The Problems With the Passion Translation — Dr. Michael Rydelnik  🔗 **Source:** [The Problems With the Passion Translation — Dr. Michael Rydelnik](https://www.michaelrydelnik.org/blog/the-problems-with-the-passion-translation) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [bible-translation, biblical-scholarship, textual-criticism, theological-accuracy, charismatic-theology, biblical-authority] > author: Dr. Michael Rydelnik > source: michaelrydelnik.org > reference: https://www.michaelrydelnik.org/blog/the-problems-with-the-passion-translation > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: The Problems with the Passion Translation — Dr. Michael Rydelnik > <!-- 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) - [❓ 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 - Dr. Michael Rydelnik, a biblical scholar, critiques The Passion Translation (TPT) as fundamentally flawed despite its growing popularity. - TPT is marketed as a "heart level translation" by Brian Simmons but functions more as a paraphrase with significant theological bias. - Key problems include: lack of translation team oversight, reliance on speculative Aramaic manuscripts, lexical errors based on claimed visions, and extraordinary claims about divine inspiration. - Rydelnik argues readers should stick to established translations that preserve the actual meaning of biblical texts rather than interpretive emotional responses. - The critique focuses on translation methodology, not personal attacks on Brian Simmons as an individual. ## 📖 Main Content Dr. Rydelnik identifies five major problems with The Passion Translation that make it unsuitable for serious Bible study: ### Paraphrase Masquerading as Translation The Passion Translation presents itself as a translation but operates as a paraphrase with more interpretive liberties than established paraphrases like The Living Bible or The Message. Unlike neutral paraphrases, TPT advances specific theological positions, particularly egalitarian views on gender roles and hyper-charismatic terminology not present in the original texts. ### Lack of Scholarly Oversight Traditional Bible translation employs teams of scholars to prevent individual bias and ensure accuracy. Brian Simmons, despite calling himself the "lead translator," appears to work alone without mention of other translators. This creates an "idiosyncratic" version reflecting one person's distinctive perspective rather than mainstream biblical scholarship. ### Questionable Manuscript Basis TPT claims to be based on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts but relies heavily on speculative "original Aramaic" sources. Simmons either conjectures what the Greek New Testament would have been in Aramaic or uses the Syriac version (translated 500 years after the gospels) while calling it "original Aramaic." This approach constitutes speculation rather than translation. ### Lexical Errors from Claimed Visions Simmons claims to have received visions guiding his Hebrew translation approach, leading him to use Hebrew homonyms (words with multiple meanings) simultaneously rather than determining meaning from context. This methodology is unprecedented and linguistically unsound. ### Extraordinary Claims of Divine Authority The translation includes claims that God physically enlarged Simmons' brain for understanding, that angels guided his translation work, and that his footnotes are inspired. These assertions raise serious concerns about the translation's credibility and theological foundation. ## 🗒️ Notes - Rydelnik emphasizes his critique targets the translation methodology, not Brian Simmons personally - The article responds to student questions about using TPT for academic biblical study - TPT's popularity stems from its emotional appeal rather than textual accuracy - The translation reflects specific theological positions (egalitarian, hyper-charismatic) not supported by original texts - Standard translation practice involves teams of scholars checking each other's work - The claim of "original Aramaic" New Testament sources lacks historical and textual support - Hebrew homonym methodology represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and context - Claims of supernatural assistance in translation raise questions about biblical authority and interpretation ## 📚 References - [The Passion Translation official description and claims](referenced but not linked) - Hebrews 4:12 - biblical verse about Scripture's power - 1 Kings 20:11 - example comparing NASB and Living Bible translations - NASB (New American Standard Bible) - The Living Bible by Ken Taylor - The Message by Eugene Peterson ## 🗣️ Paraphrase A biblical scholar warns against using The Passion Translation for serious Bible study, despite its emotional appeal. While the translator Brian Simmons appears sincere, his work contains fundamental flaws: it functions as a biased paraphrase rather than a translation, lacks scholarly oversight, relies on speculative manuscripts, contains lexical errors based on claimed visions, and makes extraordinary claims about divine inspiration. The scholar recommends sticking to established translations that preserve the actual meaning of biblical texts rather than interpretive emotional responses. ## 📰 Newsletter 📖 **Translation Troubles**: Biblical scholar Dr. Michael Rydelnik raises important concerns about The Passion Translation's methodology and accuracy. While the version's emotional appeal attracts readers, its lack of scholarly oversight, questionable manuscript basis, and claims of supernatural guidance create significant reliability issues. For developers and content creators working on religious or educational platforms, this highlights the importance of source validation and expert review in translation projects. Consider implementing multi-reviewer systems and transparent methodology documentation in your own localization workflows. The principles of collaborative oversight and textual integrity apply whether you're translating ancient texts or modern user interfaces. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: develop workshops on translation methodology and source validation for religious/educational tech projects - Developer experience: create guidelines for implementing multi-reviewer translation workflows in applications - Community management: establish content validation processes for user-generated religious or educational content #### WordPress - Documentation: create guides for implementing translation review workflows in multilingual WordPress sites - Core: consider features for collaborative content review and version control in translation projects - Training: develop lesson plans on content validation and source credibility for educational WordPress implementations #### Community - Contributors: establish review processes for translation-related plugins and themes - Ecosystem: coordinate standards for religious and educational content validation across platforms ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Translation projects without scholarly oversight are more likely to contain methodological errors and bias - Users prefer emotionally appealing translations over textually accurate ones when given a choice - Claims of supernatural guidance in translation correlate with departures from established scholarly methodology - Paraphrases marketed as translations confuse readers about textual accuracy - Individual translators without team oversight produce more idiosyncratic interpretations ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of translation methodologies across established biblical translations - Survey research on user preferences between emotional appeal and textual accuracy - Content analysis of translation claims and their correlation with scholarly acceptance - Case studies of successful collaborative translation projects versus individual efforts ### ❓ Questions - How do readers distinguish between translations and paraphrases in practice? - What role should emotional appeal play in religious translation work? - How can translation projects balance accessibility with scholarly rigor? - What standards should govern claims of divine inspiration in religious texts? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive analysis of TPT's departures from established texts - Study of user comprehension differences between translations and paraphrases - Investigation of collaborative versus individual translation accuracy rates - Research on the impact of claimed supernatural guidance on textual interpretation ### 💡 Implications - Religious translation requires transparent methodology and scholarly oversight - Marketing materials should clearly distinguish translations from paraphrases - Educational institutions need criteria for evaluating biblical translation quality - Digital platforms hosting religious content should implement validation processes - Translation projects benefit from collaborative review and expert oversight ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level: approximately 12th grade (complex theological and linguistic concepts). #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: clear headings, structured critique format - Improve: comparison charts of translation methodologies, visual examples of textual differences, manuscript timeline diagrams #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: quoted examples, conversational tone - Improve: audio version explaining translation concepts, podcast-style discussion of methodology #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: clear definitions, analogies (pen example), explanations of technical terms - Improve: glossary of translation terminology, more analogies for complex concepts #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: step-by-step critique structure - Improve: interactive comparison tools, hands-on translation exercises, workflow demonstrations #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: numbered critique points, logical progression, cause-and-effect relationships - Improve: decision trees for translation evaluation, formal criteria checklists, methodological flowcharts #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: classroom context, student-teacher interaction - Improve: discussion prompts, peer review exercises, collaborative evaluation frameworks #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: individual reflection opportunities, personal study guidance - Improve: self-assessment tools for translation quality, individual research prompts #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: organic development of critique through examples - Improve: historical context of translation development, evolution of manuscript traditions ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: clear heading structure, descriptive content - Improve: better alt text for any images, more descriptive link text #### Keyboard navigation - Present: standard web navigation - Improve: skip links, better focus indicators for interactive elements #### Contrast and readability - Present: standard black text on white background - Improve: ensure sufficient contrast ratios, better visual hierarchy #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: responsive design likely present - Improve: test at 200% zoom, ensure no content loss #### Media and captions - Present: text-only content - Improve: provide audio version with transcript for accessibility #### Forms and interactions - Present: minimal interactive elements - Improve: ensure any forms have proper labeling and error handling ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Western Christian perspective - Improve: acknowledge cultural context limitations, include diverse scholarly perspectives #### Inclusive language - Present: respectful tone toward individuals, clear explanations - Improve: define theological jargon more thoroughly, provide broader religious context #### Neurodiversity support - Present: structured argument, clear headings - Improve: better chunking of information, visual breaks, summary boxes #### Representation - Present: respectful treatment of individuals mentioned - Improve: include diverse scholarly voices, acknowledge different translation traditions #### Psychological safety - Present: focuses on methodology rather than personal attacks - Improve: content warnings about religious disagreement, clearer distinction between critique and personal respect ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive reasoning in translation methodology standards (lines about translation teams and scholarly oversight) - Evidence-based critique using specific examples (1 Kings 20:11 comparison) - Clear causal relationships between methodology problems and accuracy concerns #### Fallacies - Potential ad hominem avoided by explicitly distinguishing personal respect from methodological critique - Appeal to authority present but appropriate given scholarly context - Some circular reasoning in assuming traditional translation methods are inherently superior #### Tone of voice - Academic but accessible, respectful but firm, pedagogical rather than combative ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis No DARVO patterns detected. The article maintains focus on methodological critique rather than defensive strategies. Rydelnik explicitly avoids attacking Simmons personally and acknowledges his sincerity, which demonstrates good faith engagement with the issues rather than deflection tactics. ## 🎯 Conclusion Dr. Rydelnik's critique of The Passion Translation highlights fundamental issues with its methodology, scholarly oversight, and claims of authority. While acknowledging Brian Simmons' sincerity, the analysis reveals significant problems that make TPT unsuitable for serious biblical study. For readers seeking to engage with Scripture, established translations with transparent scholarly methodology and collaborative oversight provide more reliable access to the original texts' meaning. The popularity of TPT demonstrates the tension between emotional appeal and textual accuracy in religious translation, emphasizing the need for clear distinctions between translations and paraphrases in religious education and practice. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/The Problems With the Passion Translation — Dr. Michael Rydelnik.md|The Problems With the Passion Translation — Dr. Michael Rydelnik by michaelrydelnik.org]] ## Highlights - First of all, *The Passion Translation* is not even a translation but a paraphrase, and one that takes more liberties with the Scriptures than other paraphrases do. People use other paraphrases like the original *Living Bible* by Ken Taylor or Eugene Peterson’s *The Message.* Paraphrases have their place but they are problematic. By fashioning the words of Scripture into modern terms, they frequently veer away from Scripture. A good example of this problem is found in 1 Kings 20:11. In the NASB, it reads, “ Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off,” but the Living Bible reads, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.” The paraphrase doesn’t hurt but it’s clearly interpretive. The problem occurs when a paraphrase uses its interpretive style to take liberties with the text and teaches a particular theological viewpoint. That’s what the Passion Translation does. Brian Simmons holds to an egalitarian view of men and women in ministry and marriage, and his paraphrase reinterprets the meaning of the words to reflect his own view. He also repeatedly uses words and phrases that are significant in the hyper-charismatic world, even when they’re not in the text of Scripture. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvb0hnv5twqahj84wk1ebef)) - Second, *The Passion Translation* is an idiosyncratic version of the Scriptures. By that I mean, it veers from the normal approach to Bible translation which uses a team of scholars to check each other’s work. This way a translation doesn’t reflect one person’s distinctive perspective but the actual meaning of the words of Scripture. All translations require some sort of interpretation—but using a translation team guards a translation from weird or problematic translations. Although Brian Simmons identifies himself as the lead translator, there’s no mention of the other translators he’s leading. It’s the work of Brian Simmons and no one else. As a result, it contains his idiosyncratic views of the Bible and not a mainstream understanding of it. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvam2bctcxjzp8fh5y23v1g)) - Note: Rydelnik's structural critique: standard translation work uses a team of scholars who check each other. Simmons calls himself "lead translator" but no other translators are named, so he leads no one. Result: not a translation but Simmons' personal reading. This is the strongest methodology critique because it's empirical (no published team) rather than theological. - Tags: atom/literature/h1, methodology-critique, no-translation-team, idiosyncratic, lead-translator-of-one - Third, *The Passion Translation* uses the wrong manuscripts to guide it. Although it claims to be based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, Simmons declares that the version’s unique translations are derived from the original Aramaic New Testament texts. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, what is he talking about? Well, he means that in the gospels, Jesus and all the other people there would have spoken Aramaic. So Simmons at times conjectures at what the Greek New Testament would have been had it been written in Aramaic. Then he uses that speculation to translate. Other times he uses the Syriac version, translated 500 years after the gospels, which is not even Aramaic, and calls this “the original Aramaic.” This approach is not a translation of the Bible but pure speculation. No other translation or paraphrase has ever done this before. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvamanxa0m1739v1za9g3r2)) - Note: Two distinct manuscript problems collapsed into one critique: (1) Simmons reconstructs what Greek NT "would have been" in Aramaic and translates from his reconstruction; (2) sometimes he uses Syriac (which postdates the gospels by 500 years and isn't even Aramaic) and calls it "the original Aramaic." Either way: speculation, not translation. The "no other translation has ever done this" line marks the methodology as unprecedented, not edge-of-convention. - Tags: 500-years-later, atom/literature/h1, syriac-vs-aramaic, wrong-manuscripts, speculation-not-translation - Fourth, *The Passion Translation* contains lexical errors, particularly in the Hebrew. The reason is that Simmons claims that he received a vision with guidance for translating the Hebrew words. The unique idea was that he should base the translation on Hebrew homonyms. A homonym is a word that sounds or is spelled the same but has different meanings. For example, in English, the word “pen” may mean an area where animals are kept or a writing instrument. We know which meaning by context. Simmons doesn’t recognize the meaning of a Hebrew word in context but claims that all the homonyms of the Hebrew words are correct and uses all of them with their multiple ideas in his translation. This special approach is unique to *The Passion Translation* because it is so wrong that no other translation would dare do it. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvamj5hy5c3c1zn41cm6yc3)) - Note: Rydelnik names the lexical method directly: vision-guided homonym-stacking. Where context normally disambiguates "pen" (writing/enclosure), Simmons stacks both meanings simultaneously across the Hebrew text. This is the rare critique that's both technical-linguistic AND immediately legible to a non-Hebrew-reading audience because the "pen" example carries the argument. - Tags: lexical-method-critique, atom/literature/h1, homonym-method, vision-guided-translation - Finally, bizarre claims are made to justify *The Passion Translation*. For example, Simmons claims that the Lord came to him in a vision, touched his forehead and enlarged his brain, so he could understand the Bible as no one ever had before. When struggling with the Hebrew, Simmons claims an angel visited him and guided his translation. I suspect every seminary Hebrew student wishes that could happen. Simmons also claims that the footnotes of his Bible are inspired. Simmons may actually believe these assertions but they are so far-fetched and therefore, deeply concerning to me. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksvams4nts4j0ksnd4d4e646)) - Note: The three extraordinary claims: physical brain enlargement by vision, angel-guided Hebrew, inspired footnotes. Rydelnik's "I suspect every seminary Hebrew student wishes that could happen" is the gentle takedown — the claims are structurally unfalsifiable but functionally claim the same scriptural authority as the source text itself. - Tags: brain-enlargement, angel-visit, inspired-footnotes, atom/literature/h1, extraordinary-claims