# Which more literal: ESV or NASB?



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2013)

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?


----------



## mossy (Jan 24, 2013)

According to this chart the NASB is more leteral. 

Translation Comparison Charts

Terry


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 24, 2013)

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.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2013)

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.


----------



## Gage Browning (Jan 24, 2013)

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.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 24, 2013)

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.



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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2013)

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.



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".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 24, 2013)

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.



Check the footnotes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Zach (Jan 24, 2013)

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.
> ...



Exactly. I said the same in another thread yesterday. I'm not sure why it is big enough deal that it has to be complained about in two different threads.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ShagVT (Jan 24, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2013)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Edward (Jan 24, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> But footnotes aren't part of the text, just like study notes, and cross-references.



I'll disagree with you on that. There's a big difference between a textual footnote and study notes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Jan 25, 2013)

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.



Actually if those verses are not authentic (which the NASB is also suggesting) then the ESV is more literal!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 25, 2013)

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!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## reformedminister (Jan 25, 2013)

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.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 25, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 25, 2013)

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.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 25, 2013)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Douglas P. (Jan 25, 2013)

The NASB is the more literal word for word translation, and the ESV translators wouldn't disagree with that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> Jacob,
> 
> The question is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> ...



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Jan 25, 2013)

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".



Important this is.

*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.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 25, 2013)

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.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 25, 2013)

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.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 25, 2013)

No, i haven't read it.


----------



## mercyminister (Jan 25, 2013)

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 25, 2013)

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


----------



## mercyminister (Jan 26, 2013)

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2013)

went to a used book sale today. Bought a wide margin NASB (1977) hardback for .50


----------



## mercyminister (Jan 26, 2013)

*NASB*



Cameronian said:


> went to a used book sale today. Bought a wide margin NASB (1977) hardback for .50



Good buy! Enjoy it.

James


----------



## Zach (Jan 26, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> went to a used book sale today. Bought a wide margin NASB (1977) hardback for .50



You have whet my appetite to see what treasures my local used bookstore may have! Great find.


----------



## mercyminister (Jan 27, 2013)

I found a new KJV Sunday School edition at a local book sale that was listed on amazon.com for $139.00. I paid one dollar for it. I haven't used it, as I have a few KJVs I use, but to get a new Bible for one dollar was a winner. Zach, you will never know what you will find unless unless you're at book sales and flea markets on a regular basis. Those who don't know God's Word don't value it, so you will find Bibles out there every cheaply.

Good luck with your quest.

James


----------



## ch0zen (Jan 29, 2013)

one of my lecturers at college was on the translation committee for ESV.

having an understanding of his methods, i would not only agree that NASB is more literal, but i would also suggest that the ESV takes 'historical context' into deep consideration, to the point of applying a nuanced emphases on certain passages. (although I only comment with certainty on the Pauline Epistles)


----------



## sevenzedek (Jan 30, 2013)

ch0zen said:


> one of my lecturers at college was on the translation committee for ESV.
> 
> having an understanding of his methods, i would not only agree that NASB is more literal, but i would also suggest that the ESV takes 'historical context' into deep consideration, to the point of applying a nuanced emphases on certain passages. (although I only comment with certainty on the Pauline Epistles)



Since you comment with certainty, will you give us an example?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> 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?



If mss. pedigree isn't an issue, then why not include the KJV and NKJV in the conversation? The ESV and the NASB use the same manuscripts as do all modern translations save one. And the NKJV differs only in the NT. 

Among modern translations, the NKJV has the virtue of being more literal than the ESV and more readable than the NASB while also retaining more of the KJV in the process. Sometimes it's more literal than the NASB and it's probably quite close in most instances. This is commonly seen in the NKJV's literal rendering of Hebrew idioms whereas the NASB often renders it in a more modern English equivalent. For example the NKJV will have "gird up the loins of your mind" whereas the NASB will have "prepare your minds for action." Both of them have italics. While not perfect, I like the practice because it lets you know when the translators may have gotten a little interpretive whereas the ESV doesn't always disclose that. This seems to be more noticeable in the NASB than in any other translation that uses them but that may simply reflect recent reading on my part. 

Although I haven't spent much time in it, I'm guessing that in some ways the HCSB may be more useful for close study than the ESV because of the relatively large quantity of textual notes. There are probably twice as many compared to the NASB. For those like Andrew (and myself) who prefer the traditional text retained more often, even in brackets, the HCSB (like the NASB) is also more conservative than the ESV in that regard. But overall it's not as literal although it's moreso than some would think who tend to equate it with the NIV. Textual issues aside, when a version jumps from v. 3 to v.5 it causes problems in Bible studies, etc. and it's perhaps worse if the teacher's version is missing the verse. If desired you can still discuss the textual issue. 

Unfortunately, quality editions of the NKJV (that are currently in print) are relatively few and far between since Nelson's quality went down the drain about 15 years ago. That didn't use to be the case with the NASB, but it is now after Lockman/Foundation Press moved production to China with a noticeable decline in quality. By contrast you can currently get a decent quality ESV from Crossway without shelling out for Cambridge, R.L. Allan or Schuyler.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> went to a used book sale today. Bought a wide margin NASB (1977) hardback for .50



 I've picked up books that way but not Bibles. Was this a university or library book sale? 

Hopefully I can pick up the vaunted Nelson NKJV Wide Margin like that some day. Online sellers often try to get about $200 for them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2013)

Pilgrim said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > went to a used book sale today. Bought a wide margin NASB (1977) hardback for .50
> ...



On the other hand, it is one of those Spiros Zhodiates key word bibles. It's okay, but some of the notes are annoying. Monroe is having a major book sale in two months. I'm hoping to really hit it big vis-a-vis bibles.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 31, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Cameronian said:
> ...



I've got one of those that a friend gave me years ago. So I've got the $.50 beat! But he marked up 2 or 3 books extensively and I hardly ever pick it up for that reason. From what I understand, the language tools are generally helpful. To my recollection he doesn't have many study notes. Those that are there often refer the reader to some other book of his. Otherwise the handful of lengthy notes that are there teach dispensationalism and, if I recall correctly, maybe "free grace" theology i.e. "no lordship."


----------

