What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations? What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?
From Dhp 282 translated by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so
conduct himself that his wisdom may increase.

The same was translated by Ven. Thanissaro here:

From striving comes wisdom;
from not, wisdom's end.
Knowing these two courses
— to development,
decline —
conduct yourself
so that wisdom will grow.

The word &quot;meditation&quot; in one translation is the same as &quot;striving&quot; in the other. The Pali word here is &quot;yoga&quot; as seen here, which also translates it as &quot;meditation&quot;.

Ven. Thanissaro's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated &quot;sankhara&quot; as &quot;fabrications&quot; and &quot;dukkha&quot; as &quot;stress&quot;.

When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

Ven. Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated &quot;sankhara&quot; as &quot;conditioned things&quot; and &quot;dukkha&quot; as &quot;unsatisfactory&quot;. I feel this is more accurate.


&quot;All conditioned things are impermanent&quot; — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

&quot;All conditioned things are unsatisfactory&quot; — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.




In MN 49, there was a &quot;consciousness without surface&quot; or &quot;consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round&quot; (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that some people imagined to be a permanent consciousness of sorts, which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana. I've also explained this in detail in this answer.
Ven. Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

It should rather be:

That which could be known or cognizable (i.e. Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...


Ven. Sujato translated &quot;jāti&quot; in SN 56.11 as &quot;rebirth&quot;.

Now this is the noble truth of suffering. Rebirth is suffering; old
age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering;
association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked
is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief,
the five grasping aggregates are suffering.

In SN 56.11, Ven. Bodhi translated &quot;jāti&quot; as &quot;birth&quot;. This is quoted below. Ven. Thanissaro also translated it here as &quot;birth&quot;.

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.