The Passion Translation Accused of Plagiarism

The Passion Translation (TPT), sometimes referred to as The Passion Bible, is a divisive translation of the Bible that has enjoyed popularity and controversy in equal measure. 

Heralded by some as an engaging new translation of the Bible that is meant to stir readers’ emotions, the books have been incredibly popular, selling millions of copies. On the other hand, many argue that it is more of a loose paraphrase than a translation, and that it deviates too much from the original text.

However, now a new controversy has emerged. According to an article by Daniel Silliman in the Roys Report, the project is facing allegations of plagiarism. 

The allegations come from David Fish, the formation minister at New River Fellowship in Texas. In a pair of documents, he claims to have found hundreds of examples of copying from earlier translations, both in the text and in the footnotes. 

To make matters worse, many of the passages were taken from Victor Alexander, a filmmaker whose translation work from the 1990s and 2000s many consider to be unreliable. 

The story came to a head on the Minor Prophets Podcast, where Fish and three other pastors went through the evidence before concluding (at the end of a four-and-a-half-hour episode) that TPT is fake. 

This raises a simple question: what is TPT, why is it so controversial, and, most importantly, is it a work of plagiarism?

To answer that, we have to start with the work itself.

Understanding TPT

Disclosure: I am not a Biblical scholar and have no expertise in translations of The Bible. I have also not read TPT and am instead examining the evidence as an outsider viewing the works through a secular lens.

The Passion Translation is an ongoing project that began in 2011, TPT currently has only completed the New Testament and is not slated to be fully completed until 2029.

TPT is the work of Brian Simmons. Simmons, according to the Roys Report, was never trained as a translator or a linguist. Instead, he was a missionary and claimed that he was instructed by Jesus to create this translation.

By Simmons’ own words, the translation intends to “bring God’s eternal truth into a highly readable heart-level expression that causes truth and love to jump out of the text and lodge inside our hearts.”

To that end, TPT books have definitely found an audience. Many laud the books for their readability and their emotional appeal. However, others argue that TPT is not a translation, but a paraphrase. That it strays too far from the original text.

Mark Winger, has been a long-time critic of TPT. He and others pushed for TPT to be removed from Bible Gateway, a popular multi-lingual Bible website. In 2022, TPT was removed from the site, an act that Simmons claimed was an act of “cancel culture.”

It was in this context that Fish began his investigation. He was following up on the work for Andrew Chapman, who published a 2017 blog post in which he claimed that TPT was not an original translation, but was instead relying on the work of previous translators. One of the main sources was Victor Alexander, the controversial filmmaker mentioned above.

According to his documents, Fish claims has found hundreds of examples of copying from earlier translations, both in the text and in the footnotes. He claims to have pressed Simmons on these issues, only to be blocked on X (formerly Twitter) and have some of the passages removed in later versions.

However, according to Fish, many of the passages remain. He uses this to argue that TPT is a work of plagiarism and is fraudulent.

But does that allegation hold up to scrutiny?

My Take

Three things make this case complicated. First, The Bible is easily the most translated book in history. It has been translated into nearly any language or form that you can imagine. There’s even an emoji version. Obviously, these versions vary in seriousness and rigor, but there is a huge amount of prior work to draw from and compare with.

Second, discussing plagiarism in the context of religion is always fraught. There is no single standard of plagiarism and different churches and denominations often have different standards for when and how to cite outside sources. We most typically see this in the context of sermons or books rather than translations, but it definitely applies here as well.

Finally, it’s the nature of translations more broadly. To be clear, translations are an art form unto themselves. Translators can hold copyright protection in their work and they deserve credit for their work. However, they have to remain at least somewhat derivative of the original work to be a considered a translation. That places some constraints on how different two translations can be.

That said, the evidence that Fish provides is extremely compelling. We are not talking about a few instances of overlapping phrases, but hundreds of instances and the list, by Fish’s admission, is not exhaustive. The odds that this is a coincidence, even when weighing in the translation issues, are extremely low.

However, even with these similarities, I might be willing to dismiss this as an area where there could be reasonable disagreement if it were not for one thing: Simmons’ own words.

If Simmons had billed TPT as a more approachable translation based upon and expanding upon the work of previous translators, I wouldn’t have much issue. However, he billed this as a wholly new translation that was divinely inspired. Yet, it’s very clear that it’s based heavily on preexisting work. That is clearly at odds with what Simmons purports this to be.

If Simmons had simply presented this as what it clearly is, I don’t think there would be much of an issue. I also don’t think it would have significantly harmed the market for the work as the main draw, as I understand it, is the emotional appeal of the work and not the originality of the translation.

But Simmons did not do that and the questions raised by Fish and others carry much more weight.

Bottom Line

In the end, I am trying to examine TPT the same way I would any translation of a public domain secular work. What if this wasn’t a translation of The Bible, but of a Shakespearean play or one of Charles Dickens’ novels?

These things have similarly been translated into a variety of languages and formats. They vary wildly in terms of faithfulness to the original work. There’s even the OMG Shakespeare Series, which retell Shakespeare’s plays through texting and emojis.

From where I sit, the sin here is not creating a divisive new translation of the Bible, but in claiming that it was a wholly new one from the original text. It clearly leans heavily on the work of previous translators. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as long as credit and acknowledgement is given. But it wasn’t.

As I said above, I am far from a Biblical scholar and have no thoughts about how faithful TPT is to the original text, but it clearly is not a wholly new translation. That stands in stark contrast to what Simmons previously claimed.

From a purely secular perspective, that is a major issue. It’s both dishonest to the audience and deprives those whose work was used their due credit.

As someone who has a great deal of respect for the work of translators, I this feels as a slight to everyone involved.

However, I doubt that this will do much to derail the popularity of the work. Though Winger and Fish have launched a Change.org petition to have TPT removed from YouVersion, the most popular Bible app, it is clear that this version does resonate with a lot of people. I don’t see that changing just because it’s not a wholly original translation.

This is something that is equally true in secular publishing and religious publishing. If people like someone’s work, they will find a way to continue consuming it, regardless of any issues the work may have.