quakers rock

 

For reflection and discernment
and for adult education and quarantine zooms...
read about Fox, Nayler, Rufus Jones, Hoover, Nixon, and even Smedley Butler (Nixon and Butler grew up Quaker, but weren't Quakers as adults).

On Amazon
Paperback $5.40 + shipping
Kindle $1.99, or free on Kindle Unlimited
Hardcover $12.80 + shipping

Profits go to Cloud Quakers or Quaker Voluntary Service

 

Put Off Thy Hat

 

This is a closet play. That means it can be performed without a stage – around a table, or on zoom. If you perform it on stage, follow the directions in italics – there is minimal movement or interaction, but you can always increase it yourself.

 

 

HISTORIAN

THEOLOGIAN
JAMES (NAYLER)

GEORGE (FOX)

PASTOR

OFFICIAL

MARGARET (FELL)
MARTHA (SIMMONDS)

 

(In this part each person can come to the center, from the right, and speak directly to the audience. If they have trouble with scripts, a podium can be used and then they can read. Have each finish and leave before the next one comes on. If you have two podiums, put the HISTORIAN in one and the THEOLOGIAN in the other, and have JAMES and GEORGE speak from center stage)

 

HISTORIAN:

James Nayler was born in 1618, six years before George Fox, in the town of Ardsley, Yorkshire, England. It was important that he was older than Fox because, when the English Civil War came around in 1642, he was expected to serve and did, while Fox was still too young. He served for eight years in the Parliamentarian Army and then went back to his farm in Yorkshire. In 1652 he experienced the Voice of God, and, soon after, met Fox.

 

JAMES:

I came back from the war, and Oliver Cromwell had won. And yet, things had not changed. The pastors were making money from the people, and there was unfairness everywhere. One day, the Voice of God commanded me to go out amongst the people, and I did.

 

HISTORIAN:

George Fox was born in 1624, in Drayton-in-the-Clay (now Fenny Drayton), Leicestershire (LEST-a-SHIR), a strongly Puritan town, the eldest of four children of a successful weaver. He was of a serious, religious disposition since childhood.

 

GEORGE:

When I came to eleven years of age, I knew pureness and righteousness; for, while I was a child, I was taught how to walk and be kept pure. The Lord taught me to be faithful, in all things, and to act faithfully two ways; viz, inwardly to God, and outwardly to man.

 

HISTORIAN:

George Fox saw that some people in that era were “professors” (followers of the Church of England), but by the age of 19 he was disillusioned with their behavior, particularly the consumption of alcohol.

 

GEORGE:

At prayer one night, I heard an inner voice saying, “Thou seest how young people go together into vanity, and old people into the earth; thou must forsake all, young and old, keep out of all, and be as a stranger to all.” The Lord taught me to be faithful in all things…and to keep to Yea and Nay in all things.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

It was important that these two people had basically come to the same conclusions: That all people were equal; that all people had access to God and the Living Christ; that those in charge of the Church of England at that time were vain, and abusing their power, and not speaking from a place of righteousness.

 

GEORGE:

The Lord showed me, so that I did see clearly, that he did not dwell in these temples which men had commanded and set up, but in people’s hearts…his people were his temple and he dwelt in them.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

If one person went out into England at that time and claimed those things, he might simply be considered mad and thrown in prison. But in fact many people agreed with them, and soon each had a group of followers who would follow them around and hear them talk. They were aware of each other, and aware of the similarity of their messages.

 

HISTORIAN:

Driven by his inner voice, in 1643 George moved to London in a state of confusion. The English Civil War was raging, and soldiers were stationed in towns along the way.

 

GEORGE:

I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate preachers also, and those esteemed the most experienced people; for I saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition. And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, I heard a voice which said, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition,” and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth that could speak to my condition, namely, that I might give Him all the glory; for all are concluded under sin, and shut up in unbelief as I had been, that Jesus Christ might have the pre-eminence who enlightens, and gives grace , and faith, and power. Thus when God doth work, who shall let it? And this I knew experimentally.

 

JAMES:

The old man worships a God at a distance, but knows Him not, nor where He is, but by relation from others, either by word or writing…The new man worships a God at hand, where He dwells in His holy temple, and he knows Him by His own Word from His dwelling place, and not by relation of others.

 

HISTORIAN:

Inevitably, they met each other.

 

A table is at center stage with two chairs, George and James in them. They are drinking from glasses of water.

 

GEORGE:

You are saying that you left your farm?

JAMES:

I felt like I was told to come out into the world, to speak to my condition. I just walked away. My family is back there, and they will manage it. It will not be easy, but I had to do what I had to do.

 

GEORGE:

You were called to do it?

 

JAMES:

Yes. The Lord said, Go out among people.

 

GEORGE:

That is what happened to me as well!

 

JAMES:

And I see, by these times, it was necessary. As a soldier in the Parliamentary Army, I fought to overturn the king, because he was corrupt, and the rich were using his edicts to steal from the poor. And now I see that the new regime is no better. People are using their connection to the divine to steal.

 

GEORGE:

Yes, that is true. It is a time of great inequality, and of people using religious connections to profit for themselves.

 

 

HISTORIAN:

England at that time was a wide-open marketplace of religious turmoil. For years, everyone had been dissatisfied with the Church of England, headed by a corrupt king, a system of tithes, and blatantly hypocritical underlings. Some Puritans simply went to the colonies, while others joined the Parliamentary Army to overthrow the king, which they did. But many people saw Cromwell and the Puritans as little better, since they too got a chance to run the country, and things were not any better under them. It was a time of many groups of dissenters, and those who would become known as Quakers were among them. There were also the Shakers, and the Ranters, and the Levellers. Soon Fox and his following would become known as the Quakers.  But Fox at this time was traveling alone, and sometimes being thrown in jail. Nayler and his assistant, Martha Simmonds, led another group.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Fox went around the countryside, disrupting church services.

 

(This scene happens at a church. If you have the background, or an altar, you can use it).

 

PASTOR:

My good people, it is known that the King demands complete loyalty, and as we know from scripture, Christ sayeth, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” And as Matthew says, “Jesus said to us, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” And it appears, that, as I am the priest of the Church of England, and a representative of the King himself, that, it is my general responsibility…

 

(GEORGE, having entered from the back, gets close enough to interrupt, and does)

 

GEORGE:

Excuse me, kind sir, but I am quite stricken by your speech, and you speak as though your words come from Christ himself.  Christ may in fact speak through you, or through the King, or the Deacon. But you will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

 

(We go back to the previous situation, where speakers are at corners or taking turns from a podium)

 

HISTORIAN:

It was a violent time politically. Cromwell had deposed the King, but then the monarchy was restored, and people on both sides were being killed.

 

GEORGE:

A sad day it was, and a repaying of blood with blood. For in the time of Oliver Cromwell, when several men were put to death by him, being hung, drawn and quartered for pretended treasons, I felt from the Lord God that their blood would be required, and I said as much then to several. And now, upoin the King’s return, several that had been against him were put to death, as the others that were for him had been before by Oliver. This was sad work, destroying people; contrary to the nature of Christians.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

The movement was based around peace, social justice, and equality. Fox and Nayler felt that church leaders, being aligned with the government, were often the most violent of people.

 

GEORGE:

I did, in the presence of the Lord God, declare that I denied the wearing or drawing of a carnal sword, or any other outward weapon, against him or any man, and that I was sent of God to stand a witness against all violence, and against the works of darkness; and to turn people from darkness to light; and to bring them from the causes of war and fighting, to the peacable gospel.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

But the money issue was important too. Church leaders were gathering wealth, while the common man was suffering. George and James were, in a sense, clearing the moneychangers from the temple.

 

GEORGE:

The prophets, Christ, and the apostles declared freely, and against them that did not declare freely; such as preached for filthy lucre, and divined for money, and preached for hire, and were covetous and greedy, that could never have enough, and that they that have the same spirit that Christ, and the prophets, and the apostles had, could not but declare against all such now, as they did then.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

It was also a time of high fashion and so-called “finery,” but Fox, Nayler, and their followers renounced that as well.

 

GEORGE:

I was plain, and would have all things done plainly; for I did not seek any outward advantage to myself.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

They often spoke in terms of darkness and light.

 

GEORGE:

I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.

 

JAMES:

Art thou in darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will feed thee more. But stand still, and act not, and wait in patience, till light arises out of darkness and leads thee.

 

GEORGE:

The light checks you, when you speak an evil word, and tells you that you should not be proud or unrestrained, nor fashion yourselves like the world; for the fashion of this world passes away.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

They spoke to increasingly large crowds, who wore plain dress and followed them around the countryside.

 

MARGARET:

I have met George Fox, and he has revealed to me the Divine truth of the Almighty God! He spoke at our church. He asked us if we walked in the Light, and if we had received the Spirit. You know, the Pastor, he is a little bit false, in the way he presents the scripture. And this opened me so, that it cut me to the heart, and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat down in my pew again and cried bitterly: and I cried in my spirit to the Lord, 'We are all thieves; we have taken the Scripture in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves.'

 

HISTORIAN:

Meanwhile, the authorities were becoming increasingly concerned about the threat to order.

 

In this scene the PASTOR and the OFFICIAL are standing together at center stage.

 

PASTOR:

These people are disrupting church services. They are walking into them, interrupting, and insisting that their way is right.

 

OFFICIAL:

Who would you say is the worst of them?

PASTOR:

Oh, George Fox, for certain. But James Nayler, he is bad, too. They are walking around, everywhere, praying in the street, and insisting that they are just as holy as we pastors are.

 

OFFICIAL:

I assure you, something will be done. We cannot let this continue.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

One big concern was that the followers of any group would see their leader as a kind of messiah or a great prophet. Both Nayler and Fox were clear on the equality of all people, and did not want to be seen that way. But the problem was that in a country as small as England was at that time, Fox had to rely on what he heard was happening over in Nayler’s group. And he came to the conclusion that Nayler’s group was perhaps over-enthusiastic and erratic, and that there was a kind of messiah complex developing.

 

(This scene takes place in a prison in Exeter. A sign or a painted window with bars will show that)

 

GEORGE:

They have thrown you in prison?

 

JAMES:

Yes, again. They do not like it when we point out the hypocrisy of the pastors of the Church.

 

GEORGE:

It has happened to me as well. We disrupt services. People get mad.

 

JAMES:

I have a number of followers, and they attend when I speak.

 

GEORGE:

That’s why I have come to you. I understand that they may see you as a prophet or messiah, and that path is dangerous.

 

JAMES:

I have done nothing to encourage that.

 

GEORGE:

It is a path of pride, and will turn light into darkness. James, it will be harder for thee to get down thy rude company than it was for thee to set them up.

 

(GEORGE exits, MARTHA enters)

 

MARTHA:

So things did not go so well with your meeting with George Fox?

 

JAMES:

He spoke of how the path of pride was dangerous, and how it was terrible to turn light into darkness.

 

MARTHA:

But that is not what we are doing! We are bringing the truth to people!

 

JAMES: I

 tried to make a show of my love and respect for him, but he would not accept it. He has come to feel that I am prideful.

 

MARTHA:

It has become a movement of Friends. These days many people gather to hear you and George Fox speak. It is very important that you work this out.

 

JAMES:

I shall go to Swarthmore, as George Fox is apparently staying with Margaret Fell for the moment.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Both Fox and Nayler preached wherever they went. People would come from the countryside to hear them. Their arrival in a town was an event.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in the thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it, for its ground and spring is the mercies and forgiveness of God.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

In this era Fox developed what we now know as the central tenets of Quakerism: that people are equal; that the right to minister is given by the Holy Spirit, not by the qualifications of the state, so women and children are equally able to share in them; that we all have access to God, understanding God and knowing the Truth; that vanity stands in opposition to Truth; that the traditional rituals of the Church were not the path to righteousness, but rather genuine conversion; that religious experience is not confined to a building, nor confined to Sundays. These were shared by Fox and Nayler and others who followed them.

 

HISTORIAN:

His followers, including Nayler and Nayler’s group of followers, adopted these ideas to different degrees, though they often argued about them. One issue concerned the wearing of hats. Nayler’s followers wore hats even when they prayed. The problem was that they also believed in democratic decision-making: each group was doing what its members had decided was right for them.

 

GEORGE and MARGARET are talking to each other at center stage)

 

GEORGE:

The Lord sent me forth into the world, He forbade me to put off my hat to any, high or low.

 

MARGARET:

Yes, but what about God? James’ followers do not put off their hat to God.

 

GEORGE:

They have decided that God does not require it. I will not change their decision.

 

(GEORGE and MARGARET exit)

 

THEOLOGIAN:

This turned out to be a fateful decision, as it was an issue that remained unresolved long after George and James were gone.

 

HISTORIAN:

 Nayler was also very political: he said that the King had no divine right to rule. He spoke out against the slave trade. He was against the rich taking common land from the people.

 

JAMES:

God is against you, covetous and cruel oppressors who grind the needy and the poor.

 

HISTORIAN:

Quakers would not take off their hats to government officials, and would not swear oaths of allegiance to the King or the government, so they found themselves in trouble with the law often, and would sometimes lose their property as a result. James would often write letters to George Fox; they tried to keep each other apprised of their work.

 

(In this scene James is at the table with a pen in hand, working on a letter which the audience can see (as it is in his hand, not on the table). He is reading it in such a way that the letter does not block his voice.)

 

JAMES:

Dear Brother, the work of the Lord is great in these parts; there was a meeting in Swaledale as I came, and a great people came to it, and a mighty power was seen which did amaze some and tender the hearts of many; and greet meetings there was, and at Barnard Castle an exceedingly great meeting, and all silent and much convinced, so that the enemy cries out that the major part of the town is Quakers.

 

HISTORIAN:

The late 1640s and 1650s saw the steady rise of Quakers, with both George Fox and James Nayler leading significant groups of people. Fox was getting arrested frequently. In 1649 Fox was arrested at Nottingham. In 1650 he was arrested in Darby for blasphemy; here he told the judge he trembled before God, and the judge called he and his followers “Quakers” for the first time. In 1653 he was arrested in Carlisle; In 1654 he was arrested in London; In 1656 he was arrested in Launceston; In 1660 he was arrested in Lancaster; In 1662 he was arrested in Leicester.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Nayler looked up to Fox, and sought his approval. But in many ways, he was more radical. He sought to upset the status quo and the ruling clergy. To him everything was black and white, right or wrong, and the church and government were the bad guys.

 

HISTORIAN:

At one point, in 1655, Nayler arose heading to heal the rift with George Fox, to the prison where he was in Launceston. But Nayler was arrested at Exeter. Both men were arrested often; Fox was probably arrested more, if only because he was identified by the government as the leader. But if they were both in prison, they were both unable to work on healing the rift and uniting Quakerism.

 

JAMES:

What came of it, when our followers met George Fox’s followers?

MARTHA:

Mostly it went well. Quakerism is a huge movement nowadays. We are everywhere, in every city. There was only one problem.

 

JAMES:

What was that?

 

MARTHA:

Well, you know how our followers don’t remove their hats, even when they pray?

JAMES:

They have always been like that. They do not mean to disrespect God.

 

MARTHA:

Tell that to the people who were offended. Everyone knows that Quakers do not take their hats off for the king, or for the tax collector, or for any of the authorities. But to not take your hat off when you are praying?

 

JAMES:

This is what we have decided, and we will continue with it.

 

HISTORIAN:

Finally in late 1656, an incident changed the situation dramatically. James developed a plan in which he would ride a horse into Bristol. We will watch them plan it.

 

JAMES:

I am sick of the church leaders acting like they own Christ and his image. Christ lives inside of us and belongs to every one of us.

 

MARTHA:

Yes, they feel like Christ and His image is their own property, like they can decide what to do with it.

 

JAMES:

Here’s my plan. We ride a horse into Bristol, to reenact Christ’s Palm Sunday ride into Jerusalem. It will show people that all of us have the living Christ within us.

 

MARTHA: And who will ride on the horse?

 

JAMES:

I will.

 

MARTHA:

Won’t people accuse you of having a Christ complex?

 

JAMES:

They will know that I am not pretending to be Christ. They will know what I have been saying and preaching. What I am saying is that all people can experience the divine directly. That the living Christ is within each of us.

 

The ride can be enacted or shown in various ways. JAMES is dressed as Christ and on a horse, though we know that could be tricky on a stage. Crowds can be shown reacting strongly to his appearing to be Christ.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

 The ride was a disaster in terms of public relations. People did misunderstand. Unfortunately, word had gotten out that some of his followers had been referring to Nayler as “Prince of Peace,” or “Lord.” This and the ride were all officials needed to arrest him and torture him.

 

OFFICIAL:

Blasphemer! We’ll arrest him!

 

THEOLOGIAN:

He was sentenced to be put on a pillory and have a red-hot iron bored through his tongue. He was also branded with the letter B for blasphemer, on his forehead, and imprisoned for two years of hard labor. But most people considered him lucky for escaping death.

HISTORIAN:

Nayler was released in 1659, but he was a broken man. He had now lost all his followers, and decided to walk home, but he was robbed on his way home.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its crown is meekness, its live is everlasting love unfeigned; it takes its kingdom with entreaty and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, though none else regard it, or can own its life. It is conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it, nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Fox, on the other hand, married Margaret Fell in 1669, and embarked on tours of North America and the low countries; he was now a celebrity as founder of the Quakers. The movement expanded dramatically starting in around 1680, but Nayler was no longer part of it.

 

HISTORIAN:

One huge difference between them was that Margaret Fell was consistently there for George Fox; she lent money and aristocracy to the issue, and whenever he was in prison she bailed him out. She ultimately paid the price by losing her landholdings at Swarthmore, but the fame that was bestowed on him by both being connected to aristocracy, and being a rebel celebrity, was enough to sustain him and give him huge audiences when he got out of prison. This could not be said for Nayler.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Nowadays we forget that the movement was really founded by both of them. We can still hear their words as they traveled the countryside, urging followers to “walk the walk,” dress plainly and follow the light.

 

GEORGE:

To query and search out all such, as live not as becomes the truth of the gospel, and yet do profess it, so that they all may walk in it, as well as talk of it; for none have the heavenly comfort of it, but who do walk in it. For all the talkers of Christ and His gospel, that do not walk in him, dishonor Him.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for with the world’s joy it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken. I have fellowship therein with them who lived in dens and desolate places in the earth who through death obtained this resurrection and eternal holy life.

 

THE END

CURTAIN CALL  ?

 

 

 

 

PURVER’S BIBLE

 

This is a closet play. That means it can be performed without a stage – around a table, or on zoom. If you perform it on stage, follow the directions in italics – there is minimal movement or interaction, but you can always increase it yourself.

 

NARRATOR (61 lines)

ANTHONY (Purver) (32 lines)

CRITIC #1 (Michael Marlowe) (41 lines)

CRITIC #2 (McClintock & Strong) (4 lines)

RACHELL (5 lines)

JOHN (Fothergill) (11 lines)

 

Characters enter from right and speak at center. If they have trouble with lines, use a podium.

 

NARRATOR: Anthony Purver was born in 1702, in England, son of a Hampshire farmer. As he grew up he became a shoemaker’s apprentice, but in his free time he studied the Bible and read other things.

 

ANTHONY: We lived in a Quaker community. One day I asked my teacher about the Bible, and why it used old language. He said that the Old Testament was translated from Ancient Hebrew, and the New Testament was translated from Ancient Greek. I asked him how we knew it was the truth, if it was translated. He said, you can find out yourself, but you would have to learn those languages.

 

NARRATOR: Quakers at the time had come out of the George Fox era, but there were many communities of Quakers spread throughout Britain, Scotland and Ireland as well as the colonies. From the days of Fox, they believed in equality and peace. They wore simple dress, and they addressed each other as “thee” and “thou;” this distinguished them and separated them from their neighbors. Like their neighbors, they believed in the Scriptures as the Divine Word, written by men but inspired by God.

 

ANTHONY: I accepted the idea that the Scriptures were the truth, and were written by men, but inspired by God. But one day I found this book by Samuel Fisher, Rusticus ad Academicos, which claimed that the King James Version of the Bible was full of errors. I read it and reread it, because I couldn’t believe it. I wanted to know the truth myself. In fact I would say I was called and commanded by the Divine Spirit to translate it myself. But the only way to find out was to learn Ancient Hebrew, and then some other languages, the hard way. So I set about trying to learn Ancient Hebrew.

 

NARRATOR: After three or four years of teaching in Hampshire,  he moved to London, where they had better libraries and where he could coontact other Quaker meetings. In 1727 he published “The Youth’s Digest,” for boys, but that would be the only other thing he would publish. He started his translation of the entire Bible in 1733. This was a laborious process and would take him most of a lifetime. Purver was clear about why he was undertaking his own translation of the Bible. He felt that the King James Version was in antiquated language and that it contained some errors. He set about translating his own version and writing notes to justify what he wrote.

 

ANTHONY: Axiom One: A translation ought to be true to the original. Axiom Two: A translation should be well or grammatically expelled, in the language it is made in.

 

NARRATOR: Two things happened from his learning of Ancient Hebrew. One was that he got a reputation as a learned man, and soon was able to become a tutor and schoolmaster in his local district. The second was that he learned that, although Fisher was not an expert on Hebrew himself, he was right about one thing: translation is difficult and complicated, and can misrepresent the original. Sometimes he labored over each sentence.

 

ANTHONY: God created Heaven and the Earth at the Beginning. The Earth however was vacant and void, and Darkness overwhelmed the Deep; but the Spirit of God hovered atop of the Water.

 

CRITIC #1: The notes attached to the first twelve verses contain about three thousand words of commentary, in which there is much curious and crotchety material. The note on “Datkness overwhelmed the Deep” in verse 2 fails to mention that “overwhelmed” is quite interpretive and not a proper literal translation of the Hebrew word, which means simply “upon the face of.” The same Hebrew phrase is translated “atop of” later in the same verse.

 

NARRATOR: In other words, because we don’t like to repeat ourselves in English, we would use synonyms for one of these situations. But in Hebrew, these words are quite different. His work was cut out for him. He ended up learning Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin, and read a huge amount of Biblical criticism, and studied all the English translations of the Bible. His project would take most of his life.

 

In this scene they are talking together, as if they share the same kitchen.

 

ANTHONY: In 1739 I married Rachell Cotterel, mistress of a girls’ boarding-school at Frenchay, Gloucestershire, and moved there to teach.

 

Rachell enters from left.

 

RACHELL: You seem to want to spend a lot of time alone, working on that Bible. Why are you silent, and not just working on the translation?

 

ANTHONY: I am waiting for inspiration.

 

RACHELL: God must tell you how to translate it?

ANTHONY: Translation is difficult. There are many ways to say things. I believe that the Scriptures were written from inspiration in the first place, so their translation must also have the support of divine inspiration.

 

RACHELL: I will try not to interrupt you. I know how important this project is to you.

 

(they exit)(Characters again come to front or speak from a podium)

 

NARRATOR: Scholars scorned the idea that divine inspiration would help his translation efforts. Some have pointed out that in some cases, rather than making it simpler and more direct, he made it more complex. But in any case, he thought carefully about what he did and justified it in his notes. He was among a group of people, now called Augustan, who cared a lot about making language more refined and eliminating “uncouth” aspects of it, that they felt were from the previous century – they felt they could say it better.

 

ANTHONY: Language was anciently rude and unpolished, and it was proper even for the inspired writings to be delivered in that of the times.

 

NARRATOR: By 1740 he had some of his Bible finished, and John Fothergill, a prominent Quaker, encouraged him to publish it.

 

(in this scene they are also sharing a stage, but as if they have just met on a street. JOHN enters from left, ANTHONY from right)

 

JOHN: Hello, Anthony! Hey Anthony, when will you start publishing that Bible you’ve been working on?

 

ANTHONY: I’d like to get a little more done on it if I can. My progress is slow, but I’m carefully organizing my notes and comments so that it will be complete.

 

JOHN: I know a publisher in Bristol who will try it, if you give him a few chapters. His name is Felix Farley. If you take the manuscript to him, he’ll publish a couple of chapters at a time. Here, let me write his name on this piece of paper.

 

(He writes it out, hands paper to ANTHONY, who accepts it)

 

ANTHONY: I think I’ll try that. There are many chapters that are finished already. They can start on the ones I have finished.

 

NARRATOR: Anthony did as John suggested, and Farley agreed to take it on. But it did not meet much success in the marketplace. Anthony continued working on it, and ultimately moved back to Hampshire.

 

CRITIC #1: It begins with an essay entitled “Introductory Remarks on Translations of the Scripture in General,” in which he criticizes the King James Version for being less than perfectly literal in some places. He appends long lists of alleged faults in the KJV, nearly all very trivial, sorted into various categories. But he then goes on to speak, rather inconsistently, of the need for a translation to be “well or grammatically expressed, in the language it is made in,” “accommodated to the present Use of speaking,” and so forth, unlike the King James Version, whose style he characterizes as unidiomatic, ungraceful, and “uncouth,” partly  because of its literal manner of rendering Hebrew idioms. Moreover, when Purver’s version itself is closely examined, it seems to have little connection with the complaints and principles put forth in the “Introductory Remarks” – for it is obviously much less literal, less accurate, and less graceful than the KJV.

 

NARRATOR: In the New Testament, his work was translated from Ancient Greek and from the languages it was in before that. In his notes, he spends a lot of time citing Daniel Whitby, who wrote Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament in 1703.

 

CRITIC #1: In his notes he even seems to think that he owes his readers some explanation for any disagreement with Whitby. But this Whitby, who seemed to be someone at the time, never deserved so much attention. By the middle of the next century, Whitby’s whole manner of interpreting the biblical text was seen to be theologically contrived and illegitimate, and his work was ignored by competent scholars.

 

NARRATOR: In 1763 he had completed the whole project. It was the only independent English translation of the Bible in the eighteenth century. But he could find no publisher. Finally John Fothergill heard about this.

 

(Again, they meet on the street, JOHN entering from left, ANTHONY from right)

 

JOHN: Hello, Anthony! I understand that you have finished your Bible.

 

ANTHONY: Yes, it is done.

 

JOHN: But nobody will publish it?

 

ANTHONY: No, I’ve tried everywhere. It’s quite long.

 

JOHN: I tell you what. I’ll give you a thousand pounds for it, and I’ll publish it myself. We’ll put it on the market, and I’ll make copies for all my friends. I have a thousand pounds, believe me. I’ve traveled to the colonies and have friends everywhere. Believe me, I can make this work.

 

NARRATOR: Fothergill did just that: he gave Purver a thousand pounds; he had it published; he printed many copies for himself, inscribed them and gave them to family and friends; he sent quite a few to the colonies. Today these are among the only copies that can be found of it. It never really sold many copies on the open market. Over the years many critics have panned it.

 

CRITIC #1: The eccentricities of the version are partly due to the fact that, in Purver’s day, there was a feeling abroad that some recent advances in biblical studies should be expected, or must have been made already, when in fact there had been no very solid or significant advances in biblical studies among English scholars for nearly a century.

 

CRITIC #2: The style is crude and bombastic, the very reverse of what might have been expected from a member of the society whose language is so simple; while the notes, though containing much valuable matter, abound in contemputuous expressions about the labors of others in the same department.

 

CRITIC #1: The version and its annotations are a testimony to what a self-taught man, who never had the supervision of a competent scholar to guide him in his studies, might produce by himself at home. It contains a strange mixture of things good and bad: good enough, where he follows the opinions of sound and learned authors; but often remarkably bad, where he is deceived by the pseudo-scholarship of Whitby, repeats the lore of the Jewish Rabbis, hazards original interpretations, or ventures to criticize authors much more learned than himself – which he often does with a very inappropriate air of authority. Perhaps the most serious fault of the version is its uncommonly bad English style, which was quite out of keeping with the “Augustan Age” of great literary refinement in which Purver lived. A reading public that enjoyed the works of such excellent writers as Addison and Pope could not have seen much value in Purver’s version.

 

NARRATOR: The fact that some copies found their way to the Americas is due mostly to Fothergill, who had traveled extensively in the colonies and had friends everywhere. It was called “The Quaker Bible” for many years, as Purver was a member of the Society of Friends, but the Society never sponsored it or took it on as their own version in any way. It remained somewhat obscure, but in August of 2011 it was republished in electronic form on Google Books.

 

THE END (CURTAIN CALL?)

 

SOURCES:

 

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia. (n.d.) Purver, Anthony. Online: biblicalcyclopedia.com.

 

Shannon, Edgar F. (1912, Oct.). The Vitality of the King James Bible. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 470-484, online.

 

Marlowe, Michael. (2012). Purver’s Bible (1764). Online. www.bible-researcher.com.