Adam and Eve - Centraal Beheer

@budnboston I'm simply not familiar with any primary sources from the Middle Ages which espouse a belief in the divine revelation of any of the Latin versions.

on which account one can sympathize as realistic the quest for an infallible revelation, without, however, Divine autographs or even trustworthy copies of the same, culminates in the grant of an "authentic" status to venerable translations and Latin translations essentially held this status in the Empire until Erasmus Greek NT - i.e. the view that God providentially preserved his revelation, and so revealed Himself to the West in Latin and so it had a Divine revelatory quality in itself

It wasn't until the past 130 years or so that critical scholarship rose to the degree of refinement necessary to reconstruct the original Greek with a fair degree of accuracy. Coming to the same amount of relative certainty regarding the Hebrew text is probably a long ways off.

Actually, it was largely true that the Greek manuscripts available to the Medievals were badly mangled, and that it was much easier to find a good copy of the Vulgate, than to find a good copy of the Greek. It is also arguable whether the Masoretic text truly represents the Hebrew Scriptures of the pre-LXX era, and the Hebrew text Jerome worked from seems to be between the MT and H70.

the Vulgate (or even earlier Latin translations) were not defended explicitly as "autographs" (except arguably during the Counter Reformation e.g. the Rheims preface !) but were regarded as either the oldest and/or best translation available with the other versions regarded as late , corrupt , etc. w/ the autographs lost and so according to His perfect Providence God revealed His Word to the Roman West in Latin and so that form of itself thus regarded as an "authentic" heuristic tool

There was a limited movement that asserted that the Vulgate was inspired shortly after the Council of Trent, but it quickly lost steam. Even the original Douay-Rheims' intro denied the divine inspiration of the Vulgate, despite the fact that the Douay was a translation from it. I'm not aware of any primary sources from the Middle Ages that say anything different. If you produce such sources, I'll stand corrected.

some perhaps regarded it as just a pun, but the Latin was commonly regarded as Divine Revelation "in itself" (as some treat the English of the King James Bible for example today) and the fact of the association in the words was regarded not simply as a coincidence but according to Divine Providence and so revelatory , albeit by inference of the analogy of faith though inferences were regarded as, of course, potentially fallible and so not Divine revelation in the incontrovertible sense

Eh, not quite. They thought it was a nice pun, but it was hardly treated as divine revelation.

They were almost certainly Khoisan (or close to it); our genes contain a record of our ancestry that points directly back to the Khoisan.

A small correction; the average lifespan in the Bronze Age was close to 40, but that's factoring in infant mortality rates. If you could survive until you were 10, you had a good chance of reaching 70 or even 80.