2020/12/25

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

Gospel of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Gospel according to John (GreekΕὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ἸωάννηνromanizedEuangélion katà Iōánnēn, also known as the Gospel of John, or simply John) is the fourth of the four canonical gospels. It contains a highly schematic account of the ministry of Jesus, with seven "signs" culminating in the raising of Lazarus (foreshadowing the resurrection of Jesus) and seven "I am" discourses culminating in Thomas's proclamation of the risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God";[1] the concluding verses set out its purpose, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."[2][3]

John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[4] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[5] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[6][7] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[8][9] and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[10]

The discourses seem to be concerned with issues of the church–synagogue debate at the time of composition.[11]

Composition[edit]

Composition[edit]

The gospel of John, like all the gospels, is anonymous.[12] John 21:24-25 references a Beloved Disciple, stating of him: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true; but there are also many other things that Jesus did; if all of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."[8] Early Christian tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), identified this disciple with John the Apostle, but most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis or hold it only tenuously[13] – for example, the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.[14] These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel.[8] (Recent arguments by Richard Bauckham and others that John's gospel preserves eyewitness testimony have not won general acceptance).[15][16]

Most scholars believe that John reached its final form around AD 90–110.[4] Given its complex history there may have been more than one place of composition, and while the author was familiar with Jewish customs and traditions, his frequent clarification of these implies that he wrote for a mixed Jewish/Gentile or Jewish context outside Palestine. The author may have drawn on a "signs source" (a collection of miracles) for chapters 1-12, a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, and a "sayings source" for the discourses, but these hypotheses are much debated.[17] He seems to have known some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order,[18][19] but key terms from those gospels are absent or nearly so, implying that if he did know them he felt free to write independently.[19] The Hebrew scriptures were an important source,[20] with 14 direct quotations (versus 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke), and their influence is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included.[21] The majority of John's direct quotations do not agree exactly with any known version of the Jewish scriptures.[22]

Setting: the Johannine community debate[edit]

For much of the 20th century scholars interpreted John within the paradigm of a Johannine community,[23] meaning that the gospel sprang from a late 1st century Christian community excommunicated from the Jewish synagogue (probably meaning the Jewish community)[24] on account of its belief in Jesus as the promised Jewish messiah.[25] This interpretation, which saw the community as essentially sectarian and standing outside the mainstream of early Christianity, has been increasingly challenged in the first decades of the 21st century,[26] and there is currently considerable debate over the social, religious and historical context of the gospel.[27] Nevertheless, the Johannine literature as a whole (made up of the gospel, the three Johannine epistles, and Revelation), reveals a community holding itself distinct from the Jewish culture from which it arose while cultivating an intense devotion to Jesus as the definitive revelation of a God with whom they were in close contact through the Paraclete.[28]

Structure and content[edit]

Jesus giving the Farewell Discourse to his 11 remaining disciples, from the Maestà of Duccio, 1308–1311.

The majority of scholars see four sections in John's gospel: a prologue (1:1–18); an account of the ministry, often called the "Book of Signs" (1:19–12:50); the account of Jesus' final night with his disciples and the passion and resurrection, sometimes called the "book of glory" (13:1–20:31); and a conclusion (20:30–31); to these is added an epilogue which most scholars believe did not form part of the original text (Chapter 21).[29][30]

  • The prologue informs readers of the true identity of Jesus, the Word of God through whom the world was created and who took on human form;[31] he came to the Jews and the Jews rejected him, but "to all who received him (the circle of Christian believers), who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God."[32]
  • Book of Signs (ministry of Jesus): Jesus is baptized, calls his disciples, and begins his earthly ministry.[33] He travels from place to place informing his hearers about God the Father in long discourses, offering eternal life to all who will believe, and performing miracles which are signs of the authenticity of his teachings, but this creates tensions with the religious authorities (manifested as early as 5:17–18), who decide that he must be eliminated.[33][34]
  • The Book of Glory tells of Jesus's return to his heavenly father: it tells how he prepares his disciples for their coming lives without his physical presence and his prayer for himself and for them, followed by his betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion and post-resurrection appearances.[34]
  • The conclusion sets out the purpose of the gospel, which is "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."[2]
  • Chapter 21, the addendum, tells of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in Galilee, the miraculous catch of fish, the prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter, and the fate of the Beloved Disciple.[2]

The structure is highly schematic: there are seven "signs" culminating in the raising of Lazarus (foreshadowing the resurrection of Jesus), and seven "I am" sayings and discourses, culminating in Thomas's proclamation of the risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (the same title, dominus et deus, claimed by the Emperor Domitian, an indication of the date of composition).[1]

Theology[edit]

The Rylands Papyrus the oldest known New Testament fragment, dated to about 125.

Christology[edit]

John's "high Christology" depicts Jesus as divine, preexistent, and identified with the one God,[35] talking openly about his divine role and echoing Yahweh's "I Am that I Am" with seven "I Am" declarations of his own:[36]

Yet scholars agree that while John clearly regards Jesus as divine, he just as clearly subordinates him to the one God.[37]

Logos[edit]

In the prologue, the gospel identifies Jesus as the Logos or Word. In Ancient Greek philosophy, the term logos meant the principle of cosmic reason.[38] In this sense, it was similar to the Hebrew concept of Wisdom, God's companion and intimate helper in creation. The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. According to Stephen Harris, the gospel adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, the incarnation of the Logos.[39]

Another possibility is that the title Logos is based on the concept of the divine Word found in the Targums (Aramaic translation/interpretations recited in the synagogue after the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures). In the Targums (which all post-date the first century but which give evidence of preserving early material), the concept of the divine Word was used in a manner similar to Philo, namely, for God's interaction with the world (starting from creation) and especially with his people, e.g. Israel, was saved from Egypt by action of "the Word of the LORD," both Philo and the Targums envision the Word as being manifested between the cherubim and the Holy of Holies, etc.[40]

Cross[edit]

The portrayal of Jesus' death in John is unique among the four Gospels. It does not appear to rely on the kinds of atonement theology indicative of vicarious sacrifice (cf. Mark 10:45Romans 3:25) but rather presents the death of Jesus as his glorification and return to the Father. Likewise, the three "passion predictions" of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 8:319:3110:33–34 and pars.) are replaced instead in John with three instances of Jesus explaining how he will be exalted or "lifted up"(John 3:148:2812:32). The verb for "lifted up" (Greek: ὑψωθῆναι, hypsōthēnai) reflects the double entendre at work in John's theology of the cross, for Jesus is both physically elevated from the earth at the crucifixion but also, at the same time, exalted and glorified.[41]

Sacraments[edit]

Scholars disagree both on whether and how frequently John refers to sacraments, but current scholarly opinion is that there are very few such possible references, that if they exist they are limited to baptism and the Eucharist.[42] In fact, there is no institution of the Eucharist in John's account of the Last Supper (it is replaced with Jesus washing the feet of his disciples), and no New Testament text that unambiguously links baptism with rebirth.[43]

Individualism[edit]

In comparison to the synoptic gospels, the fourth gospel is markedly individualistic, in the sense that it places emphasis more on the individual's relation to Jesus than on the corporate nature of the Church.[44][45] This is largely accomplished through the consistently singular grammatical structure of various aphoristic sayings of Jesus throughout the gospel.[44][Notes 1] According to Richard Bauckham, emphasis on believers coming into a new group upon their conversion is conspicuously absent from John.[44] There is also a theme of "personal coinherence", that is, the intimate personal relationship between the believer and Jesus in which the believer "abides" in Jesus and Jesus in the believer.[45][44][Notes 2] According to C. F. D. Moule, the individualistic tendencies of John could potentially give rise to a realized eschatology achieved on the level of the individual believer; this realized eschatology is not, however, to replace "orthodox", futurist eschatological expectations, but is to be "only [their] correlative."[46]

John the Baptist[edit]

John's account of the Baptist is different from that of the synoptic gospels. In this gospel, John is not called "the Baptist."[47] The Baptist's ministry overlaps with that of Jesus; his baptism of Jesus is not explicitly mentioned, but his witness to Jesus is unambiguous.[47] The evangelist almost certainly knew the story of John's baptism of Jesus and he makes a vital theological use of it.[48] He subordinates the Baptist to Jesus, perhaps in response to members of the Baptist's sect who regarded the Jesus movement as an offshoot of their movement.[49]

In John's gospel, Jesus and his disciples go to Judea early in Jesus' ministry before John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed by Herod. He leads a ministry of baptism larger than John's own. The Jesus Seminar rated this account as black, containing no historically accurate information.[50] According to the biblical historians at the Jesus Seminar, John likely had a larger presence in the public mind than Jesus.[51]

Gnosticism[edit]

In the first half of the 20th century, many scholars, primarily including Rudolph Bultmann, have forcefully argued that the Gospel of John has elements in common with Gnosticism.[49] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century, and so 2nd-century Proto-Orthodox Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it.[52] To say John's gospel contained elements of Gnosticism is to assume that Gnosticism had developed to a level that required the author to respond to it.[53] Bultmann, for example, argued that the opening theme of the Gospel of John, the pre-existing Logos, along with John's duality of light versus darkness in his Gospel were originally Gnostic themes that John adopted. Other scholars (e.g., Raymond E. Brown) have argued that the pre-existing Logos theme arises from the more ancient Jewish writings in the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs, and was fully developed as a theme in Hellenistic Judaism by Philo Judaeus.[54] The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran verified the Jewish nature of these concepts.[55] April DeConick has suggested reading John 8:56 in support of a Gnostic theology,[56] however recent scholarship has cast doubt on her reading.[57]

Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently from the way non-Gnostics did.[58] Gnosticism taught that salvation came from gnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics did not see Jesus as a savior but a revealer of knowledge.[59] Barnabas Lindars asserts that the gospel teaches that salvation can only be achieved through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus.[60]

Raymond Brown contends that "The Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above, who said that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world,[61] and who promised to return to take them to a heavenly dwelling[62] could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God's love for the world in 3:16 could not)."[63] It has been suggested that similarities between John's gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature.[64]

Comparison with other writings[edit]

Syriac Christian rendition of St. John the Evangelist, from the Rabbula Gospels.

Synoptic gospels and Pauline literature[edit]

The Gospel of John is significantly different from the synoptic gospels in the selection of its material, its theological emphasis, its chronology, and literary style, with some of its discrepancies amounting to contradictions.[65] The following are some examples of their differences in just one area, that of the material they include in their narratives:[66]

Material found in the Synoptics but absent from JohnMaterial found in John but absent from the Synoptics
Narrative parablesSymbolic discourses
The Kingdom of GodTeaching on eternal life
The end-time (or Olivet) discourseEmphasis on realized eschatology
The Sermon of the Mount and Lord's PrayerJesus's "farewell discourse"
The baptism of Jesus by JohnInteraction between Jesus and John
The institution of the Lord's SupperJesus as the "bread of heaven"
The Transfiguration of JesusScenes in the upper room
The Temptation of Jesus by SatanSatan as Jesus's antagonist working through Judas
Exorcism of demonsNo demon exorcisms

In the Synoptics, the ministry of Jesus takes a single year, but in John it takes three, as evidenced by references to three Passovers. Events are not all in the same order: the date of the crucifixion is different, as is the time of Jesus' anointing in Bethany and the cleansing of the Temple, which occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than near its end.[67]

Many incidents from John, such as the wedding in Cana, the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well, and the raising of Lazarus, are not paralleled in the synoptics, and most scholars believe the author drew these from an independent source called the "signs gospel", the speeches of Jesus from a second "discourse" source,[68][19] and the prologue from an early hymn.[69] The gospel makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures:[68] John quotes from them directly, references important figures from them, and uses narratives from them as the basis for several of the discourses. The author was also familiar with non-Jewish sources: the Logos of the prologue (the Word that is with God from the beginning of creation), for example, was derived from both the Jewish concept of Lady Wisdom and from the Greek philosophers, John 6 alludes not only to the exodus but also to Greco-Roman mystery cults, and John 4 alludes to Samaritan messianic beliefs.[70]

John lacks scenes from the Synoptics such as Jesus' baptism,[71] the calling of the Twelve, exorcisms, parables, and the Transfiguration. Conversely, it includes scenes not found in the Synoptics, including Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and multiple visits to Jerusalem.[67]

In the fourth gospel, Jesus' mother Mary, while frequently mentioned, is never identified by name.[72][73] John does assert that Jesus was known as the "son of Joseph" in 6:42. For John, Jesus' town of origin is irrelevant, for he comes from beyond this world, from God the Father.[74]

While John makes no direct mention of Jesus' baptism,[71][67] he does quote John the Baptist's description of the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove, as happens at Jesus' baptism in the Synoptics. Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse,[75] and the exorcisms of demons are never mentioned as in the Synoptics.[71][76] John never lists all of the Twelve Disciples and names at least one disciple, Nathanael, whose name is not found in the Synoptics. Thomas is given a personality beyond a mere name, described as "Doubting Thomas".[77]

Jesus is identified with the Word ("Logos"), and the Word is identified with theos ("god" in Greek);[78] no such identification is made in the Synoptics.[79] In Mark, Jesus urges his disciples to keep his divinity secret, but in John he is very open in discussing it, even referring to himself as "I AM", the title God gives himself in Exodus at his self-revelation to Moses. In the Synoptics, the chief theme is the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven (the latter specifically in Matthew), while John's theme is Jesus as the source of eternal life and the Kingdom is only mentioned twice.[67][76] In contrast to the synoptic expectation of the Kingdom (using the term parousia, meaning "coming"), John presents a more individualistic, realized eschatology.[80][Notes 3]

In the Synoptics, quotations from Jesus are usually in the form of short, pithy sayings; in John, longer quotations are often given. The vocabulary is also different, and filled with theological import: in John, Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" which unveil his divine identity.[67] Most scholars consider John not to contain any parables. Rather it contains metaphorical stories or allegories, such as those of the Good Shepherd and of the True Vine, in which each individual element corresponds to a specific person, group, or thing. Other scholars consider stories like the childbearing woman (16:21) or the dying grain (12:24) to be parables.[Notes 4]

According to the Synoptics, the arrest of Jesus was a reaction to the cleansing of the temple, while according to John it was triggered by the raising of Lazarus.[67] The Pharisees, portrayed as more uniformly legalistic and opposed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, are instead portrayed as sharply divided; they debate frequently in John's accounts. Some, such as Nicodemus, even go so far as to be at least partially sympathetic to Jesus. This is believed to be a more accurate historical depiction of the Pharisees, who made debate one of the tenets of their system of belief.[82]

In place of the communal emphasis of the Pauline literature, John stresses the personal relationship of the individual to God.[83]

Johannine literature[edit]

The Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles exhibit strong resemblances in theology and style; the Book of Revelation has also been traditionally linked with these, but differs from the gospel and letters in style and even theology.[84] The letters were written later than the gospel, and while the gospel reflects the break between the Johannine Christians and the Jewish synagogue, in the letters the Johannine community itself is disintegrating ("They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out..." - 1 John 2:19).[85] This secession was over Christology, the "knowledge of Christ", or more accurately the understanding of Christ's nature, for the ones who "went out" hesitated to identify Jesus with Christ, minimising the significance of the earthly ministry and denying the salvific importance of Jesus's death on the cross.[86] The epistles argue against this view, stressing the eternal existence of the Son of God, the salvific nature of his life and death, and the other elements of the gospel's "high" Christology.[86]

Historical reliability[edit]

The teachings of Jesus found in the synoptic gospels are very different from those recorded in John, and since the 19th century scholars have almost unanimously accepted that these Johannine discourses are less likely than the synoptic parables to be historical, and were likely written for theological purposes.[87] By the same token, scholars usually agree that John is not entirely without historical value: certain sayings in John are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, his representation of the topography around Jerusalem is often superior to that of the synoptics, his testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and his presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels.[88]

Representations[edit]

Bede translating the Gospel of John on his deathbed, by James Doyle Penrose, 1902. Depicts the Venerable Bede as an elderly man with a long, white beard, sitting in a darkened room and dictating his translation of the Bible, as a younger scribe, sitting across from him, writes down his words. Two monks, standing together in the corner of the room, look on.
Bede translating the Gospel of John on his deathbed, by James Doyle Penrose, 1902.

The gospel has been depicted in live narrations and dramatized in productions, skitsplays, and Passion Plays, as well as in film. The most recent such portrayal is the 2014 film The Gospel of John, directed by David Batty and narrated by David Harewood and Brian Cox, with Selva Rasalingam as Jesus. The 2003 film The Gospel of John, was directed by Philip Saville, narrated by Christopher Plummer, with Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus.

Parts of the gospel have been set to music. One such setting is Steve Warner's power anthem "Come and See", written for the 20th anniversary of the Alliance for Catholic Education and including lyrical fragments taken from the Book of Signs. Additionally, some composers have made settings of the Passion as portrayed in the gospel, most notably the one composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, although some verses are borrowed from Matthew.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Bauckham 2015 contrasts John's consistent use of the third person singular ("The one who..."; "If anyone..."; "Everyone who..."; "Whoever..."; "No one...") with the alternative third person plural constructions he could have used instead ("Those who..."; "All those who..."; etc.). He also notes that the sole exception occurs in the prologue, serving a narrative purpose, whereas the later aphorisms serve a "paraenetic function".
  2. ^ See John 6:5610:14–1510:38, and 14:10, 17, 20, and 23.
  3. ^ Realized eschatology is a Christian eschatological theory popularized by C. H. Dodd (1884–1973). It holds that the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to future events, but instead to the ministry of Jesus and his lasting legacy.[81] In other words, it holds that Christian eschatological expectations have already been realized or fulfilled.
  4. ^ See Zimmermann 2015, pp. 333–60.

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b Witherington 2004, p. 83.
  2. Jump up to:a b c Edwards 2015, p. 171.
  3. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 215.
  4. Jump up to:a b Lincoln 2005, p. 18.
  5. ^ Hendricks 2007, p. 147.
  6. ^ Reddish 2011, pp. 13.
  7. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 214.
  8. Jump up to:a b c Reddish 2011, p. 41.
  9. ^ Bynum 2012, p. 15.
  10. ^ Harris 2006, p. 479.
  11. ^ Lindars 1990, p. 53.
  12. ^ O'Day 1998, p. 381.
  13. ^ Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
  14. ^ Kelly 2012, p. 115.
  15. ^ Eve 2016, p. 135.
  16. ^ Porter & Fay 2018, p. 41.
  17. ^ Reddish 2011, p. 187-188.
  18. ^ Lincoln 2005, pp. 29–30.
  19. Jump up to:a b c Fredriksen 2008, p. unpaginated.
  20. ^ Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 14.
  21. ^ Yu Chui Siang Lau 2010, p. 159.
  22. ^ Menken 1996, p. 11-13.
  23. ^ Lamb 2014, p. 2.
  24. ^ Hurtado 2005, p. 70.
  25. ^ Köstenberger 2006, p. 72.
  26. ^ Lamb 2014, p. 2-3.
  27. ^ Bynum 2012, p. 7,12.
  28. ^ Attridge 2006, p. 125.
  29. ^ Moloney 1998, p. 23.
  30. ^ Bauckham 2008, p. 126.
  31. ^ Aune 2003, p. 245.
  32. ^ Aune 2003, p. 246.
  33. Jump up to:a b Van der Watt 2008, p. 10.
  34. Jump up to:a b Kruse 2004, p. 17.
  35. ^ Hurtado 2005, p. 51.
  36. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 302–10.
  37. ^ Hurtado 2005, pp. 53.
  38. ^ Greene 2004, p. p37-.
  39. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 302–310.
  40. ^ Ronning 2010.
  41. ^ Kysar 2007, p. 49–54.
  42. ^ Bauckham 2015, p. 83-84.
  43. ^ Bauckham 2015, p. 89,94.
  44. Jump up to:a b c d Bauckham 2015.
  45. Jump up to:a b Moule 1962, p. 172.
  46. ^ Moule 1962, p. 174.
  47. Jump up to:a b Cross & Livingstone 2005.
  48. ^ Barrett 1978, p. 16.
  49. Jump up to:a b Harris 2006.
  50. ^ Funk 1998, pp. 365–440.
  51. ^ Funk 1998, p. 268.
  52. ^ Olson 1999, p. 36.
  53. ^ Kysar 2005, pp. 88ff.
  54. ^ Brown 1997.
  55. ^ Charlesworth 2010, p. 42.
  56. ^ DeConick 2016, pp. 13-.
  57. ^ Llewelyn, Robinson & Wassell 2018, pp. 14–23.
  58. ^ Most 2005, pp. 121ff.
  59. ^ Skarsaune 2008, pp. 247ff.
  60. ^ Lindars 1990, p. 62.
  61. ^ John 17:14
  62. ^ John 14:2–3
  63. ^ Brown 1997, p. 375.
  64. ^ Kovacs 1995.
  65. ^ Burge 2014, pp. 236–237.
  66. ^ Köstenberger 2013, p. unpaginated.
  67. Jump up to:a b c d e f Burge 2014, pp. 236–37.
  68. Jump up to:a b Reinhartz 2017, p. 168.
  69. ^ Perkins 1993, p. 109.
  70. ^ Reinhartz 2017, p. 171.
  71. Jump up to:a b c Funk & Hoover 1993, pp. 1–30.
  72. ^ Williamson 2004, p. 265.
  73. ^ Michaels 1971, p. 733.
  74. ^ Fredriksen 2008.
  75. ^ Pagels 2003.
  76. Jump up to:a b Thompson 2006, p. 184.
  77. ^ Walvoord & Zuck 1985, p. 313.
  78. ^ Ehrman 2005.
  79. ^ Carson 1991, p. 117.
  80. ^ Moule 1962, pp. 172–74.
  81. ^ Ladd & Hagner 1993, p. 56.
  82. ^ Neusner 2003, p. 8.
  83. ^ Bauckham 2015, p. unpaginated.
  84. ^ Van der Watt 2008, p. 1.
  85. ^ Moloney 1998, p. 4.
  86. Jump up to:a b Watson 2014, p. 112.
  87. ^ Sanders 1995, pp. 57, 70–71.
  88. ^ Theissen & Merz 1998, pp. 36–37.

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]

Online translations of the Gospel of John:

Gospel of John
Preceded by
Gospel of
Luke
New Testament
Books of the Bible
Succeeded by
Acts
of the Apostles


2020/12/24

알라딘: 퀘이커 350년 하워드 브린튼,마가렛 베이컨 (지은이),함석헌,퀘이커 서울모임

알라딘: 퀘이커 350년

퀘이커 350년   
하워드 브린튼,마가렛 베이컨 (지은이),함석헌,퀘이커 서울모임 (옮긴이)퀘이커서울출판부2018-03-01원제 : Friends for 300 years
359쪽

책소개

퀘이커는 전 세계적으로 평화와 화해를 위한 활동으로 널리 알려져 있는 기독교 소수 종파로서, 300여 년의 역사를 통해 전쟁에 반대하고 폭력에 저항하는 사회활동으로 미국과 영국의 퀘이커 친우봉사회가 노벨평화상(1947)을 수상하기도 했다. 이 책의 구성은 크게 17세기 중엽 이후 300년 동안 친우회(퀘이커)의 역사를 담은 ‘퀘이커 300년’과 20세기 중.후반부터 21세기 초엽까지를 기록한 ‘그 후 50년’으로 나뉜다.
목차
「퀘이커 350년」 한국판 서문 5
「퀘이커 300년」 한국판 서문 8

퀘이커 300년
1. 주님을 우러러보기 위해 12
2. 속의 빛의 체험 33
3. 사상으로서 속의 빛 56
4. 예배 모임 96
5. 감화 130
6. 결의에 이르기까지 152
7. 모임 공동체 178
8. 모임과 세계 214
9. 퀘이커 역사와 종교형식 256
10. 퀘이커 사상과 현대 291

그 후 50년
그 후 50년 317

부 록
「퀘이커 300년」을 지은이의 말 336더보기

저자 및 역자소개

하워드 브린튼 (Howard Haines Brinton) (지은이) 
미국 물리학자이면서 역사학자, 퀘이 커 사상가. 『퀘이커 300년』은 그가 남긴 많은 저서 가운데 가장 명저로 꼽히고 있다. 부인인 안나 브린 튼(Anna Brinton)과 퀘이커 명상기관인 <펜들 힐> 의 초석을 다지는 데 공헌한다.
최근작 : <퀘이커 350년>

마가렛 베이컨 (Margaret Hope Bacon) (지은이) 
미국 작가, 퀘이커 역사학자. 평생 여성과 소수자를 위한 인권운동에 헌신한 공로로 ‘필라델피아 인권상’ 등을 수상한다.
최근작 : <퀘이커 350년>


함석헌 (옮긴이) 

일제하의 민족 운동가, 그리고 이후 민주주의 인권 운동가이자 종교·평화 사상가로서 끝없는 실천의 인생을 산 함석헌(咸錫憲)은 아버지 함형택(咸亨澤)과 어머니 김형도(金亨道) 사이에서 5남매의 맏아들로 태어났다. 1916년에 보통학교를 졸업한 뒤 의사로서의 진로를 결정, 경성의학전문학교를 갈 생각으로 평양의 관립인 평양고등보통학교에 진학한다. 2학년이던 1917년 8월 부모님의 뜻에 따라 이웃 마을에 살던 황득순(黃得順)과 결혼을 한다(슬하에 2남 5녀). 3학년이 되던 1919년에 당시 숭실학교에서 교사로 재직 중이었던 친척 형 함석은이 찾아와 평안남북도 학생 운동의 책임을 그에게 맡기고 역사적인 3·1 운동을 직접 경험하게 되면서 의사를 꿈꾸던 함석헌의 생애는 크게 바뀌게 된다.
3·1 운동 참여 이후 학교를 자퇴하게 된 함석헌은 소학교에서 교편을 잡거나 수리조합에서 조합원 일을 하며 2년 간 방황하다가, 아버지의 권유로 일단 학업을 이어 나가기 위해 경성으로 가게 된다. 신학기 시작을 놓쳐 입학할 학교를 찾지 못했던 그는 함석규 목사의 추천을 받아 1921년 정주의 오산중학교 3학년으로 입학한다.
1923년 오산학교를 졸업하고 도쿄로 유학길에 오른 함석헌은 고심 끝에 교육자로서의 진로를 정하고 이듬해 도쿄고등사범학교 문과 1부(甲組)에 입학하게 되었으나, 당시 일본식 국가주의로 무장된 직업 교사 양성을 목표로 하는 학교의 수업 과정에는 큰 흥미를 느끼지 못했다. 대신, 평생 친구가 되는 김교신(金敎臣)과 친분을 가지게 되고 이어 그가 나가고 있던 우치무라 간조의 성경 연구 모임에 같이 참여하게 되면서 우치무라의 무교회주의에 많은 영향을 받게 된다. 김교신을 포함해 여기서 만난 조선인 친구들(유석동, 송두용, 정상훈, 양인성) 6명은 별도의 모임을 만들어 성서 연구를 지속하면서 1927년 7월 동인지 성격의 ≪성서조선(聖書朝鮮)≫을 도쿄에서 창간한다. 창간호(국판 44쪽)에 발표된 <먼저 그 의를 구하라>는 활자화된 함석헌의 첫 번째 글이라고 할 수 있다.
1928년 도쿄고등사범학교를 졸업한 함석헌은 귀국 후 오산학교에 부임해 역사와 수신(修身)을 가르친다. 한편으로는 ≪성서조선≫을 발행하면서 ‘성서조선 독자회’를 열고 다수의 글을 발표하는 등 사회적 활동을 본격적으로 하게 되지만 그의 무교회주의 방식의 신앙 운동은 기존 기독교인들에게 배척을 받기도 한다. 이에 개의치 않고 자신만의 종교 사상을 개척해 나가던 함석헌은 1933년 12월 30일부터 이듬해 1월 5일까지 송두용의 집(서울 오류동)에서 가진 성서 모임에서 <성서적 입장에서 본 조선 역사> 초고를 발표하고 토론을 거친 뒤 2월부터 1935년 12월까지 ≪성서조선≫에 연재한다. 일제에 의한 조선의 역사 왜곡이 본격화되던 시기에 우리의 역사를 바로 보고자 하는 이 글은 그의 대표작으로서 큰 의미를 가지고 있다. 해방 이후 이 글은 일제 당시 검열로 삭제되었던 부분을 포함해 단행본으로 출간되었으며(1950. 3. 28), 이후에는 ‘성서적 입장’을 빼고 대폭 수정해 ≪뜻으로 본 한국 역사≫(1962)로 제목을 변경·출간했는데 민중의 고난을 중심으로 하는 이른바 ‘씨? 사관’을 보여 주는 그의 중요한 저술이다.
일제 말기 점점 노골화되던 식민지 교육 정책 속에서 창씨개명과 일본어 교육이 강조되자 더 이상 선생직을 유지할 수 없다고 판단한 함석헌은 1938년 오산학교를 그만두고, 과수원을 경영하기도 했는데 이해에 자식 둘을 홍역으로 잃는다. 1940년 평양 송산리의 송산(松山)농사학원을 인수해 거처를 옮긴다. 하지만 전 주인이었던 김두혁(金斗赫)이 도쿄로 유학 가서 도쿄농과대학 조선인 졸업생들과 만든 소위 ‘계우회(鷄友會)’ 모임 사건으로 구속되었는데, 함석헌도 연루자로 검거되어 1년 여 동안 평양의 대동경찰서에 수감되었다. 결국 농사학원은 폐원되었고, 아버지는 옥살이 중에 세상을 떠나게 되어 임종을 지키지 못하게 된다.
1942년 3월 ≪성서조선≫에 김교신이 쓴 권두언을 문제 삼은 일제의 폐간 조치와 더불어 함석헌 역시 연루자로 지목되면서 다시 서대문 형무소에서 1년간 복역한다. 출소 후, 고향에서 농사를 짓고 있던 중 오랜 벗이자 스승의 관계였던 김교신의 사망으로 인한 큰 충격과 슬픔 속에서 해방을 맞게 된다.
해방 공간에서 여러 자리에 불려 다니며 평안북도 임시 자치 위원회 문교부장을 맡기도 하였으나, 반소(反蘇)?반공(反共) 시위인 ‘신의주 학생 사건’에 연루되어 소련군 사령부에 의해 체포되어 평안북도 경찰부 유치장에 또다시 50여 일을 감금당하고 만다. 석방된 지 얼마 되지 않아 오산학교에 뿌려진 반정부 전단의 배후 인물로 지목되어 또다시 투옥된다. 별다른 용의점이 없어 한 달 만에 석방되었으나, 아버지에게 물려받은 땅 때문에 당시 내려진 ‘지주 숙청령’의 대상이 되었고 이를 피하기 위해 결국 1947년 월남을 감행한다. 1년여 후 아내와 자식 일부도 월남했으나, 어머니는 내려오지 못하고 이산가족이 된다.
월남 직후 오류동 노연태의 집에서 지내면서 YMCA 강당에서 일요 종교 집회를 시작하고, 유영모 선생 등과 함께 모임을 가지던 중 한국 전쟁이 발발하면서 대구, 김해 등지로 피난을 가게 되는데 이때 가진 한 성서집회에서 그간의 무교회주의와 결별하는 신앙적 변화를 겪게 된다. 퀘이커(Quaker)에 관심을 갖게 된 것도 이즈음으로 여긴다. 휴전 이후 다시 서울에 올라와 강연 활동과 양계장을 하며 어렵게 삶에 정착해 나가는 가운데 ≪말씀≫, ≪편지≫ 등의 신앙 잡지에 여러 글을 발표한다. 그중 1956년 ≪사상계≫ 1월호에 발표한 <한국의 기독교는 무엇을 하고 있는가>라는 글에서 그는 기독교의 타락상과 계급화를 비판했는데, 이 글은 그의 이름을 널리 알리는 결정적인 계기가 된다. 이후에도 함석헌은 ≪사상계≫에 영향력이 큰 글들을 발표하면서 장준하와 함께 군사 독재와 치열하게 싸우는 길을 걷게 된다. 한편으로는 언제나 꿈꾸어 왔던 ‘이상촌’을 위해 기증(정만수 장로)받은 천안(봉명동)의 땅에서 교육과 농사를 함께하는 공동체를 운영하기도 했다. 이곳의 이름을 ‘씨?농장’이라고 했는데, 후일에 직접 번역해 책으로 출간한 간디의 자서전을 읽게 된 것도 이 무렵이다.
1958년 8월호 ≪사상계≫에 발표한 <생각하는 백성이라야 산다>로 국가 보안법 위반 혐의를 받아 서대문 형무소에 20여 일간 구금되는, 이승만 정권 시기 대표적인 필화 사건을 겪는다. 함석헌의 첫 번째 정치 평론이라고 할 수 있는 이 글로 인한 필화 사건 이후 함석헌은 오히려 왕성하게 글들을 발표하면서, ‘씨?농장’에서 시국을 참회하는 단식 투쟁을 전개하는 등 사회적인 목소리를 높여 간다. 1961년 ≪사상계≫ 7월호에 쿠데타를 통해 집권하게 된 당시 군부 정권을 비판하는 글 <5·16을 어떻게 볼까>로 인해 사장이었던 장준하와 취재부장이 중앙정보부에 체포되기도 했으나 당시 대중에게 끼치는 영향력 때문이었는지 정작 함석헌을 체포하지는 못했다.
1962년 2월 미 국무성의 초청으로 3개월 예정 방미 길에 오른다. 귀국한 직후 7월에 오산학교 강당에서 귀국 강연회(오산학교 동창 주최)를, 이어 시민회관(지금의 세종문화회관)에서 ≪사상계≫주최의 시국 강연회를 연다. 수많은 인파가 몰려들어 미처 입장하지 못한 시민들을 해산시키기 위해 기마 경관대까지 출동한 이 강연회를 함석헌은 스스로 ‘사회 참여의 시작’으로 보았는데, 이후 장준하와 더불어 활발한 강연을 통해 군사 정권의 잘못을 꾸짖는 한편 굴욕적인 한일 협정의 비준을 반대하는 활동을 한다. 1965년에는 이를 위해 각 분야 인사 30여 명이 결성한 조국 수호 국민 협의회의 상임 대표로 선출되기도 한다.
1969년 박정희 정권의 3선을 위한 개헌을 앞두고 반대 시위에 앞장서는 한편, 1970년에는 4·19혁명 10주년에 맞추어 개인 잡지 성격의 월간지 ≪씨의 소리≫를 창간하지만 두 달 만에 폐간 조치를 당하게 된다. 이후 법정 투쟁 끝에 승소해 이듬해 8월에야 복간호로 3호를 발행할 수 있게 되었다.

1971년에는 이후 1988년까지 지속된 ≪노자≫와 ≪장자≫ 접기
최근작 : <함석헌 수필선집 (큰글씨책)>,<함석헌 수필선집>,<들사람 얼> … 총 57종 (모두보기)

퀘이커 서울모임 (옮긴이) 

출판사 제공 책소개

이 책의 구성은 크게 17세기 중엽 이후 300년 동안 친우회(퀘이커)의 역사를 담은 ‘퀘이커 300년’과 20세기 중.후반부터 21세기 초엽까지를 기록한 ‘그 후 50년’으로 나뉜다. 전반부를 저술한 하워드 브린튼(Howard Haines Brinton, 1884∼1973)과 후반부를 쓴 마가렛 베이컨(Margaret Hope Bacon, 1921∼2011)은 모두 퀘이커리즘(Quakerism)에 정통한 역사학자로서 그 자신들 역시 퀘이커였다. 특히 브린튼 선생은 1950년대 후반 방한 등을 통해 한국에 대한 이해가 깊은 분이었다.
『퀘이커 300년(원제, ‘Friends for 300 years’)』은 1960년대 초반 함석헌(咸錫憲, 1901~1989) 선생이 이미 한국어로 번역을 마쳤으나 출간하는 데 어려움이 컸던 것으로 보인다. 이때 “500권을 내는 데 500불이 필요하다”는 말을 전해 듣고 브린튼 선생은 <필라델피아 연회의 체이스 펀드(Chase Fund of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting)>에 요청하여 500불의 출판기금을 주선해주었다. 이와 함께 미국에 거주하던 이행우 친우에게 당신의 사진과 서문, 서명을 건네주시며 한국판 출간의 권한을 서울모임에 맡겼다. 저자 서명은 모두 세 개를 주셨는데 이행우 친우로 하여금 “가장 보기 좋은 것으로 골라 쓰라”는 당부가 있었다. 그것은 당시 “너무 연로하여 점자를 쓰면 안 될 정도로 선생의 눈이 보이지 않았기 때문이었다.”고 한다.
『퀘이커 300년』 한국판이 우여곡절 끝에 빛을 본 지 반세기가 넘는 시간이 지나갔다. 서울모임은 2014년 12월 28일 ‘퀘이커 신앙을 한국 사회에 올바로 알리고 친우회의 내적 성숙’을 기하기 위한 목적으로 『퀘이커 350년』 출간 계획을 수립했다. 이 날은 친우회가 한국 땅에서 공식적인 첫 예배모임을 가진 지 1만 9천 7백 34일째가 되는 날이었다. 이는 누군가가 의도를 가지고 진작부터 계획한 일은 아니었다. 그것은 다만 역사의 필연성 위에 이미 흐르고 있는 것이었다. 바로 1953년 6.25전쟁의 폐허 위에 미국과 영국의 친우들이 도착했던 때, 그때부터였던 것이다.
역사적으로 친우회는 일찍이 노예제도, 아동에 의한 노동과 착취, 소수자에 대한 차별, 전쟁과 테러, 총포와 화약을 비롯한 무기사업 등 자유를 억압하는 모든 폭력에 저항해오면서 사회책임을 실현해왔다. 21세기에 들어 친우회는 자연과 환경, 특히 핵 문제에 대한 깊은 우려 속에서 이를 새로운 실천 사명으로 받아들이고 있다. 그러나 이 책은 이들에 대한 어떠한 임무도, 지침도, 교리도 명시하지 않고 있다. 우리가 이 책에 기록하고자 하는 것은 하나님께서 비추고 계시는 빛 즉, 우리 안에서 발현하고 있는 ‘속 빛(inner light)’이다. 우리 친우회에는 수세기가 넘는 고요예배와 집단명상 가운데 서로가 공유하고 있는 의제가 있다. 그것은 어떠한 고난 속에서도 하나님의 뜻을 후세에 전승시켜 왔던 퀘이커들의 방향성이었다. 그리고 그 방향성은 다름 아닌 인류가 보편적으로 추구해왔던 ‘평화’라는 진리로 향하는 길이었다.
평화! 그것은 우리 퀘이커들에게 가능해도 가야 할 길이었지만 불가능해도 가야만 하는 길이었다. 특히 한반도와 같이 좌.우로 갈라진 이념과 남.북으로 분단된 특수한 현실 속에서도, 평화! 그것은 한국 퀘이커가 지향하는 가장 높은 이상이었다. 우리는 세상에 우리가 하는 일을 어떠한 경우에도 내세우지 않고 가장 고요하고, 가장 평화로운 방법을 찾아 실천해왔다. 이러한 취지를 확산시키는 데 이 책을 출간하는 목적이 있다. 그러나 이 모든 것은 그 분께서 주관하시는 일이다. “참 빛, 곧 세상에 와서 각 사람에게 비추는 빛이 있어나니(요한복음 1장 9절)”.... 한국어판 서문 중에서.
----
퀘이커는 전 세계적으로 평화와 화해를 위한 활동으로 널리 알려져 있는 기독교 소수 종파로서, 300여 년의 역사를 통해 전쟁에 반대하고 폭력에 저항하는 사회활동으로 미국과 영국의 퀘이커 친우봉사회가 노벨평화상(1947)을 수상하기도 했다. 한국에는 서울과 대전 두 곳에 모임이 있다. 접기
---

Light and Silence: Friends for 350 Years Posted by Simon St.Laurent on August 10, 2006

Light and Silence: Friends for 350 Years



Light and Silence
Reflections on Quakerism


« The Rich Heritage of Quakerism | Main | Communion »

Friends for 350 Years


Howard Brinton's Friends for 300 Years, published in 1952, is a Quaker classic, and pretty much the only book on Quakerism I find regularly in used bookstores. Pendle Hill Publications reissued it in 2002 with a foreword, update, and notes by Margaret Hope Bacon as Friends for 350 Years.

Like The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, the author's voice is pretty clear, though in this case the voice is closer to my own. Unlike that book, however, the notes provide a second voice (Bacon) critiquing and sometimes correcting Brinton. Flipping back and forth between the notes and the main body of the book, you can hear a conversation going on disputing things like the influence of European mystics on Quakerism, questions of race in John Greenleaf Whittier's poetry, the optimism of the New Testament, and the behavior of various groups of Friends.

Unlike Walter Williams in The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, Brinton writes from a Wilburite perspective (see comments), giving them the benefit of the doubt for adherence to the original religion:


Among the Wilburites there was more opportunity than in either of the other two [Hicksite or Gurneyite Orthodox] for a genuine synthesis of the mystical and evangelical elements in Quakerism. It was they who could most clearly lay claim to be the heirs of the original Society of Friends. But there was an important difference. The code of behavior which the first Friends arrived at through immediate experience of the Inward Light, the Wilburites, with many exceptions, tend to accept in large measure on the basis of tradition.

While Brinton's claim that the Wilburites were the true heirs may raise some eyebrows, Brinton is constantly looking for a balance of the mystical element he sees Hicksites focusing on and the evangelical element that Evangelical Friends proclaim. The result is a book, that while still focused mostly on unprogrammed meetings, tries to reflect the understandings of a fairly wide swath of Quakerism.

It's an excellent book for newcomers to Quakerism to start with, as it focuses on what Quakers do and how they reached those conclusions rather than starting with the story of George Fox roaming England. Every section includes historical material, but it's not until near the end that Brinton assembles "The Four Periods of Quaker History". He's constantly telling stories, but his main narratives are built on Quaker practice. The outline itself is telling:


I. "To Wait upon the Lord"


II. The Light Within as Experienced


III. The Light Within as Thought About


IV. The Meeting for Worship


V. Vocal Ministry


VI. Reaching Decisions


VII. The Meeting Community


VIII. The Meeting and the World


IX. The Four Periods of Quaker History


X. Quaker Thought and the Present


An Historical Update by Margaret Hope Bacon


Page and Line Notes by Bacon


Appendix I: The Philadelphia Queries of 1946


Appendix II: The Philadelphia Queries of 2000

I strongly recommend Brinton's book, both for the content broadly - I'm sure I'll be citing it regularly - and as a chance to explore his perspective.

Now, does anyone know of a general history of Quakerism written explicitly from a Hicksite (or modern explicitly liberal) position?


Posted by Simon St.Laurent on August 10, 2006 4:31 PM | Permalink

COMMENTS


Hi, Simon!

I'm a bit surprised to see you say that Brinton wrote from a Wilburite perspective. As I myself read him, I see his strongest influences as coming from:

-- Robert Barclay (some of Brinton's writing is an almost straight re-writing of Barclay's Apology),

-- Rufus Jones (e.g. in Brinton's treatment of Friends' religion as a form of mysticism, which is definitely not Wilburite),

-- the early twentieth century liberal Quaker reformers generally (thus Brinton's simplified list of testimonies, which again is definitely not Wilburite),

-- the Beanite movement in unprogrammed Quakerism (e.g. Brinton's simplified approach to Quaker discipline, again definitely not Wilburite), and

-- Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Brinton's seeming center of geographic perspective).


Posted by: Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) | August 11, 2006 8:21 AM


In looking through the book again, it's clear that Brinton doesn't identify himself precisely as Wilburite.

Margaret Hope Bacon's introduction does make that connection explicitly, though not as strongly as I'd remembered:

It is no longer acceptable, as it perhaps was fifty years ago, to write the history of the Society of Friends exclusively from the point of view of one's own affiliation, as Brinton did from the viewpoint of a member of the Wilburite-leaning Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.

So his "seeming center of geographic perspective" - from Bacon's perspective at least - comes with a perspective of its own.

The extended quote above blends with related quotes about proper balance to make me reasonably convinced that while Brinton may not have been a Wilburite himself specifically, that was the 19th century group he clearly identifies with most strongly, and he seems quite pleased to be in the middle between those overly mystical and overly evangelical writers.

One very odd thing - he draws a line in his divisions diagram (on page 238) from the Orthodox Gurneyite over to Wilburite (which is right next to Philadelphia (Orthodox)) in the late 1800's, well after the Wilburites had left. He doesn't mention Bean, but maybe that's him connecting the Beanites and Wilburites, and placing himself at what he sees as a centrist position.

Posted by: Simon St.Laurent | August 11, 2006 4:21 PM


It's good to have your explanation of the Wilburite tag!

But I still don't really buy it. I think the fact that Brinton married the granddaughter of Joel and Hannah Bean (the Beans for whom "Beanite" is named) and became one of the co-founders of Pacific Yearly Meeting (the first yearly meeting to arise entirely out of the Beanite movement) must surely be as significant as his birthright membership in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.

I think the fact that when Brinton was a young man, Rufus Jones was his beloved mentor, figures in as well; Jones was anything but a Wilburite. And Brinton's teaching positions at Earlham, Guilford and Haverford exposed him to the liberal tides then washing across the Quaker world, and further dissolved his attachment to the traditional "Wilburite-leaning" interpretation of Quakerism in which he'd been raised.

As for that "very odd .... line in his divisions diagram ... from the Orthodox Gurneyite over to Wilburite ... in the late 1800s", that line has nothing to do with the Beans. There were four yearly meetings formed by separations in the Gurneyite Quaker world beginning in 1877, in reaction against the widespread Gurneyite enthusiasm for Holiness theology and Holiness revivals. My own yearly meeting, Iowa (Conservative), is the last survivor of those four, the others being Western (Conservative), Kansas (Conservative) and Canada (Conservative).

All four of those Conservative yearly meetings subsequently allied themselves with the Wilburites of New England, Ohio and Iowa, as well as with North Carolina (Conservative) when it was formed a generation later. But none of them represented Friends who had sided with Wilbur in the original Wilbur-versus-Gurney dispute. And that is the reason for that "very odd line", which in fact maps the journey of those four yearly meetings from the Gurneyite to the Wilburite position.

Posted by: Marshall Massey | August 11, 2006 6:23 PM


Fair enough - Brinton didn't explain the diagram, or who he was speaking about in it. He doesn't mention Bean, Beanites, or Pacific Yearly Meeting and its predecessors at all that I can find. (He does mention Jones a few times, and "owes him a deep and permanent debt.")

He seems more interested in a continuum from mystical to evangelical, though later he adds a few more dimensions.

It's interesting to me that he shows Philadelphia (O) as slightly more evangelical (and less mystical) than the Wilburites. Five Years Meeting and Fundamentalists are both well to the evangelical side, while "General Conference Hicksites" are well to the mystical side. Early Quakers are in the center of this, though that leaves them more mystical than the Wilburites.

Without reproducing the diagram itself, I think the generally safe point is that Brinton sees himself - and the most complete forms of Quakerism - as balancing the mystical and evangelical. He shows the Wilburites closer than anyone else to that on the chart and speaks of them approvingly for similar reasons in the text.

You're correct that this doesn't make him a Wilburite historically. Bacon argues, and I think the text supports, that he was more sympathetic to Wilburite and Philadelphia perspectives than anyone else he actually names.

So I suspect that you're right in many ways, and that Margaret Hope Bacon is right in others.

I'm still looking for a broad perspective on Quakerism that's from the severely liberal side, perhaps Hicksite or latter-day Hicksite, just to find more substantial contrast. Perhaps they're too polite to write such things?

Posted by: Simon St.Laurent | August 11, 2006 9:52 PM


I just found this from Chuck Fager as well, in his "Liberal Friends (Re)discover Fox", from the recent George Fox's Legacy: Friends for 350 Years.

"With mixed Hicksite-Orthodox parentage, and a deep affinity for the Wilburite Quietists of his native Chester County, Pennsylvania, his career took him across the country, from Canada to Carolina to California and back. He likewise moved across the Quaker landscape of his time, from Quietist to liberal to evangelical, touching all the bases and seeing clearly what was going on in each quarter." (47)

That seems to be another source for this claim, and I think it may in fact be what started the blog entry.

Again, that doesn't mean that Brinton was himself Wilburite, so I've struck that (visibly) from the post.