Talk:John Bunyan

Untitled

Hi folks I've just found in remarkably good condition a 1728 PILGRIMS PROGRESS IN A CHARITY SHOP IN A SMALL TOWN CALLED TROON IN AYRSHIRE SCOTLAND.

Except for the fact that the part about The Pilgrim's Progress is somewhat POV and uninformative, it gives no description of the book whatsoever. Can anyone help? Asav

This article is about John Bunyan, the author. Look at the article The Pilgrim's Progress for (a lot) more about that book. Chris55 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'The Pilgrim's Progress is the most successful allegory ever written' Regardless of what many sources say, The Pilgrim's Progress is not an allegory. An allegory is ' The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.' For it to be an allegory it would require the characters to represent something. They don't represent something, they are the something. Obstinate is Obstinate, Pliable is Pliable. They aren't representing anything. They are what they say they are. <unsigned>

I think you have misunderstood allegory. In an allegory, parts of the story may contain descriptive concrete objects which represent abstract ideals. While the characters do have the name of these ideals or archetypes, and they also make actions which can be described by the ideals, they are not the ideals in themselves. Let me ask a question. Can the adjective obstinate speak, walk, or convince a person? No, it is a descriptive word representing an idea. Bunyan's work fits the description of an allegory.--Austin.McKnight (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The bit about how hearing voices would have made Bunyan "psychotic"; is that statement factually correct? I agree (as a layman) that had Bunyan actually heard voices, or had some similar affliction, it would be correct to assume that he suffered from some form of mental illness (and indeed , but to say that would make him "psychotic" in particular seems a little wrong. (Pointym5 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

I don't think you can honestly say anything about Bunyan being mentally ill for hearing voices, which is a lot more common than you might think. There's even a 'voices network' for people who are not ill but hear voices -- hearing voices is a cardinal symptom of schizophrenia, but it has to be accompanied by other symptoms for diagnosis.

A propos (a bit), there was something in the news a while back about Bunyan being the first recorded patient suffering from a nervous disorder that only affects bellringers - I can't find the story now, because I've forgotten the name of the disorder. Anyone seen this, or help pin it down?

Incidentally, this Bunyan entry ought to be linked to Bedfordshire i think 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Garrick92 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source which contains a modern historian with knowledge of psychology, or a psychologist who believes they have sufficient information and they agree with your statement about Bunyan, I hardly think it's appropriate for people to make that decision about Bunyan themselves.--Austin.McKnight (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I've created a new web forum called "A Pilgrim's Discussion." http://bunyan.jrneumiller.com/forum/index.php You're welcome to visit and discuss this very interesting story of Metaphor, Allegory, and such.

This whole article seems VERY slanted and one sided... can someone please look at this to try to make it more historically correct? It seems like it's written almost from some 'fundamentalistically approved' opinion. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallbe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Works

The list of works should be divided by books vs the many pamphlets, and listed by date. DGG 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Question whether the tone of main article is appropriate for wikipedia

There is a specific line in the wikipedia text about Bunyan's work "Abundance of Grace to the Chief of Sinners", specifically: It is very prolix and, being all about Bunyan himself, would seem intolerably egotistical except that his motive in writing it was plainly to exalt the Christian concept of grace and to comfort those passing through experiences like his own.

The terms "intolerably egotistical" don't seem to be a neutral viewpoint. Having read a Penguin Classics version of this work, I would note that the introduction calls this work "a spiritual autobiography", and names certain characteristics of spiritual autobiographies, which this work shares. Specifically, it has to tell about a life before salvation, possible cases of divine intervention saving the person's life, the salvation process, the calling to ministry, and the current state of the person's life. As such, it is actually a specific type of literature which *must* be about the person themselves.

So my question is: could this be improved by being made more neutral? 216.54.1.206 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Mike Rudmin, 8:22 PM Oct. 4, 2007

I agree

The issue was changed. Thank you. --Austin.McKnight (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This may go beyond a problem of tone, but I was loath to open a new thread. The following passage quoted form the section on the Pilgrim's Progress is an example of one of the worst pseudo-intellectual and overtly biased attempts at literary criticism that I have ever seen: "Bunyan's writings are more believable than Daniel Defoe's, regardless of Defoe's realistic portrayals of the human world. Bunyan is not only telling a story and constructing a plot, he is creating a divine composition, in which everything refers to itself. While Defoe may succeed in realistically describing others, Bunyan creates a figurative representation; a complex and somewhat distorted mirror image of ourselves." This passage attempts to make a qualitative comparison between two very different writers that falls apart under even the most superficial scrutiny. In fact, it reveals only an enthusiasm for Bunyan that is inappropriate for anything that would call itself an encyclopedia. I suggest it be removed and replaced with nothing as the value judgment it deploys has no value whatsoever. Please forgive the fact that my post is anonymous. I do not make regular contributions to Wikipedia and I do not know how to sign my response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.11.198 (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-contradiction?

The article now seems to contradict itself as to when "Pilgrim's Progress" first started to be written... AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd text in article

Somebody put this text in the article: 想新日字越来越难过 ，该怎么办呢] 没人能够相信一个睡梦人，我一直在做梦，两年了 , overwriting some text. Google translate says it means "Think more and more new words, sorry, how to do that] no one can believe that a Shuimeng, I have been dreaming, for two years"

I removed the text, but I wonder what a Shuimeng is.. --Shanedidona (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Diggory Press

I removed the ISBNs for this publisher from the collected works having failed to find any of the titles on their web site or on Amazon. Since all the works are available online they aren't of much value anyway. Chris55 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the historical, political, and cultural context?

The article presents Bunyan altogether too exclusively in his own ahistorical and religious terms. Though the text is strewn with numerous dates (and a link to Charles II), they only situate Bunyan chronologically. There is little or no attention to situating Bunyan historically, culturally, and politically. Bunyan is writing during the period of English Restoration, when there was no such thing as a religious position without political and social implications and vice-versa. The article fails almost completely to take this into account.

Ludwig X (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The answer to your question is probably that most of the people who value Bunyan these days do so purely for his religious imagery and heritage. So why don't you add something to the article? Good source material might be Christopher Hill's "A tinker and a poor man". I haven't read it but it's available on Amazon very cheaply. Chris55 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the words "The English Parliament" and its Wikipedia link to "The Parliamentarians" with a direct to Roundhead. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd to refer to Bunyan's parents as 'working-class' people. The term is entirely inappropriate for the early seventeenth century. The most appropriate way to classify Bunyan's parents (if classifying people rocks your boat) is to refer to them as ordinary villagers, which is what they were. Johnpretty010 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatred of Catholicism

Aside from including half-finished sentences and loaded language, I fail to see how this section is contributing anything noteworthy to the article. I vote for removal. Razzendahcuben (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Very poorly written, seemingly POV-motivated, little if anything of note, certainly doesn't justify a section by itself. Removing. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

i believe that john bunyan is an extremely important historical figure of religious history and therefore it should be included that he thought the catholic church was satanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned262626 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above

Language in article does indeed seem a little loaded, it needs a lot of tidying and shortening somewhat.I vote for removal of hatred of Catholicism section, otherwise where will wiki articles end if hatred topics included for each individual. As for the statement ...Macaulay has said, that... "In England during the latter half of the seventeenth century there were only two minds which possessed the imaginative faculty in a very eminent degree. One of these minds produced the Paradise Lost, the other The Pilgrim's Progress." Well clearly this Macaulay guy never read Sir Thomas Browne's 'The Garden of Cyrus' of 1658 a work which easily qualifies as an example of the imaginative faculty in operation to a very eminent degree!! Bunyan not the sole imaginative author of the 17th century but certainly the best known due to his agenda.Norwikian (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The ignorance and bias of the author exceeded only by the commentators.

"This Macauley guy" happens to have been the most well-respected historian in Victorian England. You may have read a book you stumbled over which impressed you, but you know precious little of historians and historiography in Victorian England.

This biography of Bunyan is hopelessly biased, and should be removed altogether until it can be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.248.223 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Minor Changes Needed

While this article largely does justice to John Bunyan, the wroiter may have relied too much on one source - the public domain text by J W Cousin. Of many biographies about John Bunyan, I especially recommend the well-researched book <Brittain, V. - In the Steps of John Bunyan - Rich & Cowan (London, 1949)> by Christian pacifist Vera Brittain <www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jbrittain.htm>. 1) John was not really a "Baptist in the Church of England". After his conversion, John considered himself an independent Christian and did not believe that baptism was a pre-requisite to communion (as stated clearly, later in the article). His book on baptism would not endear John to a big "B" Baptist! The license that was issued, in 1672, for the Bedford free church to use the barn south of Mill Street, included the words "to be a place for the use of such as doe not conforme to the Church of England who are of the Perswasion commonly called Congrgationall." In the 1950's the Bunyan Meeting was still considered to be a Congregational church - although it is now called the Bunyan Meeting Free Church and defines itself as ecumenical <www.bedfordmuseum.org/johnbunyanmuseum/church.htm> 2) It's unlikely that Bunyan became "pastor of St Paul's church", which is the largest Anglican church in Bedford.He probably preached there during the Commowealth period <see WP article on Bedford> and was interrupted by Quakers (as was their custom), but was not qualified to be a rector/vicar. 3) The Chiltern Hills (near Dunstable) were the image for the Delectable Mountains, but do NOT surround Bedfordshire. Rather, the Chilterns are in the extreme south of the county and run, in a south-westerly direction, into Buckinghamshire JohnRAbrams (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bunyan a Romanichal?

In the article listing famous Romanichals, John Bunyan is there, yet it's not mentioned here. What's the truth? 194.72.120.131 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)