#johnbarton

Note on the text: I used John Barton’s A History of the Bible: The Story of the World’s Most Influential Book as published by Viking Press in 2019.

It’s important to be able to read any book, especially one as important as the Bible, within the context in which it was crafted. If you want to understand the Bible it’s important to understand as much as you can about the people who wrote it. And to that end this is a really informative read. It is worth also noting that not only am I an avid Catholic, but John Barton is a priest in the Church of England. 

IN talking about the Old Testament, John Barton reminds us that it “did not derive from a single period in the history of Israel but from a wide range of dates and places” (22). It’s important to understand as much as you can about the historicity of the Old Testament (and the book you are reading in particular) if you want to understand it as fully as you can. It’s interesting to see the different ways in which understanding the history of the time and place in which the Old Testament was written enriches the text itself. Sometimes it’s surprising, like when he points out that although the writer of Chronicles appears to have no use for King Omri (whose 12 year reign was characterized chiefly by his continual defiance of God’s law), the “Assyrian annals show that Omri was an important and powerful ruler” such that the Assyrians will refer to Israel as the House of  Omri for next 200 years (28). This then leads into a fruitful discussion of the culture and thought process of the Jews at that time insofar as we can determine them and how that thought process influenced what got written into the Bible and what did not. 

Similarly he discusses the ways in which people’s view of the New Testament evolved over time. For example, John Barton argues that the evidence shows that early Christians thought of the Gospels in a different way than we do now. He suggests that the way in which Irenaeus and Justin Martyr write about the Gospels indicates that they ascribe “ultimate authority not to the Gospels in their finished forms, but to the words and deeds that they record. Both clearly knew these words and deeds from the Gospels, but they do not derive their authority from this” (241). Meaning that they knew about the Gospels but that at that time they did not appear to think of them as different than other supposed accounts of Christ’s life. He also talks about how the fact that the Gospels were written as codices and not scrolls might indicate something because “in the ancient world scrolls were regarded as a much higher status. . . . The codex was not used for important texts, but only as we might use a notebook, to make jottings or write drafts” (244). Early Christians apparently just saw the Gospels as practical books to learn about Christ as opposed to sacred literature in the way that we do, and to see how the New Testament acquired the status that it has today is really fascinating. 

…is done, in The Wars of the Roses, and dead, as it were (spoiler).

I really like Ian Holm’s Richard. I didn’t enjoy Barton’s editing of Richard’s final speech of Part 3… it was reshaped to seem like a casting-off instead of a declaration. In other words, Richard seemed to decide at that moment to stop loving his brothers, instead of sharing with us the void of his soul (at least since his father’s death). Otherwise, post-Warwick none of Barton’s editing or rewrites drove me crazy. Some I thought great, some not so much… but whatever I may think, this was (is) an incredible achievement. Into Richard III now and enjoying.

…in Wars of the Roses, is brilliant. Once Sinden comes in with “She wolf of France…” that is. Ashcroft’s accent ruins her molehill speech, but her silent work is stunning. Her triumphing is uncomfortable and childlike (which I think is incredible), and once York comes in about Rutland, she begins to crack… it’s pretty stunning. Sindon finally comes into his own here, and it’s a relief to see some work from Ashcroft that I enjoy.

A few choices to steal: Margaret’s napkin of Rutland’s blood is soaked in it. She wipes it across York’s face just drenching him in the blood of his son; The paper crown she puts on him was taken from Rutland by Clifford; The breaking of Margaret (some) at York’s distress over his son. It’s a beautiful choice that humanizes her in one of our last moments to do so.

…in Wars of the Roses. Still excellent and incredibly enjoyable.

Two complaints:

Peggy Ashcroft’s accent remains awful and distracting. Googling it, the first reference I found was a Guardian article referring to this as her greatest performance, and mentioning that she maintained an accent throughout to represent Margaret’s foreignness. It’s a choice, I guess. But it’s ruining the performance for me. Maybe it wasn’t as distracting on stage...

I’m hating Barton’s cutting of Warwick. He’s manipulated the text to make him the mover behind much more than he is in the play. Most specifically, he’s blunted York, taking away almost all of his faculty to hand it over to Warwick. Unlike any other manipulation thus far, it really changes and undercuts the character Shakespeare wrote. I can’t imagine feeling any sympathy for him later on.

…in the Burton/Hall Wars of the Roses adaptation.

It’s pretty fucking excellent. Rooted, intimate, clear, with hardly any affectation or flowery drivel. Take away how old it looks, and this could play today no problem. David Warner is brilliant as Henry, Janet Suzman as Joan, Paul Hardwick as Gloucester, Charles Kay as the Dauphin, Clive Morton as Talbot are all fantastic. I’m somewhat meh on Sindon’s York as he seems to be playing the same note again and again, and Nicholas Selby’s Winchester is ridiculous… the only true offender in affectation and wide-eyed eyebrow acting. Oh! And Peggy Ashcroft has just arrived as Margaret… and her accent is appalling. It’s some sort of french that makes her sound… well, it’s awful. She’s supposed to be brilliant in this… here’s hoping she drops the accent.