Passion Translation Removed from Bible Gateway  🔗 **Source:** [Passion Translation Removed from Bible Gateway](https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2022/03/passion-translation-removed-from-bible.html) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [bible-translation, biblical-scholarship, textual-criticism] > author: Peter Gurry > source: Evangelical Textual Criticism > reference: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2022/03/passion-translation-removed-from-bible.html > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: Passion Translation Removed from Bible Gateway > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - BibleGateway.com removed The Passion Translation from its available Bible list in early 2022. - The Passion Translation is a controversial "translation" by Brian Simmons that adds non-scriptural content and relies heavily on claimed Aramaic insights. - The removal reflects concerns that this work is not a legitimate translation but rather one person's interpretive paraphrase with theological additions. - The work contains numerous translation errors and unsupported claims about source texts. - This represents a significant quality control decision by a major Bible platform affecting access to questionable religious materials. ## 📖 Main Content The Passion Translation (TPT) was removed from BibleGateway.com, one of the most popular online Bible platforms, in early 2022. This action highlights ongoing concerns within biblical scholarship about translation quality and authenticity. ### Background on The Passion Translation First released as a New Testament in 2017, The Passion Translation markets itself as "a modern, easy-to-read Bible translation that unlocks the passion of God's heart and expresses his fiery love—merging emotion and life-changing truth." However, scholars note that it includes additions not found in source manuscripts and phrases meant to draw out God's supposed "tone" and "heart" in passages. ### Translation Problems The work demonstrates significant translation issues. In Ephesians 6:5-9, the TPT deviates substantially from the Greek text: - Renders "servants/slaves" (δοῦλοι) as "those who are employed" - Translates "masters" (κύριοι) as "caretakers of the flock" - Adds interpretive content like "with love" that doesn't appear in source texts ### Footnote Issues The footnotes compound problems by making unsupported claims about Aramaic sources. For example, claiming that "caretakers of the flock" comes "literally from the Aramaic" when the Greek text clearly states "masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening." ### Scholarly Response Multiple biblical scholars have criticized the work. James Snapp Jr. documented concerns in 2018, and Mike Winger maintains a site with scholarly critiques. The consensus among textual critics is that this represents interpretation rather than translation. ## 🗒️ Notes - BibleGateway provided minimal explanation, citing only alignment with "business goals" - The translation remains available on Bible.com - Brian Simmons frequently claims to rely on Syriac sources over standard Greek texts - No serious scholars endorse Simmons' approach to Aramaic/Syriac sources - This represents a rare case of a major platform removing a "translation" for quality concerns ## 📚 References - [Christianity Today coverage](referenced but not linked in original) - [Mike Winger's scholarly critiques](https://biblethinker.org/the-passion-project/) - [James Snapp Jr.'s 2018 analysis](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/03/the-passion-translation-some-problems.html) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase BibleGateway removed a controversial Bible version called The Passion Translation because it's not really a translation—it's one person's creative interpretation mixed with questionable claims about ancient languages. The translator adds words and ideas that aren't in the original texts, then justifies these additions by claiming special insights from Aramaic sources that scholars can't verify. This is significant because BibleGateway is hugely popular, and their decision to remove it suggests even mainstream platforms have limits on what counts as legitimate biblical scholarship. ## 📰 Newsletter **WordPress Community Alert: When Platforms Make Quality Calls** This week brought news that BibleGateway removed The Passion Translation—a controversial Bible version that scholars say isn't actually a translation. While this might seem outside our WordPress world, it's a fascinating case study in content moderation and platform responsibility. Think about it: BibleGateway had to decide whether hosting questionable religious content crossed a line. They chose reputation over revenue, removing a popular-but-problematic resource. This mirrors decisions many of us face with WordPress sites—do we host that sketchy plugin? Feature that questionable guest post? The lesson? Sometimes the best user experience means saying no to bad content, even when it's popular. Quality control isn't just about code—it's about trust. Speaking of quality, check out the latest WordPress 6.2 beta for some genuinely exciting block editor improvements! ## ✅ Action Items #### WordPress - **Content Standards**: Draft clear content quality guidelines for client sites that handle religious or educational materials - **Plugin Review**: Audit translation/language plugins for accuracy claims and scholarly backing - **Documentation**: Create guidelines for faith-based WordPress sites on translation credibility #### Community - **Maintainers**: Consider how to evaluate and communicate the scholarly credibility of educational content plugins - **Contributors**: Develop best practices for fact-checking religious or historical claims in WordPress themes and plugins ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Platform content moderation decisions increasingly reflect scholarly consensus rather than popularity metrics - Religious translation controversies will become more visible as digital platforms consolidate authority - Academic credibility will become a more important factor in content platform decisions - Users will gradually learn to distinguish between translation and interpretation through platform curation ### 📊 Methodology - **Platform Analysis**: Track content removal decisions across major religious/educational platforms - **User Surveys**: Measure how platform decisions influence user perception of source credibility - **Scholar Interviews**: Document the role of academic consensus in platform content decisions - **Usage Analytics**: Compare traffic patterns for removed vs. retained controversial content ### ❓ Questions - What criteria should platforms use to evaluate religious or scholarly content quality? - How do platform content decisions influence public understanding of academic standards? - Should popular platforms have responsibilities for scholarly accuracy in religious content? - How can users better evaluate the credibility of religious translations and interpretations? ### 🔮 Future Research - Long-term effects of platform content curation on religious literacy - Development of standards for evaluating biblical translation quality - Impact of academic consensus on digital platform policies - User behavior changes following high-profile content removals ### 💡 Implications - **Practice**: Content creators must consider scholarly consensus, not just popular appeal - **Policy**: Platforms may increasingly rely on academic expertise for content evaluation - **Education**: Users need better training to distinguish scholarly from popular religious content - **Technology**: Development of tools to verify translation accuracy and source credibility ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 12-14 (Flesch-Kincaid) - appropriate for educated general audience. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Clear text examples showing translation differences - Improve: Side-by-side comparison charts of Greek text vs. TPT vs. standard translations, visual timeline of removal process #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: None - Improve: Audio summary explaining translation principles, podcast interview with biblical scholars #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions (translation vs. interpretation), analogies to other controversial works - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, plain-language explanation of scholarly consensus #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Specific textual examples to examine - Improve: Interactive comparison tool, checklist for evaluating translation quality #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear cause-effect (poor scholarship → removal), scholarly credentials vs. claims - Improve: Decision tree for evaluating biblical translations, systematic comparison methodology #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Scholar community response, platform discussion - Improve: Forum discussion prompts, scholarly review process explanation #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Links to further research, individual case study - Improve: Self-assessment questions about translation evaluation, independent research guide #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: None directly applicable - Improve: Analogy to ecosystem health (scholarly ecosystem requires quality control) ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear headings, logical structure - Improve: More descriptive link text, consistent heading hierarchy #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard blog navigation - Improve: Skip links, better focus indicators on linked references #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard blog contrast appears adequate - Improve: Verify 4.5:1 minimum contrast ratios, improve line spacing for dense academic content #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive blog design - Improve: Test at 200% zoom, ensure no content clipping #### Media and captions - Present: Text-only content - Improve: Consider adding audio version with transcript for complex scholarly content ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Western Christian perspective primarily - Improve: Acknowledge diverse biblical translation traditions, include non-Western scholarly perspectives #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic tone, defined jargon - Improve: Explain denominational differences in translation approaches, avoid assuming Christian familiarity #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, academic formatting - Improve: More frequent subheadings, summary boxes for key concepts #### Representation - Present: Male scholars primarily quoted - Improve: Include diverse voices in biblical scholarship, acknowledge different cultural approaches to translation ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Inductive evidence** (Ephesians example): Specific textual analysis demonstrates broader pattern of translation problems - **Scholarly consensus**: Multiple independent scholars reaching similar conclusions strengthens the case - **Causal logic**: Clear connection between poor scholarship and platform removal decision #### Fallacies - **Appeal to authority**: Relies heavily on scholarly opinion without always showing the underlying evidence - **Hasty generalization**: Uses one textual example to characterize the entire translation - **Ad hominem implications**: Focuses on Simmons' lack of credentials rather than purely on textual evidence #### Tone of voice - **Academic but accessible**: Maintains scholarly credibility while being readable ("If you can figure that out, let me know") - **Mildly dismissive**: Shows clear bias against the translation ("but I don't recommend it") ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis No DARVO patterns detected. The article presents a straightforward scholarly critique without defensive rhetoric, victim-reversal, or attacks on accusers. The tone is academic rather than defensive. ## 🎯 Conclusion BibleGateway's removal of The Passion Translation represents a significant moment where platform responsibility met scholarly standards. The decision reflects growing recognition that popular doesn't necessarily mean credible, especially in religious and educational content. For readers, this highlights the importance of understanding the difference between translation and interpretation, and the value of scholarly consensus in evaluating religious texts. The controversy serves as a reminder that in our digital age, platform decisions increasingly shape public access to information—and that sometimes, quality control requires difficult choices. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Passion Translation Removed from Bible Gateway ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Passion Translation adds non-scriptural content marketed as biblical translation > [!quote] ID:rw_platform_001 > First released as a New Testament in 2017, The Passion Translation includes additions that do not appear in the source manuscripts, phrases meant to draw out God's "tone" and "heart" in each passage. **Context & use**: - Core definition of the translation's problems - Demonstrates gap between marketing and scholarly standards **Tags**: #bible-translation #textual-accuracy #xref **Highlight**: [Referenced from article text] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### BibleGateway removed controversial translation based on quality concerns > [!quote] ID:rw_platform_002 > The very popular translation website Biblegateway.com has removed the Passion Translation from its list of available Bibles. **Context & use**: - Significant platform decision reflecting scholarly consensus - Shows market consequences of poor academic standards **Tags**: #platform-moderation #content-standards #xref **Highlight**: [Referenced from article text] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Passion Translation footnotes make unsupported claims about Aramaic sources > [!quote] ID:rw_platform_003 > As translated literally from the Aramaic. The "caretakers of the flock" can refer to both leadership in the church and in the workplace. The Greek text states "masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening." **Context & use**: - Demonstrates methodology problems beyond translation issues - Shows contradiction between claimed sources and actual text **Tags**: #false-scholarship #source-criticism #xref **Highlight**: [Referenced from article text] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Platform content curation increasingly reflects scholarly consensus over popularity **Claim**: Major content platforms make removal decisions based on academic credibility rather than user engagement metrics. **Evidence pointer**: [[#BibleGateway removed controversial translation based on quality concerns]] **Scope & conditions**: Applies when platforms face reputational risks from hosting questionable content; breaks when commercial incentives override credibility concerns **Links**: - [[Academic gatekeeping]] — because extends platform authority to scholarly domains - [[Content moderation principles]] — because applies-in educational/religious contexts <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Research other cases of religious content removed from major platforms for quality issues — scholarly consensus vs. popularity metrics #fleeting #xref - [F2] Investigate Brian Simmons' actual credentials and training in biblical languages — credibility assessment #fleeting #articleseed ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Create comparison chart showing Greek text vs. multiple English translations for Ephesians 6:5-9 — content analysis #things - [ ] Research scholarly consensus formation process in biblical studies — methodology understanding #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - First released as a New Testament in 2017, The Passion Translation includes additions that do not appear in the source manuscripts, phrases meant to draw out God's "tone" and "heart" in each passage. - Note: 📚 Passion Translation adds non-scriptural content marketed as biblical translation · - Core definition of the translation's problems - Demonstrates gap between marketing and scholarly standards · #atom/literature/h1 - The very popular translation website Biblegateway.com has removed the Passion Translation from its list of available Bibles. - Note: 📚 BibleGateway removed controversial translation based on quality concerns · - Significant platform decision reflecting scholarly consensus - Shows market consequences of poor academic standards · #atom/literature/h2 - As translated literally from the Aramaic. The "caretakers of the flock" can refer to both leadership in the church and in the workplace. The Greek text states "masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening. - Note: 📚 Passion Translation footnotes make unsupported claims about Aramaic sources · - Demonstrates methodology problems beyond translation issues - Shows contradiction between claimed sources and actual text · #atom/literature/h3 - Platform content curation increasingly reflects scholarly consensus over popularity - Note: [[Academic gatekeeping]] — because extends platform authority to scholarly domains · - [[Academic gatekeeping]] — because extends platform authority to scholarly domains · #atom/zettel/z1 - Research other cases of religious content removed from major platforms for quality issues — scholarly consensus vs. popularity metrics #fleeting #xref - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f1 - Investigate Brian Simmons' actual credentials and training in biblical languages — credibility assessment #fleeting #articleseed - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f2 - Relies heavily on scholarly opinion without always showing the underlying evidence - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Appeal to Authority #fallacy/appeal-to-authority - Uses one textual example to characterize the entire translation - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Hasty Generalization #fallacy/hasty-generalization - Focuses on Simmons' lack of credentials rather than purely on textual evidence - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Ad Hominem #fallacy/ad-hominem ## New Highlights added 2026-05-31 at 1:19 PM - Here’s a bit of Bible translation news from last month. The very popular translation website Biblegateway.com has removed the Passion Translation from its list of available Bibles. [*Christianity Today* has the story](https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/february/passion-translation-tpt-bible-gateway-remove-charismatic-pa.html). What is the Passion Translation, you ask? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kszetn81fv86ezga3abb4xmn)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted