One quick clarification and then a long note:
You actually mean the reverse right (traditional gourd for ivy)? I’m almost positive I read an earlier impressive post of yours going into great detail on this particular translation and you had it the other way around.
With that out of the way:
Well, some Jews and the early Christians thought the Greek translations were inspired…
With respect to this discussion, I have two points
First, the translation a person uses doesn’t matter if a person is also not availing themselves of the long tradition of Catholic exegesis. If they are, for example. reading the Gospels but have not already (or are not simultaneously with their reading) referring to something along the lines of S. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea (of which a fine English translation is available online) or at a minimum referring to the extensive annotations in most Catholic Bibles as they read, then the translation doesn’t matter because they will unvaryingly interpret the difficult passages incorrectly (as I write this it occurs to me that asking questions of this site could be a valid third option as well, I am not familiar with the average level of knowledge available here to those with exegetical questions, but you certainly seem quite knowledgeable of the history). As I’m sure everyone on this site knows already, and as my favorite modern Catholic exegete, Valentin Tomberg, has said, the Commandment to Honor your Mother and Father is (in addition to all its other meanings and purposes) there for our benefit: to remind us to respect the wisdom of the Church, and the Church’s Early Fathers and Doctors. Exegesis is extraordinarily difficult and the greatest ongoing sin of Protestantism is the rejection of the Church’s two-thousand year old exegetical tradition and continued propagation of the belief that “anybody can understand the Bible.”
Second, I think the devolvement of multiple texts into one text is reflection of the Holy Spirit working over the arc of time to present to us a truer version of Scripture.
What do I mean by “truer” version? I don’t know if the following is a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, and feel free to correct me if it isn’t, but I hold that there is perfect version of the Bible in Heaven, and over the arc of time, with the help of the Holy Spirit working through writers, copyists, and translators, we slowly get our imperfect version a little closer to that version. However, just as these people are working to the good, others are working to the bad, or, being human, make mistakes thus sacred books can become more or less corrupted accidentally or intentionally. At which point, we need, and get, an inspired work like S. Jerome’s translation. Not just correcting mistakes that have crept in, but also through the act of translation creating a more perfect work.
However more perfect does not equal perfect (I think you’ve presented sufficient evidence that his Vulgate was not). Jerome was an extraordinary man, but still a man and no perfect thing can ever come from man (Virgin Mary giving birth to Christ being the sole exception). But more perfect does mean “generally better” than the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, thus in my humble and unscholarly view, the Council of Trent was absolutely correct (and perhaps itself inspired by the Holy Spirit) in its declaration that the (mostly by) Jerome Vulgate was “authentic.”
With respect to the Septuagint: I don’t read Greek, and thus have only looked at the English translation of the Septuagint, but, it is in my admittedly, limited, biased and unscholarly view sufficient to accept S. Jerome’s rejection of the Septuagint as the primary basis for his translation as a reason to reject the Septuagint as inspired, all due respect to the Greek Orthodox Church. Alternately, and out of respect for the Greek Orthodox Church, one could argue that the Septuagint was an inspired translation, but that S. Jerome’s version was (for want of a better phrase) more inspired, coming as it did after the birth of Christ, with the availability of the lens of the New Testament through which to view the Old, and thus more perfect.
With respect to the Nova Vulgate, I find the replacement of ipsa with ipsum /it in Genesis 3:15 troublesome, and the general feeling I get that it’s purpose was to hew to the letter of Divino Afflante Spiritu rather than to its spirit. Thus I have strong doubts as to whether this translation was inspired. But it isn’t something I worry about, uninspired works will, in time, fall by the wayside. I like to think (hopefully not blasphemously) that the Holy Spirit is something like gravity, at times when viewed on a microscopic level, it seems to work slowly or weakly, or not at all, but it is everywhere, it connects everything, and is what moves the Universe.
With respect to other possibly inspired translations there is only one translation that I’ve read (in small part, certainly not in whole) that might also be inspired (though again, truly inspired still means far from perfect) and that is Gregory Martin’s translation of Jerome’s Vulgate into English (the original Douay-Rheims) (I hope this is not read as in derogation of translations of the Jerome or Clementine Vulgate into other languages, I simply know very little about the very many translations into very many languages that are out there). This is for reasons that go beyond the scope of this post ( so I’ll pass over most of them except to note one: that the Douay-Rheims remains more popular than ever after almost 425 years, and it was a heavy influence on the KJV, which remains the most popular protestant Bible after more than 400 years.