ESV or NASB? A review of the pros and cons by Ken Scullion
The best two English translations are the NASB and the ESV. I read from the ESV
but do like the literalness of the NASB
The ESV is a relatively new translation developed by a team of scholars over several
years. It is a revision to the RSV from half a century ago. As such it stands in the
time-honoured tradition of Tyndale, Geneva, and King James. It is a highly accurate
and readable translation while maintaining a literal standard with the original
language. (For a thorough analysis of the essentially literal philosophy read Leland
Ryken’s book “The Word of God in English.”) He makes a compelling case for the
essentially literal philosophy over and above the more popular dynamic equivalent
philosophy used in many more contemporary translations such as the NIV and NLT.
As its goal the ESV seeks to maintain the literary nature and quality of the original.
Since the Bible contains many different forms of literature (poetry, narrative, didactic,
etc.) the translators attempted to maintain this literary form and structure within the
English language. This is good and helpful to the reader of Scripture in that you can
read the Bible in the same sense in which the original readers would have read it.
The NASB is a conservative revision to the ASV and is widely regarded as the most
literal translation in English. It never achieved wide distribution due to its perceived
“woodenness” of translation but it has been widely used by those seeking to have an
English Bible that reflects the Greek and Hebrew grammar and style. To be fair to
the NASB the charge of being “wooden” is not really an accurate assessment
especially since the 1995 update. In my opinion and experience it is every bit as
readable as the ESV and perhaps better than the NKJV and KJV.
ESV and NASB:
1) Both are accurate and reliable translations.
2) Both are essentially literal.
3) Both are readable English.
4) Both stand in the tradition of Tyndale, Geneva, and King James.
5) Both use the best manuscripts to translate the NT.
Pros for the NASB:
1) Regarded as the most accurate Bible in English.
2) Excellent translational notes. All areas where there is a significant variation in the
text or translation you will find a footnote with the alternative translation.
3) OT quotes in the NT are in all capital letters making them very easy to find.
4) Pronouns referencing deity are capitalized. This may not be great use of English
grammar but it is appropriate and makes the discussion easy to follow in areas
where many pronouns are used.
5) Makes a sincere effort to not function as the interpreter of the text. Thus allows the
reader to function as the interpreter. In a day and age when dynamic and even
paraphrased translations are on the rise in popularity this is a serious plus.
Cons for the NASB:
1) Follows Greek and Hebrew word order closely. This can make for some difficult
readings in English. Though the charge of “wooden” English is a bit unfair, there are
areas of this test which are difficult English and do not flow well when read aloud.
The 1995 update went a long way to help this but it is still an issue with the
translation.
2) Not all translational decisions take advantage of modern scholarship. Traditional
readings are sometimes favoured over more accurate readings. For example the use
of the term “inspired” rather than the more accurate “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy
3:16 (though this is footnoted.)
3) The NASB retains some archaic English terms even though they do not best
represent the clear translation of the original text. For example, the use of the term
“begotten” in John 1:14, 18, and 3:16 is an attempt to translate a Greek term
meaning “one and only” or “unique.” Begotten does not mean this and is an improper
translation of the Greek. I am not a Greek scholar by any means but this opinion is
supported by many scholars. The NASB footnotes the more accurate translation but
chooses to use the other term. Why this was done is only known by the translators.
Pros for the ESV:
1) Maintains a balance of accuracy with good readable English. The ESV can easily
be read aloud and understood by both the reader and those hearing.
2) The English used in the ESV is of a higher quality that we normally see in our
everyday life. This is actually a good thing. I know people assert the fact that the NT
was written in the common form of Greek as support for making translations sound
more like our everyday speech. I sympathize with this viewpoint but there is a
difference between making a translation understandable to modern people and
making it in the base vernacular of the day. I believe that there is a place for
translations at a lower level of English but this is frequently done at the expense of
accuracy and results in a much more dynamic and interpretive translation. Also, the
vernacular English of our day is typically devoid of reverence and awe. The English
Bible should call Christians to a higher standard and allow the teachers and pastors
to interpret the text. It is difficult to worship a God who is referred to as “Dude” (no
translation currently does this but there is a decided lack of respect for the Almighty
in many of the more paraphrase-leaning translations available.)
3) It has been embraced and endorsed by many Christian leaders. (RC Sproul and
John Piper, to name two.) This is not a reason by itself to embrace this translation
but it is significant when knowledgeable and godly Christian leaders agree on a Bible
translation.
4) The footnotes are very helpful. They not only explain translational issues but the
offer some explanatory notes as well. (Ref: Matt. 27:26 which footnotes the word
“scourged” to offer an explanation as to what this means.) This is well done and not
overdone.
5) The ESV is easy to follow along with when in church services or Bible studies
where the NIV or KJV is being read. In our church the main preaching Bible is the
NIV.
Cons for the ESV:
1) There are a few areas where the use of English is not quite as elegant as it could
be and other areas where accuracy was seemingly sacrificed for readability. A good
example of this is Romans 8:28 where the word order of this text is very different
from what most other translations use. There is no clear reason as to why this was
done. Most translations would say, “all things work together for the good to them that
love God,” (KJV). The ESV translates this, “for those who love God all things work
together for good.” Read these two out loud and see which one feels more natural.
The ESV changes the word order but there is no logical reason I can see to do this.
2) Some textual decisions that should be footnoted are not. (Ref: Matt. 18:15 which
includes the variant in the phrase “If your brother sins against you.” “Against you” is
not in the earlier MSS but no footnote is provided explaining this. This slightly
changes the direction of the argument and should be noted. In my opinion the textual
evidence is stronger for not including “against you” than for including it so it should
not be there in the text. The NASB recognizes this and properly footnotes the
“against you” phrase.
3) Pronouns referring to Deity are not capitalized. Not an essential element, and not
proper use of English grammar, but I happen to prefer it. It can also assist with
following pronouns in some passages. Though, to be fair this is a form of
interpretation.
4) OT quotes in the NT are not as clearly marked as in the NASB. In fact, they are
not clearly marked at all. The footnotes are helpful for this.
5) The ESV has a history of relatively frequent revisions. It is a good thing to update
a translation but the ESV is now on its third major revision in ten years. It was
originally released in 2001 and revised in 2007 and then again in 2011. However, I
will admit that the most recent changes have been minor and there are no further
plans that I have heard to make further modifications.
In summary:
All in all I would say that either translation is excellent. Both effectively communicate
the word of God in English.
BUT - the best translation of the Scripture is no better than the worst if you don't read
it!
Ken Scullion
March 2013