# A Translation Earns Trust Through Visible Provenance Not Claimed Revelation ## Claim A translation earns trust by showing where its wording came from and how each edition changed, not by claiming special insight into the source languages. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Applies to public-facing translations and paraphrases distributed for teaching or devotional use; does not require exposing private reviewer identities, only the edition history and sourcing of the published text itself. - The provenance failure documented here is specific: a 2017 addition to Galatians 6:6 was silently removed in a later edition of The Passion Translation with no visible errata explaining the change. - Does not by itself establish that every disputed passage in the source video is a genuine mistranslation — the ten-case pattern justifies an audit and a public revision log, not a verdict on each individual footnote without independent specialist review. ## Evidence Mark Ward and David Fish walk through ten passages where The Passion Translation's wording or footnotes diverge from the Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac source text, several tied to specific theological themes (chastisement softened into being drawn close, "wrongdoer" reframed as "disciple," a prophecy clause added to Ephesians that isn't in the Greek). The clearest general-purpose case is Galatians 6:6: the 2017 edition added "a sharing of wealth takes place," and a later revision removed the line without any visible account of why or on what textual basis. The strongest single line from the discussion: "we are not permitted to alter the word of God by inserting good doctrines" — agreement with a theological position never licenses inserting it into a verse that doesn't contain it, and a translation that wants to be trusted needs to show the edition history that lets a reader check that boundary was respected. ## Links - [[NAR and Charismatic Authority Critique MOC]] — the evidentiary standard a revelation claim is asking you to waive - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Divine-Revelation Translation Claims Immunize a Work From Scholarly Critique]] — because contrasts; that note explains the mechanism that *blocks* checking (a private-revelation claim makes every divergence unfalsifiable), while this claim is about what *would enable* checking (a visible provenance and revision trail) - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Ranking Anomalies Trigger Investigation, Not Attribution]] — because extends; the same "pattern justifies investigation, not a verdict" discipline applied to a WordPress directory-integrity case instead of a translation - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] — because applies-in; translation-methodology literacy as part of biblical literacy ## Tests / falsifiers - Locate the publisher's public revision policy or errata log for The Passion Translation; if a complete, dated changelog exists, this claim's premise (that provenance is currently invisible) weakens. - Have independent Greek/Hebrew/Syriac specialists, blinded to this video's verdicts, review the ten disputed passages against a preregistered corpus — if most survive scrutiny, the "trust requires visible provenance" claim still holds procedurally, but the specific case for distrust here would need revision. ## Maintenance - Last tended: 2026-08-16 - Next review: 2026-11-16 ## Source - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Top Ten Errors in The Passion Translation]] — reports ten disputed passages, the Galatians 6:6 silent-revision case, and the Psalm 81 expansion allegation used to argue for a public provenance trail.