Jung on Christ

[Clive]

What is the HJ debate about? I think it is simply that a "Jesus of Nazareth" is not required as some form of founder, however tangential, in beliefs about a Christ.

Carl Jung’s ideas and writings about God, religion, Christ, Christianity, and the Christian Church are some of his most challenging, controversial, and fruitful. His approach was to take ancient “thought forms that have become historically fixed, try to melt them down again and pour them into moulds of immediate experience.” (CW:11:par.148) Jung’s own experience of the numinosum (holy) was a lifelong passion and most of his major written works in the last third of his life were devoted to some aspect of religious experience and religious symbols, with particular attention to the symbols of the Christian myth.

In Aion (Collected Works, Vol. 9,ll) Jung addresses Christian- ity’s central figure, Christ, and unpacks the meaning of Christ as a symbol of the Self. At the request of many of his readers who asked for a more comprehensive treatment of the Christ/ Self relationship, and apparently inspired by a dream during a temporary illness, Jung worked on the project for several years, completing it in 1951. Aion remains a “sacred text” for many of us who are intrigued by the convergence of religion and analytical psychology.

One of the most significant insights of the project, which will be the main thrust of this brief article, is the differentiation between Jesus, the historical figure from Nazareth, and the archetypal Christ, the Redeemer. This distinction between the historical and the symbolical is essential if the Christian sym- bols are to retain their power to touch the inner depths of the modern person. As we know, Jung’s diagnosis of modern men and women was a spiritual malnutrition bought on by a starvation of symbols. He called for a recovery of the symbolic life which had been abandoned to a one-sided literal, rational approach to religious matters.

The Jewish rabbi and reformer, Jesus, lived a personal, con- crete, historical life. However, it was the archetypal image of a Redeemer slumbering, so to speak, in the collective uncon- scious, which became attached to that unique life. This power- ful collective image made itself visible, so to speak, in the man Jesus, so that seeing him people glimpsed the greater personal- ity which seeks conscious realization in each person. Jung notes that it was not the man Jesus who created the myth of the “god-man.” Other Redeemer myths existed many centuries before his birth. Jesus himself was seized by this symbolic idea, which, as St. Mark tells us, lifted him out of the narrow life of the Nazarene carpenter. (Jung, Man And His Symbols, p.89)

Briefly stated, at an early stage Jesus became the collective figure whom the unconscious of his contemporaries expected to appear and Jesus took on those projections. In this way, Je- sus’ life exemplifies the archetype of the Christ, or in Jung’s psychological language, the Self, which is a more inclusive word for the inner image of god, the imago Dei, which resides in every person.

Writing from a psychological perspective, Jung was interested in the archetypes of the collective unconscious which were constellated by the presence of the historical person, Jesus. He examined the Christ-symbolism contained in the New Testa- ment, along with patristic allegories and medieval iconogra- phy, and compared those with the archetypal contents of the unconscious psyche which he had observed and experienced. He noted that the most important symbolical statements about Christ in the New Testament revealed attributes of the arche- typal hero: improbable origin, divine father, hazardous birth, precocious development, conquest of the mother and of death, miraculous deeds, early death, etc. Jung concludes that the ar- chetypal symbolizations of the Christ-figure are similar to the Self which is present in each person as an unconscious image. It was the archetype of the Self in the psyche/soul which re- sponded to the Christian message, with the result that the con- crete Rabbi Jesus was rapidly assimilated by the constellated archetype. In this way, Jesus realized the idea of the Self. Most importantly for this article, Jung notes that the experience of the Self and what the New Testament describes as the “Christ within” are synonymous. (CW:11:par.229-231) As an empiri- cist, Jung was not interested in how the two entities may be different along rational theological lines.

As noted earlier, the differentiation between Jesus and the ar- chetypal Christ highlights the distinction between literal truth and symbolic truth, or between historical fact and myth. Other descriptive distinctions include the difference between outer and inner, visible and invisible, material and spiritual. In a cul- ture which elevates the literal, outer, visible, and material as- pects of life (that which is measurable) and tends to denigrate that which is symbolic, inner, invisible, and spiritual, preserv- ing the value of the latter seems especially significant.

http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/fal ... f-self.pdf

[Irish1975]

This bit from Jung's Answer to Job is admirably to the point--

Seen from a distance of nearly two thousand years, it is uncommonly difficult to reconstruct a biographical picture of Christ from the traditions that have been preserved. Not a single text is extant which would fulfill even the minimum modern requirements for writing a history. The historically verifiable facts are extremely scanty, and the little biographically valid material that exists is not sufficient for us to create out of it a consistent career or even a remotely probable character. ...The commonplace is so interwoven with the miraculous and the mythical that we can never be sure of our facts. Perhaps the most disturbing and confusing thing of all is that the oldest writings, those of St. Paul, do not seem to have the slightest interest in Christ's existence as a concrete human being. The synoptic gospels are equally unsatisfactory as they have more the character of propaganda than of biography. §645

[Bernard Muller]

One of the most significant insights of the project, which will be the main thrust of this brief article, is the differentiation between Jesus, the historical figure from Nazareth, and the archetypal Christ, the Redeemer.

OK by me

The Jewish rabbi and reformer, Jesus, lived a personal, con- crete, historical life.

Jesus was not a rabbi and reformer.

Jung notes that it was not the man Jesus who created the myth of the “god-man.”

OK by me

the New Testament revealed attributes of the arche- typal hero: improbable origin, divine father, hazardous birth, precocious development, conquest of the mother and of death, miraculous deeds,

Ok by me. But that's from the gospels. Earlier Paul had the man Jesus without these features.

It was the archetype of the Self in the psyche/soul which re- sponded to the Christian message, with the result that the con- crete Rabbi Jesus was rapidly assimilated by the constellated archetype.

OK, through the gospels.

Seen from a distance of nearly two thousand years, it is uncommonly difficult to reconstruct a biographical picture of Christ from the traditions that have been preserved.

Why reconstruct a biographical picture? knowing about the essentials of his public life and death is sufficient for explaining how he unintentionally started a new religion (developped progressively by others after the crucifixion).
Furthermore, before his public life (less than one year according to my study), Jesus' life might have been something to hide as not commendable.

The commonplace is so interwoven with the miraculous and the mythical that we can never be sure of our facts.

Removing the miraculous and mythical would be a good start. And paying attention to "against the grain" items would be good also. And not going into details, but fleshing out the essentials.

Paul, do not seem to have the slightest interest in Christ's existence as a concrete human being.

True, but there was nothing of religious value in the man Jesus, except as Christ crucified.

Cordially, Bernard