Has Anyone Used Both The NASB And ESV Enough To Fairly And Competently Compare The Two?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Username3000

Guest
I’ve made a thread or two about this in the past, but I’d like to hear from you again.

Is anyone well-versed enough in both the NASB and ESV to offer a good comparison of the two from a purely translational standpoint?

There always claims of woodeness, etc., but what about the word choices? Is one consistently better than the other? That’s what I’m interested in.

Thank you!
 
The ESV tends a little more towards being thought-for-thought compared to the NASB. The ESV also makes more liberal use of modern scholarship in the Old Testament (uses dead sea scrolls, various other manuscripts and translations, etc.) while the NASB sticks more closely to the Masoretic Text. The NASB does use the Critical Text in the New Testament, but it tends to be a little more conservative in retaining readings than the ESV and some other newer translations. The NASB is also much less gender neutral than the ESV. In fact, the NASB is less gender neutral in many places than the KJV.

It tends to have a lot longer sentences and awkward phrases to more closely reflect the original, but I don't find it any worse overall than the ESV which tends to retain archaic expressions. I also don't think the ESV is particularly excellent literarily, but the NASB is probably just a little worse for reading aloud, which is part of why I imagine it isn't popular as a pulpit Bible.

A feature I like for studying, which can be a little controversial, is that the NASB marks works that it adds for clarity in italics (like the KJV/NKJV) which the ESV does not.

I use the NASB as one of my main translations for in-depth study, alongside the NKJV.

By the way, I am referring to the NASB 1995, not earlier editions, in my post. I think most of what I said is true of earlier versions as well, but I haven't spent enough time to say for sure.
 
Jake's analysis is helpful. A couple of places where I prefer the ESV.
2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" I believe clarifies the original with precise clarity on a vital doctrinal truth. The word "Inspired" in the NASB is not as clear. Also I love how the ESV translates the Hebrew word "Hesed" as 'Steadfast love'. One of the best translations of that important word in my opinion. But these issues are relatively minor. I greatly prize both the ESV and NASB.
 
The ESV tends a little more towards being thought-for-thought compared to the NASB. The ESV also makes more liberal use of modern scholarship in the Old Testament (uses dead sea scrolls, various other manuscripts and translations, etc.) while the NASB sticks more closely to the Masoretic Text. The NASB does use the Critical Text in the New Testament, but it tends to be a little more conservative in retaining readings than the ESV and some other newer translations. The NASB is also much less gender neutral than the ESV. In fact, the NASB is less gender neutral in many places than the KJV.

It tends to have a lot longer sentences and awkward phrases to more closely reflect the original, but I don't find it any worse overall than the ESV which tends to retain archaic expressions. I also don't think the ESV is particularly excellent literarily, but the NASB is probably just a little worse for reading aloud, which is part of why I imagine it isn't popular as a pulpit Bible.

A feature I like for studying, which can be a little controversial, is that the NASB marks works that it adds for clarity in italics (like the KJV/NKJV) which the ESV does not.

I use the NASB as one of my main translations for in-depth study, alongside the NKJV.

By the way, I am referring to the NASB 1995, not earlier editions, in my post. I think most of what I said is true of earlier versions as well, but I haven't spent enough time to say for sure.
Jake's analysis is helpful. A couple of places where I prefer the ESV.
2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" I believe clarifies the original with precise clarity on a vital doctrinal truth. The word "Inspired" in the NASB is not as clear. Also I love how the ESV translates the Hebrew word "Hesed" as 'Steadfast love'. One of the best translations of that important word in my opinion. But these issues are relatively minor. I greatly prize both the ESV and NASB.
Great, thank you.
What about Psalm 19:3?

There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard (NASB).

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard (ESV).
 
Let's make this more specific. Please. Is this going to be another manuscript thing? Let us know that Burgon has not been refuted yet, as far as I know. The people who defended him are dead. The Confession and Owen have made statements that are relevant. Why do we keep going around and around about this. Does anyone want to really read these guys? Let me know.
 
Let's make this more specific. Please. Is this going to be another manuscript thing? Let us know that Burgon has not been refuted yet, as far as I know. The people who defended him are dead. The Confession and Owen have made statements that are relevant. Why do we keep going around and around about this. Does anyone want to really read these guys? Let me know.
I’m just looking for info on how each of these translations does in rendering the originals into English.
 
This thread was about something misrepresened in my estimation and a reality. It is about a world we live in. It has many faucets that will lead to things we want and don't want. One of those is that we don't want to fail John Wycliffe. Jon Huss, Hugh Latimer, or those who desire to read the Bible in our own language and understand them in a correct way. Is that true?​
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand. Sorry. There are differences between Dynamic Equivalence Translations but I think something more important should be addressed also. Robert Martin addresses your concerns in a book he did about the NIV many years ago. https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Translation-Criterion-Evaluating-International/dp/0851517358
Thanks. But what about when both NASB and ESV claim to be essentially literal translations?

I reject the NIV out of hand, but have a harder time differentiating between the better translations.
 
I believe you can find his Sunday School teachings on the topic from Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in New Jersey.
 
I would take the NASB or Revised Version 1881 for Literal but give heed to the ESV in some situations. This is a very long and intense study. You have to take the time. The NIV is very good for the book of Philippians as I understand things. There is a need to understand a lot that I am still learning 40 years into this discussion. I still like the Majority texts and those arguments laid out by Burgon that I don't believe have been answered concerning the Manuscripts. I am not alone in this feet. I just don't pursue it. I do believe in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture.
 
When I got saved in 1980, I started reading the NASB which, over time, I decided was pretty wooden in its English syntax (reading it aloud can be a chore). When the NIV came along, I started reading it. That translation is very smooth (and easy to read aloud) but it's very paraphrastic in its wording, much of the time. Then, when the ESV came out in 2001, I switched to it and have been a happy camper ever since. The ESV is accurate, yet flows easily.

So, I went to the NIV to escape the NASB, then I went to the ESV to escape the NIV.

I'm happy with it. At 67, I don't think I'll be changing translations again.
 
Perhaps I’ve been wrong this whole time, but I’ve always thought that the ESV was saying that they are heard, due to the double negative. There are none who are not heard.

I would agree with your reading. That's certainly how it reads: that there are no words or speech which are not heard.
 
A feature I like for studying, which can be a little controversial, is that the NASB marks works that it adds for clarity in italics (like the KJV/NKJV) which the ESV does not.

How could this be remotely controversial? It's very useful.
 
Thanks. But what about when both NASB and ESV claim to be essentially literal translations?

I reject the NIV out of hand, but have a harder time differentiating between the better translations.
The term is formal equivalence. After that, it is as matter of how well a translation handles the transition to modern English syntax and usage.

I traveled with a small ESV on the road to care for my parents and have read extensively both translations out loud to my boys. The ESV was not very graceful and I quit it completely after reading Isaiah because the lyrical qualities of those passages were just gone.
 
I frequently refer to both versions. I was "raised" on the NASV (pre-95). I "read" out of the ESV. I "study" from both, but more so the NASV. When I perceive a difference in the text of any substance, I consult the most original sources I can, which is usually a commentary or two.
 
The term is formal equivalence. After that, it is as matter of how well a translation handles the transition to modern English syntax and usage.

I traveled with a small ESV on the road to care for my parents and have read extensively both translations out loud to my boys. The ESV was not very graceful and I quit it completely after reading Isaiah because the lyrical qualities of those passages were just gone.
That’s interesting, because I often hear the ESV being praised for its quality of English; and the NASB being put down for poor English.
 
That’s interesting, because I often hear the ESV being praised for its quality of English; and the NASB being put down for poor English.
The criticisms of the NASB I've seen have been the aforementioned 'woodenness.' It impresses me, whether or not it should, that John MacArthur, and Greg Beale use the NASB to study and preach from. As for 'rejecting the NIV out of hand,' it is notable that D.A. Carson referred to it as the 'best English translation' in the 1970s.

I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for 6 years now. Each year I chose a different English translation as my primary daily/nightly reader. KJV, 1599 Geneva, 2011 NIV, NASB, NKJV, in that order from year one through 5. This year I'm loving the NRSV for the elegance of the translation.

I'm a layman, and probably not the sharpest tack in the box, but in 5 years, into the sixth, of comparing translations, I don't see a dime's worth of difference, besides the well known controversies that have been beaten to death on this board and elsewhere.

Leland Rykan has written two books promoting the ESV. In the one I read,
The ESV and the English Bible Legacy,he says the ESV is 'in the tradition of Tyndale.' Being in a line of revisions of the KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV. I haven't read it cover to cover, as I've done with those mentioned above, but I dabble in it and it seems in line with all of the above save for the 2016 revision in Genesis 3:16.

My two cents.
 
The criticisms of the NASB I've seen have been the aforementioned 'woodenness.' It impresses me, whether or not it should, that John MacArthur, and Greg Beale use the NASB to study and preach from. As for 'rejecting the NIV out of hand,' it is notable that D.A. Carson referred to it as the 'best English translation' in the 1970s.

I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for 6 years now. Each year I chose a different English translation as my primary daily/nightly reader. KJV, 1599 Geneva, 2011 NIV, NASB, NKJV, in that order from year one through 5. This year I'm loving the NRSV for the elegance of the translation.

I'm a layman, and probably not the sharpest tack in the box, but in 5 years, into the sixth, of comparing translations, I don't see a dime's worth of difference, besides the well known controversies that have been beaten to death on this board and elsewhere.

Leland Rykan has written two books promoting the ESV. In the one I read,
The ESV and the English Bible Legacy,he says the ESV is 'in the tradition of Tyndale.' Being in a line of revisions of the KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV. I haven't read it cover to cover, as I've done with those mentioned above, but I dabble in it and it seems in line with all of the above save for the 2016 revision in Genesis 3:16.

My two cents.
ESV does a better job on Deut. 32 and Psalm 82. Aside from that, I like the NASB better.

Thanks for the responses, gentlemen.

————

Here’s another question for everybody:

What characteristics of a translation are most important to you? How do you rank them?

Thugs such as accuracy, readability, having a translation that matches what your local church uses, the different types of formats available (reference, text only, single column, wide margin, etc.), the future outlook of the translation (is it dying away, or will it be used for the foreseeable future?), is it the same as your spouse likes, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top