Which more literal: ESV or NASB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RamistThomist

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I am not asking which bible translation of all of them has the superior mss pedigree. Or which is the prettiest. Just which is more literal in terms of word:word translation--ESV or NASB?
 
Yes, the NASB is the most literal of all the major translations. In fact, it is often literal at the expense of clarity or good English.
 
Considering ESV removes verses from Scripture so that John 5, for example, goes v.3 and then v.5, I'd say NASB is more literal. :gpl: :):worms:
 
Romans922 said:
Considering ESV removes verses from Scripture so that John 5, for example, goes v.3 and then v.5, I'd say NASB is more literal. :gpl: :):worms:
Click to expand...

The NASB brackets John 5:3b-4; the ESV footnotes those verses. For comparison:

NASB: [waiting for the moving of the waters; 4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]

ESV footnote: Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part, waiting for the moving of the water; 4for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had
 
Romans922 said:
Considering ESV removes verses from Scripture so that John 5, for example, goes v.3 and then v.5, I'd say NASB is more literal. :gpl: :):worms:
Click to expand...

Both texts note the textual variant. It's bracketed in the NASB with the note that "Early mss do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4".
 
I can say pretty confidently that the NASB is much more word for word. When I was taking Greek and Hebrew, I would always check my homework against the NASB because it was so close to word for word, which was basically how my translations were coming out. The ESV goes to a greater length to try to smooth out the language a bit, but it is still a pretty good word-for-word translation.
 
Edward said:
Romans922 said:
Considering ESV removes verses from Scripture so that John 5, for example, goes v.3 and then v.5, I'd say NASB is more literal.
Click to expand...

Check the footnotes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of the footnotes. But footnotes aren't part of the text, just like study notes, and cross-references.

Again, I was just showing that by that very thing, the NASB has to be more literal. And I am very aware of the brackets. I do not think the NASB is perfect either, but that wasn't the question. It was which is more literal. I also wasn't complaining, it was stating a fact to make a point that most people don't make when considering literalness of a translation.
 
Romans922 said:
Yes, I am aware of the footnotes. But footnotes aren't part of the text, just like study notes, and cross-references.

Again, I was just showing that by that very thing, the NASB has to be more literal.
Click to expand...

Actually if those verses are not authentic (which the NASB is also suggesting) then the ESV is more literal! :)
 
NASB every time! (preferably the 1977 text!) It also does the courtesy of italicising words it adds to make the sentences flow more naturally. A bit embarassing when a sermon focuses on a single italicised word!
 
While both the NASB and ESV are good resources for comparison, I suggest you just stick with the Authorized Version (KJV) which underlying texts I believe to be the most faithful and supported by our classic confessional standards. :worms::cool:
 
Jacob,

The question is more difficult than it seems.

The goal of a good translation is accuracy and faithfulness, not always word-for-word renderings. For example, if you were to translate the word "Watergate" (referencing the scandal in the Nixon administration that took place in a complex called the Watergate) into another language, would you use the native word for "water" and slam it into the word for "gate"??? What about idioms? "Whatever?" "I could care less." "I couldn't care less." "Charley Horse." "Go to bat for." Would a faithful translation necessarily render these idioms into another language "word for word" without reference to meaning?

Grammatically, some languages are syntactic (e.g., Greek) while others are paratactic (e.g., Hebrew). A "literal" translation of the Greek would start an inordinate number of sentences with a participle (English gerund - "ing.") that would just sound weird to an English speaker. A "literal" translation of the Hebrew would start too many sentences with "and." I used to mimic the NASB style by saying: "GoING there, Jesus was teachING them and travelNG with them, healING them and instructING them as he was eatING and sleepING with them."

Both the NASB and the ESV attempt to use "literal" approaches to translation; opting for word-for-word renderings over periphrastic ones. The NASB does this with less concern to avoid manifestly bad English; the ESV was produced with a view to reading in church. I would classify both of them as "literal" with the NASB perhaps earning the negative sobriquet "wooden" in place of the ESV being "essentially literal." However, if you want your Bible to read like an interlinear, then the NASB is your baby, hands down.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind that they footnote it, I just wish they would tell the whole truth. Yes it is true that the "earliest and best manuscripts" do not contain verse 4, and these earliest and best manuscripts are from the second century. But it is also true that Tertullian wrote in his book On Baptism, which was written in the second century, the following regarding this passage, "An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill health used to watch for him; for whoever was the first to descend into thes waters , after his washing ceased to complain." It is obvious, based on this passage from Tertullian, that there were manuscripts that existed in the second century that contained this verse, even if we no longer possess them. It would be nice if modern versions such as the ESV would stop sacrificing biblical truth on the altar of Sinaticus and Vaticanus.
 
Why does it seem that only about three or four of the people who have posted here read the original post?

Jacob is neither concerned here with manuscript issues, nor about other translations. He's concerned with strictness of translation between the ESV and NASB.

John 5:4 is a manuscript issue. Neither of the translations discussed indicate that the verse is Scripture (because of the manuscripts translated), and both treat it as questionable. That's not the issue.
 
DMcFadden said:
Jacob,

The question is more difficult than it seems.

The goal of a good translation is accuracy and faithfulness, not always word-for-word renderings. For example, if you were to translate the word "Watergate" (referencing the scandal in the Nixon administration that took place in a complex called the Watergate) into another language, would you use the native word for "water" and slam it into the word for "gate"??? What about idioms? "Whatever?" "I could care less." "I couldn't care less." "Charley Horse." "Go to bat for." Would a faithful translation necessarily render these idioms into another language "word for word" without reference to meaning?

Grammatically, some languages are syntactic (e.g., Greek) while others are paratactic (e.g., Hebrew). A "literal" translation of the Greek would start an inordinate number of sentences with a participle (English gerund - "ing.") that would just sound weird to an English speaker. A "literal" translation of the Hebrew would start too many sentences with "and." I used to mimic the NASB style by saying: "GoING there, Jesus was teachING them and travelNG with them, healING them and instructING them as he was eatING and sleepING with them."

Both the NASB and the ESV attempt to use "literal" approaches to translation; opting for word-for-word renderings over periphrastic ones. The NASB does this with less concern to avoid manifestly bad English; the ESV was produced with a view to reading in church. I would classify both of them as "literal" with the NASB perhaps earning the negative sobriquet "wooden" in place of the ESV being "essentially literal." However, if you want your Bible to read like an interlinear, then the NASB is your baby, hands down.
Click to expand...

This is a good post. Calling the NAS a better literal translation because it orders words in such a way that it's more like the Greek misses the point. Even with an essentially "literal" translation, semantic choices still have to be made by team and this is an interpretive process. For instance, with Koine Greek, here are two ways to express the same idea.

First attributive position: ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος
Second attributive position: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός

It is not more "literal" to translate the second option as "the man the good" but "the good man".

In Greek, word order is also sometimes used to highlight what might be important but you're not going to necessarily be able to translate that woodenly in the English by simply ordering the words the same because you're trying to be "more essentially literal". I think that a translation that confuses understanding by awkward phrasing hinders understanding rather than helping it. It's not that I don't understand what Yoda is saying but it takes a lot more effort to understand him.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
In Greek, word order is also sometimes used to highlight what might be important but you're not going to necessarily be able to translate that woodenly in the English by simply ordering the words the same because you're trying to be "more essentially literal".
Click to expand...

Important this is.:D

Sometimes the word order is used for emphasis, but it stands out because it's not often the case (relatively speaking), and even when it is used for emphasis English may not be able to capture it. That's why those of us who are preachers and teachers need to to understand the original languages and not be dependent upon English translations, that we might feed the sheep adequately.
 
Thanks. I took textual criticism. I know the arguments on all sides per mss tradition.

TylerRay said:
Why does it seem that only about three or four of the people who have posted here read the original post?

Jacob is neither concerned here with manuscript issues, nor about other translations. He's concerned with strictness of translation between the ESV and NASB.

John 5:4 is a manuscript issue. Neither of the translations discussed indicate that the verse is Scripture (because of the manuscripts translated), and both treat it as questionable. That's not the issue.
Click to expand...
 
Jacob have you read Phillip Kayser and Wilbur Pickering's "Has God Indeed Said?" If not I got a PDF of it. It's pretty good and caused me think through a lot of things. I can email you if you want to PM me your email addy.
 
Here's a related question... In the 1980s when I was taking seminary courses, I had to use a NASB in addition to any other I had liked. I found the NASB to be awkward in how it rendered a lot of sentences. This was a 1977 version (obviously!!!). I recently picked up an NASB Study Bible by Zondervan for serious study. I find the 1995 translation to be more "readable." I am curious to how much the NASB was revised with the 1995 revision. Can anyone give me some detailed info? Thanks.

James
 
I used to know the answer. I used to have an NASB. I can't remember if the older version "theed and thou-ed" the Psalms when the subject of the discourse was God. I know the 1995 version use updated English (boo!!!)

mercyminister said:
Here's a related question... In the 1980s when I was taking seminary courses, I had to use a NASB in addition to any other I had liked. I found the NASB to be awkward in how it rendered a lot of sentences. This was a 1977 version (obviously!!!). I recently picked up an NASB Study Bible by Zondervan for serious study. I find the 1995 translation to be more "readable." I am curious to how much the NASB was revised with the 1995 revision. Can anyone give me some detailed info? Thanks.

James
Click to expand...
 
I came across this information:

Updated NASB (1995)

In 1992, the Lockman Foundation commissioned a limited revision of the NASB. In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reissued the NASB text as the NASB Updated Edition (more commonly, the Updated NASB or NASB95). Since then, it has become widely known as simply the "NASB", supplanting the 1977 text in current printings, save for a few (Thompson Chain Reference Bibles, Open Bibles, Key Word Study Bibles, et al.).

In the updated NASB, consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with an emphasis on determining the best Greek text. Primarily, the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece is closely followed. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.[6]

The updated NASB represents recommended revisions and refinements, and incorporates thorough research based on current English usage.[7] Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure were meticulously revised for greater understanding and smoother reading, hence increasing clarity and readability.[7] Nonmodern English terms such as "thy" and "thou" have been modernized, while verses with difficult word ordering are restructured. Punctuation and paragraphing have been formatted for modernization, and verbs with multiple meanings have been updated to better account for their contextual usage.[7]

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jash Comstock
  • Locked
NASB or ESV?
Replies
23
Views
37K
CalvinandHodges
CalvinandHodges
larryjf
  • Locked
NASB / ESV Revisions??
2
Replies
39
Views
11K
nicnap
nicnap
E
  • Locked
? About NASB vs ESV.
2 3
Replies
64
Views
44K
Yodas_Prodigy
Yodas_Prodigy
MWJ '90
NASB 2020 or CSB 2020?
Replies
14
Views
16K
Taylor
T
StephenMartyr
  • Locked
ESV or HCSB?
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
StephenMartyr
StephenMartyr
Back
Top