Hearing the good news
Peter Levi
T
here are a lot of English versions of the Gospels, none of them better than Luther's in German, and the conventional choice of the Authorised Version is proba- bly better than many of the modern ones. In fact it was always a matter of choosing the period, and any period may seem best to someone. The Authorised Version is not really the authorised version, but an amal- gam of earlier versions, and after it was issued it became triumphant only with the restoration of Charles II. It was then re- issued with a number of changes and devia- tions, and, so far as I recollect, more and more of these have crept into what is still sold as the Authorised Version. That is not to mention the Revised Version or all the numerous attempts down to Monsignor Ronald Knox, my remote cousin, who was no slouch. Some people prefer the Autho- rised Version because it adds a touch of solemnity, some because they remember it from childhood, or imagine that they do, some because it conveys to their palates a touch of port or snuff or incense. Personal- ly I prefer versions 100 years earlier than the Authorised, but I am also inclined to hope for a good modern version, which I now shall not live to see since blindness has undone me. I was very excited by Passoli- ni's film in Italian, The Gospel According to St Matthew, and I was amazed by Harold Pinter's reading of the Gospel at that time, which had the same ring of authenticity, though he had never seen the film. I remember sitting through it myself at some special clerical showing, next to a fellow Jesuit who showed no trace of emotion except that he chain-smoked through the crucifixion.
David Suchet is a consummate actor, but you must not expect any likeness to the Belgian detective. His prose-reading voice is almost forgettable. It rises and falls like the swell of the sea, and it is entirely con- vincing and nearly without period flavour. That is a surprising achievement, but since I saw the same phenomenon with Harold Pinter and with Passolini's film, I must accept that anyone could do it. It does not depend on piety but on a certain faithful- ness to the text, which will carry you if you carry it, as used to be said of the cross. After all, the Gospel was written with the intention of extreme clarity, and with very few exceptions, like the sentences about who begot whom, is quite unadorned. This quality is emphasised by its comparatively short length. There are only four Gospels and there is no other book in the least like them, even among the Apocrypha. They are all equally brief or tight-lipped, and it is probable that they were early collected together on a single papyrus roll. For the simplicity and daring of their writing, which are to this day wholly unique, and have been since their first day an enormous influence on literature, one should still consult scholars, but remember that one is staring at the sun, not pursuing a maze.
find a little laughter in the house very welcome.' The fact that the Gospel according to Luke is in this version so moving is merely inci- dental. Even the crucifixion seems to be over almost before it has happened. Listen- ers must please themselves about the date, and the account of the resurrection, which famously had no witnesses but the angels, differs slightly in the different Gospels. What is most curious is that there is no parallel for any of the Gospels as writing anywhere else in the world. You take it or you leave it.
At this time of day, it is hard to sweep away the cobwebs and to read one of the Gospels as if it were a new book. One of the striking things about St Luke is that he appears to append at the beginning a long story about John the Baptist. When that is over, and all that wonderful tale of the birth of Christ, the shepherds and the angels, Luke starts again with the genealo- gy of Christ. It will not surprise any student of genealogy, ancient or modern, to be told of the deficiencies of this queer document. But luckily the recognition of Jesus as the Christ, which is implicit in all four Gospels, has removed interest from the Jewish genealogy. In this Gospel, as in all of them, Christ preaches and answers questions, and does acts of healing and the raising of the dead which appear to be quite beyond any ordinary human explanation. He speaks and acts 'as one having authority' and one is completely convinced by his personality and the importance of his mission; or that has been the experience of mankind. Mankind is an ass, and one is not surprised that the position of a fool is of great use to Luke in his Gospel. The part is played at times by Peter and at times by men in the street, particularly the Pharisees and Pilate. There is no doubt about Pilate's real exis- tence any more than there is about Herod's, but historical studies do not take you far enough. In the end there are only these four Gospels, whose text is substan- tially undisputed and whose style is terribly plain.
We should be grateful to David Suchet for three hours of deeply stirring communi- cation. I am reminded of the young theolo- gian who went to ask Dr Routh of Magdalen what books he should read to prepare himself for ordination. Routh looked down from the top of his library ladder, and answered, 'First, sir, I think you could not do better, sir, than read the Gospel, sir, according to St Matthew (pause), and when you have read that, sir, then, sir, I think you might take yourself on to the Gospel, sir, the holy Gospel accord- ing to St Mark, and then, sir, I see no rea- son you should not progress to the Gospel, sir, according to St Luke, and after that, sir, then I think you may begin upon the holy Gospel according to St John. Good morn- ing, sir.'
The Gospel According to St Luke (unabridged), Penguin, £8.99, two cassettes, three hours.
Previous page
