What do you think about The Passion Translation? Brian Simmons is the translator. I really like its energy, and the way he puts things.
I agree, TPT has a consistent freshness about it. I've read 200 chapters so far (and plan to complete), and like Eugene Peterson's The Message, the style is engaging and the text thought-provoking. TPT generally makes for a pleasant read. Yet whereas Peterson's work is an actual paraphrase (not a translation), TPT is something more. It is bolder.
Paraphrase may not be the correct label, since unlike Peterson, Simmons' elaborations serve not so much to clarify the biblical author's meaning as to convey Simmons' own theology. Here are my concerns:
- As explained, this is much more a paraphrase than a translation. (So perhaps it ought to be TPP, not TPT.)
- Simmons often alters NT verses to fit with a hypothetical Aramaic original. We frequently find this note: "As translated from the Aramaic." And yet virtually no biblical scholar believes that the original NT was written in Aramaic or Hebrew! Especially since the Greek is the original, the oldest Aramaic NT manuscripts are from the 5th century, and only 1% of the OT was originally written in Aramaic.
- The scholarly basis of the translation is in question. Is Simmons a bona fide translator? I'm not saying he has nothing to offer, but he is certainly out of step with scholarship. As Wikipedia notes, "The Passion Translation is primarily the work of Simmons. Although he claims that a team of 'respected editors and scholars' reviewed his translations and footnotes, no names have been given."
- "During a 2015 television interview, Brian Simmons asserted that in 2009 Jesus visited his room and commissioned him to write a new translation of the Bible. According to the publisher's website, Brian's vision for the project is that people would read it and grow closer to Jesus" (Wikipedia).
- The NT Greek is handled more sensationally than accurately. For example, in 2 Cor 8:7 Simmons commits a classic etymological fallacy, speaking of "hilarious" givers. God's power (dynamis), is routinely rendered "explosive power"—an etymological error, as well as an anachronism, since this is well before Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.
- If you want to learn more about how TPT has been received, you will notice that many have expressed serious concerns.
Now, on the positive wide:
Although Simmons [see photo, R] injects a lot of his own theology into his "translation," to his credit most of the extra words are italicized, indicating (as in the King James Version) that they aren't in the original, but have been supplied.- Generous notes explain or justify translation choices. In this aspect, his work is transparent—also to his credit. Some of these explanations are reasonable, others far-fetched or misguided. For example, instead of understanding "law" in Galatians and Romans to refer to the Law of Moses (Torah), Simmons thinks law means attempting to earn our way to God.
- As with paraphrases in general, we are led to consider the text in a different light—to slow down and be open to new possibilities. So even though there is much I disagree with—in some sense TPT is a running commentary, one man's understanding of the Word of God—this new version also makes me think.
To read TPT, click here.. The NT was completed in 2011. To date [July 2024], 12 books of the OT have been rendered. (As explained above, I prefer the verb render to translate, or even paraphrase.)
