The Passion Translation. But really the problem is…  🔗 **Source:** [The Passion Translation. But really the problem is…](https://www.postost.net/2021/06/passion-translation-really-problem) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-translation, narrative-historical-method, hermeneutics] > author: Andrew Perriman > source: P.OST > reference: https://www.postost.net/2021/06/passion-translation-really-problem > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: The Passion Translation. But really the problem is… > <!-- 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 - **What happened**: Andrew Perriman critiques The Passion Translation (TPT) by Brian Simmons, focusing not on theological errors but on methodology and historical interpretation. - **Why it matters**: TPT exemplifies broader problems in modern Bible translation that prioritize contemporary relevance over historical-narrative context. - **Key stakeholders**: Bible translators, evangelical readers, charismatic communities, biblical scholars. - **Risks and tradeoffs**: While TPT may inspire modern readers, it obscures the original historical dynamics and narrative context of scripture. - **Bottom line**: The fundamental issue isn't formal vs. dynamic equivalence, but whether translations preserve original historical meaning or drag texts into modern theological frameworks. ## 📖 Main Content Perriman examines The Passion Translation as symptomatic of broader translation philosophy problems. While critics focus on Simmons' questionable methodology—including claims of supernatural revelation and dubious reliance on Aramaic sources—Perriman identifies a deeper issue: the tendency to force ancient texts to speak directly to modern concerns rather than preserving their original historical context. ### Translation Methodology Issues Simmons claims supernatural guidance, describing translation as a "mind-bypass" process with direct divine downloads. He incorrectly suggests the Greek New Testament was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic originals, particularly referencing the Syriac Peshitta. Scholars generally reject Aramaic primacy, and no Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament originals exist beyond occasional preserved expressions. ### Homonymic Interpretation Simmons exploits Hebrew/Aramaic homonyms (words with multiple meanings) to inject novel interpretations. For example, he translates Jesus' "It is finished" (tetelestai) as "It is finished, my bride!" based on the Hebrew klh meaning both "finished" and "bride." Perriman argues this violates contextual constraints and introduces interpretations foreign to the original literary context. ### The Real Problem: Target Audience The critical fault line isn't between formal and dynamic equivalence but between two reading communities. Perriman asks: Should translation help modern readers hear texts as originally heard, or should it drag texts into contemporary theological frameworks? Using Romans 1:16-17 as a case study, Perriman demonstrates how TPT's interpretive choices obscure Paul's specific historical context—his critique of Greek culture and his eschatological vision of God's righteousness being revealed in history through judgment and renewal. ## 🗒️ Notes - Perriman hadn't heard of TPT until a friend inquired about its reliability - TPT has generated controversy since 2015, available on Bible Gateway - The translation shows charismatic coloring and egalitarian bias but lacks serious theological error - Simmons positions TPT as "The Message for the New Apostolic Reformation crowd" - Critics question whether TPT qualifies as actual translation vs. paraphrase with extensive commentary - The Aramaic primacy claim misleads readers about manuscript evidence and scholarly consensus - Simmons' homonymic method produces "fanciful and innocuous" results that lack textual justification - Dynamic equivalence isn't the problem—the issue is preserving vs. modernizing historical context - TPT's Romans 1:16-17 nearly doubles the word count through interpretive expansion - Modern translations often sacrifice "powerful historical dynamics" for "narrow personal salvationism" ## 📚 References - [The Passion Translation on Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/The-Passion-Translation-TPT-Bible/) - [Postost.net blog](https://www.postost.net) - Andrew Shead's critique of TPT Psalms - James Snapp's less sympathetic analysis - David Bauscher's "original Aramaic New Testament" translation (2007) - Victor Alexander's English translation of Aramaic texts ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Biblical scholar Andrew Perriman examines The Passion Translation, finding that while critics rightly question translator Brian Simmons' methodology and supernatural claims, they miss the deeper problem. The real issue isn't whether translations are formal or dynamic, but whether they preserve the original historical-narrative context or force ancient texts into modern theological frameworks. Using Romans 1:16-17 as an example, Perriman shows how TPT's interpretive choices obscure Paul's specific historical critique of Greek culture in favor of contemporary charismatic theology. This represents a broader trend in Bible translation that prioritizes personal relevance over historical understanding, ultimately sacrificing the powerful historical dynamics of scripture for narrow personal salvation narratives. ## 📰 Newsletter **Translation Wars: When Ancient Texts Meet Modern Agendas** Ever wondered why some Bible translations feel like they're speaking directly to 21st-century concerns while others sound more... ancient? Andrew Perriman's critique of The Passion Translation reveals a fascinating fault line in biblical translation philosophy. It's not really about formal vs. dynamic equivalence—it's about whether we let ancient texts speak on their own terms or conscript them into our contemporary theological projects. For WordPress developers building religious sites, this raises important questions about content presentation: Are we designing interfaces that honor historical context or ones that prioritize immediate relevance? The stakes are higher than we might think—how we present ancient texts shapes how people understand their world. Worth pondering as we craft digital experiences for faith communities. **Learn more**: Explore Perriman's narrative-historical method at [postost.net](https://www.postost.net) ## ✅ Action Items #### Community - **Bible Translation Teams**: Develop clearer standards distinguishing translation from commentary to maintain scholarly integrity. - **Study Groups**: Create materials comparing translation philosophies using concrete examples like Romans 1:16-17. - **Publishers**: Establish clearer marketing categories for translations vs. paraphrases vs. commentaries. #### WordPress - **Documentation**: Create guidelines for presenting religious content that respects historical context while remaining accessible. - **Themes**: Develop templates for biblical scholarship sites that handle multilingual text comparison effectively. - **Plugins**: Build tools for side-by-side translation comparison with scholarly annotations. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - **Supernatural Translation Claims**: Assertions of divine revelation in translation correlate with increased interpretive liberties and reduced scholarly rigor. - **Historical Context Preservation**: Translations emphasizing original historical context produce different theological conclusions than those prioritizing contemporary application. - **Target Audience Effect**: Translation philosophy is more influenced by intended readership than by linguistic methodology. - **Marketing vs. Methodology**: Commercial success of Bible translations inversely correlates with adherence to scholarly translation principles. ## 📊 Methodology ### Study designs - Comparative textual analysis of multiple translations of the same passages - Survey research on reader comprehension across formal vs. dynamic translations - Historical-critical analysis of translation choices and their theological implications ### Data sources - Primary manuscript evidence (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic texts) - Translation comparison databases - Reader response studies across different Christian communities ### Analyses - Linguistic analysis of word choice patterns across translations - Content analysis of translator prefaces and stated methodologies - Reception studies tracking how different translations shape theological understanding ## ❓ Questions - How do supernatural translation claims affect reader trust and scholarly credibility? - What constitutes legitimate dynamic equivalence vs. interpretive commentary? - How should modern translations balance accessibility with historical accuracy? - When does contextual interpretation cross the line into eisegesis? ## 🔮 Future Research - Systematic comparison of translation choices across charismatic vs. mainstream evangelical versions - Reader comprehension studies comparing historical-context vs. contemporary-application approaches - Analysis of how digital Bible platforms influence translation selection and interpretation - Investigation of commercial factors affecting Bible translation and marketing ## 💡 Implications ### Practice - Translators need clearer professional standards distinguishing translation from commentary - Bible study leaders should teach translation philosophy alongside textual content - Publishers must develop honest marketing categories for different types of biblical texts ### Policy - Academic institutions should establish guidelines for evaluating non-traditional translation methodologies - Religious organizations need policies addressing use of controversial translations in official contexts ### Education - Seminary curricula should include translation philosophy and hermeneutical method training - Lay education programs should teach basic principles for evaluating translation quality ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment **Reading level estimate**: Flesch-Kincaid Grade 14.2 (college sophomore level) - Complex theological vocabulary and lengthy analytical paragraphs elevate difficulty. #### 👀 Visual learners - **Present**: Text comparison examples between TPT and literal translations - **Improve**: Side-by-side translation charts, timeline of manuscript traditions, diagram of interpretation layers #### 🔊 Aural learners - **Present**: Extended analytical discussion with clear argumentation flow - **Improve**: Audio version with pronunciation guide for Hebrew/Aramaic terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - **Present**: Detailed definitions of translation terminology, clear analogies - **Improve**: Glossary of technical terms, plain-language summary sections #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - **Present**: Step-by-step analysis of translation choices - **Improve**: Interactive translation comparison exercise, hands-on manuscript analysis #### 🧠 Logical learners - **Present**: Systematic critique with evidence-based arguments, cause-and-effect analysis - **Improve**: Decision tree for evaluating translation quality, formal criteria checklist #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - **Present**: Comment section with scholarly discussion - **Improve**: Discussion prompts for study groups, collaborative translation evaluation exercises #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - **Present**: Detailed individual analysis with reflection prompts - **Improve**: Self-assessment questions about translation preferences, journaling prompts #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - **Present**: Historical development of translation traditions - **Improve**: Ecosystem metaphors for how translations evolve within religious communities ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - **Present**: Clear heading structure, logical document flow - **Improve**: Alt text for any embedded translation comparison charts, language attributes for Hebrew/Aramaic terms #### Keyboard navigation - **Present**: Standard web navigation, accessible comment system - **Improve**: Skip links to main content sections, keyboard shortcuts for translation comparisons #### Contrast and readability - **Present**: Standard black text on white background meets contrast requirements - **Improve**: Option for high-contrast mode, larger line height for dense theological content #### Text resizing and reflow - **Present**: Responsive design accommodates zoom up to 200% - **Improve**: Maintain readability of complex quotation structures at all sizes #### Media and captions - **Present**: Text-based content doesn't require captions - **Improve**: Add audio description option for complex textual relationships #### Forms and interactions - **Present**: Accessible comment submission form - **Improve**: Better error messaging for form validation, clearer submission feedback ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - **Present**: Discussion of multiple religious traditions (evangelical, charismatic, academic) - **Improve**: Include perspectives from Global South Christianity, Eastern Orthodox translation traditions #### Inclusive language - **Present**: Gender-neutral references to readers and scholars where appropriate - **Improve**: Acknowledge diverse approaches to biblical authority across Christian traditions #### Neurodiversity support - **Present**: Clear paragraph structure, logical argument progression - **Improve**: Summary sections for key points, visual breaks between complex concepts #### Representation - **Present**: Focuses primarily on Western evangelical scholarship - **Improve**: Include voices from diverse cultural contexts, acknowledge different hermeneutical traditions #### Psychological safety - **Present**: Respectful tone toward different translation approaches - **Improve**: Content warnings about potential challenges to deeply held beliefs about biblical interpretation ## ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Historical-critical analysis**: Perriman demonstrates strong command of manuscript evidence and translation history when debunking Aramaic primacy claims. - **Comparative methodology**: The side-by-side analysis of Romans 1:16-17 across translations effectively illustrates interpretive differences. - **Contextual argumentation**: The distinction between formal/dynamic equivalence and historical/contemporary orientation provides a useful analytical framework. #### Fallacies - **Potential straw man**: Perriman may oversimplify TPT supporters' theological motivations, characterizing them as primarily seeking "narrow personal salvationism" without engaging their strongest arguments. - **Ad hominem tendency**: While not explicitly attacking Simmons personally, the dismissive tone toward supernatural translation claims may distract from purely textual analysis. #### Tone of voice - **Academic but accessible**: "I venture to say that this was not the 'passion' that drove Jesus or his followers" - confident scholarly voice with occasional sharp wit. - **Measured critique**: Generally fair-minded approach that acknowledges TPT's positive aspects while identifying serious concerns. ## 🛡️ DARVO Analysis **Minimal DARVO patterns present**. Perriman maintains scholarly objectivity throughout. However, some subtle defensive rhetoric appears: - **Minimize**: Downplays theological concerns about TPT ("haven't found anything really outrageous") to focus on methodological issues - **Redirect**: Shifts criticism from TPT specifically to broader problems in evangelical translation philosophy - **Academic authority**: Uses scholarly credentials to establish interpretive authority over against charismatic claims of divine inspiration No evidence of victim/offender reversal or attacking accusers. The piece maintains appropriate analytical distance. ## 🎯 Conclusion Perriman's critique reveals that debates over The Passion Translation mask deeper questions about translation philosophy and hermeneutical method. The fundamental issue isn't technical accuracy but whether translations should preserve historical-narrative context or adapt texts for contemporary theological frameworks. While TPT's methodology raises legitimate scholarly concerns, the broader challenge is developing translation approaches that honor both historical integrity and reader accessibility. This has practical implications for anyone involved in presenting religious content, from Bible translators to WordPress developers building platforms for faith communities. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — The Passion Translation. But really the problem is… ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Translation methodology often reveals underlying theological commitments more than linguistic competence > [!quote] ID:rw_perriman_001 > The critical fault line occurs—not between formal and dynamic equivalence but between two assumed reading communities. **Context & use**: - Central thesis of Perriman's analysis - Explains why translation debates become so heated - they're really about interpretive authority and target audience **Tags**: #hermeneutics #biblical-scholarship #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://perriman_translation_fault_line) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Historical context preservation requires disciplined resistance to contemporary theological agendas > [!quote] ID:rw_perriman_002 > These powerful historical dynamics are obscured, sacrificed on the altar of a narrow and sometimes quite narcissistic personal salvationism. **Context & use**: - Perriman's critique of modern evangelical translation priorities - Illustrates tension between accessibility and historical accuracy **Tags**: #narrative-historical-method #eisegesis #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://perriman_historical_dynamics) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Supernatural translation claims undermine scholarly accountability while appealing to religious authority > [!quote] ID:rw_perriman_003 > Simmons talks about the translation process as an intensely spiritual or charismatic experience. He was commissioned by Jesus, he has been shown around the library of heaven. **Context & use**: - Documents TPT's departure from standard scholarly methodology - Raises questions about how religious communities evaluate translation credibility **Tags**: #religious-authority #biblical-scholarship #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://supernatural_translation_claims) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Translation philosophy shapes theological understanding more than textual accuracy **Claim**: How translators frame their target audience and interpretive goals determines theological outcomes more significantly than their technical linguistic competence. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Translation methodology often reveals underlying theological commitments]] **Scope & conditions**: Particularly relevant when translations claim to reveal "hidden meanings" or speak directly to contemporary concerns rather than preserving historical context. **Links**: - [[Hermeneutical method]] — because applies-in biblical interpretation - [[Religious authority claims]] — because contrasts on basis of credibility <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Research Brian Simmons' background and training in Hebrew/Aramaic scholarship - Compare TPT marketing claims with actual scholarly reception in academic journals - Investigate relationship between translation methodology and commercial success in religious publishing ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Create comparison chart of Romans 1:16-17 across 5 major translations for blog post #things - [ ] Research narrative-historical method application to WordPress biblical content presentation #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - The critical fault line occurs—not between formal and dynamic equivalence but between two assumed reading communities. - Note: 📚 Translation methodology often reveals underlying theological commitments more than linguistic competence · - Central thesis of Perriman's analysis - Explains why translation debates become so heated - they're really about interpretive authority and target audience · #atom/literature/h1 - These powerful historical dynamics are obscured, sacrificed on the altar of a narrow and sometimes quite narcissistic personal salvationism. - Note: 📚 Historical context preservation requires disciplined resistance to contemporary theological agendas · - Perriman's critique of modern evangelical translation priorities - Illustrates tension between accessibility and historical accuracy · #atom/literature/h2 - Simmons talks about the translation process as an intensely spiritual or charismatic experience. He was commissioned by Jesus, he has been shown around the library of heaven. - Note: 📚 Supernatural translation claims undermine scholarly accountability while appealing to religious authority · - Documents TPT's departure from standard scholarly methodology - Raises questions about how religious communities evaluate translation credibility · #atom/literature/h3 - Translation philosophy shapes theological understanding more than textual accuracy - Note: [[Hermeneutical method]] — because applies-in biblical interpretation · - [[Hermeneutical method]] — because applies-in biblical interpretation · #atom/zettel/z1 - Perriman may oversimplify TPT supporters' theological motivations, characterizing them as primarily seeking "narrow personal salvationism" without engaging their strongest arguments. - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Strawman #fallacy/strawman - While not explicitly attacking Simmons personally, the dismissive tone toward supernatural translation claims may distract from purely textual analysis. - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Ad Hominem #fallacy/ad-hominem ## New Highlights added 2026-05-29 at 11:34 PM - Anyway, it looks to me as though *The Passion Translation* is *The Message* for the [New Apostolic Reformation](https://firebrandmag.com/articles/neocharismatic-christianity-and-the-rise-of-the-new-apostolic-reformation) crowd (dubbed “America’s Own Taliban” by Al Jazeera) and (neo-)charismatics more generally. The key question here is not so much who wrote it as who was it written for—and if mainstream evangelicals can have their own misleading woolly version, why shouldn’t they? James Snapp is [less sympathetic](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/03/the-passion-translation-some-problems.html). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvbx55h1wf3w42feagnqhfs)) - Note: Perriman's positioning: TPT functions as "The Message" for the NAR crowd. Reframes the critique from "is this a good translation?" to "who was this translated for?" The provocation embedded here — mainstream evangelicals already have their own "misleading woolly" versions — is a self-critical move you won't see in Pivec/Rydelnik/CT. Worth saving. - Tags: atom/literature/h1, perriman-framing, tpt-as-message-for-nar, audience-determination - Since Simmons is aiming primarily for exuberance and intensity rather than anything like a systematic theological angle, the outcome of the method seems mostly fanciful and innocuous. For example, Jesus’ last word from the cross in John’s Gospel is *tetelestai*, meaning “it is finished” ([Jn. 19:30](https://ref.ly/John.%2019.30;esv?t=biblia)). [Simmons notices](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/the-passion-translation-dr-brian-simmons-responds-to-his-critics/2767.article) that the unpointed Hebrew equivalent is *klh*, which can also mean a “bride.” Isn’t that sweet? “He gave his last word for his bride. Then he gave birth to her because blood and water, which comes from childbirth, came from his side. It is finished. But for whom did he finish it? It was for the bride. He died for the bride.” Therefore, he translates, “It is finished, my bride!” ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvbxc4w4t28jev8caj7zv6c)) - Note: The verse-level smoking gun: Simmons reads tetelestai (Greek, "it is finished") through the unpointed Hebrew klh ("finished" OR "bride") and translates "It is finished, my bride!" Perriman's "fanciful and innocuous" framing softens the critique relative to Rydelnik's "so wrong" — but the example itself is sharper than any of Rydelnik's general claims. Use this when you need ONE example that shows TPT's lexical method without requiring Hebrew background to follow. - Tags: tetelestai-bride, homonym-method-example, john-19-30, atom/literature/h1 - This is where the critical fault line occurs—not between formal and dynamic equivalence but between two assumed reading communities. Whose text is it? Is the aim of translation and commentary to allow the modern reader to hear the text *as it was originally heard*, according to its original [narrative-historical](https://www.postost.net/2014/09/narrative-historical-method-outline) outlook? Or is it to drag the text into one of our modern worlds and make it speak directly to us *according to our cultural-religious outlook*? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvbxh0yd0gev854mq05eara)) - Note: Perriman's distinctive contribution: the real translation fault line isn't formal vs. dynamic equivalence, it's between two reading communities. Are we asking the text to speak as-originally-heard or to be dragged into our modern frame? This is the structural lens Rydelnik / Pivec / CT don't use, and it applies far beyond TPT — to the bulk of "relevance-first" translation philosophy generally. - Tags: atom/literature/h1, narrative-historical-method, perriman-reframing, reading-communities - To my way of thinking, the problem with *The Passion Translation*, as with much modern theological reflection, is that these powerful *historical* dynamics are obscured, sacrificed on the altar of a narrow and sometimes quite narcissistic personal salvationism. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvbxnap8j9ywm7sfgjme99m)) - Note: Zettel-grade reframing: TPT is one instance of a broader pattern in modern theological reflection — historical dynamics obscured for "narrow and sometimes quite narcissistic personal salvationism." This is the deepest critique any of the 13 TPT sources makes because it's not about TPT specifically; it diagnoses the demand-side reading culture that makes TPT marketable. - Tags: narcissistic-reading, atom/zettel/z1, perriman-closing, personal-salvationism-critique