There has been a significant amount of controversy and discussion around The Passion Translation (TPT) over the course of the past few years, but perhaps none more polarizing than last week when prominent Bible teacher, apologist, and YouTuber Mike Winger chose to uninstall the YouVersion Bible App over its inclusion of the TPT due to its lack of accuracy and translation standards. Some believers considered this a worthy hill to die on, while others felt it was an overreaction. Regardless, the TPT’s creator and translator, Brian Simmons, has formed a quite controversial Bible translation that demands research and understanding.

How are Bible Translations Created?

To understand what the TPT is and what it is not, one must understand how Bible translations are formed.

First, there are the ancient biblical manuscripts, with the oldest and most dependable being in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament). The Old Testament also contains some Aramaic manuscripts, though far fewer than the many Hebrew manuscripts.

From there, a team of translators, typically a significant number, translate those ancient manuscripts into English. For example, the New International Version (NIV) team consists of 15 core translators who are experts in linguistics and biblical languages. The translation process is by no means a simple task due to the language differences between these ancient languages and English. To give a prominent example, the Greek text has about six different words for “love” while English has only one direct word. You can see how the descriptive difference between the languages could be challenging.

How do we distinguish love for pizza from love for a family member? Languages like Greek have many linguistic options to distinguish them, unlike English. This is why understanding the context of Scripture becomes so essential. The Bibles we read in English are interpretations of the text, and that comes with responsibility from the readers. With that, there are three primary philosophies in translation approach: formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and optimal equivalence.

• Formal equivalence is focused on doing a word-for-word trade—a literal approach. It prioritizes original wording and accuracy. This can make the resulting translated language read awkwardly or wooden, yet the approach is designed to remain true to the original text. Of course, it is by no means a perfect process due to the difference between languages. It is up to the reader to interpret the meaning of the text when formal equivalence is used, since its job is not to draw out the thought of how the text would have been read when it was written, but rather to offer the most accurate literal equivalent for each word in the targeted language. Examples of literal translations are the English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Version (NASB), King James (KJV), and New King James (NKJV).

• Dynamic Equivalence is focused on thought-for-thought translation. This differs from formal equivalence as it focuses on readability by drawing out the cultural context of the words and making it readable, not direct word-for-word exchanges. Dynamic equivalence translations tend to be easier to read than their literal counterparts and are more user-friendly. But in the case of interpretation, the readers of thought-for-thought translations depend heavily on the translators to relay the original thought correctly. Popular examples of thought-for-thought translations are the New Living Translation (NLT) and Contemporary English Version (CEV).

• Optimal Equivalence focuses on blending formal and dynamic equivalence methods, resulting in a hybrid translation. This method uses word-for-word when possible but focuses on making the text readable and digestible in cases where a literal rendering would be unclear or perplexing to readers. Popular examples of this hybrid approach are the New International Version (NIV) and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

For a further exploration of Bible translation history, see Dr. Jim Denison’s article Why are there so many different Bible translations? And which Bible should I read?

What Translation Method Does TPT Use?

The TPT uses a different methodology in translation than formal, dynamic, and optimal equivalence approaches. While the TPT does use thought-for-thought methodology, it goes further and strives to draw out the text’s emotional aspects, and is highly dependent on the translator’s view of the text’s supposed meaning. Thus, both personal emotion and theology dictate much of how the text is written. This is why many consider the TPT more of a paraphrase and not a legitimate translation.

Additionally, Brian Simmons is the lone translator of the TPT, unlike the previously discussed translations, which include primary translators and other linguistic experts. While versions such as the NIV have a team of experts communicating with and assisting each other as a cohesive unit to accurately translate the text, that is not the approach of the TPT.

Another popular version of Scripture, known as “The Message,” also employs a paraphrase approach to translating. Eugene Peterson, an expert in biblical linguistics, was the primary translator, but he had a team of 20 translation consultants from prominent seminaries such as Asbury Theological, Dallas Theological, and Southern Baptist Theological who were involved in the accuracy and editing of the version.

There is no team for the TPT, and this is where there is significant concern and even danger in Simmons’ translation. Rather, Simmons claims to have heard directly from Christ Himself to create The Passion Translation:

Jesus Christ came into my room. He breathed on me, and He commissioned me… He spoke and said, ‘I am commissioning you to translate the Bible into the translation project that I’m giving you to do.’ And He promised me that He would help me, and He promised me that He would give me secrets of the Hebrew language… I believe the spirit of revelation was given… I felt downloads coming. Instantly, I received downloads. It was like I got a chip put inside of me. I got a connection put inside of me to hear Him better, to understand the Scriptures better, and hopefully to translate.

While it is entirely biblical that God can still give His people visions and direct callings (Acts 2:17-18), it is, at a minimum, concerning that Simmons claims he received “secrets” from God. When someone claims a special message from God that no one else is privy to, there is often no greater red flag. The TPT origins sound eerily similar to what Joseph Smith claimed when he received a “revelation” to dictate the words of the Book of Mormon.

For the reasons listed above, the Passion Bible does not meet the criteria of a true Bible translation and should be considered a paraphrase at best. Consequently, the entire translation process of the TPT should make all who use it consider whether it is a version they can trust.

Simmons also claims his ability to engage in biblical linguistics is attached to his time as a Wycliffe Bible Translator, yet Wycliffe, in an email to Shane Runnels, says:

It would be inaccurate to describe him as a ‘translator’ or ‘co-translator’ on any project supported by Wycliffe USA, as he was not involved with linguistic analysis or translation. His unofficial role as a comprehension checker required familiarity with local language but no formal training.

This does not mean Simmons lacks ministry experience, but it does raise questions regarding the depth of his formal linguistic credentials. Simmons also has a doctoral education (doctorate in practical ministry) from the unaccredited Wagner Leadership Institute in Connecticut, now Wagner University, but this education does not involve linguistics.

This may better explain why he uses supplementary New Testament manuscripts in addition to the traditional Greek text (Novum Testamentum Graece), such as the Syriac Peshitta. Simmons believes, contrary to conservative biblical scholars, including many liberal scholars, that since Aramaic was the spoken language of the time, much meaning could have been lost in the Greek. The only issue with this theory is that the Syriac Peshitta was translated from the original Koine Greek. One can now begin to see the gaping holes in Simmons’ methodology.

Does the TPT Have Purpose?

The TPT certainly has glaring issues within its translation methodology and original vision, but that does not mean it does not do some things well, because it does. This is particularly seen in passages such as 1 Timothy 2, a text at the center of significant “women in ministry” debates: “I don’t advocate that the newly converted women be the teachers in the church, assuming authority over the men, but to live in peace” (1 Tim. 2:12, TPT). The Passion Translation seems to do well here, bringing out the original meaning of the Greek text.

Yet, there are areas of translation where he adds elements that are not in the text or implied by it. Let’s take Psalm 23:1, a famous verse which says in the NKJV, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (or as some translations say for readability, “I have all that I need”). Yet the TPT says, “Yahweh is my best friend and my shepherd. I always have more than enough.” This moves beyond the realm of translating the text or making it more readable; it adds concepts not found in the Hebrew text. This is where the TPT could potentially become problematic.

What Should We Do with the TPT?

As with anything, Christians should be discerning in every facet of their faith. As 1 John 4:1 states, we should “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

The Passion Translation should not be someone’s primary Scriptural reference or Bible of choice due to the listed concerns, but it could be possible to use it well alongside a trusted translation as discussed earlier (NIV, NASB, etc.). Believers should do their best to be well-studied and seek help where needed. Not everyone has biblical language training, and that is why resources such as Blue Letter Bible are helpful. You can click on a word in the text and look at the original words in the Hebrew and Greek to determine intent and context. This will help Christians avoid error and improper interpretations and applications.

 

 

Denison Forum