![small esv bible small esv bible](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0021/5210/3983/products/DSC_1039.jpg)
Frankly, I think that is too many, and the result is sometimes a text that seems to strike the lowest common denominator-that is, the least unsatisfactory rendering. It came out eight years after the NEB did those two translations (one British and not evangelical, the other more international yet evangelical) were the first and second committee-produced English translations done in over 400 years that were not in the KJV tradition. It doesn’t read like the KJV-RV-ASV-RSV-NASB-ESV because it is not consciously trying to emulate that tradition. The 1978 edition was a fresh translation, not based on any lineage. No cardinal doctrine is involved in these places, but they nevertheless are problems in regard to accuracy.) (The translation committee, for example, used some irritating evangelical ‘trump cards’ in places where the text really does not say what they want it to say. I am happy to endorse the ESV, with the understanding that the scholarship, largely because it was restricted to evangelicals and was, within this realm, not as broadly based as some would like to see, took a downturn from previous iterations. The elegance of the translation is excellent, and the translation is very good. The ESV was an evangelical response to that. The scholarship was still solid, but it seemed to many that the translation now was bowing to egalitarian concerns by going too far in its gender inclusiveness. In 1952, the RSV set the gold standard for translations for the 20th century. The ASV was the American counterpart to the RV. Beginning with the RV, the textual basis was updated from the Textus Receptus (the Greek text that stands behind the KJV) to essentially the Westcott-Hort text.
![small esv bible small esv bible](https://www.worldbibleschool.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ESV-Study-Bible-Study-Notes.jpg)
Each of these was consciously in the tradition of Tyndale (1526, 1534) and was a revision of it to some degree. In terms of solid scholarship, the ESV has behind it a long history: the KJV (1611), RV (1885), ASV (1901), and RSV (1952). I filled in a little background on the two translations and also spoke a bit about the NET Bible. Which of these two translations comes from the most reliable, historical texts available, and is truest, accordingly? This is really important for me, because I want to work with a translation that is true to our best known, most reliable manuscripts.
![small esv bible small esv bible](http://s3.amazonaws.com/versesproject/verses/152/865/james-1-22-24_desktop_medium.jpg)
What I need to know is which version, the NIV or the ESV, has the best scholarly lineage of historical texts. Recently I received an email from a pastor about which translation is the best in terms of ‘scholarly lineage.’ His church has been using the NIV for years, but they are thinking of switching to the ESV.