1. Perhaps the number one reason the ESV will outlive the HCSB is that it is endorsed by some of the biggest names in evangelicalism. Interestingly, these “big names” are not merely popular writers and speakers with no theological grounding. Rather, most of these endorsers are highly-trained and well-experienced theologians and pastors. As I browsed the list of endorsements on the ESV’s website, here are the ones that jumped out at me:
- R.C. Sproul
- John Piper
- Carolyn Mahaney
- Ravi Zacharias
- Jerry Bridges
- Vicki Courtney
- Al Mohler
- Erwin Lutzer
- Philip Graham Ryken
- Darrell Bock
- John Walvoord
- Paige Patterson
- Tom Schreiner
- Bryan Chapell
- Steve Green
- Grant Osborne
- Mark Driscoll
That’s a very impressive list of names. As a theologian and pastor, who wouldn’t want to be in the company of these great and godly men and women? In fact, not only are people like these endorsing the ESV, here are some of the words they’re using to endorse it:
- Outstanding
- A new standard in accurate Bible translations
- Most accurate English translation
- The standard translation for the English-speaking world
- The majesty of language with the clarity of thought
- A grand accomplishment
- A joy to read
- A new level of excellence in Bible translations
- Unquestionable accuracy
- The best available translation
- The most readable and cogent translation of the Bible today
- Surpasses all other English translations
- The Bible of the future
- The Bible of choice in America
Wow! Those are some pretty amazing accolades.
On the other hand, the HCSB has a much shorter (and interesting) list of endorsers. A couple of names appear on both lists: Paige Patterson and Steve Green. There are a couple of people endorsing the HCSB that do not make me inclined to use this translation: Charles Stanley, Pat Robertson and Gary Chapman, for instance.
So, in my opinion, the endorsements alone will decide this issue. The ESV will outlive and outsell the HCSB because the men and women that shape the thinking and decision making of today’s and tomorrow’s evangelical leaders are vocally and passionately endorsing the ESV.
2. There are other reasons, though, that the ESV will become a more dominant translation than the HCSB. One of those reasons is that Crossway has done a much better job of marketing the ESV than Broadman and Holman have done with the HCSB.
The first time I noticed this was the first time I read the HCSB. I was amazed at the wonderful translation that is the HCSB, but I was stunned that I had never heard of it before. It seems that the ESV has a larger variety of editions, and even its displays in the Christian bookstores are more eye-catching. Ironically, even in SBC bookstores, the ESV displays are bigger and better than the HCSB displays.
CBA recently posted their lists of top-selling English translations. You can click here to see those lists. The HCSB ranks #10 in both dollar sales and unit sales, while the ESV ranks numbers 6 and 5 respectively. Clearly the Crossway marketing campaign is paying off. By the way, I do not think that the endorsements mentioned above are entirely different from the marketing campaign. They are, I’m sure, an integral and carefully designed part of the campaign.
In addition to the in-store displays, a quick glance at each translation’s website reveals that Crossway has put a great deal more effort into making the ESV appealing than Broadman and Holman have done with the HCSB’s site. Click here for the ESV site, and click here for the HCSB site. [Update: The Holman CSB has a new website! Finally.]
3. A third reason I think the ESV will prevail over the HCSB is that the former was published three years earlier. In 2001 Crossway published the ESV. They got a three-year head start on the HCSB even though the HCSB had been in the works since 1984! Click here for an excellent review of the HCSB including a very thorough history of the translation.
As a result, the big names listed in point number one had three years to be wowed by the ESV before the HCSB came on the scene. Once these people had begun making personal and emotional commitments to Crossway and the ESV, they probably did not have time to evaluate yet another new translation no matter how promising it may have been.
One has to wonder why, in God’s providence, it took the SBC 14 years to take ownership of a translation that one of its own revered professors had been working on.
In conclusion, while I prefer the HCSB over the ESV, I don’t think the HCSB will be able to withstand the pressures of capitalism. The ESV will, in my prophetic opinion, outlive and outsell the HCSB. John Piper will probably get his wish: the ESV will likely become the standard translation for English speakers for the next 50 years. Nevertheless, I will use my HCSB. In fact, I’d even be willing to put an endorsement on the HCSB website, but who would buy a Bible endorsed by me?
To read my earlier evaluation of the HCSB, click here.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Will,
Interestingly I have zero knowledge of the HCSB, it is virtually unknown here in Europe, I have never seen it in any shop over here.
I will agree with you one thing for sure, I’m convinced the success of the ESV is as much maybe more to do with who is using it i.e. John Piper than on how good a translation it is. That’s not to say anything about the translation’s quality, just that for many people they will choose it because good, solid men like him did, which is no bad reason really….and I’m much happier that the ESV become the standard, than some of those awful paraphrases and gender neutral “versions”.
I use the ESV for my devotions and must confess I do like it. We still use the NKJV in church, and really have no plans to change, but if we did, I think I’d probably go for the ESV, though I still very much like the NASB for it’s literalness….and I still don’t know what “wooden” means!
JP
I didn’t see Joel Olsteen in that list!
No, Sean, you sure didn’t. (By the way, I did catch the subtle sarcasm in your comment.:)) I’m not sure that Osteen would know what a good translation is. Evaluating a translation’s accuracy requires a knowledge the languages of the Old and New Testaments (among many other things). Plus, the men in the list who are endorsing the ESV are not only scholars of the languages (most of them), they are also very faithful and accurate theologians. Osteen falls into neither of those categories.
I know, it was a tad sarcastic… but the list you gave was a very good list. I have a great deal of respect for the ones on the list that I know… esp. Ravi Zacharias!
sorry, a little more to add: I noticed that you’ve had comments from Europe and I have to say that Ravi Zacharias has an ‘international’ view of Christianity in contrast to what I call an Americanized view that so many people in the US have. I was really taken a number of years ago when I realized that we really do think differently about the Gospel (most of which is subtle but their are distinctions).
You make a good argument. I have become a fan of the HCSB, but it happened by accident. I had purchased a parallel bible which contians 8 translations (NKJV, ESV, NIV, HCSB, TNIV, CEV, NLT, & the Message), and one of them was the HCSB.
Prior to this I had switched over from the NKJV to the ESV, as my main study, and devotional bible.
I kept comparing the HCSB to the ESV, and TNIV, and found myself really liking the way the HCSB read.
But to be honest, I had a hard time finding endorsements, what are others saying, etc, and that made me a bit nervous.
However, I went ahead and bought a hand size version for me and my whole family. Just felt that it communicated very well, and would help them draw closer to God.
I put it down, and went back to the ESV because I could not find others that spoke highly about it. Then I picked it again, and decided I did not care, and just kept reading.
Finally I came across Rick Mansfield’s site and I was sold on the HCSB. That is all the endorsement I needed.
Now I own 4 versions of the HSCB (love collecting bibles), and now use it to preach from, and sometimes teach from. I still love the ESV, mostly because it does retain the Bible English that I grew up with.
Robert, I’m glad you’ve come to enjoy the HCSB. It was encouraging to read your perspective on your own blog. And I appreciate your willingness to use a translation that is good even if it lacks the popular endorsements. The lack of endorsements doesn’t mean it’s a bad translation, and I’m glad many people are coming to realize that.
I have tried to like the ESV. From a Lutheran liturgical perspective it provides a nice transition from the KJV tradition. Some of the wording is awkward like it is still in final draft, but not complete.
I have the HCSB and use it occasionally, like some parts, NT in particular. It seems that HCSB and GW would be a positive blend.
So I still consider the NAS my primary English translation, and rotate between ESV, GW, NKJV, and HCSB as secondary translations. I have preached and taught from all of these, except the HCSB.
Rich, you’re right about the awkward wording. That has always been a very strange aspect of the ESV in my opinion. The HCSB has its own set of wording issues, but nothing like the cumbersome syntax of the ESV.
One reason why the HCSB will prevail: Holman prints better quality HCSB bibles than Crossway’s ESVs…..though I guess that means that you’ll need to buy another ESV much sooner. I guess the ESV may prevail after all :=)
Seriously though, the ESV is an elegant translation that is deserving of better quality printing.
Jonas, you crack me up! I hadn’t thought about it that way.
Will,
I know I’m late in this converstion, but I’ll like to make a contribution.
Of all the modern pastors and theologians, outside of Dr. MacArthur, Dr. Piper has really help shaped my thinkging. So when he was endorsing the ESV, I really thought it would have been a great Bible–but I was disappointed.
The ESV is a revision of the RSV and has not moved away too far from its predecessor.
Another thing, I’ve listened to some lectures by Dr. Bill Mounce, who was the chairman of the NT committee of the ESV, only to find him correcting the ESV repeatedly.
Still when you read Piper’s writings, he’s still favoring readings from the NASB (BTW, this is the Bible I use).
Then came along the HCSB. I find it incredibly readable and accurate. I must agree with those who say it is a better Bible than the ESV. I do hope that it outlives the ESV.
But it must get pass the SBC “stigma.”
TC, I share your frustration with Piper’s seemingly unqualified endorsement of the ESV. I’m not sure I understand it. The team at Broadman and Holman need to work hard to gain some quality endorsements for the CSB.
I appreciate your post…I use the HCSB in New England where many haven’t heard of it before. The ones who have say, “Isn’t that the Baptist Bible?”, not realizing that the panel of translators was an interdenominational group of 100+ scholars. I like the HCSB because of it’s translation theory and that when I work with people from other countries they can understand the English much better than other translations I’ve used.
As one who uses the Greek and Hebrew (learning Hebrew anyway) I am not concerned with which one is more popular. All of these publishers are trying to make money and I’m sure they sent a free Bible to all those people who endorsed it. I would like to see us settle on one main translation for the next 20 years or so (languages are always changing) and would prefer that to be the HCSB…if people prefer the ESV then fine, go with that…but don’t just choose it based on a cult following of a particular person…research it for yourself. Meanwhile, a friend of mine that is in Bible translation is wondering why we can spend so much money making and marketing English translations when there are 100’s of languages that don’t have a Bible in their language. Next time anyone rushes out to buy the latest translation and add it to their Bible translation collection I would suggest putting that money aside to support those who don’t have Bibles.
Thanks again for the post.