Why The Passion Translation Isn’t Reliable

In my last article, I said there was no such thing as a bad Bible translation, with one exception: The Passion Translation. Which, frankly, isn’t really a translation at all and, when it comes down to it, isn’t even a very good paraphrase. On several counts, this solo project should never have made it onto the shelves of Christian bookstores or into the hands of believers, let alone be used from church pulpits for teaching and preaching, or recommended as a serious study Bible. And yet, that’s exactly what The Passion claims to be: a serious study Bible.

Far from being a good translation, or even a reasonable paraphrase, The Passion is problematic for several reasons. If you have anything else to choose from, and you do, you should choose that option instead and avoid this one entirely.

What Is The Passion?

The Passion is an interpretative rendering of the New Testament and selected Old Testament portions. The first portions were released in 2011, and the full Bible is projected to be completed in 2029.

On the translation spectrum, which ranges from more literal approaches through to meaning-based translations, The Passion doesn’t merely sit at the far end. It falls off the map entirely. At best, it can only be described as a paraphrase. And even then, a very free one.

So What’s The Issue Exactly?

On its own website, it states: “The Passion Translation is an excellent translation you can use as your primary text to study God’s Word seriously…” with one reviewer even suggesting it rivals the work of the great Reformer Luther himself. Those are big shoes to fill. And that’s a very bold claim to make.

The Passion claims to be a serious study Bible, calling itself a translation, not a paraphrase, and placing itself alongside other established, credible translations. It claims to convey meaning directly from the original languages and to be suitable as a primary Bible.

If The Passion were marketed honestly as a devotional commentary, or even as a loose and imaginative retelling of Scripture, the criticism might be less severe. We might still think it’s theologically fluffy or emotionally overstated, but if it were positioning itself as a devotional commentary, it’s not claiming the same kind of authority as a translation. A devotional says, this how I reflect on the text. A translation says, this is what the text says. 

This issue is that The Passion consistently blurs that line, presenting like the latter while claiming the authority of the former. And that’s why the criticism is so strong. It’s not because people dislike modern language (I’m all for updated, modern, understandable English translations), but because Scripture is being treated in a way Scripture itself doesn’t permit.

The First Major Problem: Special Revelation

The first major problem lies with the claims of its sole ‘translator’.

Brian Simmons is a former missionary who spent years working with indigenous communities, without doubt a noble and commendable endeavour. But missionary experience and spiritual sincerity are not the same thing as the scholarly rigour required for Bible translation.

Unlike mainstream translations, which are produced by large teams of linguists, historians, and theologians, The Passion is largely the work of one individual. That alone should raise caution. Scripture has always been safeguarded by community, accountability, and careful checks, not by solitary spiritual insight. Not only that, Brian Simmons doesn’t have recognised academic training or professional experience in ancient text criticism, manuscript analysis, or formal Bible translation as it is practised in mainstream scholarship. I’ll get to that shortly.

However, in relation to the work of ‘translating’, Brian Simmons claims special revelation, saying the Passion is the result of a supernatural encounter with Jesus, who commissioned him, “breathed” on him, and promised to give him “secrets of the Hebrew language” and “other secrets of the Bible”. Angels were also involved, Brian claims, one specifically called Passion, for whom the project is named. In interviews, he frames his work on the Passion as a divine assignment, confirmed by the Lord.

The danger of special revelation is not just bad theology. It’s misplaced authority. It suggests that God has spoken again in a way that bypasses the apostolic witness and adds something new, something inaccessible to ordinary believers, something you only receive through a particular person. The ancient church had a word for movements built on special revelation and hidden knowledge reserved for the initiated; they called it Gnosticism. And it was recognised early on as a serious heresy.

No one gets secret keys. No one gets special downloads. No one gets to stand alongside the text and say, “This is what God really meant.” Brian Simmons’ claims of a divinely authorised, commissioned revelation that shaped his work are, quite frankly, not accepted within mainstream Christian tradition.

Collective Oversight And Accountability

The second issue is that this is primarily a solo effort, which I touched on above. Unlike other translations, and even paraphrases like The Message, this so-called translation wasn’t produced by a broad, collaborative team. It wasn’t shaped through the normal layers of peer review and cross-checking that reputable Bible projects rely on.

Most established translations are worked on by committees of scholars drawn from across the denominational spectrum, precisely so that no one person’s theological preferences are baked into the text. The aim is accountability, balance, and careful restraint. When one individual, without recognised ancient text credentials, claims revelatory insight and produces a Bible text largely on their own, the issue is not personal character. It is method and authority.

That’s why many scholars and pastors say The Passion Translation shouldn’t be treated as a translation at all (and certainly not promoted as a primary study Bible).