghton

www.itsee.bham.ac.uk www.vetuslatina.org www.iohannes.comI

nstitute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing,

School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion,

University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT,”

“VERBO” IS CATHOLIC?

Certain sermo-only proponents quote the Catholic Felipe Scio de San Miguel Spanish translation of the Scriptures as “evidence”, stating that Scio, the Spanish priest/Bible translator was the first to publish “el Verbo” back in 1793. However, this is not so. The Pre-Alfonse Bible which dates about 1280 was the actual first romanced Spanish translation which has Verbo. See http://www.bibliamedieval.es/indice.html. Some people think that Roman Catholics teach that the Verbum of John 1:1 is somebody other than Jesus Christ. However, Scio himself clearly identifies Verbo/Verbum as the incarnate Christ. Below is his literal translated comment taken from e-sword.com, under Scio´s notes on John 1:1.

“The Verb is God, the life and light that shines on all men. By Him were all things made, and He made man. John the Baptist gives witness of Him by saying that he was unworthy to untie the strings of His shoes, confessing Him to be the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. Because of this and other testimonies which John the Baptist gives, Andrew, Peter, Phillip and Nathaniel came to Christ. The Verb is the interior word of God, His wisdom, the perfect image, that knowing who He was, conformed Himself to it. This Verb was before all times; (He) was with God from all eternity, from the beginning, being God Himself and equal to Him from whence He proceeds. The Word denotes the eternity of the Verb, according to St. Augustine. The Greek: pros ton theon, and the Latin apud Deum, some interpret as ´the Verb was God´; others say “face to face with God”. These expressions indicate the distinction between the person of the Verb from the person of the Father, just as the phrase ´the Verb of God´ clearly indicates the unity of the divine essence.”

Scio de San Miguel understood that Deus is a masculine gendered Latin word which needed an equally masculine gendered Spanish noun to describe Word. I´m not trying to justify the rest of their errors, but when it comes to the clear identification of the Word or Verbum, there is no doubt but that they believe as we do, that He, the Logos in John 1:1, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, God Himself, made flesh:

“Verbum caro factum est.”

The reader must know that “Verbo” in Spanish is not just a part of speech, but also a noun, a vocable, and the Proper name designation for the 2nd Person of the Trinity. See Vox, RAE, LaRousse, etc. Spanish linguist and philologist Dr. Maria L. Guzman wrote a scholarly essay entitled “En Torno a la Valorización Semántico del Término Verbo” (La Laguna University, Canary Islands; Translation: “Regarding the Semantic Value of The Term Verb”), in which she explains how in Spanish the word “verbo” was deemed the best choice by theologians to describe the Incarnate Christ. She says,

“Los padres de la iglesia fueron los primeros traductores de la Biblia del griego al latín; los que se hallaron ante el dilema de considerar logos en una de sus dos posibilidades y ante la duda optaron, como solución intermedia, por el significante del verbo.”

Translation: “Church fathers were the first translators of the Bible from Greek to Latin; whom, confronted with the dilemma of choosing between two possibilities, opted, as an intermediate solution, for the significance of Verbo.” But by saying “intermediate”, she isn´t acquiescing to the biblical meaning of Logos as Verbo; she is in fact admitting there are other acceptations to logos. Secular scholars must be impartial to other academic fields of study, so there are sufficient grounds for using not just “verbo”, but “razón”, “discurso”, “palabra” and a host of other terms when talking about logos in general.

Likewise, Spanish philosopher/musician Salvador Villegas Guillén rejects Verbum saying it should have been translated as “reason”. He says “Beauty and darkness compete in the first few verses of Saint John’s Gospels. Clearly, any reading of the cryptic passage depends on the interpretation of the Greek term logos, whose meaning must be found in the prevailing trends of thought on the verge of the 2nd century, to be precise in neo-Pythagoreanism and neo-Platonism, which are very mixed up in these times. It is in Mathematics where the solution may be found”. (See “Una Interpretación Matemática Del Evangelio de San Juan 1, 1-3; Ediciones Clásicas, 2010, Madrid.) Guillén does not blame Jerome, but his Latin grammarian Elio Donato for the theological interpretation of the Logos. Guillén also quotes a Jesuit priest named Chamizo Domínguez who said: Yo siempre he tenido para mí que la historia intelectual de occidente hubiera sido muy otra si San Jerónimo hubiera traducido ese inicio como “In principio erat ratio” en lugar de como lo tradujo: “In principio erat verbum”. Chamizo Domínguez, P.J. «Verdad y futuro: el ensayo como versión moderna del diálogo filosófico, No. 12, Málaga University, 2004». In English it says “I have always thought that intellectual history of the West had been different if St. Jerome would have translated the prologue as “In the beginning was reason” instead of “In the beginning was the Word.” It doesn´t surprise me that a Jesuit would think of the Logos in terms of Plato and his epic Timaeus. Jesuits are deeply rooted in humanism and philosophy. This is exactly why Christian Spanish and Hispanic native speakers understand not just the grammatical or secular implications for “Verbo”, but also its theological implications as well, so that Verbo is definitely a proper name for the Incarnate Logos.

“VERBO” IS CABBALIST?

If there are “Cabbalistic” overtones in the usage of verbum, it is most certainly not from Bible believers, nor from the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, but perhaps from someone who rejects the fact that the Johannie Logos is of Christ.

CATHOLICS ALSO USE “PALABRA”!

Some have speculated that Sermo/Palabra is the sole option for translating Logos. Some who prefer the Valera 1602 Purificada Bible have even said that theirs is the only Bible today that translates sermo as Palabra. However, Spanish editions of Latin Vulgate Bibles (see e-sword) which use Sermo-Palabra include:

*La Santa Biblia de Martin Nieto

*La Biblia de Jerusalén

*La Biblia Latinoamericana

*La Biblia en Castellano Antiguo

*La Biblia Dios Habla Hoy

Why do Catholics use sermo? In old Latin America, we got our Spanish word for sermon from sermo. Spanish dictionaries (see Vox, 1954) define a “sermón” as a homily, or discourse given by a priest in public, in contrast to a “prédica” which is message delivered or preached by Evangelicals or Protestants. I have to say, though, that these two are now interchangeable, given Vaticanus II back in the early 1960´s.

Some proponents for sermo have mentioned Beza´s Latin New Testament as a valid authority. The reader must be made aware of a few things. First, Theodore Beza did not actually find any Latin biblical manuscript supporting sermo in John 1:1. He got it from Erasmus, who in 1519 had it published in his Greek-Latin New Testament.

Second, the reader must know that Beza´s Latin New Testament is faulty textually in several references. For example:

*He omits “Dominus” (Lord) in Acts 8:16

*He omits “Jesus” in Luke 9:43

*He uses the term “Tartarus” rather than “Inferno” in 2nd Peter 2:4 Even the Vulgate uses “Inferno” (Hell) in this passage.

*Likewise, he, like the Vulgate, uses “Gehena” rather than “Inferno” in Matthew 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5 and James 3:6.

*He uses “justitiam” (“good works” or “righteousness”) rather than alms.

Thirdly, both verbum and sermo appear in Beza´s Latin New Testament in reference to the word or words of God. The following verses say verbum, demonstrating that he and Erasmus did not reject verbum altogether:

1. Matthew 12:36

2. Matthew 27:14

3. Luke 1:37

4. Luke 1:38

5. Luke 2:29

6. Luke 5:1 (verbi)

7. Luke 18:34 (verba)

8. Acts 28:25

9. Romans 10:8 (twice)

10. Romans 10:17

11. 2nd Corinthians 13:1

12. Ephesians 6:17

13. 1st Timothy 4:5

14. Hebrews 6:5

15. 1st Peter 1:25

16. James 2:14

Thus, it is hardly fair to say that sermo was exclusively used for logos in each place in Beza´s New Testament. This further proves that both verbum and sermo were used interchangeably elsewhere to describe words, sayings, discourses, etc. True to their desire to be different, Erasmus and Beza used sermo more often, but they also used other synonyms such as res, rei, loquutus, dictum, rem, gestum, etc., (Matthew 18:16; Luke 4.36; Luke 12:10; John 4:37; Romans 9:28) whereas the Vulgate standardized verbum all 143 times. Sermo and verbum also appear together in some verses in the Latin Vulgate Old Testament: Example: Psalms 56:10 (55:11) “in Deo laudabo verbum in Domino laudabo sermonem”.

Fourthly, the reader will know that our Spanish Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 Bible faithfully renders the Greek “logos” as palabra over 100 times in the New Testament. This is important, because proponents for sermo-only apparently think we are against palabra in reference to the word or words of God, which we are not! We simply believe Verbo is not just textually right, but it is the proper noun masculine name for Christ in John 1:1, 14, etcetera.

Historically, Protestant and Evangelical churches have used “Verbo” to teach and preach the doctrine of the Incarnate Christ. Wycliffe translated the first English Bible from the Latin Vulgate, and read Verbum. During the Reformation, such men as Luther, Melanchthon and Zwingli (see D´Aubigne, “History of the Reformation” Vol. II, pages 74, 281, 351, 372, 379.) quoted “Verbum” in reference to Jesus, and Verbum, or Verbi Dei in reference to the Word of God. Luther said: “Verbum Dei gladius est, bellum est, ruina est, scandalum est, perdition est, venenum est.” Or “The Word of God is a sword, a war, a ruin, a stumbling block, destruction, a poison.” He was explaining to Spalatin that the Word of God is offensive to those who reject it, namely, the Romanists of his day. These men understood what Verbum Dei meant, and its value. Some even continued to quote and use Verbum despite Erasmus and after 1519. A few years after Erasmus´ translation, we do see evidence for the usage of Sermo/Palabra in the first Reformation Spanish Protestant Scriptures. After all, Erasmus was being hailed as the most important textual reformer of his day. He had the courage to take on the entire Catholic system, and their Bible---the Latin Vulgate, for which we are mostly grateful. His New Testament would be the foundation of soon-to-be-published translations and revisions, which would follow, not just his Greek, but his Latin as well. It’s no wonder that Enzinas, Perez, Reina and Valera all quote it, but perhaps more out of despite towards Rome, rather than for textual reasons, since history also demonstrates that his retranslation of the Logos to his Latin sermo proved controversial. Regarding Cassiodorus de Reina, the Spaniard who first gave us a complete Bible, the reader will note he too quoted Verbum in reference to the Word of God in his 1569 edition. In his Prefatio, the reader will note the following: “Dei verbo”, page vi; “sacri Verbi Dei”, page xi; “Dei verbo”, page xi. The Reina-Valera Spanish Bible has been revised many times ever since. During the 1800´s there was a second reformation in Catholic dominated Spain. Protestant biblical revisions in Spanish began to revise the Bible and use Verbo instead. The laws of Spanish grammar along with theological implications demanded such a textual change once again, back to Verbum, hence Verbo. Protestant and Evangelical missionaries begin to flood Spanish-speaking countries with these Bibles. I happened to own an 1817 Valera New Testament that uses Verbo in John 1:1. (Available for perusal at http://archive.org/stream/elnuevotestament00slsn#page/114/mode/2up) Many souls were saved and transformed. Despite severe persecution and prohibition, this didn´t prevent Protestants from speaking out against the errors of Rome. One such Spaniard named Pedro Sala wrote an entire dissertation entitled “El Verbo de Dios” (ISBN 84-8267-115-4). His essay encouraged Christians to embrace the truth of the Verbum Dei like never before.

SUMMARY

Finally, one can argue ad nauseum the differences between these two Latin terms, their implications and their translation into Spanish. We have shown how variety existed between the European and African texts, the two schools of Latinity during the first centuries after Christ. The important thing is not the Latin, but that we believe that the Greek Logos (capital L), is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ come in the flesh, “God with us”. Scholars concur that sermo has connotations to Mercury or Hermes prior to Christendom. The word is best defined as “speech”, and so mystics, cults and humanists coddle towards its polysemous applications to fit their views. We do not reject expressions that use sermo to refer to the words of God, His sayings, etc. We saw how the reading of Verbum was providentially preserved for Latin Christendom regardless of whether one is Roman Catholic, Evangelical or Protestant to refer to the Person of the Incarnate Christ in the Johannie prologue and elsewhere. Patristic writers quote both, but extant Latin Biblical manuscripts point towards Verbum. It has been a familiar expression which will endure forever.

RVG Bible Society

Perspectives on Sermo and Verbum

Recent Posts

Comments