My Concerns Regarding the Passion Bible Translation

There is another English Bible translation out there gaining readership and popularity in some evangelical circles.  It’s simply called “The Passion Translation” (TPT).  I’ve been asked a number of times whether this is a translation worth using.  After reviewing TPT’s own website, marketing material, history of composition, and translation philosophy, I’ve concluded there are enough problems associated with TPT that I cannot recommend it.  Here are a few of my reasons.

1. TPT is essentially an English paraphrase from the original languages (Hebrew, Greek, and the very small portions of the Bible written in Aramaic).  It is quite a bit more thought-for-thought than the NIV, which I think strikes a decent balance between dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) and formal equivalence (word-for-word).  Some wouldn’t even consider TPT a true “translation”, but rather an interpretation.  Translation is an art and science.  Any bilingual person understands translation is never the result of merely adhering closely to a formula.  A strict word-for-word translation is in reality impossible.  And translators who aim for the strictest possible word-for-word translation usually produce incomprehensible gibberish.  Thus all translation must engage in a limited amount of interpretation to achieve intelligibility, readability, and literary equivalence.  But the art and science of rendering a text into a target language ideally seeks to employ as little interpretation as possible.  Translation is the task of the linguist.  Interpretation is the task of the reader.  TPT seems to liberally engage in interpretation.
2. TPT is a one-man translation effort by Dr. Brian Simmons, a former missionary, linguist, minister, author, and Bible teacher.  There were no checks and balances in the translation process.  No matter how competent a translator is, a translation is always more accurate with the insights and corrections from others.  Therefore in this respect TPT is like Eugene Peterson’s The Message.  Neither is widely accepted as an accurate translation.
3. TPT is also like The Message in its idiomatic, paraphrastic style of translation. Like the Message, TPT may be an interesting personal devotional read at best, but it is not a good choice for study or public ministry use because it cannot be called “The Word of God.”
4. TPT privileges the Aramaic translation of the Bible as a primary source text, putting it on the same level as the original Hebrew and Greek when translating.  As a philosophy of translation decision, this is irresponsible no matter how sincere.  Frankly it’s just weird.  Say a bilingual English-Spanish speaker heard your spoken English message, understood you with complete accuracy, and wrote it down in Spanish for Hispanics to understand.  Then someone else came along several generations later and translated that Spanish text back into English.  Would you be more confident that your spoken message was accurately conveyed in the Spanish text or the English text?
5. As a translation that weighs heavily in the thought-for-thought direction on the translation philosophy spectrum, TPT necessarily devalues the actual words of Scripture.  Jesus taught the doctrine of Scripture’s verbal plenary inspiration (Mt 5:17-18; Lk 20:37-38; Jn 10:34-36), but a Bible version like TPT that purports to be a translation worthy of “word study” goes a long way to undermine that doctrine.  The translator believes the truth of Scripture is found in its “meaning”, not its “words.”  This is simplistic reasoning.  Meaning is conveyed through words.  Therefore the actual words of God matter.  Scripture is not “inspired” in an artsy, heart-uplifting, meaningful-to-me sense of the term (although Scripture is an artful masterpiece, it ought to lift your heart in worship of God, and it has proven meaningful to millions if not billions).  Scripture is truly “expired” (breathed out) by God (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Here is a webpage of FAQs about the translation, written by proponents of TPT.  Read between the lines and ask yourself whether its reasons for promoting The Passion Translation as another good Bible version are sound.  I don’t think so.