Tags
We all know about the big fight that went on a couple years ago between the promoters of the ESV and the people who were promoting the TNIV. There are still some hard feelings to be found among those people, even now.
But I am in the midst of a little conflict between the ESV and the NASB, if only in my mind. Both translations are formal, word-for-word translations (although in all honesty neither is truly a word-for-word translation, because such a translation is totally impractical in the real world.)
What I am dealing with is this: I have an old, nearly worn-out NASB reference Bible, and a brand new ESV single-column reference Bible. Now I really love my old NASB, because it gives me an extremely literally-accurate text, along with outstanding text notes. (I rarely use cross-references.) I discovered with this Bible that by using their excellent text notes as I read along, I could discover a deeper understanding of what the scripture text was saying. That caused me to fall in love with that particular Bible, and also helped me realize that it wasn’t necessary for me to carry along a “study” Bible wherever I went. Unfortunately, I also discovered that reference Bibles of the quality of this NASB are very few and far between, at least when it comes to the text notes. There are lots of reference Bibles out there with a lot of cross-references, but a relatively poor set of text notes. I think that the NASB’s text notes are about the finest available, outside of the extensive notes that accompany the NET Bible.
My new ESV has a fine set of text notes, but they’re not the equal of the NASB. Even so, they’re quite good compared with a lot of other Bibles out there. I frequently refer to them and am rarely disappointed.
So that brings me to the text itself. The ESV and the NASB are really quite different from each other, even though they share a very similar philosophy of translation. In fact, both translations came about as a reaction to another translation, the NASB in reaction to the RSV, and the ESV in reaction to the NRSV. In both cases the “offending” translation was perceived as a “liberal” translation.
In the case of the NASB, the translators went back to the old American Standard Version (ASV) and revised it to bring it more in line with the current-at-that-time English usage and scholarship. The latest NASB is the result of a very similar revision of the 1971 NASB done in 1995, with an eye to making it more readable.
The ESV came about in response to the National Council of Churches’ revision of the RSV, resulting in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). (The conflict with the TNIV came later, after the ESV was published.) It was decided that the NCC had gone too far in their revision, making the NRSV far too liberal for evangelicals to use. Interestingly, the ESV people chose the old RSV text as their basis for coming up with the ESV text. Originally the ESV text was simply a revision of the more liberal things contained in the RSV to make it more palatable for evangelicals, but the latest revision of the ESV, though still not very extensive, has included a little more of what we could call “evangelical scholarship”.
Of the two translations (ESV & NASB), the ESV uses a more formal style of English, a more classic English, if you will. The NASB, on the other hand, while its readability has been improved, is still far more concerned with its literal accuracy than with being fine English. This makes for some frequent odd renderings, at least grammatically speaking. Most of the NASB’s critics complain about how “wooden” the NASB’s English is.
When I’m reading the NASB in my own personal study, I really kind of enjoy the odd renderings in English, because it gives me a better picture of the original languages, and sometimes will even give me a greater insight into the actual meaning of a passage. But when it comes to reading it out loud, I have found the NASB can be difficult. At one point a couple years ago I abandoned the NASB as the text for my adult Bible study class, because the passage we were looking at was too difficult to read out loud easily.
The ESV, on the other hand, is a much smoother-reading text, especially reading it out loud. Its translation team apparently took this into consideration when they chose to use the RSV text as the basis for the ESV. It was already written in a very classical-style English, yet it was also already quite literally accurate. However, since the RSV was already an “old” translation when the ESV people took it up, it contained, and still contains, quite a number of what I would consider “archaic” renderings. These are really no problem for scholars and most people with a fairly good education and grasp of the English language, but for the average modern English-speaker it can make the ESV a relatively difficult translation to understand, far worse than the NLT, worse than the NIV/TNIV, and almost on a par with the venerable old King James Version. But for the Bible scholar the ESV should cause little difficulty in understanding the text.
So, my question at this point is which translation do I prefer to use as my main Bible? I already use both of them for my own study, and compare them frequently. I often would tend to carry the ESV to church, since my church uses the NRSV as its pew Bibles and I think the ESV is closer to the NRSV text, making it easier to follow along. On the other hand, I find I usually can understand the NASB easier, especially when I use the text notes.
If I want to use a study Bible, I have the MacArthur NASB in leather, and it’s a pleasure to use. I also have the NKJV MacArthur, and the waters will be muddied even more this fall when I get a copy of the ESV MacArthur. I don’t have a copy of the ESV Study Bible, so that doesn’t figure into the mix, at least for me right now, but I might get one in the future. But the point of this post was more concerning the text and notes of these two, rather than their study Bibles.
I’m afraid I go back and forth between these two, and probably will continue to do so. The fact that my ESV is brand new will factor into my using it more than I probably would if they were of equal age and condition. But I am finding more and more that I tend to prefer the clear, easy understanding of the NASB over the classic English of the ESV.
The Sundry Times 
I appreciate your wrestling with these two translations, because I do too! I recently got a thinline NASB (the notes are minimal; no cross-references, unfortunately) to replace my tattered paperback ESV as a primary Bible. At this point, I don’t regret this decision one bit. A strength of the ESV, however, in spite of (or perhaps because of) what you call “classical English” is its literary strength. Not only is it listenable when read aloud, but I find the poetry (especially the Psalms) strikingly beautiful and comparable to the poetic beauty of the old KJV. I’m a bit of a scholar at heart, though, and (like you said) love the unusualness of the NASB’s English since it offers a peek into the character and feel of the original languages. So…different translations to appreciate different elements of beauty, in a Book that at its very essence is Beauty!
LikeLike
Late last year I began looking for a literal translation to replace my NIV which I had been using for nearly 18 years. I ultimately narrowed it down to the ESV and NASB. In addition to the text itself, I was also looking for a quality study Bible with comprehensive cross-references and study notes. So it came down to either the ESV Study Bible or the NASB MacArthur Study Bible (the ESV MacArthur Study Bible was not yet on the horizon).
Although there has been a lot said and written in favor of the ESV, I did a number of comparisons and decided that the NASB was far superior in terms of its literal accuracy. Furthermore, the ESV Study Bible was just too big to carry around, so I decided on the MacArthur Study Bible. I have not regretted that decision one bit. Certainly no English translation is perfect, and the NASB has its weaknesses. However, with all the textual notes on alternate and literal renderings, along with John MacArthur’s notes, I have found the NASB to be excellent for in-depth study. And, using the NASB Study Set for e-Sword I can look up words using Strong’s numbers and find all occurrences of a word in Hebrew or Greek.
As to the readability of the NASB, I don’t find it difficult at all. In my opinion, a lot of that has been blown way out of proportion. Yes, it does read at a higher grade level (11th grade for the NASB; 8th grade for the ESV), but I don’t think that should be a negative. Too many Bible translations, especially the dynamic equivalent ones, are dumbing down the reading level of the Scriptures, and in the process the richness of vocabulary and uniqueness of each writer is being lost. Our desire should be to read the Word of God as it is, not as we would like it to be. So for difficult and hard to understand passages, there are pastors and teachers, as well as study Bibles and commentaries.
Another thing that is often touted about the ESV is its poetic beauty and classical English, and that it stands in the same line as the KJV; but that’s not entirely true. First of all, the textual basis for the ESV and KJV are entirely different. Second of all, nothing will ever be able to compare to the beauty and majesty of the KJV, because English has changed tremendously since its inception. In fact, if someone was looking for something comparable to the KJV in terms of literary beauty, I would suggest the NKJV (although it too is based on the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV).
Having said all that, the NASB is a fine translation, and I wish it would gain more widespread usage, especially among serious students of the Bible. Words mean things. How much more true this is of the Word of God. So the psalmist reminds us, “The words of the LORD are pure words” (Ps 12:6). And Moses himself told the Israelites: “Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law. For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life” (Dt 32:46,47).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said, Darren; thanks for your input!
The MacArthur SB is what really brought the scriptures to life for me!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you go to Moody Bible Institute, you are expected to have a NASB (at least when I was there).
LikeLike
Same here in quebec, Canada for the Farel reformed theological seminary. The equivalent of the NASB in French is the NBS, the most litteral translation in French. And they also ask for a NASB bible for works in english. Westminster reformed theological seminary in Philadelphia also tells students to get a NASB. John MacArthur’s study bible is by far the best there is.
LikeLike
Funny, obviously I am thinking through this also. Fortunately, I have not yet purchased a ESV. My pastor friends are hopping on the bandwagon, but I don’t see enough reason to spend $80 to do so. Thus, why I am investigating this.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff, nice to see you here this morning. As I continue to use the ESV, I am finding it’s generally an easier read than the NASB. But I think the NASB tends to be more accurate in most cases. Both certainly have their share of archaic language left from earlier generations. If money is a consideration, and it is with me, you might want to hang onto what you’ve got and not pop for the new ESV. You might also want to consider the new NIV update that is now on BibleGateway.com and will come out in print in March 2011.
LikeLike
Check out Bible Design & Binding Blog for the new NASB1 from R.L. Allan… it’s the old NASB 11 Point single column reference bible with the luxurious R.L. Allan goatskin binding… it looks awesome.
I think you’d love it.
You can see it here:
http://www.bibledesignblog.com/2010/11/r-l-allans-nasb1-in-crimson-highland-goatskin.html
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads-up on that one, Chuck. I was looking at that yesterday when Mark posted it. That’s a real beauty, all right! I’d love one just like it!
LikeLike
Glad to see I am not the only one that struggles between these two wonderful translations. I tend to flip back and forth between them. Since our main preaching pastor uses the NASB that one gains some weight. There are, some key passages in the ESV which are, I believe, superior to the NASB. (2 Tim 3:16 for example…)
That said, I am delighted to have both. The only trouble I would get into is if I could only have one or the other. That decision could be difficult.
LikeLike
Yes, you hit the nail on the head, Knight!
LikeLike
Chuck, that Allan bible is what is bringing me “back home” so to speak to the NASB. The SCR format is my earliest Bible memory as a young believer back in the 70s. I’ve gone back and forth between the NASB and ESV (both superb translations, IMHO) but I’m thrilled to have an Allan NASB at long last.
LikeLike
Pingback: 2010 in review | The Sundry Times
Pingback: ESV vs. NASB | THANK YOU JESUS FOR THESE POP TARTS
Thanks for your subjective analysis (oxymoron?). We Evangelicals (speaking for myself) tend to practice doctrinal snobbery, panning Bible versions that don’t adequately support our pet dogmas. Honestly, I try to deal more honestly with my Bible choices, but my inner vision is a bit fuzzy.
Once in a while I revisit textual criticism, only to rediscover the confusion and contradiction between so-called, textual scholars. The one comment on which I laid hold was the “fact” that the disagreement between the various credible texts is only about two percent. So my criteria for Bible versions boil down to accurate rendering, lavish textual notes, literary voice, and running a distant third, readability.
I completely agree with your top three choices, comparing them word-for-word with whatever lexicons I can find in e-Sword and Blue Letter Bible dot org. When I can afford the outlay (Socialist Security, you know), I intend to purchase a TWOT, though I use WUEST’S WORD STUDIES, incomplete as it is.
My best option, however, would be studying the original languages directly, but alas, my rote memory is almost nonexistent. Therefore, I heartily praise God for His eternal Word revealing Himself to us through human writers, as well as through His creation, His church, and His Holy Spirit.
My our Lord Elohim bless and prosper you as you follow Him.
James Thompson
LikeLike
I agree. I have found the ESV far more difficult to understand than the NASB. In fact, I find the NASB95 more understandable than the ESV due to the fact that the ESV translates passages in a method that tends to be far more difficult than it needs to be. I wish there was a conservative translation that was as readable as the NIV and as accurate as the NASB.
LikeLike
I think there is – there is a revision based on ASV in public domain just finishing now called the WEB world english bible – the main guy doing it with much consultation has done it in love – people are free to download etc, its literal, but accurate – the printed NT is lovely in that it just flows – no sub headings, nothing added, chapter breaks are minimised – very very good watch out for it, it’s not a ‘big business’ translation (revision) but just what is needed I think. (there’s a messianic version that just changes a handful of select words ie Messiah (culturally correct esp in gospels…call it a backtranslation…the hebrew behind the greek))
LikeLike
Pingback: New American Standard Bible vs English Standard Version: Which one's more faithful to the original text? [duplicate] | CL-UAT
Pingback: New American Standard Bible vs English Standard Version: Which one’s more faithful to the original text? [duplicate] | Search Results for New American Standard Bible vs English Standard Version: Which one’s more faithful to the original text?