Should Christians Be Concerned?
The Passion Translation (TPT) has become one of the most popular modern Bible versions within charismatic and Pentecostal circles. Many readers appreciate its devotional language, emotional warmth, and emphasis on God's love. For some, it has helped make Scripture feel fresh and alive again.
Yet alongside its popularity, it has also attracted significant criticism from biblical scholars, translators, pastors, and theologians from various traditions.
So what should Christians make of it?
This article is not an attack on those who enjoy reading The Passion Translation. Nor is it an attempt to question the sincerity of its translator, Brian Simmons. Rather, it is an honest look at both its strengths and its concerns so believers can make informed decisions.
What Is The Passion Translation?
The Passion Translation was created by Brian Simmons and seeks to communicate what he describes as the passion, emotion, and heart of God found within Scripture.
Unlike most major Bible translations, which are produced by large committees of scholars, linguists, and theologians, TPT has largely been the work of one individual. This fact alone does not automatically make it wrong, but it does remove many of the checks and balances typically present in Bible translation projects.
What People Like About It
To be fair, there are reasons many Christians enjoy reading TPT.
1. It Is Highly Readable
The language is modern, poetic, and emotionally engaging. Readers who struggle with more formal translations often find it easier to connect with.
2. It Encourages Devotional Reading
Many believers report that it helps them slow down and meditate on God's love and grace.
3. It Highlights Themes Often Missed
The translation frequently expands on concepts that may be less obvious in more literal translations, helping readers notice themes and applications they might otherwise overlook.
These strengths explain why many sincere Christians appreciate it.
The Main Concerns
1. It Often Goes Beyond Translation
The largest criticism is that TPT frequently adds words, phrases, and ideas that are not explicitly found in the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts.
Every translation involves interpretation to some degree. However, critics argue that TPT often crosses the line from translating what the text says into explaining what the translator believes the text means.
This means readers may sometimes be reading Brian Simmons' interpretation rather than the actual wording of Scripture.
A helpful way to think about it is this:
A translator's first responsibility is to communicate what the biblical authors wrote. Interpretation and application should come afterward. When explanatory phrases are inserted directly into the text, readers may struggle to distinguish between Scripture itself and the translator's understanding of Scripture.
2. It Lacks Broad Scholarly Support
Most respected Bible translations are reviewed by teams of experts representing various theological backgrounds.
Translations such as the ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, and NKJV are produced through collaborative scholarly efforts where translators challenge and refine one another's work.
TPT has not received the same level of scholarly endorsement. Numerous scholars have questioned its methodology and whether it should even be classified as a translation rather than an expanded paraphrase.
3. Serious Questions About The Aramaic Claims
One of the most distinctive features of The Passion Translation is its frequent appeal to Aramaic sources.
Brian Simmons has often suggested that unique insights within TPT come from Aramaic manuscripts, particularly the Syriac Peshitta. Many readers have therefore assumed that TPT provides access to meanings that traditional translations have somehow overlooked.
However, some of the strongest criticisms against TPT focus precisely on these claims.
Researcher Andrew Chapman conducted extensive examinations of numerous passages where Simmons cited Aramaic support for his translation choices. His conclusion was that several of these readings do not appear to be supported by the actual Syriac text itself.
More significantly, Chapman argued that many of Simmons' distinctive renderings appear to closely follow the wording found in an English translation of the Peshitta produced by Victor Alexander rather than the Syriac language itself.
If true, this would be highly significant.
The issue is not simply whether Simmons consulted another translation. Every translator consults other resources. The concern is that readers were often led to believe that unique insights were coming directly from ancient Aramaic manuscripts when critics argue they may have originated from a modern English interpretation of those manuscripts.
Several researchers have pointed out examples where:
- The Syriac text does not appear to support the wording found in TPT.
- The wording in TPT closely resembles Victor Alexander's English translation.
- Explanations for these renderings often rely on interpretations not recognized by mainstream Syriac scholarship.
- Some disputed claims were later modified or softened in subsequent editions of TPT.
This criticism becomes even more important because Victor Alexander's translation itself is associated with the Aramaic Primacy movement—the belief that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic rather than Greek. While some scholars support aspects of Aramaic influence, the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars maintain that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
The result is that many scholars remain unconvinced by TPT's claims that its distinctive readings arise from hidden meanings preserved in the Aramaic text.
4. The Publisher Quietly Changed Some Claims
Another point that has raised concern among critics is that some promotional language surrounding The Passion Translation appears to have changed over time.
Early promotional material emphasized translation directly from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic sources. Following scholarly criticism, later editions reportedly softened or revised some of this language.
While supporters may view this as normal clarification, critics see it as evidence that the original claims may have overstated the role of direct Aramaic translation in the project.
At minimum, these changes raise questions about how TPT should be presented to readers.
5. Theological Bias
Every translation contains some degree of theological influence.
However, many critics believe TPT consistently reflects particular charismatic and revivalist emphases. The concern is not merely that those doctrines appear in footnotes or commentary, but that they are sometimes embedded directly into the translated text itself.
This becomes problematic because readers may assume they are encountering the biblical authors' words when they are actually encountering a theological interpretation.
6. Questions About Extraordinary Claims
Some critics have also expressed concern regarding statements made by Brian Simmons concerning supernatural experiences related to the translation process.
The issue here is not whether God can speak to people. Christians have differing views on that subject. Rather, the concern is whether claims of special revelation should carry any weight in determining how Scripture itself is translated.
Historically, Bible translation has relied upon careful textual scholarship, linguistic expertise, and peer review rather than personal spiritual experiences.
Why Some Platforms Removed It
In 2022, Bible Gateway removed The Passion Translation from its platform.
While opinions differ regarding the significance of that decision, reports indicated that concerns existed about whether TPT should be categorized as a Bible translation or as a paraphrase containing substantial interpretive additions.
The removal did not prove that TPT is false, but it demonstrated that significant concerns existed within broader evangelical scholarship regarding its methodology and classification.
Is TPT A Translation, Paraphrase, Or Commentary?
This may be the most important question of all.
If readers approach TPT as a devotional paraphrase designed to inspire reflection and worship, many of its strengths become easier to appreciate.
However, if readers approach it as a precise translation of the biblical text, many of the concerns become much more serious.
The central criticism from scholars is not that TPT contains no truth, but that it frequently blends translation, interpretation, commentary, and devotional expansion into a single work.
That makes it difficult for readers to know where Scripture ends and interpretation begins.
My Conclusion
The Passion Translation may have value as a devotional resource or inspirational paraphrase.
However, I do not believe it should be used as a primary Bible translation for serious study, doctrine, preaching, or theological debate.
When reading Scripture, our first goal should be to discover what the biblical authors actually wrote before moving to interpretation and application. A translation that regularly expands beyond the original text makes that task more difficult.
For those who enjoy TPT, my recommendation would be simple: read it alongside more established translations such as the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, or CSB.
Passion is not the problem.
Devotion is not the problem.
The desire to make Scripture come alive is not the problem.
The concern is whether a translation remains faithful to the words God inspired.
God's Word is powerful enough without needing additional words inserted into the text.
The safest approach is not to reject passion, emotion, or devotion—but to ensure those things flow from what Scripture says rather than from what a translator thinks Scripture ought to say.