Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
As far as a translation of the Bible? Better than the Clementine?
Depends on how one looks at it. Vis-a-vis historical value, either as a manuscript tradition helping with determining the biblical text or when understand liturgical things, or exegesis from medievals and pre-20th century Catholics, the Clementina is better. In the sense of being more accurate vis-a-vis what is believed to be the "more correct text" of the Greek and Hebrew, probably the NV. I take a medieval attitude myself and blame Nicholas of Lyra for this obsession over "correct texts"
BTW: because of discussions in the Protestant environment, i opted to have 5 different English translations of the Bible (R.Knox, NAB, Navarre, KJV, Douay-Rheims). when there is no apologetic involved, my first stop is Navarre. (can't beat the triple feature of Vulgate Latin, English, copious footnotes). Thank you for bringing up Nicholas of Lyra syndrome. i was sucked in. now i know better.
because of these discussions on Latin, i realize why i like the Navarre scheme. the presence of the Latin Vulgate juxtaposed to the English gives me a return on investment for the time (2.5 years) i slogged through Latin syntax, the Gallic Wars and some Cicero & Vergil. Very importantly, St Jerome's Latin gives me a devotional and real window to our Church in the 4th century and with motivation, to the Church fathers. For my money, this is gold enough.
For the Latin lovers, stay in love.