/lit/ - Literature

>>19736153
>gnostic larping as a schizo and trying to corrupt John 1
You guys never learn

What edition of the Vulgate Bible is the best? There are multiple publihsers and I'm wondering if anyone that owns one can help me.

Do you guys know of any Latin books with easy syntax and grammar, like the Vulgate?

I’ve became near fluent with the Vulgate, but find anything else almost impossible to read.

Which is more of a literary achievement: the Vulgate or KJV?

>>17194197
>Though I will be the first to argue that Spanish should be learned either first, or in place of Latin.

True. You get Portuguese as a bonus and Italian will be easy. Then you can set yourself to learn to read French classics also - it will take you one or two months. For the determined, Catalan and Provençal won't be difficult; for the really determined, there is also Romanian.

Latin should be learned after the romance languages, specially because it will be much easier. An intelligent Romance speaker can make sense of pretty much everything in Latin - you only need to read a translation first, then read the original; you will need some grammar if you wish to actually understand it, but the meaning itself will be straightforward in the sense that you will be able to identify nearly every Latin word with each word in the translation - not through the dictionary, but intuitively.
For instance, if you are a native Romance speaker and familiar with the gospels, you can make sense of pic related without needing any grammar, only a dictionary now and then (which can often be substituted by reading a translation first). But you need to be a really good Romance speaker, in the sense of having a wide vocabulary and a decent education. To an average Portuguese (my language) speaker many of the words in this gospel don't make sense, but for an educated one they all do. This is because, though they all still exist in our language, some exist only as archaisms (such as "verbo" meaning "word") or technical terms (such as "apud").
Keep in mind that this is the Vulgata. For classical Latin a *lot more* patience will be needed, which is why I recommend Latin students to always start by reading the Vulgata. To me, Augustine's Confessions also are relatively easier to understand.

Also, actually learning Latin has almost only the "bad side" of learning a language: grammar, memorization... The best you get is reading the classics (a great enjoyment, for sure, but always a foreign one, even for the native Romance speakers), and understanding some classical music texts.
With the living languages you can watch movies, listen to YouTube, listen to a much wider variety of songs, as well as talking to people, reading the news and so on.

If Latin is the first language you intend to learn, you will need to be truly motivated. You don't even know what it "feels like" to know a foreign language yet! So you will spend one or two (or more) years in ignorance without know exactly what your profits are going to be. Meanwhile, someone like me (who am still learning to read Latin properly after having learned to read six or seven other languages) is already pretty familiar with this whole language-learning business and I know pretty well what is going to happen after I can read Latin. So, to me, there is much more motivation and a clearer perspective.

I'm a seminarist (kinda) and I'm currently writing a paper about sacred languages. I'd like to talk a bit about it with you.

Which version of the Vulgate is best for general use?

It seems like there was a lot of fuckery with the Sixtine Vulgate, and I don't trust the Nova Vulgata (produced after V2).

Which version should actually be used if you want a Latin Bible?

>>15984036
You're forgetting that esotericism was not only used by established orthodoxy, but was the normal way that people interacted with faith from the moment the first human planted seeds in the earth and tilled it's soil, all the way until the enlightenment.