The Old and New Testaments in a recent translation.

The HCSB does not want to be boxed into the categories of either "formal equivalence" (word-for-word, e.g. KJV, ASV, NASB, ESV, etc.) or "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought, e.g. NIV, NLT, CEV). Instead they come up with a new category: "optimal equivalence," which they claim recognizes that form cannot be separated from meaning and thus is an attempt to make the best sense of both words and thought, but in practice seems to just mean that they generally try to translate "literally," and will give notes with the literal when so idiomatic that they have used different expressions.

Holman Christian is a publishing company; as far as I am aware this is the only translation that takes the name of a publisher and that's quite telling. Why does it need to exist? Despite the introduction the jury is out on that topic: it's not like there haven't been decent recent translations or revisions (see: NASB, ESV) or a lack of versions attempting to clarify meaning (see: CEV, The Voice). Holman Christian now has its own Bible to publish, so there you go.

Nevertheless there are many times when the translation philosophy succeeds and can provide some clarity by bucking the trend. The use of Yahweh for the Divine Name is a positive; the fact that they still use LORD plenty of times is just inconsistent and confusing. The work is certainly a translation and is not translationese, and does capture the essential aspect of the text in a comprehensible way to someone in the 21ste century.

And then it will go and render Psalm 51:5 in an even more "dynamic" way than the NIV.

Despite the fact that it would seem to be a publisher's ploy for profit Holman has been generous with the HCSB, providing it free for programs like e-Sword and in this free Kindle edition. The reason for its existence is an open question; why its translators felt the need to come up with a new category ("optimal equivalence") which functionally is not much different from what can be seen in more translated FE versions like the ESV and in the less interpretive DE versions like the NIV and the CEB (despite the unwarranted NIV hate) seems unnecessary and perhaps a bit presumptuous. But since it's here it's worth a look-see; I still prefer the ESV as maintaining the best translation balance, see value in the ASV, NASB, and NRSV as study resources, and would put the HCSB with the NIV as good versions to read to expand one's way of understanding how the text should be rendered without having as many of the inferential pitfalls that come with the "interpretive" end of the DE spectrum (although for mature students there's a time and place for that as well).

Mild recommendation. ( )