/lit/ - Literature

On what basis are we judging the quality of the translation? How has someone not made a chart for this yet?

>literary quality
>readability
>most direct translation
>supplemental footnotes for the indoctrinated
>supplemental footnotes for historical contexts
>supplemental footnotes for literary contexts
>Éditions for different sects
>biases of different translators

I have no idea which one does which. I have my grandfathers old king James. But is it a new king James or old king James? What’s the fucking difference? What parts did king James even change? What am I missing out on?

I don’t know where to start because I don’t know what I don’t know. I assume it’s an important literary work. I assume that it would contextually have some fun historical gems and some story told truths. But how do I know which one will do this best? I don’t know because of all these deus volt faggots being contrarian and thinking they follow the word.