Anyone have resources on the canon of the Quaker Bible?

MJ. Smith

Yes, I know that at least in theory, the Quaker canon is open not closed. And I have decent sources for these

A Quaker named Margaret Fell wanted to add the book "The Light Within" to the New Testament canon.
Another Quaker, Robert Barclay, advocated for the inclusion of the Epistle of Matthias in the New Testament canon.
The Letter to the Laodiceans was included in early Quaker Bibles.

What I am looking for are any additions to this list before I build a timeline.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

My dad was brought up Quaker and we attended Quaker Meeting when I was a kid. Some of my cousins remained Quakers, and I attended a couple of Quaker meetings for weddings and funerals. My dad's Bible from his childhood was a normal KJV with the normal Protestant canon, but I get the sense that at least those Quakers don't use any particular "canon" or Scripture. They don't have books in their meetings. They meet in silence and one at a time only speak up when the Spirit moves someone. What they say might be something from the Bible but just as often it's a message from the heart or some quote from any other source. They might or might not be reading it from a book they brought into the meeting with them, but most likely not, since they are supposed to be moved by the Spirit, not come pre-prepared. However I do not know what they do in their own private devotions (if any) at home that might become the source of some inspired speaking in a meeting.

My aunt was a Quaker to the end of her life, and was buried in the cemetery of the Quaker Meeting House where she and my dad grew up, though she didn't attend meeting there as an adult as far as I know. She had a Bible in her home, and I'm pretty sure it was an ordinary Protestant canon.

Rosie Perera

From my Logos library:

Many of the earliest settlers were broadly Puritan—at least they shared the same concerns about the Anglican church. Not a few of them were accustomed to the Geneva Bible, especially during the early expansion, since the KJV was still new. But we must understand that almost immediately, groups that were neither Anglican nor Puritan began to arrive—like the Quakers and other Anabaptist communities. The habit of seeing the Colonies as merely a Puritan world is incomplete.

To take one example, the future state of Pennsylvania, when it began, looked almost nothing like Puritan New England. Over the course of the 1700s, it was a mixture of Quaker, Moravian, Congregational, and other groups. Many did not speak English natively, and so they cared little for the KJV Bible. Instead, they used their own Bibles. In the case of the Quakers, they even translated their own Bible in 1764. The translation was the work of Anthony Purver (1702–77). The quality was passable, though largely lifeless. Because it belonged to the Quakers, this new Bible was mocked by other Protestants. Rumors were invented that Purver had wrestled with difficult passages by practicing his Quaker belief in quietism, locking himself in his room, hoping divine inspiration would provide answers. Nonsense, of course, but the fact that such rumors were created shows us that something new was emerging in the New World: debates over Bible translations often reflected the struggle between Protestant confessions.

Ryan Matthew Reeves and Charles E. Hill, Know How We Got Our Bible, ed. Justin S. Holcomb, Know Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 167–168.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this excerpt implies that that Quaker Bible used the same canon of books in the Old Testament and New Testament that Protestants use. Links to the volumes online can be found at the end of it. I didn't take the time to scroll all the way through to verify the canon used.

Quaker Bible

View online

The Quaker Bible, officially A new and literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament; with notes critical and explanatory, is the 1764 translation of the Christian Bible into English by Anthony Purver (1702–1777), a Quaker. The translation was published in two Volumes in London by W. Richardson and S. Clark in 1764, but is not generally regarded as successful.

Comparison with the New English Bible

In 1970, following the publication of the New English Bible, Harold A. Guy wrote an article printed in the Expository Times ;¹ "An Eighteenth Century New English Bible", discussing Purver's Bible translation. Guy makes no further reference to the NEB to justify the analogy claimed by the title of his article.

Whilst both Purver's Bible and the New English Bible endured long gestation periods, that is where any similarity ends. Nevertheless, exploring the attempted analogy can help to highlight certain factors about Purver's version:

• Purver was a self-taught translator and laboured for 30 years with the project single-handed – compared to the New English Bible which involved a large number of academics.

• Failing to interest a publisher, Purver sold the manuscript for £1,000 to Dr. John Fothergill who published the Bible at his own expense. The two volumes sold for four guineas. There is no evidence of any volume of sales. This was in contrast to the New English Bible, which was backed before publication by the mainstream Churches in Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including the London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends), and had a built in user base. Sales had already been "road tested" by the sales of the New Testament published in 1961.

• Unlike the Purver version the New English Bible was launched with nationwide publicity.

• In 1764, the Purver version was a novelty, as in the 18th Century there was only one translation which held the field, and that was the King James Version. The New English Bible followed on from a number of versions, notably the Revised Standard Version.

• Despite the fact that the Purver bible had no other competitors as an alternative to the King James Version, the bible was not successful and although Purver prepared a second edition, it failed to see the light of day. The New English Bible in contrast, whilst receiving widespread criticism, has gone on to a second edition as the Revised English Bible.

Despite the failed analogy, in his article Harold Guy does preserve some details of the story behind the Purver version, and provides some examples of the text.

Failure

A portion of Purver's translation was published in parts about 1742 by Felix Farley of Bristol, but the publication received little support. Purver failed to get the whole text published, and gained no backing for his venture, even by the Religious Society of Friends. Even when the Manuscript was published by Dr. John Fothergill at his own expense, the full translation also failed to make any impression.

Various reasons can be advanced for the failure of Purver’s translation; lack of publicity; the fact that it lacked authority (a one man translation) and it had not been backed by any Church, not even the Religious Society of Friends, to which Purver belonged. Yet the failure to make its mark may owe itself to the deficiencies of his translation.

By some it is held to be an unreliable translation; the Dictionary of National Biography records that Purver "…on arriving at a difficult passage, he would shut himself up for two or three days and nights, waiting for inspiration"²Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who was acquainted with Purver’s version remarks "A Quaker Translation. Often ungrammatical and unintelligible. Not without its good points, but much more curious than useful." ³

References

1. Expository Times; issue 81; pages 148-150. Published in 1970

2. Taken from http://www.biblecollectors.org/articles/untrustworthy_translations.htm

3. Spurgeon, C H 'Commenting and Commentaries' item 52, Passmore and Alabaster, London, 1890

External Links

Read on-line with Google books:

• Volume 1

• Volume 2 ^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Mark (Wikipedia) Barnes, Dictionary of Christianity and the Bible, n.d., 14047.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1245977#Comment_1245977

Thanks Rosie. My starting point was

Quakers and Scripture (georgefox.edu)
(99+) RICHARD FARNWORTH, SAMUEL FISHER, AND THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AMONG EARLY QUAKERS | Stephen Angell - Academia.edu (which directly addresses open canon)

from there I began to find the proposed changes to the canon although none seem to have been adopted. I have found non-specific references to works not already on my list but not the details I want.

Jack William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1245974#Comment_1245974

My dad was brought up Quaker and we attended Quaker Meeting when I was a kid. Some of my cousins remained Quakers, and I attended a couple of Quaker meetings for weddings and funerals. My dad's Bible from his childhood was a normal KJV with the normal Protestant canon, but I get the sense that at least those Quakers don't use any particular "canon" or Scripture. They don't have books in their meetings. They meet in silence and one at a time only speak up when the Spirit moves someone. What they say might be something from the Bible but just as often it's a message from the heart or some quote from any other source. They might or might not be reading it from a book they brought into the meeting with them, but most likely not, since they are supposed to be moved by the Spirit, not come pre-prepared. However I do not know what they do in their own private devotions (if any) at home that might become the source of some inspired speaking in a meeting.

My aunt was a Quaker to the end of her life, and was buried in the cemetery of the Quaker Meeting House where she and my dad grew up, though she didn't attend meeting there as an adult as far as I know. She had a Bible in her home, and I'm pretty sure it was an ordinary Protestant canon.

Quaker meetings are marked by silent worship, where attendees wait for spiritual inspiration to speak. Messages shared can draw from personal experiences, the Bible, or other sources. Quakers often have Bibles at home, typically of the Protestant canon, but approach them with an open and contemplative mindset. In private devotions, they may engage in practices like prayer and meditation, which can inspire their contributions during meetings. Quaker beliefs and practices can vary among branches and individuals, reflecting the tradition's diverse nature.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Help
Best Of