Bible Translation Background and History

Two Centuries of Commitment | Setting a Standard | Ancient Writings, Modern Tongue
KJV | God's Message, God's Mission | Historical Timeline of the English Bible

HCSB Grounded in More Than Two Centuries of Commitment to the Word of God

Though work on the Holman Christian Standard Bible translation began in 1984, the Holman tradition of faithful stewardship of God’s Word goes back nearly 250 years before that. Holman’s commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture is based on a foundation that traces its origins back through two large companies and several family businesses, to the colonial era of Benjamin Franklin.

Around the time Franklin was printing Poor Richard’s Almanac in Philadelphia, an enterprising German immigrant, Cristoph Saur, gave up a career as a tailor to print Bibles in nearby Germantown. As a result, Die Heilige Schrift, the Martin Luther translation, was the first European-language Bible printed in America (preceded only by a Bible written by missionaries for the Algonquin Indians). Pages from the third edition had the distinction of being used as gun wadding by the British during the Revolutionary War.

Saur’s first English Bible was printed in 1801. Seven years later, descendants of Saur (by then, anglicized to Sower) merged their company with Kimber, Conrad & Co., a Philadelphia printer and bookbinder later known as Kimber & Sharpless. That company, in turn, merged with Jasper Harding Co., a prominent Bible publisher. In 1839, Andrew Jackson Holman joined the firm as plant manager, and purchased controlling interest about 30 years later. His grandson, William K. Holman, reorganized the business as A. J. Holman Co., Inc. in 1912.

Facing a shortage of capital for expansion, the Holman family, led by William Holman’s grandson Scott Lamb, sold their business to another family, the Lippincotts, in 1961. Seventeen years later, J. B. Lippincott & Co. was acquired by Harper & Row. Since Harper already published Bibles, they chose to sell the historic Holman line.

That year, the Baptist Sunday School Board bought Holman for $2.2 million, and moved its headquarters to Nashville after more than two centuries in and around Philadelphia. Reaffirming their commitment to the Word, the BSSB (now known as LifeWay Christian Resources) refocused and updated the product line—and recovered the purchase price in only four years.

In 1993, Broadman Press and Holman Bible Publishers combined to form Broadman & Holman, publishers of the HCSB translation and the entire Holman Bible line. Today, as in 1743, the B&H mission remains to “help people and churches know Jesus Christ and seek His Kingdom by producing biblical solutions that spiritually transform individuals and cultures.”

^top

Setting a Standard for Bible Translations

Many people assume everything that can be done in Bible translation has already been done and that all current translations are essentially equal. There are good reasons, though, why translating the Bible—even into English again—is a mission well worth the time and money it takes to do it.

Traditionally, scholars have taken either of two approaches to translating the Bible. One, called “dynamic equivalent,” bases the rendering of Scripture primarily on the meaning of a phrase or verse rather than on the individual words that make up the passage. The other, “formal equivalence,” places a much higher priority on preserving the actual words of the original writings, but both have their limitations.

Dynamic equivalence risks infusing the Scripture text with a much greater degree of a translator’s interpretation rather than what the original writer intended. Formal equivalence, on the other hand, struggles to make Scripture readable since the structure of ancient languages in word order, verb tenses, and the like differs so drastically from modern English.

The Holman CSB uses a third method that combines contemporary wording and grammar with an emphasis on reflecting the original words as closely as possible. It is called “optimal equivalence,” and once you know about this approach, several advantages nearly jump off the page.

Transparent Language

The Holman CSB is remarkable in the way the English offers a window into the original languages. Take, for example, the translation of Luke 11:9—“So I say to you, keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you.” Both the NASB and the NIV translate the verbs as “ask” (not “keep asking”), “seek,” and “knock.” Yet the original Greek verbs are present tense imperatives. The Holman CSB renders them with that perspective of continuation, as is most appropriate given the context.* While the NASB and NIV offer more traditional translations (the King James also says “ask”), the reader can see in the Holman CSB a difference that clarifies the original language.

Keeping It Not Too Simple

Another valuable facet of the HCSB is that it avoids inappropriate simplification. Some scriptural concepts have a depth which is lost unless crucial wording is reflected in the translation. Although the Apostle Paul wrote in clearly understandable prose for his day, he did not back away from theologically specific terms he thought his audience ought to understand. That’s why in the HCSB, you’ll find rich terms like “propitiation,” “redemption,” “justification,” and “sanctification.”

No Political Correctness Here

In today’s politically-charged world, gender-specific language is largely unpopular. And there are legitimate times to avoid pointless gender specificity. With that in mind, the HCSB renders some obviously generic texts as “people” or “person.” However, you’ll find many references to “man,” “brothers,” or “he” where other contemporary versions of the Bible make questionable changes. Some alter words such as the singular pronoun “he,” for instance, and render it as “they” along with the accompanying change in verb number (“is” changes to “are”). But that sort of approach obscures—rather than illuminates—the original language. The Holman CSB is committed to reflecting how the Scripture was originally crafted, without changing or adding to the biblical language.

 Standing by Our Standards

Taken together, the strengths of the Holman CSB set a standard for English Bible translations. The optimal equivalence philosophy supports the inerrancy of Scripture by showing respect for the original words, and the clarity with which the Holman CSB reflects ancient wording—in verb tense, gender, and theological specificity—offers a clear gauge for understanding the text.
______________
 *Not all Greek present tense verbs are best rendered as showing continuation—context is critical.

^top

Ancient Writings, Modern Tongue

Faithful Bible Translators Use Powerful Tools to Remain True to God’s Original Word.

A curious fact about ancient historical scholarship is that, as we move forward in history—further away from the events being studied—our understanding of those events often becomes more accurate. New archeological discoveries regularly deliver better insight into the past, and succeeding generations of scholarly research build on earlier studies to give a more well-informed evaluation of the subject.

Nowhere is this more true than in the most-studied of all writings from antiquity, the Holy Bible. The reality that scholarship improves over time underscores a key reason why creating new translations of Scripture remains a worthwhile mission.

Forward to the Past

When biblical scholars look back at where the Bible as we know it came from, they do it for a very specific reason: To be sure that the words rendered in translation are as close in meaning to the original words given by God as it is humanly possible to make them. The burden is great to present a true reflection of God’s inerrant Scriptures. This requires a scholarly discipline called “textual criticism.”

At first blush, the term may sound vaguely offensive, as if it is using “criticism” in a negative, fault-finding way. Far from that, the term actually reflects a wonderful strength in the story of how the Bible came about. There is no one document which contains the complete writings in the original hand of the human authors. In fact, not a single word of the original works of any Scripture remains to this day. As a result, it becomes the task of the biblical scholar to critique—to evaluate—the manuscripts to make sure that the best possible combination of sources is used to generate a new translation of the Bible.

While first generation copies of Scripture no longer exist, the wealth of usable documents that have survived the centuries is one of the unsung miracles of God’s grace. Compare for a minute the resources available to a historical scholar studying the works of Julius Caesar (roughly a contemporary of New Testament biblical writers). During the middle of the first century B.C., Caesar wrote a history of the Gallic wars. Today, only about ten early copies of his work remain, and the oldest of these was made nearly 900 years after Caesar’s original writing.(1) The New Testament biblical scholar, on the other hand, has a veritable library of early manuscript copies that looks something like this:

• 5,000 Greek texts
• 8,000 Latin texts
• 1,000 in other ancient languages.(2)

Many of these were made within 300 years of the original writings, and several significant segments date to within 100 to 150 years of the original.(3)

Because of the abundance of manuscripts, there is no doubt that the words of the biblical writers have been preserved. It is the wealth of biblical sources—not the lack of them—that requires scholars and translators to determine which provide the greatest potential to reflect the original words of God accurately.

Textual Trails

The discovery of texts and our understanding of the Bible’s “paper trail” have grown dramatically in the past 300 years, mushrooming in the past 50. The Nag Hammadi find in 1952, for instance, added literally hundreds of pages of ancient biblical manuscripts
to the scholar’s repertoire, almost overnight.

The complex trajectory of New Testament manuscripts through history has been simplified into a set of three tracks (Old Testament scholarship faces similar issues but different historical circumstances). All three take their names from the geographic areas in which they originated: The Alexandrian (Egypt) set of texts, the Western set, and the Byzantine (some experts add a fourth: “miscellaneous”). Each track has its own characteristics, and scholars have devised an admirably scientific way to make decisions regarding which texts or portions of texts most reflect the original words. If one source differs from another, scholars determine which is more accurate by asking detective-like questions such as these:

1. Which reading is the oldest? Generally, older is preferred.
2. Which reading is consistent among the largest group of manuscripts?
   Sometimes, more can be better.
3. Which reading reflects that of the most geographically widespread selection of texts?
   Widespread is good.(4)                        

Along with these tests, a series of ever more discerning questions hone the analysis. The point of all this is to assemble a reliable text from which to translate. We say “assemble,” again, because no single New Testament source exists. All Greek New Testaments are put together from a selection of source texts.

Choosing the Right Path

In the roughly four centuries during which English Bible translations have been center stage, several clear choices have emerged regarding which source documents to use. The 16th century scholar, Erasmus, assembled a Greek New Testament which was
the basis for Martin Luther’s German translation in 1522 and for William Tyndale’s English New Testament in 1525. Much of Tyndale’s work resides in the 1611 King James Version.

Further developments brought about the Textus Receptus (received text) in the 17th century. It is “received” in that various earlier sources were gathered to create this consolidated Greek text. Largely the same as Erasmus’, it is based primarily on the Byzantine source track and is the textual basis for today’s New King James Version. Since the Byzantine offers more manuscripts than the other two source tracks, this one is also called the “majority text.”

Most other modern translations—the Holman Christian Standard Bible, NASB, NIV, NRSV among them—are based on a more recent text, assembled using 19th and 20th century methods of textual criticism. As a result, the newer text is known as the “critical text” and is embodied in two highly respected sources: the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th edition).

The scholar’s meticulous concern for the integrity of sources bears marvelous fruit when connected with a translation philosophy that renders biblical languages as precisely as possible. Dr. Ed Blum, general editor of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, explains that “faithfulness to the original writings—not rigid adherence to a particular source—is the goal of our translation work.” As a result, Holman adopted the “optimal equivalence” translation philosophy for rendering ancient languages in modern English. Optimal equivalence begins with a word-for-word translation of Scripture, then draws out meaning through careful styling, at times using the “dynamic equivalent” (thought-for-thought) translation philosophy when that will result in a more faithful translation.(5)

Modern missions depends on having reliable Scriptures from which to share the truth of God’s work in the world. The more those who share the Word understand the miracle of how it came to us, the greater confidence they can have in the solid ground on which their ministries are based.
__________________
1. David Noebel and Chuck Edwards, Thinking Like a Christian Student Journal (Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn., 2002), p. 47.
2. David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., 1994), p. 18.
3. Noebel and Edwards, p. 47
4. Black, p. 34-5.
5. From the introduction to the Holman Christian Standard Bible UltraTrim New Testament (Holman Bible Publishers: Nashville, Tenn., 2000), p. vii.

^top

What We Learned from the King James Version

Modern Translators Take Notes on the Wisdom of Their Scholarly Forebears

Have you ever been falsely accused by a computer? During prime air conditioning season a few summers ago, one B&H worker nearly had his household electricity disconnected because a bill he’d never been sent for a service call hadn’t been paid on time. Why? Simply because the technological wonder governing his account with the power company said so. Fortunately, a live, competent, human being intervened, exercised some personal judgment and overrode the computer’s verdict. But it was a warm reminder of the pertinent 20th century saying “To err is human; to really mess things up requires a computer.”

Technology alone can never replace well-reasoned thinking by people. The translators of the new Holman Christian Standard Bible offer a valuable paradigm for using computer technology to strengthen the work of Bible translation. They balanced electronic brainpower with time-honored scholarship, prayerful debate, and a high regard for the work of those who have gone before—particularly their 17th century counterparts who created the most revered Bible translation of all time. 

Faithful to the Core

“One of the core values we share with the King James Version,” says Holman CSB general editor Ed Blum, “is that both the KJV and the HCSB translators used the best text available as the source from which to develop the translation.” Although the specific text to which Blum refers has changed as a result of scholarship over the last four centuries, the guiding principle remains the same.

King James translators believed that to render God’s Word with integrity meant careful selection of source texts was a serious responsibility. That drove them to texts which had been used by scholars of a generation earlier—men like William Tyndale. For the HCSB team, the choice has been what contemporary scholars refer to as the Critical Text. For the New Testament, that is embodied in Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (4th edition) and for the Old, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttegartensia (11th edition). Alternate texts are measured against these primary sources.

In Other Words

Another principle shared with KJV translators is to evaluate how others have rendered the language. The reason for this may not be obvious at first, but translating is not simply a matter of looking up synonyms in a dictionary.

“Previous translators have had to grapple with hard word choices,” notes Frank Carmical, who was an editor and stylist for the HCSB. “We were continually amazed at the wisdom brought to bear in difficult translation situations. Things that at first didn’t make sense became clear when viewed in light of someone’s earlier finished work.”

For KJV translators, the options for earlier reference was limited. William Tyndale and his followers in the 16th century were the first to complete an English translation wholly from the original languages. Their work apparently passed muster with the KJV scholars because much of their wording is reflected in the 1611 KJV.(1) Still earlier translations by Miles Coverdale and John Wycliffe (who translated the Bible into English from the Latin text) also offered perspective to those at work on the King James Version. For HCSB translators, the field of vision includes dozens of English translations and paraphrases created mostly in the last 100 years.

English translations were not the only ones consulted by KJV translators, however. They accessed the monumental 16th century work of Martin Luther, his German translation that is still highly regarded today. In addition, the Latin Scripture, including the ancient Septuagint version of the Old Testament, were open to examination by KJV scholars as well as to HCSB translators.

Writing in Style

To preserve the majesty of the Bible, HCSB scholars also mimicked the King James’ approach to language style. Ed Blum points out, “Many people think that every man, woman, and child in 17th century England talked like the King James Version reads, but they didn’t. King James language style was accessible to a literate person of that time, but it’s not street language. The KJV presents a refined manner of speech. Its translators were concerned about retaining dignity in Scripture.”

While “thee” and “thou” have long since exited the speech patterns of even the most refined gentlemen in America and England, HCSB translators upheld a value for preserving the dignity of wording in Scripture. Word choices avoid a roughness or “street level” quality.

An example of this kind of choice came to light at a gathering of HCSB translators early in the process of working on the Old Testament. Duane Garrett, professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary and a translator for the book of Psalms, described a wording issue in Psalms 14:1: “The sense in the Hebrew is that the person who does not believe in God is a ‘jerk,’ not just a ‘fool.’ But that terminology doesn’t reflect an appropriate level of respect for God’s Word.”

So, in the HCSB (as in the KJV) the atheist is still foolish: “The fool says in his heart, ‘God does not exist.’”

King James scholars likewise were careful to reflect significant theological terms. Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, explains the rightness of retaining words whose meaning cannot be appropriately dumbed down: “The original audience for Scripture was not your ‘man on the street’ but rather your ‘man in the pew’ who had some level of theological understanding. So we shouldn’t attempt to reduce our language to the street level.”(2) As a result, the HCSB, like the KJV, includes richly endowed words such as propitiation, atonement, and redemption.

Fitting Formats

Finally, through carefully crafted formatting and notation, the producers of the King James went to extra trouble to be sure a reader had every opportunity to internalize Scripture. The King James uses headings to summarize each subsection of Scripture so readers get a preview of what the verses are about. And cross references and notes that detail alternate readings expand the understanding of certain passages. Further, the KJV provides studies on key words and includes in the text italicized words where words have been added to clarify the original meaning. The Holman CSB has picked up all of these techniques for presenting Scripture accurately to its reader (with the exception that added words are denoted in [brackets] rather than italics).

“We followed many of the same principles as the King James translators,” summarizes Dr. Blum. “One other thing I hope we do is to stand the test of time as well as the King James. We’d be thrilled (and more than a little humbled) if translators in the year 2400 are referencing what we’ve done here.”

__________________
1. F. L. Cross, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press: London, 1957), p. 111-2, 1382.
2. Excerpted from address by Dr. Al Mohler to Southern Baptist pastors, June 10, 2002.

^top

God’s Message, God’s Mission

Translating the Bible Is Answering a Divine Call

There are now English translations of the Holy Bible in almost every imaginable style. Some are faithful to ancient texts; others are paraphrases; still others are written to fill the needs of a specific group of Christians or seekers. Preparing a new translation of the Bible is an enormously time-consuming and expensive task. Therefore, a question that inevitably comes up regarding the Holman Christian Standard Bible is “Why produce yet another translation?”

According to Experiencing God author and Holman CSB supporter Henry Blackaby:

The bottom line for me has always been, “What has God initiated? If God put it in the hearts of some people to initiate a new translation, they ought to obey Him.” Others might say, “Well, we don’t need another translation.” But the fact is, it has nothing to do with whether we think we need one or not—though I think there’s a significant unmet need that the HCSB addresses. It has to do with what God is telling us to do.

I really sense that this translation comes out of obedience to God, and so I believe time will eventually vindicate its value to anyone who questioned the wisdom of it. God has initiated this translation and its value will be proven ultimately by the testimonies of the people it inspires. I don’t think there can be too many translations of the Bible as long as each one is an obedient response to God’s call. My only concern for any translation is that it be done by scholarly people who are very, very careful about not inserting their own prejudices, but who are committed first of all to an honest translation.

I believe there are some dimensions of this new translation that will help the average reader to be drawn to the Scriptures in a fresh new way.  I look forward to seeing how God will use it in many lives.

So, add “obedience to God” to our list of reasons for translating the Bible.

^top

Historical Timeline of Bible Translations

Translating the Bible into English has been going on for more than 600 years. Here’s a brief history of key translations and when they were first published.

1382 John Wycliffe
1525-6 William Tyndale New Testament
1535 Miles Coverdale (complete Bible)
1537 Matthew’s Bible
1539 The Great Bible
1560 Geneva Bible
1568 Bishop’s Bible
1582/1609-10 Rheims/Douai Translation
1611 (Authorized) King James Version
1885 Revised Version
1901 American Standard Version
1903 New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth)
1922-35 A New Translation of the Bible (Moffatt)
1924 Centenary Translation of the New Testament (Montgomery)
1937 William New Testament
1938 The Bible: An American Translation (Goodspeed/Smith)
1952 Revised Standard Version
1955 Holy Bible (Know)
1958 The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips)
1960-95 New American Standard Bible
1965 Amplified Bible (Lockman Foundation)
1966 The Jerusalem Bible
1969 New Berkeley (Modern Language) Bible (Verkuyl)
1970 New English Bible
1970-91 New American Bible
1971 The Living Bible (Taylor)
1976 Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
1979 New International Version
1982 New King James Version
1985 The New Jerusalem Bible
1985 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures
1986 New Century Version
1989 New Revised Standard Version
1989 Revised English Bible
1989/97 Jewish New Testament (Stern)
1993 The Message
1995 Contemporary English Version
1996 New Living Translation
1998 International Standard Version
1998 NET Bible: New English Translation
2001 English Standard Version
2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible

^top

<< back