I've read your mention of Caputo and Vattimo. They belong in the cylindrical bookshelf.
Nearly every version of Nietzsche's work into English translation is good. Even Kaufmann. As he lamented, he lacked for readers. He still does.
If you are reading his Will to Power, then I can't take you too seriously. It is this text the Fr. Seraphim of Platina quotes most often in his tirade or what you would call that misagos of his.
The state of English translation of Neech's Nachlass I have no idea about.
If you want to broaden your horizon and maybe find some grist for calling him a nihilist, then I suggest tackling Heidegger's profound lectures on his work. To the degree that Heidegger understands nihilism or better yet "philosophy", then I would agree Nietzsche was a nihilist and thus a philosopher and arguably the last.
Caputo and the rest are just footnotes to their beloved Derrida who is nothing but an added tittle to Heidegger's work.
Even the sillypedia has a surprisingly nice reference to the old Kraut:
Some interpreters also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social Darwinism. For example the concept was appropriated by some Nazis such as Alfred Bäumler, who may have drawn influence from it or used it to justify their expansive quest for power and world domination.
This reading was criticized by Martin Heidegger in his 1930s courses on Nietzsche—suggesting that raw physical or political power was not what Nietzsche had in mind. This is reflected in the following passage from Nietzsche's notebooks:
I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!
Opposed to a biological and voluntary conception of the Wille zur Macht, Heidegger also argued that the will to power must be considered in relation to the Übermensch and the thought of eternal recurrence—although this reading itself has been criticized by Mazzino Montinari as a "macroscopic Nietzsche". Gilles Deleuze also emphasized the connection between the will to power and eternal return.
Also noteworthy is the work of Deleuze is who probably the only post-Heideggerian thinker to read Nietzsche with relatively new eyes.
The bolded quote of Neech's I have there is just beautiful.
Heidegger was the one of the first to criticize fervently against the The Will to Power "work" of Nietzsche and return strictly to his notebooks not mangled by his nutty anti-Semitic sister and her husband.
It is also in Heidegger where you find the first reader to take Neech at his word, to take seriously his "Eternal Recurrence of the Same" as radically important to his own work and left unthought.
Again without all this, just get an electronic copy of Nietzsche's stuff and search "nihilism" and see what context surrounds each time.
If you really believe Caputo to be a worthy read, I cannot stress to you the superficial read he offers lifted from Derrida (whose most interesting work on Neech is the role of the feminine, but still not earth-shattering stuff) who reads over Heidegger's shoulder.
If you are interested in what I constantly read: Heidegger (thus most of the Western Canon and Eastern), Deleuze (who for me takes forever to get my head around, my French sucks), and over the last half decade I've been reading into Niklas Luhmann's System Theory (very difficult, but incredibly fascinating and perhaps some of the most innovative Continental thinking, my bet he will make more of an impact in the States within the next 10 years.)
Just finished reading some texts on current ideas around Patristic hermeneutics. And everything led back to folks making livings filling out paragraphs that Heidegger wrote.
I also noted that you seemed to have some background in Thomist thought. This was Heidegger's first interest as a boy and his early work and throughout is marked by it, to a lesser and lesser degree.
That is it, I promise.
Extremely informative post. Admittedly my readings of Nietzsche were taken at face value and then confirmed by one side of the issue. I look forward to diving into this a bit more. Initially, I still disagree just based on my own readings, but again I'm at the mercy of the translators, so who am I to argue?
As for Caputo, et al, trust me, I'm no fan. Instead, I've read them due to their influence on Christianity via the "emergent movement." Thus, I read them while throwing their books against the wall in frustration, especially concerning Caputo's writing style, not to mention what he has to say.