"Born-Again" Part One: Replies on Translating anothen

I do like your arguments. I think there are two parts to your response to my article. If I may, I would like to address the first one now but the latter half next week.

I don't know man, I think you're being a just a wee bit overly critical in saying that the translators who used "born-again" misunderstood the very point Jesus was making just as Nicodemus did. I don't think misunderstanding had anything to do with it. In fact, I think the translators specifically used the term again, instead of above, to illustrate the point Jesus was making. By using that word, they conveyed Nicodemus' misunderstanding, but also allowed Jesus' later statements to be that much more effective when He explains the difference to Nicodemus. Being born above, or of the Spirit, is crystal clear because of the forced explanation.

That might be true; a good alternative to my argument. Allow me to consider it.

They could have considered both options and settled on “again” instead of “above”. I am certain this is what has occurred in the modern area. In English, there are too many chapters and verses that are too well known from the King James Version to be more properly translated.

The King James Version of 1611 uses “borne againe” (John 3:3, 7).

John Wyclif (14th century) also translates it as “borun ayen” (John 3:3, 7). Also, the Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).

Martin Luther translated it as “new birth”: “Ihr müßt von neuem geboren werden” (John 3:3, 7). John Wesley also referred to it as a “New Birth”.

William Tendale (16th century) preferred “boren a newe” (John 3:3, 7). This is interesting because much of Tyndale’s translation was used in the KJV of 1611. However, while many used to think that Tyndale used both the Vulgate and Luther, it is now generally agreed that he used Erasmus’ Greek version (1522).

In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the relevant phrase as nasci denuo. Denuo can be translated as “anew, again, a second time, afresh.” Therefore, it is from the Vulgate that we get Christian traditions meaning either “anew” or “again”. So we get from the Latin two traditional translation errors, “born anew” and “born again”.

So Jerome is the culprit (Augustine joke). In John 3:3, 7 he translates the Greek anothen as the Latin denuo but in verse 31 as the Latin supra (“above”) or in 19:11, 23 as desuper. Of course, though Jerome, like Luther and Tyndale, translated their Bibles from the Greek, they were already familiar with the Latin versions from birth. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels (the Vetus Latina) from the best Greek texts. So even he was familiar with a Latin version of the Gospel of John prior to his own translation from the Greek. I’m not sure how the Vetus Latina translates anothen.

Interestingly, Jerome translated 2 Cor 5:17 as “si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura vetera transierunt ecce facta sunt nova”.

I think “new” is a better or closer translation than “again”, though I still think they are both missing the point of Jesus’ illustration. In fact, the use of “again” may be more a misinterpretation of the Latin than one of the Greek. While anothen can mean “anew” but rarely ever means “again”, denuo can mean “anew” but quite often means “again”.

So you may very well be right that the original translators of the Greek (Jerome?) did not misunderstand the point Jesus was making in the Greek as much as they were interested in attempting to convey the idea more affectively into Latin for their readers. That would explain why they choose to translate anothen as denuo in John 3:3, 7 but as supra in John 3:31.

Yes, I think you are right. It’s far more likely that Jerome et al would have knowingly chosen to translate anothen two different ways than to do so unknowingly.

Nevertheless, I also think that using “again” instead of “above” doesn’t convey Nicodemus’s misunderstanding as much as it leads the reader into the same misunderstanding.

You have persuaded me that Jerome et al were not “mistaken” in their mistranslation.

I’ll address the second part next week. Thanks.