Yet another 'translation' has entered the glut of English language Bible versions to bewilder the believer in search of an accurate Davar Elohim (Word of God): The Passion Translation or 'TPT' for short. I deliberately put the word 'translation' in inverted commas because it is absolutely not a translation. It should have called itself a 'Paraphrase' or a 'Targum' for the title alone is deceptive.

I must admit that I do raise an eyebrow or two whenever I hear some of the names of these new versions. If a 'Passion' version then why not, I ask, a 'Contemplation' version, for when you're in a different mood? Or maybe an 'Awake' or 'Sleepy' version? On my bookcase is a 'Defender's Bible' and I once came across a 'Believer's Bible' - might someone one day think of writing a 'Deserter's' and a 'Unbeliever's Bible'?

The Passion Translation is not a version of the whole Bible but just the New Testament and, one supposess, those Tanakh (Old Testament) books which the writer regards as 'passionate'. And whilst the Psalms and Song of Songs certainly fall into that subjective category, I am not sure how Proverbs meets the criterion. Either way, the more books of the Bible that are translated, the merrier. In my view, all the Books of the Bible describe Yahweh's passionate love, but perhaps the author intends bringing out the entire Bible eventually as there's always the risk of important books of Scripture being left out in home devotionals and in congregational study and preaching, particularly if believers love this version so much that they buy it and use it preferentially over others. In my experience, most believers don't bring more than one version of the Bible to church or assembly with them, assuming that they do so at all.

On this new version's website the author, Dr. Brian Simmons, claims:

"The Passion Translation is a new, heart-level translation that expresses God's fiery heart of love to this generation using Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts, merging the emotion and life-changing truth of God's Word...God longs to have his Word expressed in every language in a way that unlocks the passion of his heart. The goal of this is to trigger inside every reader an overwhelming response to the truth of the Bible, revealing the deep mysteries of the Scriptures in the love language of God, the language of the heart" [1].

There is much about this version, I admit, that intrigues me for Dr. Simmons has got a lot of Greek primacists up in arms by including portions of the Aramaic Peshitta in some of his renderings. And whilst it is true that modern versions like the English Standard Version (ESV) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) consult Aramaic manuscripts (MSS) along with all the others that are available, they tend to be more cautious with it because of its 5th century provenance. So mostly Aramaic alternatives will appear in some footnotes but very infrequently as the preferred rendering in the main body of the translation. Here TPT is more generous...rightly or wrongly.

This is, as I said, only a preliminary examination - more of a 'first impressions' reaction based on what I have read and know, which at this stage is little. Nevertheless there is already a lot which can, and should, be said. Right off the bat, I absolutely cannot recommend this as a translation of the Bible because it isn't one. But as a paraphrase, targum or commentary, I have to admit I am primed. So I do believe the version may have some value when taken together with the large number of other paraphrases. Individual people's interpretations of the New Testament are always of interest, because I learn from the insights of the works I study no matter who. That's why I enjoy one-man translations like those of J.B.Phillips, James Trimm, William Barclay, James Moffat and David Stern. Individuals often gain insights that are missed by others or voted out by committees.

Is there a bias in Simmons' version? It won't take you long for you to discover that there is an enormous bias, for the author himself admits that he made this 'translation' for pentecostals and charismatics. His passion for the Master is very evident, and that is commendable. The man is a bona fide scholar and believer so we must take him seriously. He has, after all, made a Bible translation for one of the indigenous tribes of Panama. My great fear - and this is true of all translations - is, as Andrew Watson points out, that "translations like this matter, and shape people, and have the power to do considerable damage to people's understanding of the scriptures" [2].

This is the very important reason why I believe in a variety of translations for comparison, something the King James Bible scholars themselves heartily recommended too, even if those who have unwisely - and dangerously - turned that version into a 'one-and-onlt' cult, do not. For that noble translation (and it is a genuine translation) has its doctrinal biases too. (See, for example, its deliberate bias towards the 'faith-only' doctrine).

All translators bring their theological background with them to the translation table because, understandably (and without necessarily malice or intended deception) it is deeply implanted in our subsconscious. That is why we have to be so careful. That being true, we should not, then, be surprised to find the doctrines and practices of Dr. Simmons' denominational affiliation leaking through his New Testament paraphrase.

This is a reason I prefer translation committes to solo-translators, especially ones represented by many denominations, but even that isn't full-proof. It remains my prayer that one day a Bible translation committe will be formed that includes both orthodox and messianic scholars, just as Protestants have admitted Catholics onto their committees, and vice versa. But maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

To give you a flavour of the TPT let's take a look at the Prolog of the Gospel of John in two word-for-word versions - one Greek-based (NKJV) and the other Aramaic-based (AENT), and then compare those with two parphrase versions - the well-known Living Bible (LB - since upgraded by the very good New Living Translation or NLT) and Simmons' version (TPT):

"In the beginning was the Davar (Word), and the Davar (Word) was with Elohim (God), and the Davar (Word) was Elohim (God). He was in the beginning with Elohim (God). All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was chayim (life), and the chayim (life) was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:1-5, NKJV, messianised by the author).

"In the beginning as the Miltha. And the Miltha was with Elohim. And Elohim was that Miltha. This was with Elohim in the beginning. Everything existed through his hands and without him, not even one thing existed of the things which have existed. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And that light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it" (John 1:1-5, AENT - this translation comes with extensive footnotes, like the TPT).

"Before anything else existed, there was Christ with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is - nothing exists that he didn't make. Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it" (John 1:1-5, LB)

"1 In the very beginning[a] the Living Expression[b] was already there. And the Living Expression was with God, yet fully God.[c] 2 They were together-face-to-face,[d] in the very beginning.[e] 3 And through his creative inspiration this Living Expression made all things,[f] for nothing has existence apart from him! 4 Life came into being[g] because of him, for his life is light for all humanity.[h] 4. And this Living Expression is the Light that bursts through gloom[i]" (John 1:1-5, TPT).

Nevertheless, I have to say that the accompanying footnotes were extremely good, even if they did lack the insights which a Hebraist like Roth or Trimm could have brought to the text. Here are the footnotes to the text cited:

• [a] John 1:1 The first eighteen verses of John are considered by most scholars to be the words of an ancient hymn or poem that was cherished by first-century believers in Christ.
• [b] John 1:1 The Greek is logos, which has a rich and varied background in both Greek philosophy and Judaism. The Greeks equated logos with the highest principle of cosmic order. God's logos in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression in creation, revelation, and redemption. In the New Testament we have this new unique view of God given to us by John, which signifies the presence of God himself in the flesh. Some have translated this rich term as "Word." It could also be translated "Message" or "Blueprint." Jesus Christ is the eternal Word, the creative Word, and the Word made visible. He is the divine self-expression of all that God is, contains, and reveals in incarnated flesh. Just as we express ourselves in words, God has perfectly expressed himself in Christ.
• [c] John 1:1 The Living Expression (Christ) had full participation in every attribute of deity held by God the Father. The Living Expression existed eternally as a separate individual but essentially the same, as one with the Father.
• [d] John 1:2 The Greek word used here and the Hebraic concept conveyed is that of being before God's face. There is no Hebrew word for "presence" (i.e., the "presence" of God), only the word face.
• [e] John 1:2 Both Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1-2 speak of the beginning. In Genesis it is the beginning of time, but John speaks of eternity past, a beginning before time existed. The Living Expression is Christ who existed eternally as part of the Trinity. He had no beginning, being one with the Father.
• [f] John 1:3 Or "all things happened because of him and nothing happened apart from him." The Aramaic is, "everything was in his hand" (of power). See Ps. 33:6; Isa. 44:24.
• [g] John 1:4 The Aramaic reads "In him were lives" (plural)-not only multiple human lives, but also spiritual life, eternal life, and life in every form.
• [h] John 1:4 As translated from the Aramaic, which can also be translated "the spark of human life." Jesus Christ brings the light of eternal life and the full revelation of God. The Gospel of John is easily divided into three sections: life (chs. 1-7), light (chs. 8-12), and love (chs. 13-21).
• [i] John 1:5 Or "keeps on shining through."

The footnotes alone made me want to own a copy of this translation one day and the liberal use of the Peshitta was gratifying, though he does not do so to the same depth and extent as Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) who has insights into the Miltha (the Aramaic quivalent of the Greek Logos). Trimm's footnotes in his Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) add even more meat to one of the deepest and interesting parts of the Johannine writings, his own version of the Creation Account highlighting the part played by the pre-incarnate Messiah.

Whilst the writers of paraphrases like The Passion Translation and popular Amplified Version (Amp.V) are, in my opinion, absolutely entitled to expand a given text to flesh out it's essential meaning, what they may not do is make interpolations, annotations (glosses) or additions, and risk violating the injunction of Revelation 22:18-19 not to add to, or subtract from, the divine revelation of the Davar (Word). Unfortunately this has happened in the past with scribes making their own commentaries which, over the course of time, became incorporated into the text [3]. In the first edition, Simmons translated the phrase, "that I might live for Elohim (God)" (Gal.2:19) as "so that I can live for God [in heaven's freedom]" adding words that convery a sense nowhere to be found in the original text, whether Aramaic or Greek. I am glad to see that Simmons has corrected that in the online (and presumably more recent) version of the TPT by deleting the phrase, "in heaven's freedom", as one would expect of a good scholar.

Paul rebuked the Galatians, accusing them of "so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel (eis heteron euangelion), which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal.1:6-7, NIV) or "another gospel" (KJV, AENT) - most versions use "another" or "different". Simmons originally rendered this as "a distorted gospel [of salvation by works]" (TPT), adding "of salvation by works" entirely on his own initiative, a rendition utterly without any sort of warranty. The leading Pauline scholar of our day, N.T.Wright, renders this passage in his own version, the Kingdom New Testament (KNT), which though outwardly looking like a paraphrase is, in fact, a proper translation in modern English, and in my view, an excellent one. Notice that he accurately preserves the words, "another gospel":

"I am astonished that you are turning away so quickly from the one who who called you by grace, and going after another gospel - not that there is another gospel, it's just that there are some people stirring up trouble for you and wanting to pervert the gospel of the Messiah" (Gal.1:6-7, KNT).

Galatians 2:14-15 is a notoriously difficult passage to translate especially and is easily torn from its context. And when you bring the Aramaic into the picture, you are also faced by some very difficult word choices: was Paul contrasting Judeans/Judahites/Jews with Gentiles, Greeks, or Arameans? Is the controversy between Paul, Peter and the Talmudists ('Jews') over Grace versus Torah (Law) or is the controversy between Torah-obedient believers living by Grace and Legalists (Torah-obedient believers trying to get right with Yahweh through commandment-keeping)? What about the clash between authentic Torah and all the man-made additions of the Rabbinical Talmudists, many Pharisees having joined the Messianic Community (Church)? And what exactly is a Judean/Judahite/Jewish nature?

Not precisely knowing what the controversies of the day were all about has led to great confusion amongst translators made more difficult by Protestant traditions cemented in over half a millennium. Unfortunately we don't have time to get into all of that here but you can learn more about that controvery on the New Covenant Torah website. Nevertheless we do need to know what the bias of the translators is in respect of these controversies because bias there is beyond any doubt. That is why Protestant and Messianic translations can sometimes differ so much.

This time we'll start with a Messianic version, the Jewish New Testament (JNT), compare it with a typical word-for-word Protestant version (the NKJV) and then look at Simmons' rendition (TPT) along with his footnotes:

"Furthermore, when Kefa (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong. For prior to the arrival of certain people from the community headed by Ya'akov (James), he had been eating with the Gentile believers; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he was afraid of the faction who favored circumcising Gentile believers. And the other Jewish (Judahite) believers became htpocrites along with him, so that even Bar-Nabba (Barnabas) was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were no walking a straight path, keeping in line with the truth of the Good News, I said to Kefa (Peter), right in front of everyone, 'If you, who are a Jew (Judahite), live like a Goy (Gentile) and not like a Jew (Judahite), why are you forcing the Goyim (Gentiles) to live like Jews (Judahites)? We are Jews (Judahites) by birth, not so-called 'Goyishe (Gentile) sinners'; even som we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through Messiah Yeshua's (Yah'shua's/Jesus') trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua (Yah'shua/Jesus) and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of Messiah's (Christ's) trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous (Ps.143:2)" (Gal.2:11-21, JNT).

"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I (Paul) said to Peter before them all, 'If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), even we have believed in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus), that we might be justified by faith in Messiah (Christ) and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Messiah (Christ), we ourselves also are found sinners, is Messiah (Christ) therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to Elohim (God). I have been crucified with Messiah (Christ); it is no longer I who live, but Messiah (Christ) lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of Elohim (God), who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of Elohim (God); for if righteousness comes through the law, then Messiah (Christ) died in vain" (Gal.2:11-21, NKJV).

"But when Peter visited Antioch,[m] he began to mislead the believers and caused them to stumble over his behavior, so I had to confront him to his face over what he was doing. He enjoyed being with the non-Jewish believers who didn't keep the Jewish customs, eating his meals with them - up until the time the Jewish friends of James arrived from Jerusalem. When he saw them, he withdrew from his non-Jewish friends and separated himself from them, acting like an orthodox Jew-fearing how it would look to them if he ate with the non-Jewish believers.[n] And so because of Peter's hypocrisy,[o] many other Jewish believers followed suit, refusing to eat with non-Jewish believers. Even Barnabas was led astray by their poor example and condoned this legalistic, hypocritical behavior! So when I realized they were acting inconsistently with the revelation of grace, I confronted Peter in front of everyone: 'You were born a Jew and yet you've chosen to disregard Jewish regulations and live like a gentile.[p] Why then do you force those who are not Jews to conform to the regulations of Judaism? Although we're Jews by birth and not non-Jewish 'sinners,' we know full well that we don't receive God's perfect righteousness as a reward for keeping the law, but by the faith of Jesus, the Messiah![q] His faithfulness, not ours, has saved us, and we have received God's perfect righteousness. Now we know that God accepts no one by the keeping of religious laws! If we are those who desire to be saved from our sins through our union with the Anointed One, does that mean our Messiah promotes our sins if we still acknowledge that we are sinners? How absurd! For if I start over and reconstruct the old religious system that I have torn down with the message of grace, I will appear to be one who turns his back on the truth. But because the Messiah lives in me, I've now died to the law's dominion over me so that I can live for God. My old identity has been co-crucified with Messiah and no longer lives; for the nails of his cross crucified me with him. And now the essence of this new life is no longer mine, for the Anointed One lives his life through me - we live in union as one! My new life is empowered by the faith of the Son of God who loves me so much that he gave himself for me, and dispenses his life into mine![r] So that is why I don't view God's grace as something minor or peripheral. For if keeping the law could release God's righteousness to us, the Anointed One would have died for nothing'" (Gal.2:11-21, TPT)

• [m] Galatians 2:11 Antioch was a large city in Syria with a significant Jewish population. It was in Antioch that believers were first called Christians and it was the first church to send out missionaries to the nations. See Acts 11:25; 13:1-3.
• [n] Galatians 2:12 Or "those who were not of the circumcision."
• [o] Galatians 2:13 The incident of Acts 10-11 happened before this account in Gal. 2. Peter was shown by a heavenly vision that God views the non-Jewish believers as "clean." This amplifies Peter's hypocrisy. Even Jesus' apostles had conflicts that needed to be worked out and healed.
• [p] Galatians 2:14 Some Aramaic translators translate this word "Syrian" or "Aramean."

Here we learn that Peter had come under the influence of some radical Talmudist converts who had persuaded the apostle not to eat together with non-Judeans out of fear of contaminating himself. Paul had to rebuke him saying:

"'If you who are a Judean live as an Aramean and not as a Judean, how do you compel the Goyim to live as Judeans?' For we that are from nature Judeans are not sinners from the Goyim" (Gal.2:14-15, Hebraic Roots Version, HRV).

• 1. Protestant versions, like the NKJV and TPT, try to convey the sense (their own Reformation bias) that the Torah or Law has been 'done away with' or 'abolished' and manipulate passages like this to convince the reader that obeying the mitzvot (commandments) is somehow bad. Messianic translators insist that it is not the Torah (Law) that has been abolished, but the penalties (which are now taken on by Messiah through the cross) but that the Torah lifestyle is now enjoined on all, the Messianic Evangelical position. Thus we agree with the JNT which conveys the true sense through a paraphrase indicating that we are not saved through legalistic observance of Torah, meaning we cannot be saved on the basis of our own imagined merit gained from obedience. However, Messianic translators often come with their own biases too, with Avi ben Mordechai, for example, trying to convince his readership that Torah-obedience is still enjoined (as is true) along with circumcision (which clearly it is not, as it is the sign of the Old Covenant which many Messianics, like ben Mordechai, view as simply having been 'renewed' rather than completely superceeded by a New Covenant). The argument is made, by such as him, that circumcision is, in fact, still a mitzvah (commandment) - the issue, in his view, is all the 'extra' circumcision regulations demanded by the Talmudist converts, a position that is not sustained by Paul elsewhere. Then there are Messianic Jewish translators (like David Stern, author of the JNT) who maintain that circumcision and the rest of Torah is still enjoined but only for Jewish converts, and not for Gentiles, making a distinction in lifestyle (like ben Mordechai) between 'Jews' and 'Gentiles'. This Messianic Evangelicals reject, as we believe there is only one Gospel and one lifestyle for all believers, a truncated Torah lifestyle (minus the cermonial Torah and circumcision) which is to be observed by the saved, not in order to be saved. In this repect, the TPT clearly fails, maintaining a typical Evangelical bias;

• 2. The other issue concerns how to translate the Greek word ethnikos, rendered 'Gentile' in Greek-based translations but 'Aramaean' in some Aramaic-based ones. Which is correct? Simmons has upset a lot of Protestant commentators for using 'Aramaean' without apparently explaining why that is his preference. The problem is that not all Aramaic versions use 'Aramaean', but only mostly later versions, and use of the term tends to cause confusion to contemporary Biblle readers. It's a difficult issue which Messianic Evangelicals have no official position on. My own view is 'Gentile' is the better, and certainly safer, translation.

How do you deal with members of a local congregation who are sinning? What is a fellow believer to do? Paul gives this counsel:

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted" (Gal.6:1, NKJV).

"May beloved friends, if you see a believer who is overtaken with a fault [and has fallen from the place of victory], may the one who overflows with the Spirit seek to restore him. Win him over with gentle words, which will open his heart to you and will keep you from exalting yourself over him" (Gal.6:1, TPT)

Pentecostals and charismatics are known for their showiness and, at times, theatrics, which some ministers have become notorious for, making them the centre of attention rather than Messiah. It's hard to know exactly what Simmons had in mind when adds a completely absent clause "conversion to Jesus Christ" to the text:

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom.1:8, NKJV).

"I give thanks to God for all of you, because it's through your conversion to Jesus Christ, [that you are becoming well known] that the testimony of your strong, persistent faith is spreading through the world" (Rom.1:8, TPT).

To his credit, Simmons does prefer a Hebraic approach to his version sometimes, which is hated by Greek primacists. Thus he writes:

"Recent biblical scholarship has begun tracing many of Jesus' teachings back to an original Aramaic source. Some even argue the original Greek manuscripts were translations of even more original Aramaic sources."

I would like a copy of this in my collection for comparative purposes and, as already noted, it looks as though the footnotes could be very useful. With refinement this could become a useful addition to the library of Bible versions but for now I would still be careful with it. I would not use it as a study text or to establish doctrine. In that capacity it will lead astray because it has too much Simmons and Pentecostalism in it.

Endnotes

[1] Dr. Brian Simmons, The Passion Translation Official Website
[2] Andrew Wilson, What's Wrong With the Passion "Translation"?
[3] Like the [in]famous Comma Johanneum - see Have the Original Bible Manuscripts Been Edited?

Further Studies