Category: The Passion [Anti-] Translation

I am continuing with my investigation of Brian Simmons’ claims to be translating from the Aramaic in certain verses of his so-called ‘Passion Translation’. My current intention is to look at the first ten such claims in Letters from Heaven, and then take stock. For more on my purpose and methodology see here and here.

Galatians 3.22

ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. [NA 28]

But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [ESV]

Simmons:

Endnote t most probably refers especially to ‘the kingdom realm’, which immediately precedes it, and is a startling departure from ‘the promise’. But Simmons’ version differs greatly from the original text in other major respects. First, in the original, the gift of the promise comes out of  (ἐκ) faith in Jesus Christ (or possibly out of the faith of Jesus Christ). This is lost in Simmons’ rendering. Further, it seems to be me to be implied in the scripture that the promise is given by the Father, whereas Simmons has ‘the kingdom realm’ being brought by Jesus. Altogether, this amounts to a wholesale revision of the original text.

What does the Aramaic say, from which Simmons claims to be translating? Here is the Western UBS Peshitta text from dukrhana.com with transliteration and three English translations by Etheridge (green), Murdock (navy), and Lamsa (purple):

It can be seen immediately that all three translations are along the same lines as normal renderings of the Greek text. The word   ܕ݁ܡܽܘܠܟ݁ܳܢܳܐ  (dəmūlkānā), lexeme ܡܘܠܟܢܐ, is translated with ‘that the promise’ in all three. The dalath (ܕ) before ܡܘܠܟܢܐ  is serving (I think) as the final conjunction ‘that’, translating ἵνα. Jennings gives ‘promise’ as the sole meaning of ܡܘܠܟܢܐ,:

Payne Smith adds the idea of possessions in lands and property, presumably from the idea of things that have been promised to heirs and beneficiaries of bequests:

Conceivably, Simmons is developing this idea further, and is thinking that ‘the kingdom realm’ is that which has been promised to believers. But this would certainly be by way of interpretation, not of translation.

Andrew

Onwards with Simmons’ claims to be translating from the Aramaic. For my purpose and methodology see here and here.

Galatians 3.19

Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου. [NA 28]

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. [NKJV]

Simmons:

Here is a case where Simmons makes clear exactly which part of his translation (if such it can be called) he is claiming to derive from the Aramaic. According to endnote q, we should find Aramaic words that mean literally ‘Joyous Expectation’.

Here is the Western UBS Peshitta text from dukrhana.com with transliteration and three English translations by Etheridge (green), Murdock (navy), and Lamsa (purple):

We see first of all that where Simmons has ‘Joyous Expectation’, Etheridge and Murdock have ‘seed’, and Lamsa has ‘heir’. The word used is ܙܰܪܥܳܐ (zarᶜā), as is clear from the analytical tool:

Jennings gives the basic meaning as ‘seed’, with metaphorical meanings of ‘race’, ‘family’, ‘offspring’:

Payne Smith adds in addition ‘young or immature offspring’:

There is nothing here about either joy or expectation. From where does Simmons get his ‘the Joyous Expectation’? It is not from the Aramaic as he claims, so far as I can see.

Andrew

I continue with Simmons’ claims to be translating from the Aramaic. For my purpose and methodology see here and here.

Galatians 3.3

οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; [NA 28]

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? [ESV]

Or, taking ἐπιτελεῖσθε as middle voice, which seems more likely (see BDAG):

'Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?' [RSV]

Simmons:

The most noteworthy change that precedes endnote c is the change from ‘be completed’ or ‘finish’ to ‘becoming slaves again’. Is there a difference here between the Greek text and the Aramaic?

Here is the Western UBS Peshitta text from dukrhana.com with transliteration and three English translations by Etheridge (green), Murdock (navy), and Lamsa (purple):

It can be seen immediately that none of the English translations give any indication that the Syriac might support Simmons’ rendering. The word in question is ܡܫܰܠܡܺܝܢ and the lexeme is ܫܠܡ. Jennings gives the meaning as:

The basic meaning is ‘was finished’, ‘complete’. It may look at first sight as if there might be some meanings that could give an idea similar to ‘become slaves to’, as Simmons has it. For example, ‘yielding yourselves up to the flesh’ is not perhaps so far from ‘becoming slaves again to the flesh’. But on closer inspection it will be seen that all meanings of this sort occur under the Ethpa’al conjugation, one of six main verbal forms:

The analysis tool however shows ܡܫܰܠܡܺܝܢ as being in the Pa’el form:

and the meanings given under the Jennings entry above for the verb in this form are all to do with completing, perfecting and finishing:

Given that all Etheridge (‘finishing’), Murdock (‘consummate’) and Lamsa (‘end’) all translate with this kind of meaning, I think it highly unlikely that the analysis tool is wrong here.

I conclude that Simmons’ rendering with ‘becoming slaves again’ is almost certainly not in fact translated from the Aramaic as he claims.

Andrew

UPDATE:

I identified the probable source of Simmons’s rendering as Victor Alexander’s English translation:

‘Did you become so foolish that while before, the Spirit abided in you, you have now become the slaves of the flesh?’ (Alexander)

I am examining those instances in Brian Simmons’ book ‘Letters from Heaven’ (part of the so-called ‘Passion Translation’) where he claims to be translating from the Aramaic. I am leaving aside for now the question of why he would prefer to translate Paul’s letters from an Aramaic translation rather than the original Greek, and confining myself to asking whether he is really translating from the Aramaic when he says he is. Galatians 3.1 raises this question in stark form as I will endeavour to show.

For further rationale and methodology see here and here.

Galatians 3.1

Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος; [NA 28]

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. [ESV]

Simmons:

Note b:

By referring to ‘this very unusual sentence’, Simmons clearly marks his endnote as applying to the last sentence of his rendering of Galatians 3.1:

Wasn’t he revealed to you as the Manifestation of Wisdom?

He says equally clearly that it:

is translated from the Aramaic text.

Is it? Here is the Western UBS Peshitta text from dukrhana.com with transliteration and three English translations by Etheridge (green), Murdock (navy), and Lamsa (purple):

The interested reader can click on the analysis tool here, and see that these English translations, which hardly differ at all from normal English translations of the Greek text, are faithful translations of the Syriac text (Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic).  The verb ܚܣܡ which is given the English glosses ‘envy’ and [be] ‘jealous’ in this analysis tool, also means to ‘bewitch’, as shown in Jennings:

There is absolutely nothing in the Syriac text which has anything to do with Jesus Christ being revealed as the ‘Manifestation of Wisdom’ as Simmons has it. Where does he get this from? I have checked the Eastern UBS text and the Khabouris text and they are exactly the same:

Western UBS: ܐܘ ܚܣܝܪܝ ܪܥܝܢܐ ܓܠܛܝܐ ܡܢܘ ܚܣܡ ܒܟܘܢ ܕܗܐ ܐܝܟ ܗܘ ܕܡܨܪ ܨܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܩܕܡ ܥܝܢܝܟܘܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܟܕ ܨܠܝܒ

Eastern UBS: ܐܘ ܚܣܝܪܝ ܪܥܝܢܐ ܓܠܛܝܐ ܡܢܘ ܚܣܡ ܒܟܘܢ ܕܗܐ ܐܝܟ ܗܘ ܕܡܨܪ ܨܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܩܕܡ ܥܝܢܝܟܘܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܟܕ ܨܠܝܒ

Khabouris   : ܐܘ ܚܣܝܪܝ ܪܥܝܢܐ ܓܠܛܝܐ ܡܢܘ ܚܣܡ ܒܟܘܢ ܕܗܐ ܐܝܟ ܗܘ ܕܡܨܪ ܨܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܩܕܡ ܥܝܢܝܟܘܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܟܕ ܨܠܝܒ

Having received no reply so far to my emails of last week I have now tried asking Simmons on Twitter.

Andrew

I continue my investigation of Brian Simmons’ claims to be translating from the Aramaic in certain verses of his so-called ‘Passion Translation’ of the Holy Bible. Please see my previous posts (here and here) for rationale and procedure. To avoid selectivity on my part I am taking these claims in order as they appear in ‘Letters from Heaven’.

Galatians 2.10

μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. (NA 28)

Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (ESV)

Simmons:

From the position of the footnote, it would appear that Simmons is appealing to the Aramaic for writing ‘poor and needy’ rather than simply ‘poor’. He may also be claiming that the more substantive change from ‘remember’ to ‘be devoted to’ also derives from the Aramaic, although this is less certain. I will take these one at a time. The Aramaic, and translations from the Aramaic, read:

ܕܠܡܣܟܢܐ is translated with ‘the poor’ by Etheridge and Lamsa, and with ‘the needy’ by Murdock. Jennings’ definition for the lexeme ܡܣܟܢܐ is simply ‘a poor person’:

but J. Payne Smith has both ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ (see the second Syriac word for the same form):

‘Poor and needy’ would therefore be an acceptable translation of the Aramaic, I think. It should be noted however that it would probably also be an acceptable translation of the original Greek word πτωχός, whose first formal equivalent in BDAG is ‘dependent on others for support’, as also in BAGD:

That said, there is no reason to doubt that Simmons has translated his ‘the poor and needy’ from the Aramaic as he claims.

‘be devoted to’

Turning now to Simmons’ ‘be devoted to’, this is certainly not a meaning of the Greek μνημονεύω which means ‘remember, keep in mind, think of’ [BDAG]. We turn therefore to the Aramaic, and the word is ܥܗܕܝܢܢ, lexeme ܥܗܕ. Jennings gives the meaning as ‘was mindful of, remembered’:

and the definitions in Payne Smith and the CAL are similar, with nothing related to devotion.

This part of Simmons’ version, therefore, has no basis in either the Greek or the Aramaic.

Andrew

In my last post I examined two cases where Brian Simmons claims in his so-called Passion Translation of the bible to be translating from the Aramaic. In Romans 1.11 it would appear that he is justified in his claim, with other English translations of the Peshitta also having ‘gift of the Spirit’ rather than ‘spiritual gift’. But in Romans 1.9, where he has ‘through the revelation of his Son’ rather than ‘in the gospel of his Son’, the Peshitta has ܒܸ݁ܐܘܲܢܓܸ݁ܠܝܼܘܿ (bewangelīāwn), ‘in the gospel’, seemingly belying his claim.

In this post, I begin a more systematic evaluation of Simmons’ claims to be translating from the Aramaic. I hope to examine all such claims in his book Letters from Heaven, which contains his renderings of Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, and I and II Timothy. Here I begin with the first of these claims, contained in a footnote to Galatians 1.4. I am using the Kindle edition.

The Aramaic text is from the Peshitta tool at dukrhana.com. Unless otherwise stated I use the UBS text with Western vowel signs. The three English translations are by Etheridge (green), Murdock (navy), and Lamsa (purple).

As I said in my previous post, I am not here examining the question of why Simmons would prefer to translate from the Peshitta rather than from the Greek original. My overriding concern is to discover whether he is being truthful when he says that he has done so.

Galatians 1.4a

τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (NA 28)

“who gave himself for our sins” (ESV)

“who offered his soul as the sacrifice for our sins” (Simmons)

“who gave himself for our sins” (all 3 translations)

Analytical tool, here:

Jennings Syriac Lexicon of the New Testament, here:

It can be seen that while the word ܢܰܦ݂ܫܶܗ  (napšēh) can mean ‘soul’, it can also just as well mean ‘self’. The entry in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon confirms that it can function as the reflexive pronoun (as ἑαυτὸν does in the Greek text):

In conclusion, therefore, it might be possible to translate the Aramaic text as:

“he gave his soul for our sins”

but there is no necessity to do so. There is no basis in the Aramaic text for Simmons’ ‘offered … as the sacrifice’. The word used just means ‘gave’, as in the three English translations of the Peshitta above:

It seems probable that Simmons has indeed made use of the Peshitta here, in making the change from ‘himself’ to ‘his soul’. But he has not translated from the Peshitta in making the change from ‘gave’ to ‘offered … as the sacrifice’. This part of the ‘Passion’ text seems to come from his own imagination, so far as I can see.

An additional concern

It seems to me that there is a potential danger in changing the text from ‘who gave himself for our sins’ to ‘who offered his soul as the sacrifice for our sins’. It is true that Isaiah 53.10 tells us that the LORD would:

‘make His [the Man of sorrow’s] soul an offering for sin’ [NKJV]

the word used being נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), which is normally translated ‘soul’, but still it seems crucial to guard carefully against docetism. The Lord Jesus Christ gave His whole self for our sins, as I understand it, not His soul only. Simmons’ rendering might possibly open the door to a docetic interpretation, it seems to me.

UPDATE 20 MARCH 2017:

I have now realised, thanks to a lead proffered kindly by Brian Simmons himself (see this post at the section entitled ‘The mystery solved…’), that Simmons has almost certainly made use of Victor Alexander’s rendering here. There is more on Alexander starting at the same section of the above post. He is a film-maker who promotes a style of ‘Felliniesque’ film-making where ‘dreams and reality are perceived as one experience’. I give reasons in the above post why I think it possible that ‘the manuscript’ Alexander has claimed to be translating from may not actually exist. His work is clearly unreliable and should not be made use of by another translator, especially when he, as in the case of Simmons, has claimed to be working from the Aramaic text itself.

Alexander’s rendering of Galatians 1.4a is:

and his footnote reads:

It looks to me very much as if Simmons has derived the idea of sacrifice from Alexander’s version of the text, and his use of ‘his soul’ rather than ‘himself’ from Alexander’s footnote.

Andrew