An Open Letter to the Lockman Foundation – Revisited


Two years ago on my previous blog I wrote one of my most popular posts,  ‘An Open Letter to the Lockman Foundation,’ regarding the state of the New American Standard Bible. That post generated over 800 WordPress views, 25 WordPress comments, and a great deal more discussion and debate on Facebook, Twitter, and another couple forums dedicated to Bible design and translation. Despite the agreement and debate generated, I haven’t seen much any change.

I recently went to a Christian bookstore to peruse children’s Bibles that my wife might use in her Sunday School curriculum. Naturally, I couldn’t resist checking out all the other Bibles as well. While mainstays like the NIV, KJV, and ESV had their own shelves, I found my beloved NASB tucked away amidst other pretenders to the throne on the “other translations” shelf. Quelle tragédie! What I had long regarded as the pinnacle of English translations, and what I formerly and arrogantly referred to as the “Bible for smart people,” now seemed to have fallen further out of favor. It was at that moment that I realized I needed to revisit my thoughts on the subject.

The original open letter:

Dear Lockman Foundation, I believe you are missing the potential of one of the greatest resources available in all Christendom – the New American Standard Bible. You hold the copyright to the most literal, literate, and literary translation of the Holy Bible in the English language. Despite this treasure, the NASB placed 8th on the list of most units sold per translation in 2012. Here are a few humble suggestions from a lifelong NASB fan and loyalist:

IMPROVE YOUR MARKETING: Crossway has 30+ different editions and permutations of the English Standard Version currently on the market, with more popping up all the time. They are aggressively expanding in all markets and have Celebrity Pastors hawking their goods left and right.

EMBRACE THE LITERAL: Being the most literal of all mainstream translations is a commendable feat and a selling point, but you can go further. Why not translate LORD in the Old Testament as Yahweh? Why not avoid capitalizing divine pronouns when there is no manuscript evidence to support this practice? Also, there are numerous instances where a word will have a footnote that gives an even more literal translation than actually used – why hold back?

CHANGE THE ‘AMERICAN’: Christianity is booming in the ‘Majority World.’ Crossway recently released the ESV GLOBAL STUDY BIBLE. Wouldn’t it sound strange to have a NEW AMERICAN STANDARD GLOBAL STUDY BIBLE? I love my country, but the word ‘American’ is unnecessarily limiting your customer base – even in regards to other English-speaking nations.

Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns. I hope for a bright and lasting future for this excellent translation. In the meantime, I will continue to use and enjoy my ‘77 NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, my Cambridge NASB Pitt Minion Reference Bible, my Cambridge NASB Wide-Margin Reference Bible, my Cambridge NASB Clarion Reference Bible, and hopefully at some point in the future a Schuyler Quentel NASB!

Two years later, I have more to add. Unless something changes at Lockman, I believe the NASB is headed for extinction. Competition is fierce – they missed the opportunity to sell their copyright to Holman, there are countless English translations flooding the market, and Crossway is continuing to beat Lockman up and take their lunch money. The breadth of marketing, design, diversity, and quality of Crossway products is undeniable. I emailed somebody at Lockman suggesting the creation of a Reader’s Edition-style NASB, similar to the ESV Reader’s Bible. I was met with a cheerful response claiming that they already had one, and a link pointing me to something that in no way, shape, or form resembled a reader-friendly design philosophy.

The New American Standard Bible needs to find its niche, even if it does not adapt and evolve in the ways I suggested above. One strategy could be to place a high-quality NASB into the hands of as many seminary graduates as possible. This would help produce translation loyalty in generations of Church taste-makers.

But the biggest red flag of all… is me. Lockman? I’ve met someone. Yesterday I discovered the Lexham English Bible, or LEB. A new translation from Logos Bible Software, the LEB can be read online and is included with the free Faithlife Study Bible app (and presumably other Logos products). The clear downside is that the LEB is not available in print – yet. But, after two days with the translation I may have found what I have always wanted. In fact, so far it seems that the LEB checks every box I was advocating for the NASB to adopt! Lockman… maybe sell your copyright to Logos?


6 thoughts on “An Open Letter to the Lockman Foundation – Revisited

  1. I’m tracking with you all the way up until you bucking the version’s title “American.” The Lockman Foundation published this Bible version for American-English readers, not British-English readers. (ie. In the NASB, Joseph did not wear a coat of many COLOURS. And, Moses didn’t command the Israelites to HONOUR one’s father and mother (or MUM, for that matter). Jesus did not get BAPTISED by John the BAPTISER.)
    The Lockman Foundation did this same labeling in their La Biblia de Las Americas (LBLA), a Spanish Bible translated into Latin-American-Spanish (as opposed to European-Spanish).
    However, in the ESV Anglicised Version (ESVUK) ( is another matter. The distinction is made to target an audience with language nuances unique to their country’s version of the English language. It is comical to me that the word “anglicised” refers to the process of making something English or more English. So, instead of literally calling it the “More-English English Standard Bible,” we could called it the “If It’s Good Enough for Paul Bible” (GEP). -Oh, wait that title already is used among the KJV-only indie baptists. Cuss words.
    Perhaps the Lockman Foundation didn’t make their American distinction specific enough. Maybe you should ask them to have a southeastern Bible version (New Dixie American Standard Bible) which demonstrates the southeast’s progressive syntax that exceeds that of the “Union” Bible, demonstrating the prowess of southerners’ ability to invent a second person plural pronoun, as demanded by the Greek texts (ὑμεῖς). The Dixie version would also, no doubt included various sayings and idioms (ie. “Y’all do not belly-ache, brothers, amongst y’rselves, so that you’ns ain’t gonna be judged; looky, the Judge is standing right there at the door.” (James 5:9, NDASB))
    Then again, if we made such provisions for Southerns, the Northerners would feel left out… as would the Canadians. The NCSB (New Canadian Standard Bible) would end all questions with “eh?”.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Well played, brother Corey. Let me give you some context for my point – I belong to a church that is very much multi-ethnic / multi-cultural (and even multi-linguistic) in focus. From a Great Commission standpoint, ‘American’ as a cultural descriptor can be a barrier for adopting the NASB as the translation of choice for my church, but it makes more sense thinking of it properly as the New American-English Standard Bible.


  3. You have articulated many of the things that I have appreciated about the NASB for years–and some of my disappointments about the Lockman Foundation’s stewardship of that translation. I first learned to read/study Scripture with the NASB decades ago. But I don’t think my fondness for it is merely nostalgia. With multiple advanced degrees in Biblical studies and many, many years of teaching and preaching, I still find the NASB to be imminently valuable for understanding what God inspired the Biblical authors to pen. As much as I do appreciate the ESV (and a few other newer formal equivalent translations), I still find that the NASB serves me better in: calling attentive to the way the original writers put their thoughts together, helping me see and grasp the linguistic relationships between sentences and phrases and paragraphs, and following the original author’s thoughts by preserving the words originally used (as much as possible). It would be a huge disappointment to me–and I believe a loss to the body of Christ–if the NASB faded from view.

    The argument that is sometimes raised–that the NASB is too “wooden” for regular use–seems to be to be a kind of special pleading. Shakespeare is “wooden” for contemporary English readers but no one suggests that we “smooth out” Shakespeare’s English to accommodate to the tastes of contemporary readers–at least no one who actually hopes people will read Shakespeare. If were looking for fidelity to Shakespeare’s writing, I would think that a current edition of his works would not read like the most modern of English. So, to feel a bit of a rub in reading the NASB seems to me to be more of a help than a hinderance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I find both the attacks on the NASB and the efforts of the Lockman foundation to be appalling.
      First, I get tired of people selling or promoting other bibles saying the NASB is wooden when it comes to reading it.
      As if the NASB is so difficult to read.
      I personally read several bible versions and I find this claim base on total ignorance, especially since the 1995 update.
      Second, there is no other bible more accurate then the NASB, not even the ESV or the beloved King James.
      Now the great combination of readability along with being the most accurate should have the NASB flying off the book shelves , but it’s not.
      Third, It’s not because the Lockman foundation refuses to open it’s business eyes to better marketing ideas to promote their bible.
      Think of this for a moment every other bible organization that promotes their bible works diligently to sell Bibles to both Calvinist and Free Will people like Methodist and Pentecostals.
      Not the Lockman foundation whatsoever ! Go ahead and look at any NASB study bible. They are all Calvinist study bibles. Not a single NASB study bible is a spirit filled or Pentecostal study bible.
      Now before the Lockman foundation jumps on their high horse of standing on principals. We are not talking about changing the biblical text. We are talking about selling bibles. Why would you as an organization lock yourself away from nearly 60% of the Christians in the World?
      Please tell me what you are proving by being stubborn and stupid when it comes to marketing your prduct ?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I must concur with the author of this article, as one who has so strongly admired the NASB I must admit somethings have to change….whether it’s the title which is polarizing since Christians come in all stripes not just American. Secondly maybe add more colors to it….in this bright colors…4K app, clear fonts, techno world the NASB feels like James Bond 1977 instead of 2018 …I’m not advocating changing the translation….I’m just saying change its dress….it’s feels so old…well those are my 2 cents…living in this millennial age…and maybe I’m the problem …maybe with sacred writ the older it looks the more authentic it seems….

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Upon further reflection, the LEB (Lexham English Bible) is not the translation you are looking for. I think the ESV’s 2016 “(not-so) permanent text edition” is the best currently on the market. I resisted the ESV for a long, long time, but they have it in a really good place currently. THAT SAID, I am eagerly awaiting the new version of the NASB, allegedly due in 2018.

    As far as the name… I suggest they change it to NEW ACADEMIC STANDARD BIBLE and make it their goal to get a copy into the hands of every English-speaking seminarian they can find.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s