/lit/ - Literature

The Nova Vulgata is a large scale revision based on all sources of the first millenium in any language and has that classicist flair to its grammar. It's honestly the best single bible.
Otherwise I have the usual set from the Stuttgart (I can't read any Hebrew though but it's sitting there) and many other bibles but none beat it, though I'm very biased in preferring Latin over Greek, literary wise, if only out of habit. In terms of physical book I have an old evangeliary.

>>22202435
Both the Kang James and the Douay Rheims are disappointing. The second is written in some bizarre Anglo-Latin just like the poetry of Milton (disappointing for the same reason). I say that after saying just above that the vulgate is the best. Let's not even talk about the disgusting Anglo-yiddish of """accurate""" translations.
The best English language bible is the 1950 Knox simply for actually being in high literate English (without being a bowdlerized retard version Da Jesus Book style).
The best version in a modern language (that I can read) is Lemaitre de Sacy.

>>22196474
Annotated bibles are a meme. Have your bibles then read separate commentaries. Some older editions have many-tomes following the bible with continuous commentary but this is quite different from the current breed of annotations. Footnote theology or even philology is simply not serious.
The Jerusalem Bible is somewhat more serious as far as annotations go. The school that did it (Dominicans of Jerusalem) is now in a project of pure autism in its scale called the Bible in its traditions that will make it worth but far from completed.

>>21562967
>Most bibles seem to be sold at a loss, so an inexpensive one would be preferable.
I'm afraid Latin isn't your best bet for that, it is not sold at a loss to spread the gospel to plebs. There are two or three texts of the vulgate usually sold, not counting old prints.
The first is the 1592 Clementine, which is found along the Douay Rheims in the Baronius edition.
The second is the Weber-Gryson which is the academic standard for Jerome with apparatus listing variants down to individual manuscripts.
The third is not the Vulgate of Jerome but the Nova Vulgata, a Latin edition based on the preceding but extensively revised based on a composite compilation of 1st millenium texts in various languages and versions and readapted into classical Latin (Cicero as opposed to 400AD). It is the text cited in Vatican documents since the 80s. Some dislike it because it doesn't correspond to any traditional text but it is absolutely patrician.

>>21563443
>can be equally claimed by every Christian tradition
I wish, St Jerome is extremely based. I can't see how any true protestant can read him without throwing a tantrum (besides cherry picking his scriptural list).

>>21562634
>sought out the best manuscripts of the original Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament
That's a strange presentation. At least twice he only managed to get a Amoraim doctor to give him one scroll for one night (the scrolls were rare and it was virtually forbidden to give them) and doubted their accuracies in places, preferring readings from other Greeks versions. Many modern scholars assert several books were translated directly from lost Greek versions but that's another matter.
>reject to the deuterocanon
To him canon meant perfection of the letter, which he of course rejects in his prefaces. He translated himself four ouf of nine of those books (with the two long versions), and made use of them both in sermons/letters and dogmatic works.
>https://www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/