Talk:John Bunyan

Problem with mislabeling in first sentence of the article
"John Bunyan (/ˈbʌnjən/; baptised on November 30, 1628 – August 31, 1688) was an English writer and Puritan preacher".

Bunyan was not a puritan, he was a separatist, ie pilgrim. The blurring of distinctions seems to unfortunately revolve around those institutions who are defending their state of institution - lumping anyone not them into one category. ie, to the catholic, anyone not catholic is a protestant - just "protesting the church". To the church of England, which is protestant (although it still heavily leans catholic as it is a state created church), anyone not Anglican wants to just "purify" the church. The distinction is complete here as original puritans just wanted to reform the church of England. Separatists didn't want to purify the church of England, they wanted to be separate from it.

The times Bunyan lived in and his life can not be understood without the clear labeling of what he was - a separatist, a pilgrim. As they are frequently misused labels, I will put why it matters here for further discussion.

Bunyan was not a protestant. He was not jailed by the catholic church, he was jailed by the church of England for preaching without a license. Bunyan was not a puritan. He was not trying to "further reform the church and state" i.e. "the Puritan views of theology, politics, and the reformation of the English church and society", from a Wikipedia article.

Bunyan was arrested for preaching without a license. Being arrested for not preaching with a license emphasizes the difference between Puritans who want the "reforming of church and state" and separatists who did not want anything to do with them and to be separate. The former can still believe in needing a license to preach and arresting anyone who doesn't.

Bunyan preached in a separatist church. His most famous book is titled Pilgrim's Progress, which again emphasis the focus on "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you". 2 Corinthians 6:17, and that God had "called them out of the world" - so the book is about a spiritual and individual journey though this life, out of the world and to the "celestial city". It is not about the puritan themes of reforming church and state, which are things in this world. (America's pilgrims were also separatists, but from a different group then Bunyan's congregation).

So the first sentence of article should be changed. I recommend "John Bunyan (/ˈbʌnjən/; baptised on November 30, 1628 – August 31, 1688) was an English writer and Puritan preacher". be changed to

"John Bunyan (/ˈbʌnjən/; baptised on November 30, 1628 – August 31, 1688) was an English writer, preacher, and separatist (pilgrim)". as he was clearly not puritan, but preached at a separatist meeting, and does not match at all the history of why he was arrested or by who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:D93D:1F2E:4B81:D8CB (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
The imprisonment section only mentions the first time he was imprisoned. The second time, when he wrote Pilgrim's Progress, is not mentioned. Later life mentions it, but it is one sentence, does not mention that was when he wrote Pilgrim's Progress, and it appears inaccurate and incomplete. Suggest it be rewritten and both imprisonments be put in the imprisoned section.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:D93D:1F2E:4B81:D8CB (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 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.

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)

Fix for Selected Bibliography
I added a paragraph to the "Selected Bibliography" section to resolve the problem of unreferenced sources for book titles. It also resolves a question which might arise about the best collection of Bunyan's works.

For corroboration, look up the respective titles in the Text archive section of the archive.org, at https://archive.org/search.php?query=works%20of%20john%20bunyan

If you agree that this resolves the problem, please remove the template placeholder. If not, please explain what else could be needed. EricP (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Quakers != Quakers
At the time of his first published book - Some Gospel Truths Opened - the term Quaker was being applied to a wider range of groups than those which subsequently formed the Society of Friends. Much of the book is therefore targetting the wider 'Ranter' movement, which held substantially different views from the Quakers. I've therefore altered the description of the book to include a reference to the Ranters, though it can be argued that only the Ranters were his target, and the Quakers, as later constituted, would have been largely acceptable to him in doctrine, although their abandonment of the sacraments may have been a barrier. For a discussion of the matter see the editor's introduction to the book, here, in Bunyan's collected works, p. 130f

Rev. Ed.

This probably needs tidying up! Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)