In case you were wondering, HCSB stands for the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The last thing I heard about the HCSB is that a few revisions will be seen in 2009.
So even with a few revisions pending it seems like we have all but given up on the HCSB. I’m not seeing any post on it in blogosphere. Rarely is it being quoted in blogosphere—at least from what I’ve noticed.
I’ll flag a few possibilities:
1. Because of its use of the Colorado Springs Guidelines as a translation foundation, it has been rejected by those looking for a modern translation with non-doctrinally biased gender language. Interestingly, because the HCSB editorial team doesn’t seem to have as high a profile as their ESV counterparts, the HCSB hasn’t been subjected to the same level of criticism as the ESV – much as the NLTse hasn’t been subjected to the same gender criticism as the TNIV.
2. Perhaps Holman’s marketing team is content to *market* the HCSB only within the sphere of influence of the Southern Baptist Convention/Lifeway. This is not the same as “selling” the HCSB in other channels. It seems that those outside the SBC are less likely to be presented with the HCSB as a translation choice beyond a few niche editions, such as the Illustrated Study Bible you’ve noted in your post.
3. The English evangelical translation market is saturated and it’s easier for consumers to pick 2-3 translations to focus on than try to exhaustively examine every possibility. Of course, the translations du jour will be those with the most marketing behind them. Right now, as far as I can tell from my vantage in Minnesota, that’s the ESV, NIV and NLTse.
4. We could be in the calm before the storm. You’ve noted the anticipated 2009 update – Holman could be “catching their breath” or retrenching before releasing the new version.
All that said, you’ve been pretty adamant on this blog and elsewhere in your rejection of the HCSB as a translation. Perhaps you could share more of your reasons as to why you “have all but given up on the HCSB”.
While this translation is good with some passages, i.e. John 3:16 and an others, there’s nothing to distinguish this translation. I “heard” it was created originally so Southern Baptists wouldn’t have to pay royalties for using other translations. If that is the case, then it’s accomplished what the creators set out for it.
If I need to use it, I can use it online, but mostly I just ignore it. A few weeks ago I saw Apologetic Study Bibles sitting in the bargain bin, for a long time.
KingJamesMan won’t even waste time running it though a table saw. What does that tell you?
Hahahaha KJVMan is a joker! Seriously I have seen the HCSB and was thinking of getting it…
I use the HCSB as my standard translation on my blog but I decided not to advertise that fact. I don’t think anyone cares what my favorite translation is (please note this is not implying anything about anyone else) and for the most part I’m not giving opinions on what I think is better or what I think a certain translation did wrong (again, not implying anything about others, criticism is sometimes educational) partly because I’m not qualified.
The HCSB is supposed to be coming out with a study Bible next year (ElShaddai’s #4?) and it has often sold more than the ESV on the monthly stats.
I wonder if this is still Rick Mansfield’s #1 translation. BTW does anyone have a list of all ten? I can only find a few on his site by searching.
I think ElShaddai’s #1 is a large factor.
Jeff
El, Do you know if the general readership was polled before they drew up those Colorado Guidelines?
2. But I thought they were trying to get away from the HCSB being a Southern Baptist Bible.
3. I know Piper is out in Minnesota, and he’s big on the ESV. I imagine posters of him all over Minnesota holding a ESV.
4. Well, maybe they’re planning on a big marketing drive. But they seem out of the game.
As you know I’m a complementarian, but I have a big problem with translations trying to convince the rest of us that that is what the NT writers were and so on.
While the HCSB has some good spots, it doesn’t really commend itself to me that much. I wish they had “brothers and sisters” and so on, but those “Guidelines.”
Bryon, yeah, that KJVO guy!
Douglas, you can consider it for yourself and let me know what you think.
Jeff, we crossed in our comments. Doesn’t Elshaddai have a top ten list?
Rick, I seriously thought he was down with the TNIV as his main text, taking it to church and preaching from it because everyone else used the NIV. I thought I read that somewhere.
I’m sure you know more about the dreaded “Colorado Springs” than me but they actually give more room for gender inclusive language than many think.
————
About the Baptist stuff:
http://www.scripturezealot.com/2008/06/06/hcsb-bible-translation-web-sites/
Will: Speaking of marketing, let me ask you just a few marketing questions. There seems to be a feeling at times that this is a Baptist translation.
Ed: Yes, there are a couple of things you probably want to clarify to people to help them. First of all Art was not a Baptist; he was Brethren. I’m not a Baptist; I’m a Presbyterian. So the General Editor in both cases was not a Baptist. The Southern Baptist contingent was maybe 1/3 of the translators. Also, you might remember that the Southern Baptists at 16 million members are by far the largest Protestant denomination. So if we worked on a numerical basis, we probably would have had more Southern Baptists. They are the largest of the seminaries as well, so there would be a lot more people to choose from…
One of the blogs, the guy wrote that this was a translation that the SBC did to put in their Sunday school literature in place of the NIV. The fact of the matter is the SBC never endorsed or promoted this translation. And if you know about the Southern Baptists, each church is independent and can use whatever translation they want. The SBC did come out later against the NIV’s change to the unisex. When we started this project, though, the SBC had nothing to do with it. LifeWay corporation paid the bills, but that’s a different entity than the convention. It’s not a Baptist translation. I was at one of the Southern Baptist booths and we had pastors come up and some of them wanted us to put “immersion” in every place where it says baptism. I said, “Well, are you going to change the name of your church to the First Immersionist Church?”
Interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor for the HCSB
————-
I have a page on the HCSB here.
Rich may use different Bibles for reading and teaching.
Jeff
That first link is out of place.
Jeff
Here is another great link. (smiley goes here)
Jeff
Yeah, Jeff, I remember that interview. I really thought the HCSB was going to doing great things. The interview seemed promising at the time. But I don’t know. We’ll just have to see. Thanks for the links.
I was looking for some gender related stuff and found this:
‘An issue in the current spotlight lies with the Greek usage of relative and indefinite pronouns, and with adjectives and participles that are used as substantives. For example, the Greek adjective dikaíou, found in James 5:16, literally means “righteous.” Used substantively, as it is here, it means “a righteous one.” Since the word has a masculine ending (though the same form is used to indicate neuter gender), early translators rendered it as “a righteous man” (as in the KJV and NIV). The HCSB avoids the unneeded gender reference by translating it as “the righteous.”
In Mark 4:9, the Greek phrase underlying the KJV’s “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear” begins with the relative pronoun hós, which can be translated with “who,” “which,” “what,” or “that.” The relative pronoun can have masculine, feminine and neuter forms, however, and the form in Mark 4:9 is masculine. Thus, the KJV translators rendered it as “he who …,” and the NIV kept the male-specific pronoun. The verb for “has” (or “hath”) and the following two forms of the verb “to hear” have no inherent gender, and must take their cue from the subject. Thus, one who translates “he who has ears to hear” will also translate “let him hear.”
But, when the relative pronoun was used without a specific referent to males or females, it was customary to employ the masculine form in a generic sense. Thus, the HCSB rendering “Anyone who has ears to hear should listen!” is right on the money.
Such word wrangling may sound strange to those unfamiliar with the rather complex declensions of languages that assign gender, case and number to every noun, pronoun, adjective and participle.
But the scholars responsible for the HCSB – undergirded by the Colorado Springs Guidelines – understand that the New Testament Greek’s gender-specific endings do not always require a gender-specific translation.’
The trouble with translations
Jeff
the New Testament Greek’s gender-specific endings do not always require a gender-specific translation.
If they had only been more consistent on the matter.
Here’s a link to all of Rick’s “Top Ten” translations.
TC: I know Piper is out in Minnesota, and he’s big on the ESV. I imagine posters of him all over Minnesota holding a ESV.
Greg Boyd is in Minnesota too. Legend has it that their fight over open theism caused the ground to split open and out came the Mississippi River.
TC,
I have a copy of the HCSB New Testament but I must admit I rarely use it. It is just so similar to the NASB/ESV (etc) that I don’t see a reason to use it much. I am so stuck on the NASB. I use the NKJV sometimes, the NLT and ESV sometimes, but the NASB is my main Bible. I rarely touch my HCSB.
We do use the HCSB in Sunday School.
Martin.
Here in England I have only once seen a copy of HCSB.
@Jeff – thanks for the link to the full biblicalrecorder.org article. I appreciated reading that.
“Greg Boyd is in Minnesota too. Legend has it that their fight over open theism caused the ground to split open and out came the Mississippi River.”
I just almost fell out of my chair laughing!
TC, there’s always the revisions. I believe it’s still version 1. But he said they would be gradual. I kind of like an overhaul like NLT. It probably took guts to do that.
YW ElShaddai and thanks for the link to the Top 10. The Message is ahead of the REB. That should cause some sort of an earthquake also.
Jeff
Greg Boyd is in Minnesota too. Legend has it that their fight over open theism caused the ground to split open and out came the Mississippi River.
El, this by itself is legendary. Dave, I know what you mean!
Martin, I see you are faithfully holding to the NASB. I plan to do a post about my experience with it.
Jeff, but with the revisions, How much movement is the HCSB going to cause? It’s probably going to be still among SB.
I’m a big fan of the HCSB, and I agree that it doesn’t get enough attention. I think the explanation is much simpler, at least from what I can tell at the bookstore: the HCSB doesn’t have a color and design scheme for all tastes (a la the NIV, ESV and NLT). Quite frankly, the cover of my HCSB (burgandy w/gold accents) is awful…but I don’t care as much as most consumers. I think this is starting to change though.
You have an excellent blog, by the way. I hope you don’t mind if I link to it. Thanks.
Jeff, but with the revisions, How much movement is the HCSB going to cause?
I would have to say not much at all as far as the revisions go. Hopefully at least some of the inconsistencies you see will be improved.
I think what could help is if they in fact come out with a study Bible and it gets some buzz. I wrote to them and told them about my post on the ESV/Crossway and how someone else in the industry saw that and took some of those things into consideration (to my great surprise).
Apparently the publishers of the HCSB have a relatively small advertising budget but it seems that a better online presence, like what the NLT people have been doing for example would be beneficial. Or maybe that’s just a tiny dent.
I will be interested in your NASB post. I love it as a reference but haven’t read a whole lot of it.
Jeff
First, thanks to EE for posting links to my top ten reviews since it was requested here in the comments. If you want links to the “complete boxed set,” go here:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20070608_top_ten_bible_versions_complete_boxed_set.html
One day I may revisit the top ten. I’d probably replace a couple of the more obscure translations that were in the latter part of the list with the NET Bible and the NRSV. I use the NET Bible pretty regularly in various forms (I was carrying the NET/Nestle27 diglot with me earlier today) and I’ve also renewed my appreciation for the NRSV since kind of abandoning it in the mid-nineties.
Also, my top ten wasn’t necessarily ranked after the first four or so. And the list was partly categorical–the Message for instance was a best paraphrase.
I wrote the HCSB review in May, 2006. And it’s true that at the time it was my primary Bible which mainly means primary “public use” Bible. By October of 2006, I switched to using the TNIV in public primarily. This was partly out of conviction that I should use a gender accurate translation in public and also for the reasons I describe in the post “This Is Why”:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20061015_this_is_why.html
However, I still use the HCSB regularly in personal preparation for teaching a text. Whenever I’m going to teach, I like to compare the original languages to four translations that I call my “core”: the NASB, HCSB, TNIV, and NLT. If I have time and interest, I may go beyond this. Therefore, the HCSB (since that’s the subject of TC’s post) still gets a good bit of my attention every week.
Strictly in terms of how I view it as an accurate translation, if we set the gender issue aside for a moment, I actually see the HCSB as a more technically accurate (detailed rendering of the text) translation that either the TNIV or NLT.
I have an upcoming post on a text from the Sermon on the Mount in which I’ll demonstrate the accuracy of the HCSB (and a few other versions that may surprise you) over and above a number of mainstream translations. The difference is not minute either as these other translations have led many people to totally misunderstand the verse. But again, the HCSB gets it right, and it usually does.
I also need to review the Apologetics Study Bible because Lifeway sent me one WAY BACK before my site went down in February.
Finally, I believe that the acceptance of the HCSB largely suffers from poor marketing by Lifeway. It’s not the same kind of poor marketing that the TNIV receives from Zondervan. Lifeway has no other “in house” translation. Rather Lifeway does not really know how to market the translation outside of Baptist circles, and ironically half of the HCSB’s translators are not eve Baptist. Further, Lifeway has a long track record of coming out of the starting gait quite strong with a new product only to eventually neglect it later in its life cycle. Let’s hope that the 2009 revision sees new interest not only on the part of consumers, but by Lifeway itself.
There are some “decent” editions of the HCSB, but nothing spectacular. I was extremely excited about the Minister’s Bible, but in actual use of it disappointed due to the near tissue thin pages. I don’t know of any other Bible I have with pages that thin. It has a mild wide margin, but marking it makes the pages curl up which an be distracting when teaching or preaching. The Apologetics Study Bible is good for what it is, but obviously that’s a niche product. The Illustrated Study Bible was not all that well received. The illustrations are not consistent in style and some, such as the picture of the ark accompanying the Noah story seems downright superfluous.
I am hopeful that the 2009 HCSB won’t hold so closely to the CSG which clearly holds it back. They don’t even have to go as far as the TNIV or NLT, but simply using something besides “man” in Gen 1:26 would be a good start.
@Jeff: The Message is ahead of the REB. That should cause some sort of an earthquake also.
Rick has stated his support for the REB as well as his reasons for not using it publicly, which I completely understand. I actually want to pick up a copy of The Message and spend more time with it. Peterson’s explanation of his translation as a supporting or complementary text is actually lockstep with the original intent of the NEB publishers – an idiomatic translation that would shed new light on the standard KJV text. I’ve been reading the NEB NT quite a bit lately and it’s quite a ride!
TC asked: How much movement is the HCSB going to cause?
The mediating market is getting crowded, with the ESV, HCSB, NET and T/NIV all vying for attention, among others. It used to be the exclusive playground of the NIV – now there’s a lot of more competition.
As I wrote in my “death of the median translation” post a while back, it would not be inconceivable to see the market split between the median formal (ESV) and the median functional (NLTse), leaving the others as fading players.
You have an excellent blog, by the way. I hope you don’t mind if I link to it. Thanks.
Peter, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the link. Have you ever tried the TNIV?
Strictly in terms of how I view it as an accurate translation, if we set the gender issue aside for a moment, I actually see the HCSB as a more technically accurate (detailed rendering of the text) translation that either the TNIV or NLT.
Rick, I’ll have to agree with you. I’m looking forward to your upcoming comparisons, esp. that stuff on the Sermon on the Mount.
Well, Zondervan should be pumping some money into the marketing of the TNIV. I hope.
As I wrote in my “death of the median translation” post a while back, it would not be inconceivable to see the market split between the median formal (ESV) and the median functional (NLTse), leaving the others as fading players.
El, you might be onto something here.
The Mississippi obviously washed all the false teaching out of Minnesota and deposited it in the Southern states! (Let the reader understand what false teaching I have in mind.)
ElShaddai, in what sense is ESV “median”? It certainly disavows being “median” in its claim to be “essentially literal”.
ElShaddai, in what sense is ESV “median”? It certainly disavows being “median” in its claim to be “essentially literal”.
I mean “median” in the sense that the ESV keeps the RSV’s old policy of using dynamic equivalency whenever necessary to smooth out the hard parts, just as the HCSB and T/NIV do. Yes, it has “traditional” language in the KJV sense, but that hardly makes it “literal” a la the NASB despite what its marketers would like us to believe.
By “median formal”, I mean the fuzzy ground between the NASB and the T/NIV, if you accept the latter as the centerpoint between formal and functional implementations. I would include the NRSV here as well.
Thanks for the clarification. But I see ESV as only a little less formal than NASB, and when it is only accidentally so, because the revisers didn’t realise how dynamic RSV was in places. I don’t think people are buying it because it is median, but because they believe the publisher’s misinformation that it is “essentially literal”.
I don’t think people are buying it because it is median, but because they believe the publisher’s misinformation that it is “essentially literal”.
I entirely agree. Calling the ESV “median” would be a kiss of death for the marketers.
TC, I have not tried TNIV. Between the two of us, my wife and I have 5 NIVs, so I’ve been somewhat reluctant to get a TNIV. The NIV is the primary pulpit and pew Bible, and, down south, TNIV is considered too liberal, which doesn’t bother me, but that will keep it out of pulpits for a while.
My personal favorite reading/study Bible is my NASB, but the NIV seems to dominate Sunday morning services.
El Shaddai, I don’t think the ESV publishers would much appreciate being called “median” either. Although, using DE to “smooth out the hard parts” while trying to adhere to a literal translation does yield a few awkward renderings. I’m a fan of the ESV though, and I think over time those things will get worked out (I hope).
Peter L, I don’t hold out much hope for ESV’s awkward renderings to be worked out in future revisions. The professed translation principles and the stylistic observations of Leland Ryken show that they believe in principle in extreme literalism and obsolete English style, so I would expect any revisions to take the text closer to what was intended rather than away from it.
Pingback: Formal and traditional Bible translation at He is Sufficient
Peter L, I’m with Peter K on this one. But what is so liberal about the TNIV? Do you have some examples?
El, thanks for the the link.
tc, the gender inclusiveness, of course. I prefer the gender inclusive language where appropriate, and as far as I’m concerned, the more translations the better (to an extent). Whatever it takes to reach more people.
Peter Kirk, I would actually prefer “extreme literalism” if that’s the intent. I’m only suggesting that the combination of the two styles makes for a few weird renderings. If the revisions go in the direction you suggest, I’m all for it.
I am currently attending a Southern Baptist Church in the Dallas area in Texas, and I was surprised to see very few HCSB Bibles being used by church members.
The pew bible is the NIV and the pastor has a preference for the NASB. It is a shame that the HCSB isn’t used more.
I also noticed this interesting blog bost from Jack Graham, the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist, which is a SBC mega-church:
http://blog.powerpoint.org/2008/07/english-standard-version.html
Is Crossway paying him to say things like:
“The result of this effort is a translation (ESV) of accuracy and clarity that enhances understanding of biblical truth and honors the highest standards of biblical scholarship. I also appreciate the beauty of the text and find it readable both publicly and privately.”
Is this the same ESV that I’ve read?
Nothingman, I’m not big on the HCSB. But several of my fellow blogging buddies love it.
Maybe the ESV is working for Mr. Graham but not me.
tc, the gender inclusiveness, of course. I prefer the gender inclusive language where appropriate, and as far as I’m concerned, the more translations the better (to an extent). Whatever it takes to reach more people.
Peter L, I appreciate your openness on the matter. But what exactly do you mean by “where appropriate”?
Would you object to “brothers and sisters” in the text? I notice you like the ESV. Well, they have decided to footnote “brothers and sisters.”
Hey TC,
my primary bible still is the HCSB. I really love it and enjoy reading it. I also use to teach from. Of course I reference all the other ones mentioned as well. I have posted in the past on the the different HCSB that I own, with pictures for those interested.
HCSB Collection
HCSB Apologetic Review
Holman Legacy Bible
No, I do not object to “brothers and sisters” at all. I do like the ESV, but for very selfish reasons. I got a huge traffic spike from the ESV blog when I poked fun at their method of footnoting brothers and sisters here:
http://beautyofthebible.com/2008/07/24/so-many-bible-translations-so-little-time/
It was all in good fun, and the ESB blog addressed the issue on the blog. My 15 minutes, as it were. My personal reading and study preference is the NASB, my church Bible is usually the NIV (because it’s what every preaches out of down here), and I like the HCSB’s treat of some Hebrew passages.
Peter L, I too enjoyed that proverbial “15 minutes” when I commended the ESV’s rendering of Eph 4:11 in 2007 updates.
Before I switched to the TNIV as my primary Bible, I used the NASB. In fact, I mentioned yesterday somewhere that I plan to do a post about my experience with the NASB and why I switched.
Sounds interesting, I look forward to it.
Is this the same ESV that I’ve read?
That’s exactly what I thought when I read that a while ago.
I also got my 15 minutes of fame from the ESV blog.
Robert I’ll add your pages to my HCSB page.
Jeff
Is Crossway paying him to say things like:
“The result of this effort is a translation (ESV) of accuracy and clarity that enhances understanding of biblical truth and honors the highest standards of biblical scholarship. I also appreciate the beauty of the text and find it readable both publicly and privately.”
Is this the same ESV that I’ve read?
That’s what happens when product reviews are written with the publisher’s reviewer’s guide or marketing flyer “in hand”. In my previous life as a software marketer, I wrote reviewer’s guides and it was embarrassing how many times legit media would publish their own review that just parroted what we’d provided them. No one really writes like that ESV snippet… no one except for marketing teams.
I really like the HCSB. But there are some places where the translation choice is awful. The one I hate the most is in the prophets where the HCSB uses “this is the Lord’s declaration” rather than simply “declares the Lord.” That one drives me crazy!
I believe the problem is the lack of exposure. When you go to a Christian bookstore, finding a HCSB can be challenging. There are large shelves of NIV, KJV, NASB, and NLT. But the ESV and HCSB are jammed together on one little shelf. The HCSB also needs more editions to choose from like the NLT and ESV. I don’t think the average person pays much attention to the version and pays more attention to color, style, layout, etc.
Anyway, love your blog. I hope you can check mine out some time and perhaps link to it. Thanks.
Brent, the HCSB will go through some minor tweaking for the new year, so I believe we’ll see a push to get it out there. Whether it will be successful or not, is another matter.
I like the HCSB a lot, even though it’s got some oddities. I find myself using it more than any other translation. Yet I find that it’s being abandoned even by LifeWay stores (which are definitely Southern Baptist, and which pushed the HCSB at first). The Lifeway store mailers now push lots of other translations instead, such as NCV. As to why the HCSB hasn’t done better in sales, I’d offer the following:
1. Pastors usually like a clear-text Bible with cross references and maybe a concordance. The early editions of the HCSB (not the NT-only editions) have had a strangely light font and no cross references.
2. The marketing was and remains weak.
3. For a fairly unknown version, it’s probably a mistake to charge for the basic electronic text. The amount of money gained from the software licensing via such programs as E-Sword is probably less than the lost profits from book sales.
4. The Lifeway marketing people, as you have said, have trouble conceiving of how people outside of Southern Baptist churches think. They can’t imagine that millions of true Christians in the USA would have a neutral-to-negative opinion of the Southern Baptists. (I’m a member of a Southern Baptist church, but unlike most Southern Baptists, became a Christian elsewhere and joined the Southern Baptists decades later after moving to a Baptist-heavy region of the country.)
5. The scholarly editions have mostly been aimed at what I’d call light scholars instead of deep scholars. The marketing for the HCSB Study Bible emphasized the color photos. I can tell you that after decades of being a Christian, I can’t remember ever experiencing a significant spiritual insight that came primarily because a photo was in color. Thus, the HCSB mostly hasn’t had editions serious enough for the scholars nor trendy enough for the trendy niche markets.
Perhaps LifeWay should put the HCSB marketing under someone who is Christian but not Southern Baptist. Then maybe they should consult some non-Baptist bookstore owners as to what would sell.
Of course, Bible translations, like everything else, are ultimately in the hands of the Lord. We can praise him for the availability of so many good ones in English.
Jim, I believe LifeWay did better with the Apologetics Study Bible.
It’s interesting that Southern Baptist churches aren’t using the HCSB more widely. Even one of my favorite tv preachers, Charles Stanley (who is S. Baptist) uses the NASB. So like what you’ve been saying, the problem may be LifeWay’s marketing.
Kevin, you’re right about marketing. Maybe they’ll up it for the 2009 revisions coming.
Well, guys like Stanley have been using versions like the NASB for years. Remember the HCSB is fairly new.
Brent, oddly enough HCSB’s “this is the Lord’s declaration” is a literalism (well, the true literalism would be just “the Lord’s declaration”), whereas “declares the Lord” is a place where even the supposedly essentially literal versions have gone for the major restructuring of replacing a noun by a verb. The HCSB rendering is good in principle but I would have gone for a less heavy word than “declaration”, perhaps “message”.
The HCSB is the right balance of accurate, literal and easy to read. I always marvel at how they are able to use far fewer words than many other translations.
Compared to what the ESV and NLT guys are doing to get the word out there and participate wherever they can HCSB has a long way to go. I like the translation, but they really need to kick it up a notch and get with the program.
Joe, they need to tweak the text some. See my Five Recommendations.
I agree. They need some tweaks and need to open the communication lines like ESV and NLT have. It’s a shame that they do not seem interested.
Well, I don’t think they are going to make much movements on among the general readership.
The NLT is the one really making the movements.
It’s kind of hard to believe why the Southern Baptist don’t seem to, at least in public, acknowledge their own product. I have seen only two people with an HCSB translation. On his tv broadcast, I saw Jack Graham reference the HCSB once. As nothingman mentioned above Jack Graham is the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church which is a Southern Baptist Mega-Church in the Dallas area in Texas. On his tv broadcast, Mac Brunson, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, mentioned the HCSB as one of the translations he recommends. However, he doesn’t use it. Like many Southern Baptist, he uses the NASB. It’s just hard to believe Southern Baptists don’t seem to openly support the translation. They should know that it exists. I’m not a Southern Baptist and I’m aware of the translation and I’m also seriously considering the HCSB as my main translation. Maybe the goal of the Southern Baptist Convention was to save money by developing their own translation and not have to pay money to use other translations in their publications. It’s kind of sad for them to have a translation that has so much potential for success, but not use available resources. Anyone know of the revisions that will be made in 2009 edition? When is the release date in 2009? Broadman and Holman Publishing is a hard organization to contact.
Protege, it was indeed as effort to save money. The HCSB has potential.
I received some information from reliable contacts about the release of the 2009 revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
I called the Broadman & Holman Publishing Group’s customer service at 1-800-251-3225 and asked about the release date and the new text will be in the HCSB Study Bible to release this summer. Other editions of the 2009 HCSB will be available in the fall of 2009.
Also, the computer software containing the 2009 revision of the HCSB is now available for purchase and download for $19.95 at the Wordsearch website which is:
http://www.wordsearchbible.com/
I purchased and downloaded the computer software and it does contain several revisions.
If possible, check it out and let me know your opinions!
Protege Rod
I agree with some of you on the HCSB. I bought a pocket size edition but stopped using it when I found out they left out some verses in translation.
I have heard rumors that the MacArthur Study Bible will be out in the ESV very soon. My only guess is that the NKJV is loosing ground rapidly in the Study Bible marketing wars and Thomas Nelson covets the money being made by Crossway with the ESVSB. My only regret is that we will have thousands of shoddily made Thomas Nelson ESV bibles out there that will not be made to last longer than a year or two.
Thanks for letting me comment
Mike
Mike,
I don’t think the HCSB left out some verses in translation. They may have excluded some verses that are known to have not been in the original. I wish all translations would do so but that is a different subject.
I’m trying to comment but get taken to a “discarded” screen. What is up with that?
Let’s try another way
@Mike, you will probably find that the ESV, NLT, TNIV or any “new translation” treats all those verses the same way….for the most part
I actually have some HCSB comparisons over at christianinsight.wordpress.com if anyone is interested.
The HCSB is currently #2 according to the Christian Booksellers Association top 10 English Bible translations list.
ESV I think is #6
Wow, I’m late to this party.
I just had a discussion with Steve Bond from BHPublishing (7/7/2010). The revised HCSB will be released in October of 2010 in the Study Bible Version.
It won’t be until early 2011 that normal text editions, et al are released.
Blessings,
Ron
I have a possibly lame comment (but that’s par for the course with me). I haven’t seen anyone else mention this (maybe I just missed it). It is insignificant… but is probably subconsciously one of the reasons I’ve never even considered this translation:
It has the publisher’s name in the title: Holman.
What other version does this? This just says “proprietary.” I just don’t seem to be able to take this version seriously.
I can’t be the only one who reacts this way.