Biblical preference
Sir: Perhaps a word on behalf of the New English Bible may be allowed following the gratuitous kick aimed at it by Auberon Waugh (25 March). I began daily Bible reading (more or less) twenty years ago and originally used the Authorised Version since it was the only one available. Many passages I frankly did not understand even after several readings over several years. When the New English Bible became available, all such obscurities were cleared up. I now own several different translations, all of which have their merits, but the NEB is my usual preference.
Occasionally I am asked to read the lesson in church and the choice of translation is usually left to me. Invariably I compare all translations, mindful of the importance of transmitting the meaning to a congregation. Once or twice I have preferred the admirable J. B. Phillips version of the New Testament and once th Authorised Version. The NEB has won every other of my decisions.
It is true of course that certain timehallowed passages, including the hymn to charity cited by Mr Waugh, have acquired a particular aura in the Authorised Version. It was for the arrival of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem that I preferred to use the older version. But such passages are relatively few, taking the Bible in its immensity, and unless one believes that people are better off from not understanding the Bible, criticism of the NEB seems wrong-headed to me. H. They 29 Kelsey Park Road, Beckenham, Kent
Previous page
