This is a review of TPT for the Gospels only. After reading so much pro and con about TPT, I bought one to read and decide for myself. The Gospels are the trial by fire for any edition of the NT, and I read them thoroughly, including the copious footnotes.
TPT has garnered much negative publicity, and I’ve seen no reason for that whatsoever. It’s highly free-flowing and readable, which is a plus to many who find reading to be heaving lifting. Is it a translation or a paraphrase? I see no benefit in forcing a label on it. With very few exceptions, almost no renderings changed the meaning from what you would read in more “literal” Bibles such as the NASB or NKJV. My advice would be to read them all, that way you become familiar with God’s Word, not a preferred translation.
Bottom line? You can sit in your easy chair with a heating pad and a cup of coffee, play some classical music and completely enjoy reading TPT for an hour as easily as if you were reading some breezy fiction, just with the edification of reading God’s Word instead of a literary Milk Dud. Five of the most important chapters in the entire Scriptures are John 13-17. TPT renders them as beautifully as any Bible I’ve read.
A review of TPT would be incomplete without mentioning the footnotes, which are extensive. I favor a literal interpretation of the Bible and it seems the translator does not. There is certainly room for a difference of views on this point. The majority of footnotes are informative and, at the least, highly thought-provoking. I saw a few that veered off into fanciful speculation, of which I will give an example later. In all things, let the ear “…test words…” as Job 12:11 says.
One weak point was in footnotes regarding the Trinity. I don’t say this to be contentious, in fact I view Brian Simmons as a brother in Christ. Yet, there seemed to be an obsession on his part to read into verses things that aren’t there with respect to the doctrine of a co-equal, co-eternal Triune Godhead.
This tendency is extensive, so the following section will be lengthy, but I hope informative.
Mark 12:36. Footnote... It says that in quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus is saying the Messiah is both God and man. I don’t see that in the text. King David, who wrote the Psalm, viewed Yahweh as Almighty God. He foretold that his Lord (the Messiah) would sit alongside Yahweh, not be Yahweh Himself.
This is made even clearer when the disciples pray to Yahweh in Acts 4. In verses 27 and 30, they say Jesus the Messiah is Yahweh’s “servant” and His “Son”, not Yahweh Himself.
In Peter’s speech to Jews on Pentecost, he identifies Jesus as a “man” twice (Acts 2:22, 23), but doesn’t refer to Him as “God”. Peter does quote Psalm 110 and say that Jesus has been exalted to Yahweh’s right hand. This is how Psalm 110 is applied throughout the New Testament. (Colossians 3:1)
In Paul’s speech on Mars Hill, he refers to Jesus as a “man” whom God appointed to do judging. (Acts 17:31)
As the only begotten Son of God, Jesus was divine in heaven alongside The Father, the only true God. (John 1:1, 2 American Translation, Moffat, John 1:14, 17:3, 5, 20:31) The Father and His only begotten Son are different Persons just as Abraham and Isaac were.
Jesus was and is the perfect reflection of His Father (Hebrews 1:1-3) and since His resurrection is divine again. (Colossians 2:9) Thus, He is David’s “Lord”.
Nevertheless, it’s my opinion Jesus’ and His 1st century disciples’ application of Psalm 110 doesn’t allow for Him to be Yahweh, but rather he has been exalted to sit at Yahweh’s right hand. Yahweh is Almighty God, Jesus is His Son, the Messiah.
Luke 9:35. In an attempt to bolster the Trinity, the footnote claims the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the verse. It’s not. The footnote is wishful speculation, which wouldn’t be necessary if the Triune Godhead was true.
In a cul-de-sac of my previous point, I must include the translator’s fixation with the phrase “I am” in the Gospels. Again, I don’t raise this issue to be divisive or argumentative. However, TPT’s footnotes on this topic are, frankly, obsessive and misleading.
An attempt has been made for ages to link Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 with Yahweh’s words to Moses in Exodus 3:14. First off, Moses asked God by what name He should be known as. God replied, “I am who I am”, then shortened it to “I am”. This phrase appears once in the OT. God then followed it with “Yahweh”, a term used nearly 7000x in the OT. As discussed above, The Messiah is Yahweh’s Son and now sits at His right hand.
Nevertheless, Trinitarians have seemingly expanded their interpretation from John 8:58 to include whenever Jesus says “I am”, in whatever context. Jesus never claims His name is “I am” and his disciples never call Him that.
Furthermore, TPT (and every Trinitarian Bible) deems it necessary to use all caps when Jesus speaks the phrase, as in “I AM the bread of life”. This is eisegesis at best and misleading at worst. The original texts don’t distinguish those words in any way. If Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, let readers come to that conclusion on their own. Translators all but point to them with a neon sign. Again, this would be unnecessary if the Trinity were true and the connection with Exodus was solid and obvious to the reader.
Below are a few examples of this which I consider egregious.
Matthew 14:27. The footnote attempts to link Jesus’ words with Exodus 3:14. When Jesus was walking on water, the disciples thought it was a ghost. Jesus essentially says, “…don’t worry, it’s me”. To say otherwise is flimsy, at best. Jesus was merely identifying Himself, not calling Himself “Yahweh”. A few vss. later the disciples call Him the “Son of God”, not Yahweh.
Compare this with John 9:9. The crowd asks the man if it was him who was healed. He replies, “I am”. He’s simply saying, “Yes, it’s me.” Check an interlinear for confirmation.
Side note: the footnote to Matthew 14:33 claims the disciples performed an act of worship by prostrating themselves before Jesus. The OT is full of people bowing down before kings and dignitaries. Also see Revelation 3:9 and check a few interlinears and a Strong’s.
There are more examples but John 8:58 is the granddaddy of them all. TPT also uses John 8:24. Let’s have a look.
First, compare how it’s rendered with other modern Bibles which are also translated by Trinitarians. I mean no offense, but TPT goes to ridiculous lengths to shoehorn “I AM” into Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees. The footnote to vs. 24 says it’s essential to the Christian faith to believe God became a man. Neither Jesus or the apostles taught any such thing. The apostles delivered several sermons to both Jews and Gentiles in Acts. They nowhere make such a statement. John says in 20:31 that he wrote the Gospel that we may believe Jesus is the Son of God.
Verse 28 as rendered by other Bibles make Jesus’ words clear, as does verse 54, where He says “The Father” is who the Jews worshiped as God. Also, compare Acts 5:30 with Galatians 1:1. Those vss. clearly show God the Father was the God of the Jews, who resurrected Jesus.
Oddly enough, John 8:58 is a little anti-climactic because of the translator’s own footnote. In it, he admits proper English grammar for the verse is “…before Abraham was born, I was.” All that means is that Jesus existed before Abraham, which as the only-begotten Son of God, is certainly true. But it does not mean Jesus is Yahweh. With his own footnote, the translator points a fan at his own “I AM” house of cards.
The 1993 edition of the NLT translates it similarly, as does The American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed and Moffat’s translation. The verse makes no grammatical sense in its Trinitarian rendering. For a more in-depth discussion of this, see my short Kindle book, “The Only True God” by Robert George. It’s not fancy, but the research is Bible-based and trustworthy.
There are other such footnotes but there’s no reason to list each one. The doctrine of the co-equal, co-eternal Triune Godhead has been a part of the Christian church since the 3rd or 4th century A.D. Sincere Christians have a strong emotional attachment to the teaching. In the case of TPT (and many others), I suspect the translator realizes that raw Scriptural support for the teaching is sparse at best. Their evidence for the Trinity is only convincing if you already believe it. That’s where these footnotes and capitalizing “I am” everywhere come in. He’s trying to bolster a weak doctrine that he truly loves.
But it’s a hoax. An ancient hoax, but a hoax, nonetheless.
All in all, TPT is a worthy edition to any Christian library. It’s a pleasure to read and listen to. I have the audio version as well, and the translation does a fine job reading it. God’s Word is like the greatest song ever written. There’s almost no bad version of it. Almost.
Highly recommended.