Just Say No to the ESV

A "new" English Bible translation, the "English Standard Version" (ESV) began publication in 2001, touted by its makers as (among other things) a "readable and accurate translation."  Many prominent evangelical Christians (and the hordes who comprise their collective following) wasted no time boarding the ESV bandwagon, adopting it in droves as their Bible version of choice.

Not me.

I'm still waiting for a compelling argument for the ESV's superiority over the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which is more accurate while still fairly readable, or the New International Version (NIV), which is more readable while still fairly accurate.  (For the sake of full disclosure, the NASB remains by far my first choice in English translations.)

The official objective of the ESV was something along the lines of a translation "more literal" than the popular NIV, but "more idiomatic" than the NASB (considered as the most literal of the modern English translations).

But whence came the alleged need/demand for something "more literal" than the NIV, but "more idiomatic" than the NASB?  Am I the only one who didn't notice the loud cries reverberating throughout English-speaking Christendom for a new translation to fill the gaping void (read: niche market) between the NIV and the NASB?  And by exactly what measurable and objective means is the NASB deficient or inadequate in terms of literal translation and idiomatic usage?

Nowhere have I found cogent, credible answers to these questions.  Instead, it appears as if a group of Christians arbitrarily decided that their production of a new English version of the Bible, "more literal than the NIV, but more idiomatic than the NASB," was a pressing necessity — because they said so.

I couldn't disagree more (but of course, they didn't ask me).

The whole affair reminds me of Proctor & Gamble launching yet another brand of "unique" and "necessary" laundry detergent in an already saturated market.  (The real "need" is for market share, not popular demand.)

The ESV is the official Bible version of the Reformed Baptist church I attend, so for nearly two years I've had an opportunity to compare it to my NASB on a weekly basis.  I have yet to encounter passage of Scripture in the ESV, of which the "readability" or "accuracy" noticeably and unequivocally surpasses that of the NASB.

The net result of the ESV's emergence appears, in the end, to be yet another (in this case, less necessary than ever) English translation, touting its creators' stylistic, word-order, and idiomatic peculiarities as the latest and — as is popularly assumed (and consumed), therefore — the greatest.  It simply isn't demonstrably more "readable" or "accurate" than the NASB.

In other words, it's not superior, just new and different.

"That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun."
       —Ecclesiastes 1:9 NASB (of course)