The Epic of Gilgamesh

[scribb1e]

(ISBN 0-14-044100-X)
Penguin Classics, introduction by N K Sanders

The Epic of Gilgamesh was composed some time in the 3rd millenium BC, and there's some evidence that Gilgamesh himself existed as king of Uruk in about 2700 BC. But this isn't a history, it's a collection of tales about a hero. I keep wanting to quote bits of it; I'm not sure if

Comments

[woodpijn]

Excellent.

It is nicely written (based on your quotes; I haven't read it myself). I wish the same translators had translated the Bible; it would make it more enjoyable to read.

[scribb1e]

I'm reading the Old Testament in the NIV translation at the moment. It's very readable but I suspect the translators were more interested in accuracy than beauty of language. Also have a KJV which is mostly useful because in this particular edition they've put the boring bits in small print :-) The small print is mostly genealogies and stuff like this:

"and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot:" (Leviticus 14:14)

...which for some reason the editors don't think is vital.

Do you have a favorite Bible translation?

[woodpijn]

Not really a favourite as such. The NIV is the one I'm most familiar with. It has occasional nice turns of phrase, like "If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast" (Psalm 139), and 1 Corinthians 13 on love, both of which are not as pretty in other translations IMO; but mostly it is as you say, accuracy at the expense of beauty. I used to read the KJV for the poetry of it; I should go back to doing that.

I think what I want is a paraphrase with as much freedom as the Message or the Living Bible, but aiming to be beautiful, rather than modern and understandable as those do. I don't think such a thing exists.

[ex_robhu]

I wonder if this translation was done with the goal being dynamic, or formal equivalence?

The ESV's goal is formal equivalence, the NLT and The Message aiming for dynamic equivalence (The Message being at the extreme end), and the NIV being somewhere in between.

What do you think of The Message or the NLT?