Revisiting the Fiasco called The Passion Translation

Mike Winger and Minor Prophets have been make a very thorough examination -- more like a dissection -- of Brian Simmon’s writing published under the name "The Passion Translation."  Here's a repetition of what I wrote about it in 2018.  

            Those who have viewed a video of Brian Simmons’ appearance on the television program That’s Supernatural! will already be aware of Brian Simmons’ description of his call to translate the Bible.  He claimed the following:

            ● Jesus told him to translate the Bible,
            ● Jesus told him he would help Brian translate the Bible,
            ● Jesus promised to provide secrets about the Hebrew language, and
            ● Brian received downloads when Jesus breathed on him.

Brian Simmons

This sort of testimony is taken seriously by many members of the New Apostolic Reformation, a loose network of congregations characterized by charismatic doctrine.  (If you can recollect the “Toronto Blessing” and the “Brownsville Revival,” you may get some idea of the NAR’s  theological roots.)  The NAR’s leaders affirm that the church today should be led, not by elders and deacons, but by people holding the offices of apostle and prophet (whether male or female).   The NAR also teaches that prophets receive new revelation from God which supplements the written Word of God.  They also put an emphasis on what they consider to be miraculous gifts, such as the reception of knowledge that is naturally unattainable, supernatural healings (including raising the dead – Simmons himself claims to been instrumental in the resurrection of a dead baby), speaking in tongues, and other phenomena (one example described by Simmons is the time he walked into a grocery store and everyone he met collapsed onto the floor). 

Charismatic doctrines are advocated throughout The Passion Translation, because it is not just a translation; it is more like a Charismatic Study Bible with its own running commentary in the form of Simmons’ abundant notes and book-introductions (which in some cases are longer than the books they accompany).  To an extent, TPT resembles some medieval manuscripts in which the Scripture-text is framed on every page by a lot of commentary – with the exception that whereas the medieval commentary-material tended to restate earlier patristic comments, The Passion Translation’s notes – often more lengthy than the books they accompany – consistently promote the teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation.

            One does not get far into the New Testament before it becomes apparent what one is facing in Simmons’ work.  In a note attached to Matthew 1:17, Simmons explains why, in Matthew’s genealogy, there are 41, rather than 42, generations.  Is Matthew simply counting the last unit of generations inclusively?  No; Simmons does not offer such mundane possibilities; the missing generation, he explains, is the church:  “Jesus gave birth to the forty-second generation when he died on the cross, for out of his side blood and water flowed.  Blood and water come forth at birth.  The first Adam “birthed” his wife out of his side, and so Jesus gave birth to his bride from his wounded side.” 

            This sort of thing is pervasive in the notes of The Passion Translation.  Some interpretations that Simmons offers are merely his own allegorical notions – for example, he comments on Mary’s words in John 2:2-3, “Interpreting Mary’s words for today we could say, “Religion has failed, it has run out of wine.””  Others are adamant endorsements of the teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation network. 

Perfectly ordinary and legitimate comments appear too – but some of Simmons’ notes only make sense if the reader really, really, wants them to make sense; for instance, in a note to John 2:20, where the Jewish leaders mention that it had taken 46 years to build the temple, Simmons comments, “Our bodies (temples) have forty-six chromosomes in every cell.” 

Another example:  Simmons’ note for Mark 1:9 – a straightforward statement that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to be baptized by John in the Jordan river – is as follows:  “It is possible to translate the Aramaic as “Then one day Jesus came from victorious revelation” to be baptized by John.  The word Nazareth can mean “victorious one,” and the word Galilee can be translated “the place of revelation.”  Simmons’ ability to squeeze metaphorical meanings out of plain statements in this way knows no bounds.  Many of the notes are like this, offering spiritual lessons that, good or bad, were never in the minds of the New Testament authors. 

            If the doctrinal bias of the notes were the only problem with Simmons’ work, TPT would be no worse than a Charismatic Study Bible or commentary-set.  But in many passages, Simmons’ theological views have colored the translation.  In sync with the NAR’s custom of giving leadership roles to women (including the office of apostle), Simmons has taken inexcusable liberties with some passages that pertain to the role of women and wives:

● First Corinthians 14:34 has been mangled:

            “The woman should be respectfully silent during the evaluation of prophecy in the meetings.  They are not allowed to interrupt, but are to be in a support role, as in fact the law teaches.”  The italicized phrase “during the evaluation of prophecy in the meetings” is just something Simmons threw in there.  And a lengthy note attached to 14:35 begins as follows:  “One interpretation of this passage is that Paul is quoting from a letter written by the Corinthians to him.  They were the ones saying a woman should remain silent and Paul is responding to their questions.  In other words, they were imposing a rule in the church that Paul refutes in v. 36.”

            ● Ephesians 5:22 is also mangled.  Instead of saying, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” Simmons translates the end of verse 21 as “be supportive of each other in love,” and then proceeds to rewrite verse 22 to say, “For wives, this means being devoted to your husbands like you are tenderly devoted to our Lord.”  This is quite politically correct, but it does not correspond to what Paul wrote.  

            ● First Timothy 2:11-12 is hopelessly adulterated in Simmons’ work:  “Let the women who are new converts be willing to learn with all submission to their leaders and not speak out of turn.  I don’t advocate that the newly converted women be the teachers in the church, assuming authority over the men, but to live in peace.”  Simmons attempts to excuse his additions by claiming, in prolonged notes, that he is merely making clear what was implicit in the early church, but this is pure subterfuge; Paul explains the basis for his position in the following verses.  Simmons has blended his commentary into the text of Scripture. 

The NAR believes that the office of apostle should be occupied in the present time.  Accordingly, in Matthew 10:2, Simmons has added the word “first” – “Now, these are the names of the first twelve apostles” – although there is nothing to support the word “first” in the Greek text.    

            So have no illusions about the nature of The Passion Translation:  it is not just a loose translation.  Its notes, which are many – the TPT New Testament is more annotation than translation – constitute a commentary designed to promote the doctrines of the NAR, and its text has been tweaked to decrease the extent to which a formal rendering of the text would challenge NAR beliefs. 

Brian Simmons may believe with full sincerity that the NAR’s doctrines are correct – but that does not excuse the many points in The Passion Translation where he has tampered with the text in such a way as to make it say things that the original text does not really say.

So far I have only described The Passion Translation’s origins and its doctrinal bias.  The remaining distinctive feature of Simmons’ work – its unusual New Testament base-text – is in some ways more concerning.   

Simmons draws his competence into question when he makes statements such as this one (from the book-introduction to Matthew):  “In AD 170 Eusebius quoted Irenaeus as saying, “Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the church” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica III. 24:5-6 and V. 8, 2.).”  The problem is that Eusebius wrote in the early 300s; Irenaeus, not Eusebius, is the writer who wrote in the 170s.  

            Nor does it help Simmons’ credibility when one reads, in a note on John 3:13, his claim that “Most Greek manuscripts read “the Son of Man who came from heaven.””  This is completely false; most Greek manuscripts support the reading, “the Son of Man who is in heaven.”  Similarly Simmons claims, in a note on Mark 9:29, that “Many reliable Greek texts leave out “fasting,”” whereas in real life only a few Greek manuscripts omit this word.

Some folks might conclude that such simple mistakes imply that Jesus was not helping Simmons write his notes, and that Simmons’ claim about receiving downloads from heaven is either a delusion or chicanery.  But in the NAR, just as prophets who make false predictions are still considered prophets, translators and commentators get to make elementary chronological errors and still be taken seriously.     

            Now let’s take a closer look at the New Testament base-text that Simmons used for TPT. 

            Simmons’ notes refer repeatedly to “Hebrew Matthew,” and this text is cited in his notes over a hundred times.  “Hebrew Matthew,” however, is nothing more than Shem-Tob (as Simmons himself affirms in his note on Matthew 2:6) – a late medieval text assembled by Judaic opponents of Christianity in the 1300s, mainly reworking the meaning of the Vulgate text of that time, with unusual readings shared by the earlier Liège Harmony (from the late 1200s), a harmonization of the four Gospels written in the Middle Dutch dialect, in which some Diatessaronic readings are embedded. 

            What Simmons treats as if it is the original Hebrew text of Matthew (and greater in authority than all Greek manuscripts) is actually a medieval text used by opponents of the gospel, and its unique features, other than echoes of the Diatessaron and a few stray Old Latin readings, are not ancient at all.  We are looking here at a text that post-dates Charlemagne.  Unfortunately, when Simmons made TPT, he was apparently convinced that Shem-Tob is a very ancient text.  That false assumption is in play throughout his work.

            Another false assumption seems to be in play as well:  the idea that the Peshitta – a Syriac translation, probably made in the late 300s – is from the first century rather than the fourth century.   The phrase “As translated from the Aramaic” appears in Simmons’ notes over 400 times.  Simmons has somehow convinced himself that the Peshitta is better than the Greek text in hundreds of passages.  A close study of Simmons’ notes indicates that he believes that the Gospel of Matthew was initially written in Aramaic (the sentence in which Simmons put Eusebius in the year 170 is part of Simmons’ defense of this belief).  This is the only plausible explanation for the following renderings in Simmons’ translation of Matthew:

            ● Matthew 5:4a – “What delight comes to you when you wait upon the Lord!” –   “As translated from the Hebrew Matthew,” Simmons explains in a note, defending his decision to set aside the Greek text, which means, “Blessed are those who mourn.”       

            ● Matthew 8:6, 8:9, 8:13 – “son” – This is, in the Aramaic sources Simmons has relied upon, an attempted harmonization to the similar account in John 4:47-53.  The Greek text, as Simmons admits in his notes, means “servant.”

            ● Matthew 12:12 – “it’s always proper to do miracles” – The Greek text, as Simmons admits in his notes, only refers to doing good; there is no reference to miracles.    

            ● Matthew 19:16a – “Then a teenager approached Jesus and bowed before him” – this harmonization based on Mark 10:17 is not based on Greek manuscripts, but was “translated from the Hebrew Matthew,” i.e., the medieval Shem-Tob text.

            ● Matthew 19:16b – “and bowed before him, saying, Wonderful teacher” – Simmons, rather than translate the Greek text, translated the word tawa “from the Aramaic.”

            ● Matthew 19:24 (and Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25) – “In fact, it’s easier to stuff a heavy rope through the eye of a needle than it is for the wealthy to enter into God’s kingdom realm!”  Simmons explains why he had led away the camel:  “This could be an instance of the Aramaic text being misread by the Greek translators as “camel” instead of “rope.”” 

            ● Matthew 20:29 – “As Jesus approached Jericho” – The Greek text means just the opposite, “As Jesus left Jericho.”  Simmons’ note displays his openness to the idea that the Shem-Tob text existed in the first century.

            ● Matthew 21:37 – “Perhaps with my own son standing before them they will be ashamed of what they’ve done.” – This paraphrase has been allowed to usurp the Greek text, which simply means, “They will respect my son.”

            ● Matthew 27:9 – “This fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah” – Simmons flatly rejects the Greek text which refers to the prophet Jeremiah, stating, “The Greek manuscripts incorrectly identify the prophecy as from Jeremiah.”  Rather than perceive a loose thematic parallel to passages in Jeremiah, Simmons has set aside the Greek text and translated from the medieval Shem-Tob.

            ● Matthew 27:43b – “let’s see if it’s true, and see if God really wants to rescue his ‘favorite son’!” – This is a drastic departure from the Greek text, in which Jesus’ detractors finish the verse by saying, “for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

                       

This sort of thing is not limited to the text of Matthew.  Simmons departs from the Greek text  on many occasions, and in almost every book of the New Testament – even in Second Peter, Third John, Jude, and Revelation – books which were not even initially part of the Peshitta. 

For example, in Second Peter 1:4, Simmons has set aside the “us” found in the Greek text (ἡμῖν) and replaced it with “you.”  In Jude verse 9, Simmons rendered Michael the archangel’s words as “”The Lord Yahweh rebuke you,” although the Greek text (Κύριος) only justifies the word “Lord.”

            And in the book of Revelation, Simmons has replaced Jesus’ familiar words, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” with “I am the Aleph and the Tav” in 1:8, and again in 21:6, and again in 22:13.  Other departures from the Greek text occur in Revelation 6:9, 7:17, 11:7 (Simmons:  “the beast that comes up from the sea” – Greek text:  “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” (ἀβύσσου)), 11:15, 15:3, and 21:2.                           

            And there is a yet more disturbing aspect to Simmons’ work.  Contrary to the impression given at The Passion Translation’s website, which explicitly states that Simmons used the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and which also explicitly states that The Passion Translation follows the practice of excluding passages such as Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 15:28, and Acts 8:37, all of those verses are in the text of the copy of The Passion Translation that I received.  It is quite obvious that Simmons’ New Testament base-text diverges from the Nestle-Aland compilation at many points. 

It is equally obvious that Simmons did not consistently follow the Byzantine Text, for he turns Amos into an ancestor of Christ in Matthew 1:10, and does not describe Jesus as Mary’s firstborn son in Matthew 1:25, and in Mark 1:2 he attributes a prophecy to Isaiah (although in his annotation on Mark 1:2, Simmons states, “This line is a quotation from Ex. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1”).  What was the determining factor in his textual decisions? 

It appears that where the Nestle-Aland compilation and the Byzantine Text disagree, the Aramaic text often cast a deciding vote – and, as we have seen, in some cases, it was allowed to outweigh them both.  But what Aramaic, or Syriac, text was Simmons using?  For just as there are different compilations of the Greek text, there are different compilations of the Peshitta, and there are also the Harklean Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Palestinian Aramaic to consider. 

            A modicum of online research into this question led me to the website of Andrew Chapman, who showed concisely but clearly that Simmons has utilized – among other resources – the work of Victor N. Alexander. 

 

Victor Alexander's
English translation of
the Aramaic text

            I will spare you, reader, the details of Andrew Chapman’s investigations, and cut to the chase.  (You can read about some of them at http://theriveroflife.com/2017/03/23/brian-simmons-claims-to-be-translating-from-the-aramaic-the-ten-cases-in-summary/ .)  It seems apparent that Simmons has been relying on English translations of the Peshitta, rather than directly consulting Aramaic sources.  This seems irrefutable when one looks at the anomalies in the translation made by Victor Alexander, and sees the same, or very similar, anomalies in Simmons’ workjl.  Here are a few:

            ● Galatians 1:4a – Simmons:  “He’s the Anointed Messiah who offered himself as the sacrifice for our sins!”  Alexander:  “He who sacrificed himself on behalf of our sins.”  (The Greek text simply says that he gave himself for our sins; the explicit reference to sacrifice-offering implies a link between Alexander’s translation and Simmons.)

            ● Galatians 2:10 – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):  “that I would be devoted to the poor and needy”  Alexander:  “That we may devote ourselves to the needy alone.”  (The Greek text refers to remembering the poor; the shared reference to being devoted to the poor implies a link between Alexander’s work and Simmons.  This passage has been altered and presently refers to remembering the poor and needy.) 

            ● Galatians 3:3b – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):  “Why then would you so foolishly turn from living in the Spirit to becoming slaves again to your flesh?”  Alexander:   “Did you become so foolish that while before, the Spirit abided in you, you have now become the slaves of the flesh?”  (The Greek text refers to finishing in the flesh; the shared reference to becoming slaves implies a link between Alexander’s work and Simmons.  This passage has been altered in TPT and presently loosely conforms to the Greek text.

            ● Galatians 3:19 – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):   “It remained in force until the Joyous Expectation was born to fulfill the promises given to Abraham.”  Simmons  included a note to explain the unusual rendering:  “The Joyous Expectation is translated literally from the Aramaic.”  Consulting Alexander’s translation, Chapman saw no such rendering, but in a footnote there is a reference to the phrase, “to whom were directed the joyous expectations.”  (Again, TPT has been improved in this passage.  What does this imply about the validity of that deleted note?)

(Dependence upon Victor Alexander’s work also explains Simmons’ mangling of Ephesians 5:22; inasmuch as Alexander put “be devoted to your husbands” in Ephesians 5:22.) 

            The thing to see here is Chapman’s data implies that Simmons’ “downloads” have required revision and correction due in part to his dependence, not upon supernatural revelation, but upon a flawed English translation of the Syriac New Testament.  On one hand, revision is a natural step in translation-work; on the other hand, these particular corrected renderings reveal that there has obviously been quite a heavy dependence upon English resources, which is a different impression than one is likely to get from The Passion Translation’s website and promotional materials.     

            Simmons’ use of Victor Alexander’s translation – particularly in light of the many passages in TPT where the Aramaic text usurps the Greek text of the New Testament – is extremely problematic.  This should be evident to anyone who is aware of who Victor N. Alexander is.  In addition to having translated parts of the Peshitta into English, Victor Alexander directed the film The Red Queen, which might motivate anyone to think twice about relying on his work for any sacred purpose. 

            In addition, Victor Alexander has expressed some anomalous views: 
            ● “The original language of the Scriptures was not Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.”

            ● “My translation has produced the best version of the New Testament.”

            ● “All the articles on the Internet regarding the Original Scriptures are inaccurate.”

            ● “All the Western theological seminaries are a joke.”

            ● In his translation, “Thousands of passages have been clarified.”

            ● In his translation, “Major concepts have been restored for the first time.”
            ● And:  “It’s finally possible to interpret the Scriptures correctly and reconcile the tenets of the five major religions: Western Christianity, Modern Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. It's now possible to return to one conception of what the Scriptures are all about.”

Toxic syncretism could hardly make itself more obvious. 

Surely Simmons rejects Alexander’s opinions, and undoubtedly Simmons would be shocked if he ever were to watch even a snippet of Alexander’s surreal films – and yet it seems undeniable that he has relied on Alexander’s translation of the Peshitta while preparing The Passion Translation.  A complete repudiation of everything based on Alexander’s work, it seems to me, is necessary before the English Scripture-text in TPT can be considered in any way a legitimate translation.  All of the passages in which the Shem-Tob text and the Peshitta have usurped the Greek text need to be repaired.

I do not mean that without the bits that have no Greek support, the TPT New Testament would be a good translation; there are plenty of passages I have not mentioned in which Simmons has unnecessarily resorted to paraphrase.  But purging TPT of its deviations from the Greek text of the New Testament would be a good and necessary first step toward making its Scripture-text a legitimate translation. 

Here are some other reviews and critiques of The Passion Translation:

Ruslan KD - THIS Popular Bible Translation is DECEIVING Christian Celebrities (Added in 2024)

What's Wrong With The Passion "Translation" (by Andrew Wilson)

Endorsements for The Passion Translation

George Athas Reviews TPT Song of Songs

The Passion "Translation" of Romans:  Problems and Questions (by Lionel Windsor)

The Passion Translation:  the Bible of Bethel and NAR (by Sara Boyd)

A New Apostolic Reformation Bible:  The Passion Translation (from 2013, at The Berean Call)

Know who made your Bible translation and who compiled its base-text.

Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links in this post to find additional resources.

Quotations attributed in this review to The Passion Translation are from The Passion Translation®.  Copyright © 2017, 2018 by BroadStreet Publishing ® Group, LLC.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved.

Eugene Peterson and The Message, Revisited

The Message:  Remix 2017

          Now that Eugene Peterson has advocated gay marriage – not just as a legal right, but as something that the body of Christ ought to bless – he should be regarded as one who has fallen away from the faith handed down to the saints.  I believe that this is how each and every one of Christ’s commissioned apostles would respond, prayerfully hoping and praying for him to repent.  [Update - July 13, 4:15 pm:  Peterson has retracted his earlier endorsement of gay marriage as a church rite.  Prayers answered, and quickly!]  

            With that in mind, I implore my fellow preachers, and anyone who has been treating Peterson’s “translation of tone,” The Message, as if it is a Bible translation, to stop using The Message in any ministry-context that would give people the impression that it is a Bible.  In February of 2015, I demonstrated that The Message is too inaccurate to qualify as a Bible translation.  Using Matthew 10 as a sample-passage, I showed that it is badly contaminated with additions, deletions, and alterations of various kinds which render it useless as a representation of the message conveyed by the original text of the Bible. 

            Why should Peterson’s affirmation that he would officiate at a same-sex marriage if he were asked to do so mean that Christians should not use The Message?  Perhaps for the same reason that when the author of How To Safely Drive a Car drives his car headlong into a wall at 100 miles an hour, it raises doubts about the wisdom of using his book to teach students how to drive.  Common sense ought to suggest that when someone openly defies the teachings of Scripture, his presentation of the meaning of Scripture might not be trustworthy. 

            But let’s not commit the genetic fallacy, right?  [Update, July 13, 4:15 pm:  whatever position Peterson holds - and earlier today, he affirmed that he subscribes to a Biblical view of marriage, one man to one woman - the flaws in The Message are still there.]  A close look at the contents of The Message reveals plenty of reasons to avoid using it.  Let’s examine specifically part of The Message that seems to have been adulterated because of the view which Peterson just now affirmed:  First Corinthians 6.

            For the first several verses of this chapter, Peterson’s paraphrase conveys the gist of the meaning of the original text; it is embellished but not obscured – until verse 6.  Where the text should mention that one brother take another brother to court (ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελφου), Peterson’s rendering loses the gender, stating only that “you are taking each other to court.”  But this is minor compared to what follows:  Peterson inserted a full sentence into end of verse 6:  “How can they render justice if they don’t believe in the God of justice?” 

            In First Corinthians 6:6, the Greek text is ἀλλα ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελφου κρίνεται, καί τουτο ἐπὶ ἀπίστων – but brother takes brother to judgment, and that before unbelievers.  This is adequately represented in The Message by the first part of verse 6:  “And here you are taking each other to court before people who don’t even believe in God!”  The rest of verse 6 in The Message – “How can they render justice if they don’t believe in the God of justice?” – has no foundation in the Greek text.  It comes from Eugene Peterson, not from Paul. 

            Perhaps one could overlook that in a “translation of tone,” regarding the insertion as completely unauthorized but rather benign.  Let’s move along to verses 9-10.  First, here are these two verses from the English Standard Version:

            “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived:  neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Here is how the Christian Standard Bible renders the passage:

            “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom?  Do not be deceived:  No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 

And here’s verses 9-10 as they appear in the New International Version (2011 revision):  

            “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

You may notice that all three of these versions have something in common between the reference to adulterers and the reference to thieves, where the Greek text reads οὕτε ἀρσενοκοιται:
            ESV:  nor men who practice homosexuality

            CSB:  or males who have sex with males

            NIV:  nor men who have sex with men.

Yet in The Message this is what we find: 

            “Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live?  Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom.  Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.”

            A more blatant case of watering down the meaning of Scripture would be hard to find.  Peterson butchered the text of First Corinthians 6:9-10 by removing Paul’s specific references to idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers, with generalizations – and, as if this was not enough, he added something brand new – “use and abuse the earth and everything in it” (which has no foundation in the Greek text).  Peterson thus erased Paul’s warning against committing homosexual acts (and other acts), and put words in Paul’s mouth as if Paul wrote something here against littering and pollution.  Both of these things are irresponsible – and some of those who have approved or recommended such butchery, committed under the cover of paraphrase, were also irresponsible.  (Looking at you, Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary.  You too, Michael Card and Max Lucado.) 

            Via this swindle of words, Peterson not only obscured the inspired apostle’s condemnation of fornication, adultery, sodomy, thievery, and so forth, but he also obscured the next verse’s statement that salvation is freely offered for those who repent of those acts.  A real Bible would inform its readers in First Corinthians 6:11 that among the Christians at Corinth, there were some individuals who had committed the specific acts that Paul warns against in verses 9-10 – and that they had been forgiven of those sins, as the New American Standard Bible puts it:  “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 

 

NavPress, something is wrong
with your product.

          The original text of First Corinthians 6:9-11 makes it clear that sodomy is classified as a sin, along with adultery and thievery; it also clearly states that those sins can be forgiven and that the guilty person who repents of those sins can be restored and become a child of God.  The Message does neither of those things in First Corinthians 6:9-11, because it is a counterfeit, not a real Bible.  It shouldn’t be called a Bible, and NavPress should never have marketed it as a Bible. 

            When The Message began to be deceitfully marketed as if it is the Word of God, I should have protested more vocally than we did.  I can’t go back in time and state my protests more forcefully.  I wish I could.  But I can say this:  I have no use for The Message as a paraphrase, and it is not very good as a commentary, either.  There is no good reason to preach or teach from The Message as if it is a Bible.  I advise everyone who has access to the KJV or NKJV or WEB or NIV or ESV or CSB or NASB to do to their copy of The Message what Eugene Peterson did to the meaning of the original text of First Corinthians 6:9-11:  tear it up and throw it away. 

_______________

Quotations from The Message are . . . oops; the copyright page is torn apart.  Let's see here . . . . 

The Message is Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson.

Quotations from the ESV have been taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

Quotations from the NIV have been taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®  Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers.  Used by permission.  Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

  

The Message: Is It a Reliable Bible? Is It a Bible at All?

          The Bible is defined in different ways by different denominations.  In the fellowship of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, the Bible is generally defined as a collection of 66 books which were produced by individuals operating under the special inspiration of God so that the resultant texts were exactly what God wanted them to be.  The Bible is considered the church’s authoritative standard for faith and practice. 

          For most Christians, however, when the Bible is consulted and studied, the text being read is a translation that was designed to convey the meaning of the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts; the proportion of Christians who interact daily with Biblical texts in their original languages is relatively low. 

          It is practical to emphasize the meaning of the inspired text:  the use of a translation allows those who do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to know and apply the message which those ancient texts convey.  The translation of the Bible into many languages has greatly advanced the spread of the gospel.  But with the benefit comes a risk:  the risk that if the base-text – the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text – is not compiled correctly, and is not translated correctly, then the result will not convey the message that was conveyed by the original text, and that where a translation contains shortcomings, its users will not possess the Word of God. 

Most of the Bible in Contemporary English,
blended with Eugene Peterson's
comments and interpretations.

          No English translation perfectly conveys the full sense of every nuance of every word and phrase in the original text, but several English versions are sufficient for the needs of most readers.  The Message, however, is so inaccurate that it does not deserve to be considered a Bible.  To see why this is the case, let’s compare the Greek base-text of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew to The Message.  (In the following comparison, the text of The Message is from The Message:  Remix:  The Bible in Contemporary Language, Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson.  All rights reserved.)    

10:1a – “The prayer was no sooner prayed than it was answered.” – This sentence has no parallel in the Greek text. 

10:1b – “and sent them out into the ripe fields” – This phrase has no parallel in the Greek text.

10:1c – “and to tenderly care for the bruised and hurt lives.” – This is not a translation, but rather a replacement of what Matthew wrote, stating that the disciples were given power to heal every disease and every sickness.  The emphasis on healing in the original text has been obscured.

10:5a – “harvest hands” – This term has no parallel in the Greek text.

10:5b – “Don’t begin by traveling to some far-off place to convert unbelievers.” – Jesus’ words did not pertain to distance; instead, He told His disciples on this occasion not to preach to the Gentiles – εις οδον εθνων μη απέλθητε:  into the nations’ way do not go. 

10:5c – “And don’t try to be dramatic by tackling some public enemy.” – This is simply not what Jesus said.  He told them not to enter into any city of the Samaritans – και εις πόλιν Σαμαριτων μη εισέλθητε.  This is a very simple sentence.  The prohibitions against being dramatic and against tackling “some public enemy” were made up by Peterson out of thin air.

10:6 – “Go to the lost, confused people right here in the neighborhood.” – What Jesus said was, “But go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  The distinction that Jesus drew on this occasion was pretty simple:  minister to those in need among fellow-Jews, not to Gentiles and Samaritans.  This is not a difficult concept to understand; nor is the sentence difficult to translate accurately – but instead of doing so, Peterson replaced the specific reference to “the house of Israel” to the vague and inaccurate, “right here in the neighborhood,” as if Jesus was referring to a place rather than an ethnic group.

10:8 – “Touch the untouchables.” – The base-text says, “Cleanse lepers” (λεπρους καθαρίζετε).  This is not a command to touch; it is a command to heal; it is about applying divine power, not human pity.  

10:9a – “Don’t think you have to put on a fund-raising campaign before you start.” – This resembles the original text only to the extent that they both are about not acquiring money.  Jesus’ words are considerably different:  “Do not acquire gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts.”  There is nothing in The Message to correspond specifically to gold, or to silver, or to copper, or to belts.

10:9b, e – “You don’t need a lot of equipment” and, at the end of the verse, “Travel light.” – Jesus’ instructions were not this vague.  He specified that the disciples were not to take along a knapsack for the road, nor two shirts, nor sandals, nor a staff (or, in the Byzantine Text, staffs).  The Message’s paraphrase blurs Jesus’ sentence and makes it impossible for readers to perceive what He specified to His disciples.

10:9c – “You are the equipment.” – This is entirely from Peterson; nothing in the original text corresponds to this sentence.

10:9d – “and all you need to keep that going is three meals a day.” – Jesus said nothing to His disciples about eating three meals a day.  Jesus said that the worker is worthy of his food.  The reference to three daily meals is just something that Peterson threw in without any textual basis, except the reference to food.

10:10 – “don’t insist on staying at a luxury inn.  Get a modest place with some modest people” – This is not what Jesus said.  He told the disciples that whenever they enter a city or village, they should inquire about who is worthy.  No parameters are given about whether the residence is large or small, or about whether or not it is “modest.” 

10:14a – “If they don’t welcome you, quietly withdraw.  Don’t make a scene.  Shrug your shoulders and be on your way.” – Jesus’ instructions were very different.  He told His disciples that if they were not received and their words were not heeded, they were to shake the dust off their feet as they departed.  How did the early church interpret Jesus’ statement?  We do not have to guess, because Acts 13 provides an account of how Paul and Barnabas acted when their message was rejected in the city of Antioch-in-Pisidia:  in Acts 13:46, they boldly answered the Jews who opposed their message, and in Acts 13:51 “they shook the dust from their feet in protest.”  This is a far cry from the quiet shrugging of shoulders that Peterson made up out of thin air.

10:15a – “You can be sure that on Judgment Day they’ll be mighty sorry’ – Here Peterson has subtracted and added.  Jesus said that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on Judgment Day than it will be for such a city.  The Message completely skips this reference to Sodom and Gomorrah.  This does not mean that Peterson undertook his task with an agenda to eliminate or significantly reduce Biblical condemnations of sodomy, but when references such as this one in Matthew 10:15 are deliberately obscured, one wonders how different a version made with such an agenda would be from what is encountered in The Message.  

10:15b – “but it’s no concern of yours now.” – Nothing in the Greek text of Matthew 10:14 corresponds to these words.  Peterson just threw them in.

10:16 – “This is hazardous work I’m assigning you.” – This entire sentence is an insertion; once again, nothing in the Greek text corresponds to these words.

10:17 – “Some people will impugn your motives; others will smear your reputation.” – Jesus said that His disciples will be handed over to councils and that His disciples will be scourged in the synagogues.  Motive-impugning and reputation-smearing are not the actions described by Jesus in this verse, and the base-text does not justify mentioning them.  Does anyone imagine that smearing your reputation is the equivalent of scourging?    

10:18 – “Without knowing it, they’ve done you – and me – a favor” – None of this has a basis in the base-text; it is all an insertion.  Meanwhile, the phrase και τοις εθνεσιν (“and the Gentiles”) is not represented in The Message in any way.

10:21a – “When people realize that it is the living God you are presenting and not some idol that makes them feel good” – There is nothing in the base-text that corresponds to any of this.

10:21b – “They are going to turn on you, even people in your own family.” – This is an extremely blurry summary of what Jesus said.  The base-text says, “Brother will betray brother to be killed, and a father his child, and children will rise up against their parents and have them killed.”  This verse has been thoroughly abbreviated and adulterated.

10:22b – “But don’t quit.  Don’t cave in.  It is all well worth it in the end.” – This is all a fine sentiment, but it is ridiculous as a translation of what Jesus said in this verse, which is simply, “The one who endures to the end, that one shall be saved.” 

10:23 – “Be survivors!  Before you’ve run out of options, the Son of Man will have arrived.” – The imprecision here is completely unnecessary.  Did Peterson feel that the meaning of Jesus’ sentence to the disciples was deficient, and must be put at a distance?  There is a lot more to the Greek text of this verse, as follows:  “And when they persecute you in this city, flee to another.  For truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

10:24a – “A student doesn’t get a better desk than her teacher.” – Jesus’ actual sentence lack any reference to a female student; it also lacks any reference to a desk.

 

10:25b – The entire phrase (present in the Greek base-text), “and for the slave to be like his master,” is not represented.  It is as if a sentence in the base-text has simply vanished.

10:25c – “If they call me, the Master, ‘Dungface,’ what can the workers expect?” – The Greek word that Peterson rendered “Dungface” is Βεελζεβουλ (Beelzeboul), which is the name of a demon.  Peterson’s mistranslation completely obscures the connection between 10:25 and the Pharisees’ actions in 9:34.  In addition, the term οικοδεσποτην simply means house-master, not capital-M “Master,” as if Jesus is some sort of Ascended Master or Jedi Master.

10:27 – “So don’t hesitate to go public now.” – Can anyone seriously consider this an adequate representation of the base-text???  Here is the sentence:  “What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light, and what you hear in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.”  (Unnecessary abridgments such as this one occur frequently in The Message.)

10:28a – “Don’t be bluffed into silence by the threats of bullies.” – This is a fine sentiment, but it leaves out a significant part of what Jesus said:  “And do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.”  The opponents in view here are not schoolyard bullies; they are individuals with the means to kill.

10:28b – “Save your fear for God, who holds your entire life – body and soul – in his hands.”  It is difficult to overstate the inaccuracy of The Message in this verse.  Here is the Greek text of the last sentence:  Φοβεισθε δε μαλλον τον δυναμενον και ψυχην και σωμα απολέσαι εν Γεέννη, that is, “Fear, instead, the one with power to destroy both soul and body in hell.”  Besides significantly altering the nuance of the sentence, Peterson completely removed the reference to hell. 

10:29 – “What’s the price of a pet canary?  Some loose change, right?” – In the real world, Jesus referred to the price of two sparrows, not to the price of a pet canary.  (And have you seen how much canaries actually cost?  It’s more like $20, not “some loose change.”)  A literal translation of the base-text would not be difficult to understand.  Peterson’s translational choice here, as in a multitude of other passages, seems as irreverently flippant and capricious as it is inaccurate and unnecessary.

10:31 – “of all this bully talk.” – There is no basis for this in the base-text.  Peterson just threw that in there.

10:33 – “If you turn tail and run, do you think I’ll cover for you?” – Peterson has sacrificed accuracy for the sake of stylistic flair, and left a significant part of the base-text unrepresented.  Here is the sentence that he has mauled:  “And whoever will deny me before people, I also will deny him before my Father in heaven.”  Three things have happened here:  (1)  the act of making a candid denial of Christ has been turned into the act of turning tail and running, (2)  Jesus’ affirmation has been turned into a question, and (3) a reference to “my Father in heaven” has completely disappeared.

Matthew 10:38:  where did the cross go?
I thought there was something here
about taking up your cross.

10:38 – “If you don’t go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don’t deserve me.” – Where did the cross go???  In the real world, this verse says, “And the one who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”  It’s right there:  σταυρον (“cross”).  Is Peterson’s translation-technique actual sorcery, or just sleight-of-hand?  Either way, he makes a clear reference to the cross disappear!

10:40 – “We are intimately linked in this harvest work.” – This entire sentence is an addition; nothing corresponds to it in the base-text.  Here and elsewhere, it is almost as if Peterson wrote thematic titles for various paragraphs, and inserted them into the text, slightly changed as if they were the words of Christ.

10:41 – “This is a large work I’ve called you into, but don’t be overwhelmed by it.  It’s best to start small.” – Both of these sentences have no parallel in the base-text.  Jesus did not say these words that The Message attributes to him.  They are insertions by Eugene Peterson.

10:41 – “Accepting someone’s help is as good as giving someone help.” – Peterson just made this up.  The Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew does not contain this, or anything like this.

10:42 – “The smallest act of giving or receiving makes you a true apprentice.” – This sentence has no parallel in the base-text.  It is an insertion, originating not with Jesus but with Eugene Peterson.

          So:  in Matthew 10, The Message contains 37 flaws (or more, depending on how they’re counted).  Peterson freely adds phrases and sentences which have no textual foundation.  He repeatedly fails to translate entire phrases and sentences that are in the base-text (no matter which text-type is being consulted).  He omits two references to the cross, two references to Israel, a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, and a reference to hell. 

          These inaccuracies in Matthew 10 are not exceptions.  They are typical.  Elsewhere, The Message refers to casseroles, telescopes, pajamas, the dictionary, and on and on.  The New Testament's references to hell have been consistently watered down.  Some of Peterson’s theological biases have been smuggled in.  Inspired sentences have been left out.  From beginning to end, this version is blatantly inaccurate. 

          Can any responsible, well-informed Christian recommend The Message?  Certainly:  as a representation of Eugene Peterson’s interpretations of the Bible, it’s terrific!  If it were being marketed as a commentary, many aspects of it would be commendable.  When it is read discerningly, as a commentary, The Message can be a source of edification.  But as a Bible translation – which is what NavPress is marketing it as, and which is what many preachers treat it as – it is a disaster.  It is like a shipwreck at the bottom of the sea, with barnacles and holes from beginning to end.   

          Thus ends my review of The Message.  But there is an implication of this that should not be ignored:  the people who helped make The Message and the people who still promote it as a Bible translation must be extremely untrustworthy as evaluators of the quality and accuracy of Bible translations.  (I daresay that if you meet any scholar who recommends making The Message your primary translation for doctrinal study, run away fast and far.) 

          These individuals include – as consultants for The Message – Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary), Peter Ennes (Eastern University), Duane Garrett (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), William Klein (Denver Seminary), Tremper Longman III (Westmont College), and Rodney Whitacre (Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry).  They also include – as public promoters for The Message – Gordon Fee, Michael Card, Leith Anderson, and Jerry B. Jenkins.

          The individuals in these lists may be fellow believers, with impeccable credentials of every kind, and they may have wonderfully fruitful ministries; nevertheless, as evaluators of the accuracy of Bible translations, each and every one is demonstrably unworthy of the church’s trust.  

____________

Scripture taken from THE MESSAGE, Copyright © 1993, 21994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002.  Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.  

[Normally I would not refer to The Message as Scripture, 

but this notice is probably legally required and I don’t want to get sued.]