# Top Ten Errors in The Passion Translation > [!question] Lingering Questions > - Which of the ten examples survive independent review by qualified Greek/Hebrew/Syriac specialists blind to the video's verdicts? This remains an adversarial analysis, not a peer-reviewed study. > - Is the alleged 600-parallel Psalm dataset (45% word-count inflation in Psalm 81 alone) public and reproducible, or only asserted in the interview? > - Does the publisher maintain any public revision log — the Galatians 6:6 example shows a 2017 addition silently removed in a later edition with no visible errata trail? > [!tip] Article Ideas > - "Translation trust needs an audit trail" generalizes past this one Bible edition — worth a piece connecting provenance-and-revision-history discipline across Bible translation, AI-generated content, and open-source ranking data (the WP.MD Popular Themes piece from this same batch makes the identical argument in a different domain). > [!link] Cross Reference > - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Divine-Revelation Translation Claims Immunize a Work From Scholarly Critique]] — a distinct but adjacent claim about the same translation: revelation-claims block falsifiability, while this source's claim is about missing provenance/revision trail > - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Ranking Anomalies Trigger Investigation, Not Attribution]] — same "the pattern justifies an audit, not a verdict" epistemic discipline, applied to WordPress directory data instead of Bible translation > - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] > - [[3. Resources/MOCs/NAR and Charismatic Authority Critique MOC]] > [!quote] Vocabulary > - *Peshitta* — the Syriac Bible translation Brian Simmons's disputed footnotes sometimes appeal to; a 5th-century text, not a 1st-century Aramaic source > - *Formal equivalence* — word-for-word (or close) translation, contrasted here with paraphrase and outright interpretive expansion ## Bib - **Source**: [Top Ten Errors in The Passion Translation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9e74NB6w38) — Ward on Words, YouTube video - **Reader doc**: [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Top Ten Errors in The Passion Translation]] ## Author's thesis Mark Ward and David Fish argue, across ten passages, that The Passion Translation repeatedly presents theologically-driven English additions or mistranslations as if they were original-language insight — the methodological claim, not just the ten individual disputes, is that a translation earns trust by showing checkable source-language work and a visible revision history, and this one does neither consistently. ## Key arguments (≤3) 1. **A recurring pattern, not isolated typos** — the ten examples cluster around punishment, salvation, ecclesiology, prophecy, and spoken-decree theology, which the speakers argue is evidence of theological steering rather than random translation noise. 2. **Agreement with a doctrine never authorizes inserting it** — the clearest general rule in the discussion (Ephesians 6:21-22's added prophecy clause): even a defensible theological position doesn't license adding it to a verse where the source text doesn't say it. 3. **Expansion is a provenance-audit trigger, not proof by itself** — the Psalm 81 case (45% more words than the ESV, alleged dependence on prior English paraphrases) broadens the charge from single disputed words to editorial sourcing and attribution. ## Claim atoms ### [H1] Loanwords cannot support invented source etymologies > [!quote] ID:rw_01ky7v5mj2rt3x9j684jarwv06 > "what you actually find in the Syriak bashittita is a quite significant amount of Greek loan words." Where/why: 06:08–06:27; the John 14:16 *paraklētos* footnote — tests whether an original-language claim even starts from the right source language. ### [H2] Agreement never licenses textual insertion > [!quote] ID:rw_01ky7v5p7jfk2x93yfejjcqvqj > "we are not permitted to alter the word of God by inserting good doctrines" Where/why: 27:02–27:24; the Ephesians 6:21-22 added-prophecy clause — the ethical boundary between interpretation and translation, the strongest single-line rule in the source. ### [H3] Expansion signals a provenance audit > [!quote] ID:rw_01ky7v5r84ztpqf84tz8ev27gf > "this entire psalm Psalm 81 is has uh 45% more words" Where/why: 52:36–53:12; the Psalm 81 corpus allegation — an investigation trigger, explicitly not proof by itself. ## Permanent candidates - **"A translation earns trust by showing visible provenance and revision history"** — the strongest generalizable claim: distinct from the vault's existing divine-revelation-unfalsifiability note (that one is about *why* checking gets blocked; this one is about what *would* let checking happen). Promoted below. ## Processing checklist - [x] Connect into the relevant MOCs — [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]], [[3. Resources/MOCs/NAR and Charismatic Authority Critique MOC]] - [x] Create Permanent note for the provenance claim - [ ] Verify the claimed 600-Psalm-parallel dataset is public before treating the borrowing allegation as more than a lead ## Links - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] — a bible-translation-methodology case study with direct relevance to how source claims should be evaluated - [[3. Resources/MOCs/NAR and Charismatic Authority Critique MOC]] — The Passion Translation's spoken-decree language and adoption within Bethel/apostolic-prophetic circles make its provenance and revision practices directly relevant to that critique thread - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/A Translation Earns Trust Through Visible Provenance Not Claimed Revelation]] — the new Permanent note this source generated