Holman Christian Standard Bible

I wonder what the SBC did with The Disciple's Study Bible?

 

We don't really need one, but I guess Broadman & Holman needs one. When a publisher owns the copyright to a translation, they do not have to pay royalties or seek permission when they publish it.

Many Christian publishing companies own publishing rights or the copyright to least one translation. Zondervan has the NIV, Tyndale has the New Living, Thomas Nelson has the New King James, Crossway has the English Standard Version.

Up until now, Broadman & Holman has never had ownership to a translation. They had to pay royalites for every translation they chose to publish.

It seems to me the HCSB will encounter an uphill battle to gain popularity, especially against the popular NIV. The strong marketing muscle of the SBC will it along, however.

 

I just finished reading the NT in Holman Christian Standard Bible:I bought the Leather Bond NT .I don;t know if I will get the complete Bible next year or not ?

 

Hi, everyone...

For those of you who may be interested, there is now an online version of the HCSB...go to Lifeway.com to take a look. At the top left side of the page open "Bibles" and then select "HCSB" to view the Old Testament of this new version. I have a print version of the New Testament and I have been pleased with it so far.

 

Just some points that I have read as I have looked at the HCSB a little bit. One woman in SS said she couldn't read it as well as the NIV. I typicaly am an NASB with my wife an NKJV but we use the NIV for our chronological Bible in a year. Neither of us had problems. I think maybe she was just SO used to the NIV, she didn't know what else to do.

From everything I've read this is not an SBC bible. There are a lot of SBC profs as translaters. But by the same token I could say it is a Dallas Theological translation (there are several DT profs as well). The man who sits next to me at work knows two of the translators, and neither of them are SBC. The general editor is not SBC, and the original editor was not SBC. Seems to me if control was the issue, we'd have SBC language profs as editors.

Secondly, from what I've read, I don't think its a reaction to the TNIV. I'm not familiar with when the TNIV was chartered for writting, however, the work on the HCSB started ~ 1984. It was in reaction to the NIV and the NASB. They wanted it more literal and more readable respectively.

My first instinct was that this was an SBC bible that was written to offset the TNIV, but as I read up on the Bible, I'm impressed with its purpose.

 

I believe, and somone correct me if I am wrong, that the HCSB actually started out as a translation being done by the late Arthur Farstad (general editor of the NKJV). From what I remember reading, Farstad sold the work (incomplete) to the SBC. What is perplexing is that the original work that Farstad was doing was based upon the Majority Text and from what I have read, the HCSB is based upon the Nestle/Aland/UBS texts, which would mean that they switched textual families.

From an english translation perspective (and leaving textual family issues aside), I don't really see an advantage to it when put up against translations such as the NKJV or the ESV. It does make me wonder how they are going to market this translation when the market seems so saturated already with new and existing translations that don't seem that different from it. It will be interesting to watch how they do it.