Broadman & Holman (B&H) would like to market the Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB) as an interdenominational translation. However, I think it is also accurate to identify the majority of its translation team as having some baptist influence of some sorts. If we want to call it an evangelical translation, that would be fair because baptists are very evangelical in nature. Even if the translators are not officially members of a baptist church, many are, or have been, involved with some circles of baptist influence—either through seminary or some other organization. Upon a closer look at the HCSB translation team, many are indeed from, or came from, institutions with some Baptist influence. For marketing purposes, it is understandable that Holman would like to distinguish its translation as an evangelical translation. The Broadman & Holman website states the HCSB’s translation team is an: “international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders”.
What other translations in the past have had a heavy denominational influence? The Authorized Version? Would it be fair to say that the translators of the King James Version had mostly an Anglican influence? And likewise, the NJB and NAB, a Roman Catholic influence? These are undeniable facts.
Today, who else more strongly identifies with the KJV as “their own translation” than evangelicals, pentecostals and baptists? So then, why should LifeWay and B&H shy away from the true ethos of its translation team? If the ethos of the translation team is mainly baptists, then why not be proud of it? Even if it is not as varied in denominational influence as the TNIV or ESV, that is okay. Throughout history, baptists have made a major and lasting impact upon the overall evangelical landscape so why not stake its claim as an original baptist translation? Perhaps one day in the future, the HCSB will become almost as popular as the KJV. If this happens, baptists can proudly claim its involvement and influence in the making of the Holman CSB.