The late 19th Century saw two major projects to update the King James Version: the (British) Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 in the United States. In spite of the improvements made upon the KJV, neither of these revisions saw much attention outside academic circles. A number of English translation projects were introduced in the first half of the 20th Century including those by James Moffatt (1935) and Edgar Goodspeed (1927). However, the only real modern translation to make any kind of inroad into Protestant Bible reading in this era was the 1952 Revised Standard Version, a substantial update to the 1901 ASV. Yet, even then, most Christians continued to preach and read from the King James Version.

The 1970's however, would signal an explosion in modern translations beginning with the New English Bible (1970), The Living Bible (1971), the New American Standard Bible and RSV II (1971), Today's English Version (1976), New International Version (1978) and the New King James Version (1982). Of this generation of English translations, two Bibles distinctly stand out. The Living Bible is significant in that not only was it an extremely popular paraphrase, but more importantly, it was the first Bible to unseat (for a time) the KJV as the highest ranking in Bible sales. The second Bible of note from this era is the New International Version which was able to sustain a top ranking in sales for the most part over the last two decades. The NIV, like the TEV was a brand new translation, not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Moreover, like the TEV and NKJV, the NIV was completely free from archaic vocabulary unlike the RSV II and NASB, which still used "thee" and "thou" when referring to deity. And most significantly, it was during this era that most Christians started to read modern translations--that is, something besides the venerable old King James Version.

In my opinion we are now in a second major generation of translations since the 1970's. I would date this era as beginning in 1989 with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version. This era has also seen an update to the New American Standard Bible (1995); the New Living Translation (1996 and 2nd edition, 2004); a more conservative alternative to the NRSV, the English Standard Version (2001); a paraphrase, the Message (2002); the Holman Christian Standard Version (2004) and the Today's New International Version (2005). A record number of other translations have appeared in this era as well--some better than others--but in my opinion, these that I have listed are the most significant versions. This current generation is marked by two things. First, in this group all archaic language has been dropped. Secondly, the debate regarding inclusive language referring to human beings has taken front and center stage. All of these translations are more inclusive than those of a generation ago, but the NRSV, NLT, Message, and TNIV are more overtly so.

And of this group, the HCSB stands out as the first completely new committee-translated Bible version since the NIV of 1978.

HISTORY. What would become the HCSB started as a project of Dallas Theological Seminary professor, Arthur Farstad. Farstad had previously served as editor of the New King James Version (1982) and co-editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. From what I can gather, Farstad wanted to do a brand new translation, presumably outside the Tyndale/KJV tradition. All the sources I've read claim that Farstad wanted to base this translation on the same NT manuscript tradition underlying the King James and New King James Versions (the Textus Receptus). I've often wondered if this is accurate though. Was Farstad working on a translation based on the TR or the Majority Text? To me it would make sense that he would have been working on a translation based on the latter, especially since--as I have said before--there's not a major translation based on the Majority Text.

Regardless, Farstad worked on his project from 1984 until 1998 when Broadman and Holman, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention offered to financially support the project and retain ownership of it. The SBC was looking to sponsor a translation of its own to use in Sunday School literature and related publications so that it would no longer have to pay licensing fees to use the New International Version. In the same year that the deal was struck, Farstad died. After his death, the editorial responsibilities were turned over to another committee member Ed Blume and the underlying NT text was switched mid-project to the NA27/UBS4. Frankly, I am glad the text was switched because I would have hated to have seen an "official" SBC translation based on either the TR or the MT. I would have certainly not been interested in the HCSB if it had continued on this path, and it wouldn't be on this list. I'm not hiding my textual bias.

Personally, I have a number of questions I've never seen addressed anywhere. First, I am curious about the actual text Farstad was using as I have mentioned above. Was it really the TR, or was it in fact, the Majority Text? Secondly, I wonder why the project went on for fourteen years without any publication. Then as soon as Broadman & Holman took over the project, they changed the textual basis and published the four gospels the very next year (1999). What exactly made the difference after the committee regime change that resulted in such quick publication? Third, and this is just an insignificant curiosity, I wonder what the project was called before the SBC sponsorship. Was it simply referred to by the committee as the Christian Standard Bible?

The complete Holman Christian Standard Bible was published in 2004. A number of various editions exist, but as of this writing, it is not yet available in any true "study" editions.

Why I like the HCSB. From 1986 to 2005, the primary (but never exclusive) translation I used for study and teaching was the New American Standard Bible. I will give credit where credit is due, and will acknowledge the fact that it was the influence of Wayne Leman and the other contributors of the Better Bibles Blog that caused me to question my continual use of the NASB in public. I've never thought there was one Bible that fits everyone and every context. I knew that the NASB, which is perhaps the most literal of the major translations, could at times come across as a bit awkward in its phrasings, but I had used it for so long that I believe I tended too easily to overlook certain aspects that frankly, just didn't communicate that well. This especially came to light when I spent roughly half a year (26 weeks) systematically walking a Sunday School class at my former church through Paul's letter to the Romans. In the course of this study, I realized that I was spending too much time trying to bridge the gap between the NASB and the people in my class.

After moving to a different county and joining a church within walking distance of our home, I was asked to teach a class at my new fellowship. However, I decided to make the momentous leap from the NASB to...well...something else. As many of you know, I collect translations and had eighty-something to choose from. But I purposefully narrowed my choice to that second-generation list of modern translations that I described above, and obviously, I eliminated the NASB update as that's what I had been using since 2002. Finally, I narrowed my choices down to the HCSB and the TNIV. Both are good translations, and both are in my top ten picks. In the end, I decided to go with the HCSB simply because that's what was in the Sunday School literature at our church. Although I certainly encourage participants in my class to bring their own copy of the scriptures, when they don't, at least what I read from is identical to what they have in their Sunday School book. But there's more to my liking of the HCSB than simply its inclusion in the Sunday School literature.

I'll admit that as far as translations go, generally, I prefer a more literal translation--or perhaps what is usually referred to as a formal equivalence translation. However, I also recognize the weaknesses in this translation philosophy. The introduction to the HCSB makes the claim that the translators used a method known as "optimal equivalence." Now, I'll admit that when I first read this term a few years back, I laughed out loud. I thought that the translators were essentially creating another term for some kind of dynamic equivalence method. However, upon closer inspection, I discovered that's not the case. To put it in my own words, optimal equivalence seems to start with a formal equivalent method; however, if formal equivalence does not communicate the biblical meaning of a text to a contemporary audience, the translators feel free to use more dynamic, or idiomatic, methods to get the message across. The more I've read the HCSB, the more convinced I've become that this really seems to work. What the HCSB ends up becoming is a translation that is fairly literal, but without all the awkwardness of a formal equivalent translation. It's readable like the NIV, but in my opinion, much more precise than the NIV.

I've read completely through a number of Bible versions, but I've said before that I don't think you really get to know a translation until you study with it. As I've studied with the HCSB over the last few months--alongside the Greek text and the NASB--I've been surprised, and even delighted with the precision of the HCSB. As some of you know, I returned to school this past Fall to pick up my degree where I left off a number of years ago. This past spring semester, I audited a doctoral-level Greek seminar as a refresher. As I translated the prison and pastoral epistles, I checked my own translation of the text not just with the NASB as had always been my practice in the past, but added the HCSB to the mix. In comparing the Greek text, my own translation, the NASB, and the HCSB, I became more and more convinced that the HCSB better conveyed the biblical meaning than the NASB. Certainly, there were places where the NASB was more literal, but is accurate translation evaluated more on word-for-word accuracy or on the ability to get the biblical writers' meaning across in the most effective manner?

Another enjoyable aspect of the HCSB is that it's not in the Tyndale/KJV tradition. Of course, neither is the NIV, but I never really bonded with the NIV. As stated above, the HCSB is the the first major translation in the last twenty-five years that is completely new and not an update of a previous version. As such, the translators had the courage to break free from familiar, but incorrect renderings of the past. I have previously blogged about the HCSB's correct translating of passages such as 2 Tim 1:12. Most new translations have generally left extremely familiar passages as is because in evaluating a new Bible version, the average person turns to these familiar passages first. But some of these passages needed correcting. Take for instance the 23rd Psalm. In v. 4, the KJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV all refer to "the valley of the shadow of death." Yet, this is over-translation. Most who are familiar with the Hebrew text will tell you that there's really nothing in there about shadows or death. But it's all quite poetic and it was read that way at Aunt Martha's funeral, so most translations have left it alone other than putting the actual phrasing down in the footnotes. Not so with the HCSB which renders the verse, "Even when I go through the darkest valley... ."

Of course the most controversial correction has to do with the HCSB's rendering of John 3:16. Years ago, the NIV translators correctly opted to translate μονογενής as "one and only" instead of "only begotten" which had remained standard phrasing in translations of the Tyndale tradition. However, the HCSB translators went a step further and corrected the "so" of "God so loved the world... ." The average person reads the "so" in John 3:16 as meaning "God sooooooo loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" or that "God loved the world SO MUCH." Now, I won't deny God's perfect love for his creation, but that's simply not what the "so" means. The "so" is from the Greek word οὕτως and simply means "thus" or "in this way." In other words, to paraphrase, what the verse means is "This is the way in which God loved the world: that he he gave his one and only son... ." The HCSB renders John 3:16 as "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

The HCSB also brings in line verse divisions with that in the NA27/USB4 Greek text. Years ago I memorized Gal 2:20 in the NASB from a Navigator TMS card which read "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Yet, when I sat down with the HCSB a few months back to look up my familiar passages, there was nothing about being crucified with Christ in v. 20. Instead, I found that part in the preceding verse: "¹⁹For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ ²⁰and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I wondered why the break was made this way and discovered that it is this way in the Greek text. The NRSV also makes the division here, but the other modern translations follow the traditional verse divisions. Since then I have found a consistent pattern in the HCSB to defer to the verse divisions in the Greek text when traditional divisions differ.

To me, the HCSB embodies not only accuracy in translation, but also a freshness in the translator's approach to the text. As I said before, there are sometimes certain renderings that just absolutely delight me. I wrote a few weeks ago about my discovery of the HCSB's use of "slacker" for "lazy" (רָפָה) in Exodus and "sluggard" (עָצֵל) in Proverbs. Even the TNIV uses "sluggard," but which word speaks better to a contemporary audience? In my blog about the HCSB's use of "slacker," one commenter suggested that such a word was slang and would unnecessarily date the HCSB. However, I disagreed because the word has been around almost a century, originally referring to someone who shirks military duty and later having a much broader meaning.

Another feature I really like in the HCSB is the use of "Bullet Notes." Included in the back of most editions of the HCSB is a list of definitions for certain words used throughout the Bible. One common difficulty of translating a text from one culture to another is how to communicate inherent jargon. Certain words carry very specific definitions, but the problem often faced by a translator is that the reader may not know or understand a particular word. Usually this will result in a compromise on some level, often with a translation opting to use a simpler, but less specific term. The use of bullet indicators next to certain words allow the translators to keep very specific terms in the text. Noting that the HCSB translators opted to keep a very theologically loaded term like propitiation, instead of the simpler "sacrifice of atonement" as in the NIV and NRSV, I wrote to the editors of the HCSB in February asking why there wasn't a bullet note for this term. I received an email back stating that bullet notes were being added for both propitiation and redemption, and these will show up in future editions of the HCSB.

What could be improved with the HCSB. In spite of the precision in translation that I mentioned earlier, there are still some places in the HCSB that seem a bit clumsy now and then. And I often wonder why a particular word choice was made. Why, for instance, did the translators opt to use the word deluge instead of the much simpler flood in the Noah story in Genesis? What exactly does deluge communicate that flood does not? I think I would feel like something of an egghead to announce I would be speaking on "Noah and the Deluge."

The HCSB uses "small lower corner brackets ... to indicate words supplied for clarity by the translators." Although this is an improvement over the use of italics for this purpose as in the NASB, the very nature of optimal equivalence makes the entire practice unnecessary and distracting.

Another problem with the HCSB is that the translators chose to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. In most passages, the pronouns are pretty clear, but not in all. A case in point is Micah 7:14 which was part of a larger passage covered in the Lifeway Explore the Bible Curriculum for May 28. The HCSB capitalizes the pronouns, rendering the text, "Shepherd Your people with Your staff, the flock that is Your possession." Thus, the way the pronouns are capitalized, it would lead one to believe that this is a prayer to God from the prophet Micah. But is this the case? Ironically, in the actual SBC curriculum, the writer took the passage much differently suggesting that this was God's commands to earthly kings. Therefore, the curriculum writer disagreed with the HCSB, both of which are from the same publisher. I agree with the writer, but the translators' decision to use capitalized pronouns creates unnecessary problems.

Although I like the decision to use Yahweh in places for the name of God as opposed to the all-caps LORD, I would prefer that Yahweh would simply be used throughout the Old Testament. Why should God's proper name be used in Psalm 68:4, but not in Josh 24:14-28 when Yahweh is being set in distinction to all the pagan gods? One of the reasons I like the New Jerusalem Bible is the decision to use the actual divine name throughout the OT text.

I'm certain that we'll see the HCSB in a variety of editions. In my opinion, once a translation appears in various study Bible editions (even though I, personally don't tend to use them), it has reached a significant level of public acceptance. But I would also like to see academic resources such as an HCSB/Greek text diglot. Zondervan has been very good about doing these kinds of products with the NIV.

Although the HCSB currently outsells the ESV, Broadman & Holman could learn a few lessons from Crossway's ESV marketing handbook. I've suggested on their feedback page that Broadman & Holman start an HCSB blog. They responded by saying they would consider it. I see lots of "ESV: Truth Unchanged" badges on various websites, but there's no HCSB equivalent for bloggers who like this translation. Although there was lots of promotion around the launch of the HCSB, it seems to have died down a good bit in recent months.

The HCSB also needs to branch out beyond SBC circles. Although I said I am certain that the HCSB will appear in various formats, will we ever see something like an HCSB Life Application Bible published by Tyndale Press? Unfortunately, when I've recommended the HCSB, I still sometimes hear it referred to as "the Baptist Bible" or "the Lifeway Translation." This is in spite of the fact that according to the HCSB FAQ, only 50% of the 100 or so members of the translation committee were Baptists, and 17 different denominations were represented in that team.

How I use the HCSB. Currently, the HCSB is my main Bible for teaching in church settings. I also use the HCSB in my personal Bible study in comparison with the original languages and other English translations. The HCSB is currently the translation that I am reading through.

What edition of the HCSB I primarily use. I've been teaching from a genuine leather edition of the HCSB known as The Ministers Bible (ISBN 1586401696). I bought this edition primarily for its single-column format which is handy for writing in my own notes. There are also a number of useful ministry helps including two separate wedding ceremonies, a funeral sermon, pre-marital counseling guidelines, and a host of other resources. Personally, I think these resources should be in the middle of the Bible, perhaps between the testaments instead of in the back. If you were to actually use this Bible to read wedding vows from, it would be simpler to hold your place in the middle than in the last few pages. And speaking of pages, they are way too thin in this edition and tend to curl after writing on them. An attempt was made to create a quasi-thinline Bible, but I would prefer thicker pages in exchange for a thinline form factor that doesn't mean that much to me.



For Further Reading:
General
• David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 192-194.
• HCSB: Wikipedia entry
• HCSB Official Site
• HCSB FAQs
• HCSB Translation Team
• Wayne Leman's HCSB Links Page

Analysis
• HCSB: Bible Researcher Page
• HCSB: Better Bibles Blog Page (see especially comments)

---

Up next: The TNIV's All Right With Me.

Tags: HCSB, Top Ten