The Good and the Ugly of Bible Translations

The Good & The Ugly of Bible Translations:

English speakers have many translations of scripture. We have had English translations for more than 500 years now. Not all translations are made equal, and some have different purposes and functions. In this review, a few modern translations will be analyzed and compared. The translations under review are The Passion Translation (TPT), New English Translation (NET), and the New International Version (NIV). 

The translation philosophy of The Passion Translation is rather interesting. It is a “meaning-for-meaning translation, translating the essence of God's original message and heart into modern English” (The Passion Translation, 2024, Para 5). This translation attempts to capture the meaning and heart of the text, not its wording. The use of Aramaic is also important for this translation. The team states on their website, “We believe using the ancient Aramaic sources in addition to the original Greek ones adds an important lens through which to read God’s Word and understand his revelation of truth and love” (The Passion Translation, 2024, Section 8, Para 2). Aramaic speaks to the heart in a way other biblical languages do not according to the translators. While not stated explicitly, the reader should see this translation as somewhat inspired. For example, the lead translator, Brian Simmons, states, “... I am not going to hide it. I believe God gave me the key to the book of Proverbs, to unlock riddles, parables…” (Winger, 2018a, 45:11-45:18). Brian has made many supernatural claims about his work with this translation. Due to this, extreme divine aid should be considered part of the translation philosophy here. There are translation footnotes, italics, and other features. This translation is intended for those who have a heart for God and want an easy-to-understand way to learn about it. 

The NET Bible is far different in its philosophy than TPT. This text was done by, “more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts” (NET Bible helpers, 2019, Para 9). This is far different from TPT, whose lead translator cannot be considered an expert (Winger, 2018b). They have 50,000+ scholarly footnotes, some of which go in-depth on translation and theological issues. Their stated goal was, “not to create a consensus translation, nor to tune it for popularity, but to strive for faithfulness to the original autographs in Hebrew, Greek, the few passages in Aramaic, and scattered words/phrases in other languages” (NET Bible helpers, 2019, Para 2). Translations tend to pick a particular approach to Bible translating. The KJV or ESV are more word-for-word translations, while the NIV or TPT are on the thought-for-thought spectrum (many argue that TPT is a paraphrase). The NET takes two approaches at the same time. They have the thought-for-thought approach in the translation for readability, but put the word-for-word translation in the footnotes, solving the tension between these two approaches. They understand the scriptures to be God's word and they believe, “God forgives and even endorses good translations that leave room for minor improvements” (NET bible helpers, 2019, Para 4). 

Similar to TPT claims, the translation committee of the NIV states, “The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers” (2010, Para 5). They strive for accuracy in the meaning of the text, not the exact wording of the base text. Originally published in 1978, “It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts” (2010, Para 2). These translators had diverse denominations in an attempt to remove sectarian bias. 

Once the comparison between different verses in these translations is made, the consequences of the philosophies are seen. Here are some examples from the Old and New Testaments. In the NIV, the first chapter of the Song of Solomon is simple and easily understood. Song of Songs is about the relationship between King Solomon and a black Jewish woman. They are in love, find each other attractive, and want to be in their “bed chambers”. In the NET, the message is the same, but the extensive footnotes allow the reader to see some of the scholarly debates and what they think the best understandings are. They also provide multiple options for the reader to decide on and explore. For example, the footnote says, “Whether or not this attribution is historically reliable or simply a matter of Jewish tradition is debated in scholarship” (Song 1:1, NET). 

TPT does something else, however. When someone reads King Solomon's song in TPT, they come away with the message that this is King Jesus' love song to the church. TPT forces the song to function as this allegory by making several changes to the text. Firstly, the man talking in the song has red letters, indicating that this is Jesus since he is the only one who gets red letters in Bibles. The woman, instead of being a dark-skinned woman because of her time in the sun, now is only dark as to her sinful ways and perhaps the shame and low self-esteem she is experiencing. Sometimes Christians feel bad because of their sins, but Jesus still thinks we are lovely. This is what the text states in TPT. 

This is a clear example of theological bias. Translations will always involve some interpretation of the text. That said, this level of interpretation borders on paraphrasing or embellishing of the text, not just translation disagreement. Putting the king's words in red is particularly egregious. The king or man is supposed to be Solomon (Song 1:1 NET footnote). TPT misunderstands the song of Solomon in a way that would have been unintelligible to the original audience that produced and read this song. 

An example from the New Testament is Ephesians 5:11. It is written, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (NIV). Here is another case where the NET and NIV agree with each other and translate the passage similarly because they have the same thought-for-thought translation philosophy. They also both strive to be accurate to the source text. The NET has more footnotes going through the manuscript and Greek language issues. The Passion Translation tries to use the Aramaic text here using the language of devotion and tender rather than submission. As such it reads, “For wives, this means being devoted to your husbands like you are tenderly devoted to our Lord” (Eph 5:21-24 TPT, Winger, 2020, 26:13-27-17). 

One major issue with appealing to the use of Aramaic (which he does a few times in Ephesians) is that Ephesus was not an Aramaic-speaking place. It was predominantly a Greek-speaking place, even among Jews (Winger, 2020). They could not understand Paul if this was in Aramaic originally. The other issue is that Simmon's claim about what the Aramaic text says is false. The Aramaic text reads thus, “Wives, be subject to your husbands as to Our Lord…” (Eph 5:22, Peshitta Holy Bible Translated). Simmon’s claim leads one to believe that the Aramaic text softens the language we see in most English Bibles. In reality, the Aramaic, represented in English as “subject” sounds harsher than the word “submit” found in the NET, NIV, and more. 

There is one example of all three translations disagreeing in Genesis 2:8. In the NIV it is written, “Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east”. This disagrees with most other translations, which say God made a garden, not that he had made a garden. Many have accused the NIV here of being theologically biased, attempting to settle a supposed contradiction between the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. A member of the translation committee has responded to this stating, 

"...there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew, nor any other tenses in the sense that English uses them… Ancient Near Eastern narratives are often not chronological – they move from general to specific and back again and expect the reader to put the pieces together in the obvious chronological order… The best way to translate short retrospectives like this into English is by using the pluperfect…" (Paul, 2015, Para 5). 

Rather than this being a theological bias, this is a usage of the cultural context to help translate the text. TPT does not use a pluperfect tense but adds the divine name and more descriptive terms that are not in the text but are provided for explanatory purposes. TPT tends to add language that is very descriptive and imaginative (see Jn 11:35 for example). TPT does not attempt to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, but rather turn our attention to Christ, as can be seen in the footnotes. This is not a bad idea; it just is not always clear that these steps Simmons takes are hermeneutically sound or correct application. 

The NET changes things by replacing the word garden with orchard, arguing based on the context that an orchard is a better descriptor for what this is. They do not try to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 in the translation itself, but they have a footnote discussing it. As they note, “the narrative sequence here in chap. 2 suggests the creation of the garden followed the creation of the man”. This translation takes the opposite approach, arguing that the man is made first then the orchard is created, after which man is placed there. 

What does the Christian do in this case? There are three translations of varying degrees of quality, two of which agree in translation philosophy, disagreeing on how to understand a verse. This is also a translation that may cause one to interpret and harmonize the text a little differently. It is best to use other translations with different philosophies. Interlinears can also help to see the literal wording and how it correlates to English. Another helpful tip would be to learn how creation accounts in the ancient world utilized sequences and order. The logic is that if this is what the ancient world did, then this may be what ancient Israel is doing, therefore translate it this way. Literary context is also important. Knowing the verses before and after a given passage can help put things in context, which may illuminate the correct way to translate something. These are just simple tips one can use in case they do not have the time, money, or resources to learn the original language extensively. 

As can be seen by the comparative study, these Bibles are not equal. These Bibles are all different with different purposes. Due to this, we should ask in what ways can we use these translations. What use does the church have for these translations? 

The NET is a great Bible for academic purposes. Like many Bibles, it is freely available online, so it does not need to be bought. Unlike other translations, it acts as a free scholarly resource to help people understand the Bible because of the extensive notes that the scholars put in. It is also a reliable translation in general, capturing the meaning of passages similar to the NIV and other translations. The NET Bible would be good for church liturgy, but it may be difficult because of the small letters indicating footnotes getting in the way of reading the text itself. To study the scriptures, academically or personally, this would be a great translation.

The Passion Translation is a hard translation to get behind. Several issues cause the text to be inaccurate to the source material, despite having a team that is supposed to check the translation. The text shows many theological biases which would lead one to believe it is a translation made for hyper charismatic protestant Christians (Winger, 2018c). The text deceives its reader by appealing to Aramaic in places it does not make sense and translates it in ways that do not reflect Aramaic or another biblical language. Due to these issues and more, Christians should not use this “translation” until it becomes more accurate to the text and what it wants to convey, rather than what Simmons wants to convey. 

The NIV translation is just a good translation of the text itself. It does not have many features that make it stand apart from other translations though. No translation is perfect, so theological bias in the NIV is possible. Yet it is less likely given the plurality of denominations represented in the translation committee. That said, an accurate presentation of the text that is easy for English speakers to understand is great for devotional and liturgical readings. The faithful can read the Bible for study purposes, other times a Christian just needs to sit and read, and the NIV would be great for a simple pick-up-and-read bible session. 

The present study has attempted to show several things. Modern English speakers have many good translations of the text. These translations can serve different purposes for the body of Christ. Not all translations are created equal. Many have theological biases affecting their work. Some can be very misleading and inaccurate to the source text. As English translations continue to be made, the church should pray for discernment about what translations they should use and not use, and for what reason they exist.

References:

Image by Rod Long on Unsplash

New English Translation. (2019). Preface. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://netbible.com/preface/ 

Paul, I. (2015, July 16). Is the NIV a deliberate mistranslation? Psephizo. https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/is-the-niv-a-deliberate-mistranslation/ 

Peshitta holy bible translated. (n.d.). Biblehub. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/ephesians/5.htm 

The New International Version. (2010). Biblia. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from http://biblia.com/books/niv2011/Ge 

The Passion Translation. (2024a). Faqs. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/faqs/ 

The Passion Translation. (2024b). Translation philosophy. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/translation-philosophy/ 

Winger, M. (2018a, September 18). My concerns about the passion translation and Brian Simmons. [Video]. Mike Winger. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlIDpjVyCs&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHvXha4rjCj1Po0WLQc_jGG W&index=3 

Winger, M. (2018b, November 20). Is Brian Simmons qualified to make the passion translation? [Video]. Mike Winger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBmS5ywXtkY 

Winger, M. (2018c, October 9). Exposing the agenda and origins of “the passion translation.” [Video]. Mike Winger. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcRNFqUXLUQ&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHvXha4rjCj1Po0WLQc_j GGW&index=4. 

Winger, M. (2020, December 28). Painful mistakes in Ephesians in the passion translation (Dr. Darrell bock). [Video]. Mike Winger. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz9PxplAsfE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHvXha4rjCj1Po0WLQc_jG GW&index=7.

Find & Support The Writer:

(Find me, see exclusive content on multiple platforms, & support me financially all from one link!): https://linktr.ee/ThatChristianNerd