Or perhaps more specifically, modernizing? Is there a specific verse or passage that you would change to reflect modern times and technology?
For me it is Matthew 6:5-8 (link goes to biblegateway.com with the relevant, longer passage) I would change it this way (italicized text is my addition, just sayin)
5 “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites. They love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners and pray loudly or quote the prophets on their license plates. They want people to see them. The truth is, that’s all the reward they will get. 6 But when you pray, you should go into your room and close the door. Then pray to your Father. He is there in that private place. He can see what is done in private, and he will reward you.
7 “And when you pray, don’t be like the people who don’t know God. They say the same things again and again. They think that if they say it enough, their god will hear them. 8 Don’t be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
So, if you were editing, compiling writing whatevering the christian bibile today, to modernize it, what would you change?
Pointless, as far as I’m concerned. Do you think people don’t already understand the meaning of that passage, if they are inclined to read it? Or do pastors who don’t like that sort of approach just omit it from their readings, and the flock follow along?
Uh, I guess if Jesus had mentioned homosexuality isn’t a big deal anymore that would have been nice, or said something nice about transgender people. That would certainly save us a lot of time.
Those verses in Leviticus, Acts, and Romans are actually more about pedophilia than homosexuality, and a lot of the “Paul stuff” regarding women was actually advice to people in that particular community. For instance, his admonition that women be silent in church was because women would sit around and chit-chat before the service, and not stop when the service began, and as for women teaching men, that also had to do with local cultural traditions in the region.
Er, you can adopt a different translation, put in apocrypha, even stick Buddhist sutra in the collection if you want, but if Matthew wrote something, you cannot “change” it. That is not on.
All I can say is, there is a long history of doing so. Lots of people have had a go already, including for example Thomas Jefferson. There are also many hundreds of translations all the way down to those without any big words and a lot of modern slang, for the barely-literate and terminally provincial.
So, by “modernizing,” you mean updating the language to use more modern idiom. I would simply point out that this has been done. You already have the dynamic translations like “the Message” or “The Living Bible.” If they don’t go far enough, you have all the preachers who will try to relate things to the modern day.
Could a full translation that does this work? Maybe, but I doubt it. Those who would need to read it most would object to it like they do even the more modest translations. And most of them don’tg read the Bible anyways, so it would be up to preachers or other authority figures to say it to them. But those who would do so already do.
I guess maybe it could be a helpful tool for preachers to have ready-made analogies. But I don’t see that changing much.
That said, I do think it could be fun, similar to writing a modernized version of Shakespeare. I remember one such version called Jesus in Chicago by Jack Brackitt. Here are the first few paragraphs:
There was a disc jockey named Zacharias, and he was married to Elizabeth. She was unable to conceive, and she was now well past the usual child bearing years.
One time, while prepping for his show, Zacharias was arranging his carts (similar to 8-track tapes). This was the custom for radio broadcasters of that time. A radio audience was waiting for his program to begin.
One of God’s angels appeared in the studio and stood to the right of the turntables. Zacharias was frightened.
“Don’t worry,” the angel said. “Your prayers are answered. Elizabeth is going to have a son, and you’ll call him John. It will be a very happy day for everyone, and God will see that John is great. He’ll never drink, but he’ll be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many Illinoisans toward God, and he’ll prepare everyone for the leader.”
(I have removed the footnote markings which related each one back to a verse from the Bible.)
I follow this as a hobby. My collection includes 185 English translations, revisions and paraphrases of the Bible (or the New Testament).
Most of the movement in modern translations is towards inclusive language: saying “human” instead of “man”, or “people” instead of men where the context warrants it. The inclusion is to include women, and revising the stylings of an ancient patriarchal society. It began (mainly) with the New Revised Standard Version, and is gradually increasing. The New American Standard Bible, generally considered to be the most literal translation, put out a new edition with some instances of inclusive language. The Inclusive Bible was just published last year.
Aside from that, there are numerous paraphrases and reader-friendly translations out there (The Message has been mentioned already), including the New International Reader’s Version, the New Living Translation (a big improvement over the Living Bible), the New English Translation and the World English Bible.
Along with those, there are a huge number of same old, same old new translations, such as the Christian Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the Lexham English Bible and English Majority Text Version. There’s very little difference amongst any of these.
I just got a copy of The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart that I’m enjoying. It’s different in that Hart attempts (successfully) to translate the quality of the original Koine Greek along with the text. John and Luke sound grand, Mark is stifled translation English, and Revelation is obviously the work of someone who doesn’t speak the language at all well.
Oh I know the average “christian” today is nothing more a Sunday Go To Meeting, political christian than a truly studious devout christian and that a more serious christian today has the understanding of a child because of poor teaching by poor pastors, their heads would assplode if you showed them that.
It’s just for fun this idea of mine.
