The Passion Translation

I've been thinking about this over dinner. I just don't think the TPT translation cuts it. Scripture should put the Fear of God in me. It shouldn't be warm and cozy. It should be frightful. Like, I should be trembling, but instead I feel... well... it's hard to say. I definitely feel God's peace in the diction, but scripture is the Law. It's God's wrath being told to someone, in order to cause them to repent.

When I read scripture, if Jesus' words, or Paul's, or John's, or Jeremiah's, or Moses', I always should have a question mark. I shouldn't be affirmed, as that's not what God wants. He wants us to fear Him, and His name, and choose righteousness. I should never feel vindicated by scripture. I should always feel a question mark, about my own righteousness.

So... Generally, I disapprove of this Bible Translation. While, I know the Author had peace writing it. I would never question that. And there's a lot of peace---I think scripture's whole purpose is different than communicating God's peace. I think it should rather, stir up Fear, and Loathing for our own sin. It shouldn't be like a Warm Blanket, but it should rather be like a wooden rod.

Moreover, the Word of God should be active. And the language in the Passion Translation is too passive. A good translation, affirms that Jesus Christ is Come in the Flesh. This translation's interpretation of John 4:2 is not only more passive than other translations, it's triply passive. The point being, is that Jesus is the Flesh Embodiment of the Word of God. And an accurate translation, will in these verses, make that explicitly clear. Not obscure  it, or put it into the past tense. That's always my way of knowing a good Bible Translation, is how they deal with that verse. Shh... don't tell anyone. But, it does prove the diction and how the reader views the relation to scripture. "is" is in present tense. "has" is in past tense. Our savior is in the present. Not the past. And the Passion translation says, "as the Christ who has come in the flesh", which, as a poet, highlights the fault with this entire translation, is just how passive it is. You have three instances of Passive language. "Who" "Has" and "As" all work together to sort of bring about a passivity of thought, which is inevitable, because the entire translation is riddled with these passivities. Scripture is so good---because even in King James English---it's always active. It's lucid. Scripture, when translated properly, should be among the most lucid writing there is. Because Biblical Poetry translates into active and lucid thoughts.

You can compare The Passion Translation to something like the Avesta or cult writings, where there begins to be a muddling of lucidity. There begins to be added words, circumlocutions, and muddy thoughts. 

Compare, for instance, King James English with Shakespeare's, also. Notice how the KJV, being contemporary, is still far more lucid than even Shakespeare. That's because it faithfully translated the Bible. Bibles should be lucid, crisp, and without circumlocution. Which, I can only say from a Poet's standpoint, The Passion Translation has a warm and fuzzy feel, but it's not the Word of God. It's added too many extraneous thoughts into the text, that don't belong there.

"The forward violet thus did I chide:
Sweet thief, whence didst thou steal thy sweet that smells,
If not from my love's breath? The purple pride
Which on thy soft cheek for complexion dwells
In my love's veins thou hast too grossly dy'd.
The lily I condemned for thy hand,
And buds of marjoram had stol'n thy hair;
The roses fearfully on thorns did stand,
One blushing shame, another white despair;
A third, nor red nor white, had stol'n of both,
And to his robbery had annexed thy breath;
But, for his theft, in pride of all his growth
A vengeful canker eat him up to death.
   More flowers I noted, yet I none could see,
   But sweet, or colour it had stol'n from thee." Shakespeare Sonnet 99


"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm 2, King James Bible

Though, I must confess it is Brian's freedom to make it. However, for those who are truly devoted to Scripture, and studying it, I'd recommend a KJV or GNT if for Modern English.

Also, he sounds like he's rewriting some of Jesus' parables and sayings. Jesus used crisp and almost superhuman language. He didn't talk like us. He talked in declarative, and accusative sentences. He never spoke passively. Compare Luke 15 in the TPT, the GNT and the KJV.

TPT: -5“There once was a shepherd with a hundred lambs, but one of his lambs wandered away and was lost. So the shepherd left the ninety-nine lambs out in the open field and searched in the wilderness for that one lost lamb. He didn’t stop until he finally found it. With exuberant joy, he raised it up, placed it on his shoulders, 6Returning home, he called all his friends and neighbors together and said, ‘Let’s have a party! Come and celebrate with me the return of my lost lamb. It wandered away, but I found it and brought it home.’ ”7Jesus continued, “In the same way, there will be a glorious celebration in heaven over the rescue of one lost sinner who repents, comes back home, and returns to the fold—more so than for all the righteous people who never strayed away.”

GNT:  4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them—what do you do? You leave the other ninety-nine sheep in the pasture and go looking for the one that got lost until you find it. t. 5 When you find it, you are so happy that you put it on your shoulders 6 and carry it back home. Then you call your friends and neighbors together and say to them, ‘I am so happy I found my lost sheep. Let us celebrate!’ 7 In the same way, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine respectable people who do not need to repent."

KJV: 4 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

I mean, obviously, the GNT is exactly how I remember Christ speaking, from how I was taught in Sunday School. Christ didn't speak like us. He spoke with supernatural clarity, all the time. And I think the GNT surpasses the TPT. As, if a person wants a modern English translation, it will be much wiser to buy a GNT, as it echoes the actual cadence of Christ in modern English.

Also, putting them all together, do you see how the TPT has about two extra lines of text?

There's many criticisms to have of this translation, but these are just a few.

Make no mistake, the TPT is written well, but it's not written right. The Bible shouldn't cadence like my writing, or anyone else's. An author's voice should never intrude into the text with Cantor. It should---as is true with all good translators---imbibe the original author's cadence and feel, only in the translator's tongue. An author should never intrude into their translations. Which, as an auxiliary note, is why I prefer Brian Stone's translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight over Tolkien's, is also for that reason.



Sincerely,
B. K. Neifert