Jung's Answer to Job?

[Swan]

I just recently heard of this. Can anyone tell me anything about it? Thanks.

 

[mathematician]

I just recently heard of this. Can anyone tell me anything about it? Thanks.

The general tenor of the book can be guaged from the following:

" *‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without insight?’
*
In view of the subsequent words of Yahweh, one must really ask oneself: Who is darkening what counsel? The only dark thing here is how Yahweh ever came to make a bet with Satan. It is certainly not Job who has darkened anything and least of all a counsel, for there was never any talk of that nor will there be any in what follows. The bet does not contain any ‘counsel’ so far as one can see - unless, of course, it was Yahweh himself who egged Satan on for the ultimate purpose of exalting Job. Naturally this development was foreseen in omniscience, and it may be that the word ‘counsel’ refers to this eternal and absolute knowledge. If so, Yahweh’s attitude seems all the more illogical and incomprehensible, as he could then have enlightened Job on this point - which, in view of the wrong done to him, would have been only fair and equitable. I must therefore regard this possibility as improbable.

*Whose *words are without insight? Presumably Yahweh is not referring to the words of Job’s friends, but is rebuking Job. But what is Job’s guilt? The only thing he can be blamed for is his incurable optimism in believing that he can appeal to divine justice."

From the back cover:

“How can a good God countenance the appalling evil apparent in the world at large? C G Jung felt that the Book of Job served as a paradigm for a certain experience of God which has a special significance for us today. In this fascinating work he asks why and to what purpose was Job wounded, and what the consequences are for God as well as for man.”

 

[utunumsint]

I read the book along with Freud’s Totem and Taboo over ten years ago. Jung was Freud’s disciple. He broke with Freud’s methodology and developed his own emphasis (e.g. less on sexual represion and more on his theory of archetypes). His analysis in the Answer o Job reads the text from the Jungian psychoanalitic perspective. In this sense, he reinterprets traditional Christian theology according to his own theory. So I wouldn’t call it theology, but an application of Jungian psychology, incorporating such ideas as the collective unconscious, the ego, the id, the super ego, etc… He psychoanalizes God.

The conclusion I get from the text is that he sees religions as a manifestation of the collective unconscious, and therefore as a human phenomenon. Although he does preserve a sense of the mysterious that leaves us open to that big “what if there really something more than human in all of this”.

I’m not a big fan of humanistic psychology in general, because I think it obscures traditional Catholic morality by displacing our free choices with psychologically unconscious motivations. Still, it has some value.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mschrank]

Heh. I really don’t think Jung and his friends could make a meaningful contribution to Jewish Wisdom Literature with Job being the highest example of that genre.

A bit like a man trying to eat a blue whale in one sitting.

 

[utunumsint]

I agree.

If your intent is to learn about Jungian psychology, by all means, read the book. If you want to know about the significance of the book of Job, you should look somewhere else.

When I went to university, we had the choice of several courses on religions with the following titles as examples:

• the psychology of religion
• the sociology of religion
• the anthropology of religion
• neuroscience and religion
• etc…

All of these courses approach religion differently, and they are all trying to understand religion according to their own categories. However, none of them really approaches religion on its own terms or understands it according to its own terms. Often what happens is that they try to reduce religion and any meaning found therein only to those conclusions derived using their methodology. This kind of reductionism can be dangerous to anyone with a sincere faith trying to understand their religion.

My two cents.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mathematician]

The conclusion I get from the text is that he sees religions as a manifestation of the collective unconscious, and therefore as a human phenomenon. Although he does preserve a sense of the mysterious that leaves us open to that big “what if there really something more than human in all of this”.

During his life Jung was very cagey about whether or not he believed in a God who objectively existed independently of the human mind. The reason for that is probably that he wanted to avoid a “Leading Psychologist says we Can Prove God’s Existence” type headline. However, in the 1950s a BBC interviewer did finally manage to extract an answer from him, which was, Yes, he did believe in God.

 

[utunumsint]

Its still up for debate on what kind of God he actually believed in. For example, in Answer to Job, he starts talking about the “Quaternity” as opposed to the Trinity. Its been a while since I’ve looked at the book, but from what I remember, he felt like the Trinity needed a balancing female aspect not present in the Father/Son/Holy Spirit formula. Its my understanding that feminist theologians often appeal to Jung and his writing.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mathematician]

Its still up for debate on what kind of God he actually believed in. For example, in Answer to Job, he starts talking about the “Quaternity” as opposed to the Trinity. Its been a while since I’ve looked at the book, but from what I remember, he felt like the Trinity needed a balancing female aspect not present in the Father/Son/Holy Spirit formula. Its my understanding that feminist theologians often appeal to Jung and his writing.

God bless,
Ut

He described himself as being on “the extreme left wing of Protestantism,” whatever that means. I must admit that I have some sympathy with him about the overly masculine picture of the Godhead in the Abrahamic religions. My suspicion is that behind much of devotion to Mary there is a subconscious attempt to redress that balance.

 

[utunumsint]

He described himself as being on “the extreme left wing of Protestantism,” whatever that means. I must admit that I have some sympathy with him about the overly masculine picture of the Godhead in the Abrahamic religions. My suspicion is that behind much of devotion to Mary there is a subconscious attempt to redress that balance.

Perhaps from a human and psychological perspective this is true, but from a strictly theological perspective, it is not the case. The arguments often given for this are based on the transcendence / immanence distiction. The immanent is always the mother goddess, who is pantheistic, at one with nature, but the Jewish God is always transcendent, beyond nature. The source of nature, but infinitly beyond it, and not to be associated with it. This corresponds to our experience of family life as children. The mother is usually the one closest to the child, caring, and nurturing, while the father is more often away, perhaps more demanding, more remote.

In a way, this could be applied to Catholic theology. Mary is often seen as the archetypal representative of the church. The pinacle of human perfection, as it can be perfected by grace. Whereas Christ, although fully human, is also one person with the Godhead, so he is beyond us, and calling us to trancend our mere humanity, but also perfecting it.

Ok. I’m rambling. End speculation

God bless,
Ut

 

[mathematician]

Perhaps from a human and psychological perspective this is true, but from a strictly theological perspective, it is not the case. The arguments often given for this are based on the transcendence / immanence distiction. The immanent is always the mother goddess, who is pantheistic, at one with nature, but the Jewish God is always transcendent, beyond nature.

He transcends nature in the sense of being in no way identical with, or part of, nature, but he is also supposed to be immanent. Ask the mystics.

 

[mschrank]

He’s not immanent in matter in the Abrahamic tradition, He sustains it. A bit different… He’s “there” but not “in there”.