How does Lattimore's translation of The New Testament compare

>>8843242
As stated on the copy, it is very similar to NSRV. Lattimore's translation is the most accurate to the original Greek, but the NSRV wasn't very far off by any means, they are almost identical.
The notable differences of lattimore's are that there are no verse numbers, the text is written as it would have been originally, like a normal book. And also the Gospels are in chronological order, Mark Matthew, Luke, John; biblical canon tends to put Matthew before Mark.

>>8843264
Not an expert on Christianity, but what is the reasoning behind the biblical canon's order of Gospels?

If it's not authorized by the One True Holy Apostolic Catholic Church then it's fedora-tipping trash.

>>8843284
It's chronological, for the most part.
Paul wrote more than anyone, mostly letters to churches, people, and such. Those are lumped together. Prophetic books are lumped together. Apocrypha is at the end. It's just a good way to read them, it's not hugely significant.

>>8843242
The NRSV isn't comparable to "the average theologian" because it and the original new standard version was a collective effort of people from numerous branches of Christianity including Jews for the Old Testament.

>>8843284
The reasoning seems to be:
1) Matthew should probably be first since it directly quotes many things from the Old Testament. Even without literally putting the OT+NT in the same Bible, it's a good idea to put a major link to the "old covenant" as the first thing your readers see.
2) Though Mark was written first, it probably shouldn't be first as the Gospels: it was considered to not be written well, which is why Luke and Matthew were written and cover much of the same material.
3) Luke 1:1-4 references the existence of other Gospels being written. So, it'd make sense to not be the first one (and since the word "many" [NRSV] is used, it'd make even more sense if it were the 3rd or 4th one).
4) John was always considered to be much different than the other three Gospels, even before biblical scholarship came up with the "synoptic gospel" theory (i.e. that Luke and Matthew specifically drew on Mark as a source, while John had no specific links to any of the others). So, it'd make sense as the last.

Thus, going down the chain tl;dr-style: John fourth due it being different than the rest; Luke third or fourth (thus, third) due to referencing "many" other Gospels; Mark not first (thus, second) due to not be as well-written as a primary book should be; and Matthew first due to connecting well with the OT.

>>8843242
>How does Lattimore's translation of The New Testament compare to "official" translations (KJV, NSRV, etc.)?

objectively bad. he doesn't have the requisite knowledge to be capable of translating it effectively. He relied on a penguin classics commentary on the RSV to handhold him lmfao

he did the best translations of homer to be certain, but skip this

>>8843462
>objectively bad. he doesn't have the requisite knowledge to be capable of translating it effectively.
His independent translation is almost identical with the leading translation and he notes all of his idiosyncrasies.
>He relied on a penguin classics commentary on the RSV to handhold him
He was the leading academic in ancient and Hellenic greek

All of his translations are held as the leading translations in accuracy and readability

>>8843442
Makes sense. Thanks.

>>8843498
Now, comparing Lattimore to NSRV, is there any distinct differences (even it is apparently almost identical) that set one better than the other? Or is it a matter of personal preference? I find that one man achieving nearly the same thing as a big group of people very interesting. I guess the best way to find out is to read it myself.