Your own example shows that anothen never meant "again". In fact it mentions that Paul uses is in a single instance together with palin (which mean again)in a rather curious way:
And as far as a highly educated Nicodemus not understanding a Greek concept, if indeed that was what Jesus was using
Nicodemus' reaction is simply non sequitur. It is a real mystery how Nicodemus, assuming he understood Greek, could have (mis)understood genneti anothen as "born again" (or better yet "born anew") rather than "born from above".
at other times when it suits your purpose you tell us how Hellenized the Jews were
I never said all Jews were Hellenized. The Jews in the dispersion, in Asia Minor and Egypt (Alexandria) were thorgoughly Hellenized; not the Palesitnian Jews.
I am afraid that you are incorrect on this point kosta. Hellenization was very evident among Jews in Israel. Where do you think "Decapolis" came from (Mt 4:25, Mk 5:20; 7:31) and pigs. Different sects within Judaism at the time responded differently, zealots resisted strongly, the sadducees were favorably inclined towards it. The common man felt both sides of the tension, being hellenized to various degrees based upon location and social status.
That's not what I am saying. I used the conjunction, 'if', i.e., in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that...
I don't know what language he was speaking to Nic. My point is that it doesn't matter either way. It doesn't matter because even if "again" is a faulty or excessively loose TRANSLATION of the Greek, as you have pointed out, how in the world does the fact that a Latin or English translator mistranslates something lead to the conclusion that the original author "made it up"? That is a non sequitur.
Your own example shows that anothen never meant "again".
I agree. That's why I posted it, and why I said "freely granted". Let's just stipulate it.
Nicodemus' reaction is simply non sequitur. It is a real mystery how Nicodemus, assuming he understood Greek, could have (mis)understood genneti anothen as "born again" (or better yet "born anew") rather than "born from above".
That's why I highlighted part of Robertons's comment in red:
But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus..
Nicodemus could probably count to two with reference to the word, "born", don't you think? Regular natural childbirth, PLUS this being "born from above" that Jesus is talking about. Maybe Nic is thinking in 1+1=2 terms. The fact that he doesn't seem to quite "get it" as evidenced by his excessively literal question about entering into a mother's womb a second time is an express part of the account. It doesn't in any way whatsoever lead to a conclusion that John "made it up".
The Gospels contain many accounts or instances of people misaprehending Jesus' words or missing his point. So what? The fact that people react like dunderheads sometimes about some things means that an account of some person not fully grasping some concept is fictitious?
Why you think a faulty translation could be dispositive of whether or not an original author just made the whole thing up as a fiction is beyond me.
Cordially,