I go back and forth between these two all the time. Both have very good points, and both fall down pretty hard in a couple points. Yet they’re both very close to the top of my personal choices, and I have frequently seen myself using either of these two as my main Bible.
The NKJV is very much what it’s supposed to be, the NEW King James Version. The phrasing is there, the rhythms are there. Even the manuscripts are the same. The NKJV is as comfortable as an old shoe. It’s very much like taking a trip back to my childhood home, and that’s a good thing…but it’s also a bad thing. In the same way as visiting your childhood home, some things are different; some things are actually disturbing. The NKJV is missing all the archaic “thee”s and “thou”s and “thy”s, all the really old language that is not used today and is no longer well understood by even most Bible scholars. But it still retains the old “behold!” that helps you remember it’s a Bible. But when you get beyond that stuff, you start to realize that even in this updated state, the (N)KJV is still difficult to understand. The English has not been updated enough.
The ESV seems much like the NKJV, in that it’s a word-for-word translation, and at first glance appears to have a lot of archaic words and phrases. But then you start to realize the differences. Unlike the NKJV, the ESV uses better manuscripts, the older manuscripts that do not have all the additional words, phrases and verses like the KJV/NKJV. It’s actually based on the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a translation that would be out of print except for the Catholic publishers and such publishers as Oxford and Cambridge in the UK. Evangelicals today are nearly totally unfamiliar with the RSV, but as a life-long Methodist, I grew up with it. The RSV was the Bible I received from my local church when I was in third grade. It was the “official” Bible of the mainline denominations. And many still consider it the very finest of the post-KJV translations. The RSV has even been added to the line-up of translations at BibleGateway.com, so you can read it any time and use it to compare with other translations.
And that is exactly what I did one day. I ran the ESV and the RSV along side each other to compare a couple chapters, though I don’t remember what those chapters were. But at any rate I was amazed to discover the ESV was almost word-for-word the same as the RSV. I guess it’s only logical, seeing as how the ESV used the RSV as its baseline from which it started. But then when you get away from those chapters, you discover that the ESV has been greatly updated as far as the language is concerned, with nary a “thee” or a “thou” to be found. The RSV still has a great deal of that old archaic language, which is why I decided to move away from my interest in it.
The ESV is heavily marketed by its main publisher, Crossway, and others like EvangelicalBible and Oxford, Cambridge, Schuyler, and Allan. There are lots of ESV Bibles out there to choose from, and the translation has been accepted and promoted by Christians, churches, and scholars. And to be honest, this translation is very near my top choice translation but for this one criticism I have of it: it’s wordy where the NKJV and most other translations are concise. Often the problem lies with what I consider to be poor choices when the translation was being made. It often seems to take a lot of words to say very little; it’s almost as if the editors were trying to make it sound more like a Bible by using certain words and phrases. So as good as the ESV is, and it’s really excellent, it just doesn’t quite make the cut.
The Sundry Times 
Gary, thank you for your excellent post! I think that it well conveyed the sentiments that many of us dyed-in- the- wool NKJV fans feel. We are trying to like the ESV, we respect its translation approach, but it just lacks the majesty and cadence of the NKJV. As I read the ESV, I keep comparing it with the good “old” NKJV, hoping that they will sound alike!
LikeLike
Robert, thank you for the response! I would have to say that if you’re used to the NKJV and comfortable with it, I see no reason to try too hard with the ESV. It’s a good thing to have it for comparison purposes, but I honestly don’t think it has any real advantages over the NKJV, except perhaps slightly more updated English. The vocabulary used in the NKJV is a bit higher than the ESV, I think, which will mean you’re more likely to run across a word or phrase you’re unfamiliar with. But I haven’t seen any real advantage in the ESV for study purposes.
LikeLike
Excellent comments. I like the way you remain open and haven’t committed yourself to just one translation. I use the ESV and still have fond memories of the very similar RSV. However, Cambridge no longer publishes the RSV. And Oxford only sells Catholic editions, sold mostly in the USA. Very similar to the ESV is the recent Second Edition Catholic RSV – 2CE-RSV from Ignatius. It uses you/your language not archaic thee/thou
LikeLike
Gary,
I grew up with the KJV, submitted myself to God in 2004, and bought my first carefully chosen Bible (ESV) in 2007. I often joke that there is more ‘black’ in that Bible from my personal notes than there is ink from the publishers. I literally devoured that Bible.
In 2011, I heard my pastor reading a translation that was unfamiliar to me, but yet with every word Truth flowed like silk. I looked up the wording on the Biblos.com parallel Bible and discovered she was using the NASB. After doing a ton of research and comparing passage after passage with the ESV, I bought the NASB Study Bible. Hands down it is my translation of choice – overall. I say ‘overall’ because, for the majority of the time, it most accurately reproduces the underlying intended meaning of the original language. But for those rare instances in which the NASB fails to reveal the full naked meaning, I seek other translations to fill in the gap.
A good example of when I turn to other translations: I love the Book of Job, and my favorite part is chapter 40 to book-end because it holds tremendous personal meaning for me. The NASB fails to capture the personal/spiritual significance of the original, idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase, ‘gird up your loins’ (Job 40:6-8). The idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase ‘Gird up your loins’ means ‘Put your big boy pants on’, and in this particular case the ESV simply nails the translation with ‘Dress for action like a man’.
I compared Job 40:6-8 between the translations you mention in this most excellent post, and then highlighted each key phrase with a different color to show how it uniquely differs from translation to translation.
Thank you, Gary, for giving an honest look at this topic, perfectly marrying your subjective take with true objectivity – a most rare find these days.
My translation of choice by highlight color:
Yellow: ESV
Green: NASB
Purple: NASB; NKJV
Grey: NONE: I think the better translation/interpretation would be, “Will you condemn me to justify yourself as righteous”.
ESV: Job 40:6-8
The LORD Challenges Job
6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
7 “Dress for actiona like a man;I will question you, and you make it known to me.8 Will you even put me in the wrong?Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?
NASB: Job 40:6-8
God Questions Job6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
7 “Now gird up your loins like a man; I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
8 “Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
NKJV: Job 40: 6-8
6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 7 “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: 8 “Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?
NIV 1984: Job 40: 6-8
6Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
7“Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8“Would you discredit my justice?Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
LikeLike
Gary, please visit my post “Job 40:6-8 Translation Comparisons” to see the proper visual rendering for this comment.
LikeLike
Pingback: Job 40:6-8 Translation Comparisons | Truth Behind Reality
I would like to know your opinion of the NRSV? I have learned that in your Methodist tradition many use the NRSV. I have only discover it in the past few years, and find it a very readable. Aside from gender issues associated with it, and the “issue” people have with spirit vs. wind in Genesis and virgin vs. woman in Isaiah, stylistically speaking it reads the way the ESV should read.
No offense…but as much as I have wanted to like/use the ESV for being a “modern translation”, the English at times is very abrasive – even more than the NKJV in my opinion. At times, it seems as if the grammar was approved by someone who speaks English as their second language. (FYI – I do not use the NRSV in any public setting – for whatever it’s worth…just my two cents).
LikeLike
Thank you for your response, John. Others are probably wondering why I did not include the NRSV among my “preferred” translations, knowing my Methodist background, too. Mainly because I have been unable to find a suitable printed NRSV for my requirements, particularly the “large print” preference. They have a lot of marketing work to do in order to satisfy those of us with weak eyes. The few that are available with large print are odd-shaped or only available in hardcover, or some other reason. I hope to get one that fits my preferences in the near future, but that’s up to their publisher.
As for my opinion of the NRSV, it has changed over the years. I no longer believe it is a “liberal” Bible spawned from hell. It has been too well-accepted by scholars and theologians, and churches, to be anything of the sort. So I have been using it at times as a comparison translation; and it is also the only version I own that has the Apocrypha. It truly is an excellent translation, though I have often been frustrated by some of their translation choices. You are right, John, it is easier to read and understand than either the ESV or the NKJV. I think it is therefore arguably superior to both of them. It’s too bad it’s been tied so closely to the dying mainline denominations and academia, because the rest of us…the people…deserve to have such a fine translation. I am very hopeful that Harper, or whoever, starts doing the bang-up job of marketing it that it deserves.
One might say that it’s the best Bible nobody reads. Sad.
LikeLike
I spent some time today searching the NRSV Bibles that are available today, and I found one that intrigues me: ISBN-13: 9780061979170
LikeLike
I own and read from the bible mentioned above. Its sewn binding is a plus. Although the font isn’t exactly “large print”, the bright and opaque paper, readable font, and decent font-spacing make it a good purchase.
LikeLike
Thank you for the “review”. I suspected the font might be a little smallish, since it says it’s 9 pt. But with the rest I will probably find it readable enough for now. That’s the biggest problem I’ve seen with the NRSV is finding one with a big enough font. It’s been almost like the publishers think the only people who read the Bible have good, young eyes.
LikeLike
The ESV translators believed that, “every word in the original must be translated somehow.” The may explain the wordiness and the “beholds.”
LikeLike
There are tons of tools that can be used to understand some of the archaic words used in the KJV. I know a man of hispanic descent and doesn’t have the best English. He loves and understands the KJV. Why? Because he takes the time to learn to understand it. There are modern words that some of the most educated people are not familiar with. We don’t suggest that writers should lower their standards. We grab a dictionary to find the meaning. As far as better manuscript, how so? Older doesn’t mean better.
LikeLike
Hey, John, I agree very much with what you said. I don’t like the dumbing-down of the scriptures, or any other writing for that matter. I think we’re better off if we learn the language rather than changing the words to simplify what is being said. There are nuances we miss when we do that.
As for the manuscripts, you said that older does not mean better, and in theory that is certainly true. However, when we are talking about the scriptures, I think we need to have the older manuscripts available, at least, because they are closer to the original. Less time has passed between the originals and the older copies; fewer copies have been made between them as well. In other words, there has been less chance of copyists’ changes being made. The chances of the older manuscripts being the same as the originals are much greater than for manuscripts copied hundreds of years later.
That being said, does it mean that older manuscripts ARE better than the newer ones? Not necessarily. We just have a better chance of having the same thing as the originals in our hands with older manuscripts. But the Holy Spirit has been working to preserve the Word, and I believe the newer manuscripts being used in the KJV are probably just as trustworthy as the older.
LikeLike
“Unlike the NKJV, the ESV uses better manuscripts, the older manuscripts that do not have all the additional words, phrases and verses like the KJV/NKJV.”
Pure nonsense. You mean how they make anger itself a sin, by having Jesus say if you are angry you’re going to hell rather than if you are angry “without a cause”? So making Jesus contradict himself, and contradict Paul, means “better manuscripts.” Be angry and sin not. Oh, look! Anger is not a sin by itself. Clearly the manuscripts that have that phrase “without a cause” are the better ones. Its time for Christians to grow up and stop being led around by the nose with these lies about better manuscripts.
For full disclosure concerning my translational usage. I grew up with the KJV, switched to the NKJV in my 20s. Today I use mainly the NRSV/RSV/KJV, sometimes the ESV, hardly ever the NKJV anymore. But all of the modern translations annoy me with some of their moronic decisions to follow these bad manuscripts. Taking out “without a cause,” banishing Acts 8:37 to the footnotes. The man asked a question “What can hinder me from being baptized?” Obviously the answer is authentic, or are we supposed to think that Philip left him hanging. Those manuscripts that leave out Acts 8:37 are simply tainted by Catholic scissoring to remove an obstacle to infant baptism, a legitimate and authentic obstacle, since obviously the man’s question received an answer.
Of the two most modernist translations, the ESV and the NRSV, I honestly prefer the NRSV, because its more honest. The ESV is pretending to still be in the tradition of the KJV when it often is a rank paraphrase, and when, of course, its based on a different set of manuscripts. If you’re going to break with the KJV, go full on and use the NRSV. After all, it uses real modern English, whereas the ESV is a hybrid of Elizabethan and modern English. For example:
Phillipians 1:3
ESV “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,”
Would anyone ever say this in modern English? No. It doesn’t even make sense. Nobody who wasn’t raised with the KJV would even know what this means.
NRSV “I thank my God every time I remember you,”
Oh, now that’s English.
LikeLike
When there are differences between manuscripts, the NKJV and NRSV have footnotes that give you quite a lot of info on that. The ESV does not. The ESV just wants you to trust that they are uber-geniuses. I don’t like that either. I see in the NRSV and ESV sometimes they both diverse from the manuscript tradition followed by the KJV but only the NRSV draws attention to it with a footnote, so I have to say the NRSV wins again.
LikeLike
David, my position is that the older manuscripts are “better” because they are closer to the originals by the date of their writing. I don’t believe a manuscript to be better just because it’s easier to understand, or that it doesn’t contradict with another passage. It’s better if it is what was originally written, even if it’s more difficult, contradictory, or ambiguous. Further tampering (clarifying) later on would constitute corruption and would lessen the value of that manuscript.
Sure, you have good points regarding the ESV and the NRSV. My concentration on the ESV is for the reason that it is a far-greater seller than the NRSV, hence more people are using it. Perhaps if the NRSV people would push their product much more, and give people the product they want; if it had a greater market presence, more people would buy and use it.
As for footnotes, you are dead on right. Very few versions have adequate footnotes, to say nothing of good footnotes. The NKJV has a good set, so does the NASB. The ESV’s poor notes are greatly hindered by their habit of printing them in a ridiculously tiny font, even in large-print Bibles. The NIV also has a woefully inadequate and confusing footnote system.
LikeLike
“Perhaps if the NRSV people would push their product much more, and give people the product they want; if it had a greater market presence, more people would buy and use it.”
I think the NRSV is probably doing as good as the ESV in reality. Just people reading the NRSV don’t tend to be the in-your-face militant sorts that are attracted to the ESV due to its endorsement by rabid Calvinists like John Piper.
All these guys do is blog about how great the ESV is. If everyone who uses the ESV is a Calvinist blogger, and all of them blog about how great it is, it makes it look like the ESV is super popular. But its just the fakery of the internet world. Sure plenty of 12-18 year old Calvinists online pretending to be adults are using the ESV. But does that really translate into real usage in the wild? And organizations like its publisher, and other Calvinist propaganda organizations don’t mind spending loads of money to create a mirage, and I think in reality that is what the popularity of the ESV is, a mirage creating by throwing a load of money on a fake-out advirtising blitz.
The NRSV is, after all, the official translation, as it were, of the Revised Common Lectionary. It can’t be hurting too bad. One good barometer is that when you go to the store, how many ESVs do you see on the shelf just sitting there, while the NRSVs there’s three or four left. So they spent a slew of money to stack the shelves with the ESV, but not that many are selling. While the NRSVs fly off the shelves.
“David, my position is that the older manuscripts are ‘better’ because they are closer to the originals by the date of their writing.”
The dating of manuscripts is fairly arbitrary to begin with. And tampering was widespread in the earliest centuries, moreso than in the later ones, ensuring (perhaps counter-intuitively) that even if the datings were solid, the likelihood of the oldest ones representing the original is very low.
“I don’t believe a manuscript to be better just because it’s easier to understand, or that it doesn’t contradict with another passage.”
Only a crazy person would say anger itself is a sin, so unless Jesus belonged in a loony bin then the manuscripts you think are so great were tampered with by the religious equivalent of nanny-statists. So many of the omissions and alterations in the “better manuscripts” are explainable along those lines that psycho fundamentalist lunatics who wanted to make everything sin and maximize sin (something along the lines of modern Calvinists) altered the text to make it fit their psycho beliefs. This is also, obviously, why in our Calvinist dominated world, these horrible manuscripts are trumped up as being the “best.” Calvinists love them because they are absurd (both the people and the manuscripts). It says anger is a sin? “Brilliant,” saith the Calvinists, “for we believe breathing is a sin.” The Gnostics (the most likely origin of these manuscripts were some sort of semi-Gnostics) agree with these sorts of notions that emotions themselves, indeed simply being human, is a sin. Birds of a feather flock together, and psycho-Calvinists scholars flock towards the more Gnosticized manuscripts.
I don’t say any of that to put you down, or anyone else who has been deluded by their rhetoric, but the “scholars” who make it their goal to brainwash us all into thinking these are the “best manuscripts” are clearly mentally unstable.
LikeLike
The RSV and NRSV also beat the ESV because you can readily find them with the Apocrypha. The NRSV beats the RSV at this, since the RSV only comes as a “Catholic Edition” which means the Apocrypha is interspersed into the Old Testament and is missing 3rd and 4th Macabess. But with the NRSV you can get either a “Catholic Edition” or just NRSV “with Apocrypha” which does what Protestants would expect, namely putting the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments as its own section. But the NRSV “with Apocrypha” also includes 3rd and 4th Macabees. I like having a Bible that is NOT missing 500 years of Jewish history, thank you very much.
By the way, the issue I mentioned above about Philippians 1:3, even the KJV renders this one better and more readable than the ESV:
ESV “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,”
In? really?
KJV “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,”
Upon makes more sense grammatically. NKJV was wiser than the ESV is retaining the word “upon” here.
LikeLike
One more point of comparison. The NRSV can be found in a compact size with the Apocrypha that is no bigger than a compact KJV, NKJV, or ESV that lacks the Apocrypha. And the font is still readable. That’s a very nice plus.
LikeLike
I don’t deny the value of the Apocrypha, if you’re looking for history. I own a NOAB in the NRSV translation with the Apocrypha. I’m glad I have it. Not because I value it as Scripture — I don’t. I appreciate having the writings from the intertestamental period. If it’s what somebody wants, fine. (Seems to me they made an ESV with the Apocrypha a couple years ago.)
I agree as far as the value of smaller Bibles that are still easily readable. Some do much better at this than others.
LikeLike
They did, but they kind of botched it up by putting the Apocrypha after the New Testament rather than between the Testaments. And you’ll never find it in stores. You’d have to order it online.
LikeLike
Hi Great Subject, 🙂 What I was taught is that the KJV 1611 is written in “old English” which was the spoken language then and is now a “dead” language. This means that what any given word meant in 1611 (and it’s revisions) will always mean the same thing. There is no changing the meaning of a known word if using a “dead language”. That serves to keep “revisions” from tainting the meaning. In my humble opinion. The KJV 1611 was THE BIBLE for 500 years. Many were saved and live were changed by it. Until about 1950 or so there were no so called “translations”. ( I would rather stand before God having lived, believing 1 Bible and finding there are many. Than to stand before him having followed many translations and finding there is only 1. ) As Stated by Bro Max Alderman Thanks Dennis B
LikeLike
Dennis, the idea that the meaning of words in a dead language do not change might be valid if the language was truly dead. But the English of the KJV 1611 is not truly dead; it has evolved. It has changed. We are still using the vast majority of those words today, and we still understand them, most of them anyway. The 1611 KJV was not a perfect translation then, and it certainly is not a perfect translation now. If you check it out, you will find that even the translators themselves will tell you as much.
Many people have been saved using the KJV 1611, and even the later revisions of the KJV 1611, even the revision that is today known as the KJV. Truth be told, the accepted wisdom is that only the original manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic were perfect. Translations by their nature can never replicate exactly what the original manuscripts said, so if you want it exact you need to know those original languages inside out and have the original manuscripts in hand to read. The problem with that is we don’t have those original manuscripts anywhere in the world.
Do you think your getting into heaven depends on whether or not you read the “one true Bible”? God isn’t going to ask you which translation you used, believe me. The fact is, virtually all the Bible translations out there will give you the True Gospel and nearly everything else in the entire Bible translated so it’s understandable. The KJV translators spoke of how the Holy Scriptures are preserved by the Holy Spirit. We know that, as we have literally thousands of old manuscripts of the scriptures dating far back in time, way beyond the newer manuscripts the KJV translators used. And they all say the same thing.
Yes, some translations are “better” than others. If you can understand the KJV 1611 perfectly, fine, go ahead and use it. (Do you ever wonder even a little bit about what any certain word or passage in the KJV is talking about? Not even a little bit?)
The best translation is the one that you read and understand the best. For the vast majority of readers, that isn’t the KJV.
NOTE: FROM NOW ON ANY AND ALL COMMENTS FROM KJV-ONLY ADVOCATES WILL BE TRASHED.
LikeLike
“Until about 1950 or so there were no so called “translations”.”
You mean because the English Revision of 1881 and the American revision of that, now called the American Standard Version (of 1901) were called “revisions”? So is the RSV (Revised Standard Version), i.e. ASV revised, and NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), i.e. RSV revised. Plus there were a ton of other translations in the 1800s (prior to the revision of 1881), just they didn’t remain popular.
LikeLike
(WordPress should have a “like” button like Facebook has!)
LikeLike