Why I Chose the ESV over the NASB

The ESV and the NASB are very similar translations. When the ESV first came out in 2001 I started an Excel spreadsheet to record passages where I—in all my early grad school wisdom—believed one to be superior to the other. I evaluated them based on accuracy, mainly. In the end, they came out neck and neck. I just looked at that file again, and I’m not sure I’d make all the same choices, but reading the two translations over the years has led me to the same conclusion.

Both the ESV and the NASB are conservative translations. Both are willing to leave inspired ambiguity (like “the obedience of faith” in Romans 1:5) in the text instead of shunting readers into one interpretation or another (as both the KJV and NIV do). There is value in a translation which makes many interpretive choices for you—as long as you know that’s what you’re reading. But for daily reading, preaching, and study, I want to know all the options available to me. The ESV and NASB both do this—though the GNT is even better, of course!

The ESV is generally regarded as having greater literary beauty than the often “wooden” NASB, and the ESV follows in the great line of English Bible translations stretching back to the KJV. That means it’s closer to what I grew up with, and that has a value. But so does reading something like the NASB which forces you to rethink what you grew up with!

So which one should I make my primary Bible translation? If their quality as translations is more or less equal, on what basis do I choose?

I felt free to make my choice based on more or less pragmatic considerations:

1. The ESV has many more editions available than the NASB, and their typography and general quality far exceeds the available NASB editions. As an amateur graphic designer, this means a lot to me. Other things being equal, a beautiful Bible is better than an ugly one.
2. The ESV has multiple innovative editions, like the journaling Bible and the single-column reference Bible. The NASB had the latter, but it appears no longer to be available.
3. The ESV seems more likely to me to stick around than the NASB, even though it’s newer. The NASB has failed to gain much market share over its long existence. The ESV achieved a lot of popularity almost immediately.
4. I like Crossway; they have a distinct conservative identity. I also know many or most of the scholars who produced the ESV; I have their exegetical commentaries. The Lockman foundation has no identity apart from the NASB.
5. Crossway showed a commitment from the beginning—which they have kept up over almost 10 years—to making the ESV available in innovative technological formats. I use the ESV website probably 15-30 times a day. It looks great without being overwhelming and it has helpful features, such as free audio Bibles and different text display options.
6. The ESV Study Bible is the most beautiful production of its kind ever. And it has a very nice website.