Holman Christian Standard Bible

[passingpilgrim]

I am trying to figure out the major differences betweeen the HCSB and the ESV. I have always used the ESV but have recently found the HCSB. Is the HCSB not as accurate as th ESV? or is there more to the story?

As a new pastor, I want to make sure i use a version that is accurate and understandable.

thanks!

 

[JohnGill]

Use the AV. It fits both. I think the HCSB, if I remember correctly, is a Baptist translation.

I've got both. They're about the same. If you get the HCSB don't get the Apologetics Study Bible. My pastor and I got copies. Neither of us was pleased. If you see it at B&N look through it.

 

[DMcFadden]

Both are considered formal correspondence, essentially literal, as literal as possible, or whatever buzz word predominates in the field today.
Both are based on the Critical Text (NT = UBS4/NA27).
Both are produced by conservative, evangelical translators.

Frankly, the ESV has the edge on sales due to the people promoting it (John MacArthur even came out saying that it it the "most accurate" translation on the market today which is why his MacArthur Study Bible is coming out this summer in the ESV (also augmented with LOTS of more graphics and eye candy).

The HCSB has some odd idiosyncracies: Messiah for Christ, Yahweh, etc.

From a readability standpoint, the HCSB is more readable. For example, in direct discourse, they employ contractions.

If the "literal Greek" reads: "us go let us to the temple," the ESV would translate: "let us go to the temple" and the HCSB would render it: "let's go to the temple." The HCSB is just as literal, but more idiomatic English.

But, frankly, it is such a losing battle, that I don't think it is worth it to try to get people using the HCSB. There are GREAT resources keyed to the ESV (ESV Study Bible, Sproul's Reformation Study Bible, and the upcoming MacArthur Study Bible, etc.). Why adopt an idiosyncratic translation with little hope to become a "standard" (despite its name)? About the only really good resource keyed to the Holman is the Apologetics Study Bible. This would be a reason to buy it for use, not for preaching from it. But even here, the Apologetics Study Bible is helpful for what it brings to the table that is unique but not as a general study Bible.

Decades ago (before DVDs), video came out in Beta and VHS formats. Beta was superior in almost every way, except for market share. Within a few years, people with Beta machines and tapes were buying VHS format and they quit manufacturing the Beta. I view the HCSB as a Bible with a future of limited market share due to the strong reception for the ESV (cf. the CEV or any number of other translations that never really caught on in the market). If you want a critical text Bible, I would advise you to jump on the ESV bandwagon. Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, etc. are a formidable block of influencers.

 

[passingpilgrim]

Thanks Dennis! I was thinking along the same lines, in terms of the HCSB being a bit unknown. I preached from it recently and most people had never even heard of the translation.

 

[MLCOPE2]

I've noticed they have a lot of specialty gift bibles like the "Soldier's Bible", the "Marine Military Bible", the "Firefighter Bible" etc. (you can check those out here) At least if they do fail they might still keep a market in the gifting department.

 

[Bad Organist]

Dennis,

I'm not sure what to make of all this noise about the ESV. I have been comparing the ESV to about 5 or 6 other translations, and don't really see very often where it could be more accurate, in some cases it looks wrong, and certainly it is not always very elegant. I see the ESV as being an evangelcal re-work of the RSV, which is trying to be academically correct, with all their use of voluminous footnotes, which they say are an integral part of the translation.

It is kind of sad to me, that bibles these days are viewed as products, and promoted as such. Various versions are fighting it out in the "marketplace" to see what is selling, what is the most popular, etc. Promoters are asking leading lights for endorsements, and now we have MacArthur coming out in favour of the ESV in part I suppose because he has a new Study Bible to sell.

I am from Canada, but I have a hard time seeing where all these ESV customers are. Just about every book store I frequent hardly has any ESV bibles on the shelf. Are folks buying them directly from the publisher? or from mailorder houses?

What I see in bookstores is mirrored in the CBA monthly statistics. The ESV is about the 5th or 6th best selling translation. In other words at least 90% of bibles sold in English are of a different flavour than the ESV.

It must be perplexing to Crossway and other promoters that the venerable KJV is still easily outselling the ESV. Even the NKJV is selling better.

It seems to me that the ESV, if it were that much an improvement over what was available would have gained marketshare faster. I have yet to see a comprehensive list of improvements in the ESV over others.

Our church now uses the ESV. Sometimes I hear the worthies correcting the text. Preaching has not improved since the change, and I don't detect memorization of the ESV either. It is interesting that when it comes to quoting from memory, it is the KJV that is quoted.

I have the HCSB, but don't use it. Strikes me as a bible using more contemporary English than the ESV, sort of a half-way house to the NIV.

Maybe some day, God will bless the Church with a universally acceptable edition of the scriptures in English.

Arie V
F. C.of Scotland
Toronto, Canada

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

One of the things that initially turned me off to the ESV was its incessant and overwhelming marketing that bordered on insanity.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dennis,

I'm not sure what to make of all this noise about the ESV. I have been comparing the ESV to about 5 or 6 other translations, and don't really see very often where it could be more accurate, in some cases it looks wrong, and certainly it is not always very elegant. I see the ESV as being an evangelcal re-work of the RSV, which is trying to be academically correct, with all their use of voluminous footnotes, which they say are an integral part of the translation.

Arie, the ESV is very much an evangelical reworking of the RSV. But, if you want a critical text translation, it seems the best choice to me.
For a Byzantine/Majority Text Bible, I still use the NKJV (partly due to the great textual notes identifying differences from TR and the UBS/NA and the Majority tradition.)

 

[Grimmson]

Use the AV. It fits both. I think the HCSB, if I remember correctly, is a Baptist translation.

I've got both. They're about the same. If you get the HCSB don't get the Apologetics Study Bible. My pastor and I got copies. Neither of us was pleased. If you see it at B&N look through it.

To be more specific, it is a Southern Baptist Convention translation that was developed for at least two reasons. The first reason was to create a standard SBC translation for the churches, for pastors to preach form and the congregations to read. The second, which is what I think is the real reason for the translation, is for LifeWay. It was a way for Lifeway to save money from paying royalties to Zondervan or Thomas Nelson for quoting them. It was produced, I think, before the ESV. Comparatively, I think ESV is the better translation to use in relation to the Holman. But I must admit I personally use NKJV, most of the time because that what I read, to check my Greek.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For a Byzantine/Majority Text Bible, I still use the NKJV (partly due to the great textual notes identifying differences from TR and the UBS/NA and the Majority tradition.)

These are the compelling reasons why I like the NKJV as well. The NKJV allows me to straddle both worlds in the never-ending Alexandrian/Byzantine debate.

AMR