HCSB Translation: Preliminary Evaluation

[filosofer]

Over the past few months I have been evaluating the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) translation. I offer a few glimpses at some of the evaluations I have made (also ESV, NIV 2011 and GW are referenced). There is nothing absolute, but HCSB is a solid translation. Even WELS is considering it as well as NIV 2011. There is much to commend it, but there are some drawbacks as well.

There are many things to like about the translation. It handles some critical texts very well.

HCSB in worship

Genesis 1-8 comments

Romans 3:21-26

2 Peter: Translating anthropos

Two implied words

“Sacred Texts” John 3:16 in 4 translations

“Sacred Texts” Psalm 23 in 4 translations​

And there are some things it does not do well:

Where HCSB Failed

The Ten Words

Layout issues in HCSB

Comparison of ESV, NIV 2011, HCSB, and GW—selected texts

(not a translation issue but publication issue)

What’s missing in HCSB

​

Just thought some might be interested in a look at these translation issues.

 

[Pittsburgh Christian]

This is the bible I use for my studying.

 

[filosofer]

This is the bible I use for my studying.

Any thoughts you have while reading/studying?

 

[Pittsburgh Christian]

Any thoughts you have while reading/studying?

Just that I think it is a good easy to understand translation. I'm not like a preacher or someone who knows alot about the bible, I just study and read when I can. I can't tell you all about different translations and stuff. But to me, it's a good translation. The bible I have is a study bible, and half the page is full of study notes.

 

[americanvet]

HCSB= Hardcore Southern Baptist lol.

 

[filosofer]

HCSB= Hardcore Southern Baptist lol.

Actually, some of the hardcore Baptist stuff is definitely NOT there. Check out the passages concerning Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Matthew 18:15-20; John 20:23, in which it is much better than ESV or NIV. They did a respectable job of translating. Of course, there are some “must” passages that are beyond what the text offers, and the rendition of the Ten Commandments is less than ideal.

Also, it should be noted that two superb, conservative Lutheran scholars are serving on the eight member translation revision team.

 

[filosofer]

Just that I think it is a good easy to understand translation. I'm not like a preacher or someone who knows alot about the bible, I just study and read when I can. I can't tell you all about different translations and stuff. But to me, it's a good translation. The bible I have is a study bible, and half the page is full of study notes.

In addition to my interest in translating, I serve as pastor of a congregation. It is important to hear from people just like you, to understand what you see the text saying (not to you personally, but what it meant in its context). So you are exactly the people translators need to listen to.

 

[Moses Medina]

The translation was by all baptist, though not southern baptist. It is indeed a great translation though more of a thought for thought translation not literal. A lot better then niv imo. I have a copy though I stick woth esv.

 

[Shane R]

I recently taught adult Sunday School, using the HCSB for my base text. I have been doing so for about 3 1/2 years. Having moved in the last year, the average church member at this congregation had a limited familiarity with HCSB, but most seemed to appreciate it or at least not mind.

I feel like its strengths are consistency, format, and relatively good accuracy. It reads at a level that those with limited education or the adolescents can easily follow without losing the reverence, theological vocabulary, and precision that ought to be present in the word of God. Its great weakness is its rather one-dimensional translation perspective, and a second weakness is the dirth of resources for it (though this is improving). Also, the Apologetics Study Bible, probably HCSBs most promoted study Bible, is not the cream of the study Bible crop.

 

[americanvet]

Actually, some of the hardcore Baptist stuff is definitely NOT there. Check out the passages concerning Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Matthew 18:15-20; John 20:23, in which it is much better than ESV or NIV. They did a respectable job of translating. Of course, there are some “must” passages that are beyond what the text offers, and the rendition of the Ten Commandments is less than ideal.

Also, it should be noted that two superb, conservative Lutheran scholars are serving on the eight member translation revision team.

I was joking a lot of the SBC churches in my area call it that.

 

[filosofer]

I was joking a lot of the SBC churches in my area call it that.

Cool; I kinda figured that, but wanted to allay any misunderstanding by others. Always good to be able to laugh, even at myself.

 

[filosofer]

The translation was by all baptist, though not southern baptist. It is indeed a great translation though more of a thought for thought translation not literal. A lot better then niv imo. I have a copy though I stick woth esv.

So, where are you determining that HCSB is thought-for-thought? Can you give some examples?

It is definitely within the realm of formal equivalence translations. It is better than ESV (formal equivalence) and NIV (mixed bag) in several ways.

 

[ContraMundum]

I really hate it. While I agree that they have done some good work on those texts, it's just so casual and a bit too common.

Take for example Matt 9:12 But when He heard this, He said, “Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do. 13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Just sounds so colloquially TV sitcom language American. Accuracy is one thing, but how about reverence?

Just my thoughts.