Latin Question

Dr. Cassidy is right. The text type of the Old Latin versions is said to be the Western. The Greek mss behind them are not extant, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist when the translations were made.

Concerning the Vulgate of Jerome, it's been a long time since I read up on it, but I believe it veers back towards the Alexandrian somewhat. :type:

 

Right. What you have to do is compare the Vulgate to a Greek NT (or various Bible versions if you don't know Greek). Even if you don't know Latin, if you work hard at it you'll be able to figure some things out, since many English words have Latin words as their origin. Also, a hard copy Latin NT should have apparatus (footnotes) discussing the readings. (Electronic versions such as e-Sword don't.)

I have to caution, though, that there have been various corrections and revisions of the Vulgate since Jerome translated it in the early 5th century. So it takes a lot of work to get educated about its history and manuscripts.

 

Sounds right to me, Dr. Cassidy, though you know far better on this given your education and the fact that I haven't studied it much lately.

 

HofG, here is a website about something called by Westcott and Hort the "Western non-interpolations" which can educate you a little more in this area if you are interested: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/WestNonInterp.html

 

What's the passage? I could see what was in the apparatus of my Vulgate.

 

The Latin text is solid there, with no other reading in the apparatus. Interesting variant!

My Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (p. 203, 1975 ed.) says nothing about an anagennaw variant, so I'd guess there is very little evidence for that. However, it does mention a variant with a few Greek mss (corrected aleph, 245, 291, 472, 1009, L26) and various church fathers replacing tou theou with twn ouranwn.

I'm looking at my genuine 1882 American 1st ed. of the two volume Westcott and Hort (Oh, no, John of Japan, not W & H ), and their note gives the anagennaw reading as Western. So that is probably where your NA 24 came up with it. But W & H give no Greek mss for the reading, just church fathers. So I'd say John 3:5 in USB, Nestle's and TR is correct.

 

I have NA 26, and they don't give the "born again" variation or the Latin.

Just to be clear, W&H did not include the "born again" variation in their text, only in the apparatus. As you no doubt know, they usually went with Vaticanus or Siniaticus, so I assume that's what they followed in this case. Since they didn't cite any Greek mss for anagennaw, they must have gone mainly with the Vulgate and church fathers to get the variant (shades of Burgon!).

As to whether it was in the Western Greek mss or not, that too is up in the air IMO. The first Old Latin translator could have misinterpreted or simply been absent minded and made the mistake. (This happens to me all the time when I translate, and my correctors have to help me out.) In that case, other translators could have simply been lazy and followed the mistake of the first guy. I've seen many examples of this in the Japanese translations of the complete Bible. Often every single translation will make the same mistake which has carried over from the Motoyaku ("First translation") of 1870. :type:

 

That's certainly possible.

Alas, if only....