Carl Jung: the birth of Christ is an event that occurred but once in history, it has always existed in eternity.

Although the birth of Christ is an event that occurred but once in history, it has always existed in eternity.

For the layman in these matters, the identity of a non-temporal, eternal event with a unique historical occurrence is something that is extremely difficult to conceive.

He must, however, accustom himself to the idea that "time" is a relative concept and needs to be complemented by that of the "simultaneous" existence, in the Bardo or pleroma, of all historical processes.

What exists in the pleroma as an eternal process appears in time as an aperiodisequence, that is to say, it is repeated many times in an irregular pattern.

To take but one example:

Yahweh had one good son and one who was a failure.

Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, correspond to this prototype, and so, in all ages and in all parts of the world, does the motif of the hostile brothers, which in innumerable modern variants still causes dissension in families and keeps the psychotherapist busy.

Just as many examples, no less instructive, could be found for the two women prefigured in eternity.

When these things occur as modern variants, therefore, they should not be regarded merely as personal episodes, moods, or chance idiosyncrasies in people, but as fragments of the pleromatic process itself, which, broken up into individual.

When Yahweh created the world from his prima materia, the "Void," he could not help breathing his own mystery into the Creation which is himself in every part, as every reasonable theology has long been convinced.

From this comes the belief that it is possible to know God from his Creation.

When I say that he could not help doing this, I do not imply any limitation of his omnipotence; on the contrary, it is an acknowledgment that all possibilities are contained in him, and that there are in consequence no other possibilities than those which express him. Carl Jung, CW 11. Answer to Job, Pages 400-401, Paras 629-630.

Carl Jung: Book of Job [Paragraphs 575 – 608]

Since the Omniscient looks into all hearts, and Yahweh’s eyes “run to and fro through the whole earth,” x it were better for the interlocutor of the Eighty-ninth Psalm not to wax too conscious of his slight moral superiority over the more unconscious God. Better to keep it dark, for Yahweh is no friend of critical thoughts which in any way diminish the tribute of recognition he demands.ch in any way diminish the tribute of recognition he demands. Loudly as his power resounds through the universe, the basis of his existence is correspondingly slender, for it needs conscious reflection in order to exist in reality. Existence is only real when it is conscious to somebody. That is why the Creator needs conscious man even though, from sheer unconsciousness, he would like to prevent him from becoming conscious. And that is also why Yahweh needs the acclamation of a small group of people. One can imagine what would happen if this assembly suddenly decided to stop the applause: there would be a state of high excitation, with outbursts of blind destructive rage, then a withdrawal into hellish loneliness and the torture of non-existence, followed by a gradual reawakening of an unutterable longing for something which would make him conscious of himself. It is probably for this reason that all pristine things, even man before he becomes the canaille, have a touching, magical beauty, for in its nascent state “each thing after its kind” is the most precious, the most desirable, the tenderest thing in the world, being a reflection of the infinite love and goodness of the Creator.

576 In view of the undoubted frightfulness of divine wrath, and in an age when men still knew what they were talking about when they said “Fear God/’ it was only to be expected that man’s slight superiority should have remained unconscious. The powerful personality of Yahweh, who, in addition to everything
else, lacked all biographical antecedents (his original relationship to the Elohim had long since been sunk in oblivion), had raised him above all the numina of the Gentiles and had immunized him against the influence that for several centuries had been undermining the authority of the pagan gods. It was precisely the details of their mythological biography that had become their nemesis, for with his growing capacity for judgment man had found these stories more and more incomprehensible and indecent. Yahweh, however, had no origin and no past, except his creation of the world, with which all history began, and his relation to that part of mankind whose forefather Adam he had fashioned in his own image as the Anthropos, the original man, by what appears to have been a special act of creation. One can only suppose that the other human beings who must also have existed at that time had been formed previously on the divine potter’s wheel along with the various kinds of beasts and cattle those human beings, namely, from whom Cain and Seth chose their wives. If one does not approve of this conjecture, then the only other possibility that remains is the far more scandalous one that they incestuously married their sisters (for whom there is no evidence in the text), as was still surmised by the philosopher Karl Lamprecht at the end of the nineteenth century.

577 The special providence which singled out the Jews from among the divinely stamped portion of humanity and made them the “chosen people” had burdened them from the start with a heavy obligation. As usually happens with such mortgages, they quite understandably tried to circumvent it as much as possible. Since the chosen people used every opportunity to break away from him, and Yahweh felt it of vital importance to tie this indispensable object (which he had made “godlike” for this very purpose) definitely to himself, he proposed to the patriarch Noah a contract between himself on the one hand, and Noah, his children, and all their animals, both tame and wild, on the other a contract that promised advantages to both parties. In order to strengthen this contract and keep it fresh in the memory, he instituted the rainbow as a token of the covenant. If, in future, he summoned the thunder-clouds which hide within them floods of water and lightning, then the rainbow would appear, reminding him and his people of the contract. The temptation to use such an accumulation of clouds for an
experimental deluge was no small one, and it was therefore a good idea to associate it with a sign that would give timely warning of possible catastrophe.
578 In spite of these precautions the contract had gone to pieces with David, an event which left behind it a literary deposit in the Scriptures and which grieved some few of the devout, who upon reading it became reflective. As the Psalms were zealously read, it was inevitable that certain thoughtful people were unable to stomach the Eighty-ninth Psalm. However that may be, the fatal impression made by the breach of contract survived. It is historically possible that these considerations influenced the author of the Book of Job.

579 The Book of Job places this pious and faithful man, so heavily afflicted by the Lord, on a brightly lit stage where he presents his case to the eyes and ears of the world. It is amazing to see how easily Yahweh, quite without reason, had let himself be influenced by one of his sons, by a doubting thought,
and made unsure of Job’s faithfulness. With his touchiness and suspiciousness the mere possibility of doubt was enough to infuriate him and induce that peculiar double-faced behaviour of which he had already given proof in the Garden of Eden, when he pointed out the tree to the First Parents and at the same time forbade them to eat of it. In this way he precipitated the Fall, which he apparently never intended. Similarly, his faithful servant Job is now to be exposed to a rigorous moral test, quite gratuitously and to no purpose, although Yahweh is convinced of Job’s faithfulness and constancy, and could moreover have assured himself beyond all doubt on this point had he taken counsel with his own omniscience. Why, then, is the experiment made at all, and a bet with the unscrupulous slanderer settled, without a stake, on the back of a powerless creature? It is indeed no edifying spectacle to see how quickly Yahweh abandons his faithful servant to the evil spirit and lets him fall without compunction or pity into the abyss of physical and moral suffering. From the human point of view Yahweh’s behaviour is so revolting that one has to ask oneself whether there is not a deeper motive hidden behind it. Has Yahweh some secret resistance againstJob? That would explain his yielding to Satan. But what does man possess that God does not have? Because of his littleness, puniness, and defencelessness against the Almighty, he possesses, as we have already suggested, a somewhat keener consciousness based on self-reflection: he must, in order to survive, always be mindful of his impotence. God has no need of this circumspection, for nowhere does he come up against an insuperable obstacle that would force him to hesitate and hence make him reflect on himself. Could a suspicion have grown up in God that man possesses an infinitely small yet more concentrated degree of consciousness than that of a mere “creature” had aroused his divine suspicions. Too often already these human beings had not behaved in the prescribed manner. Even his trusty servant Job might have something up his sleeve. . . . Hence Yahweh’s surprising readiness to listen to Satan’s insinuations against his better judgment.

580 Without further ado Job is robbed of his herds, his servants are slaughtered, his sons and daughters are killed by a whirlwind, and he himself is smitten with sickness and brought to the brink of the grave. To rob him of peace altogether, his wife and his old friends are let loose against him, all of whom say
the wrong things. His justified complaint finds no hearing with the judge who is so much praised for his justice. Job’s right is refused in order that Satan be not disturbed in his play.

581 One must bear in mind here the dark deeds that follow one another in quick succession: robbery, murder, bodily injury with premeditation, and denial of a fair trial. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Yahweh displays no compunction, remorse, or compassion, but only ruthlessness and brutality.
The plea of unconsciousness is invalid, seeing that he flagrantly violates at least three of the commandments he himself gave out on Mount Sinai.

582 Job’s friends do everything in their power to contribute to his moral torments, and instead of giving him, whom God has perfidiously abandoned, their warm-hearted support, they moralize in an all too human manner, that is, in the stupidest fashion imaginable, and “fill him with wrinkles.” They thus deny
him even the last comfort of sympathetic participation and human understanding, so that one cannot altogether suppress the suspicion of connivance in high places.

583 Why Job’s torments and the divine wager should suddenly come to an end is not quite clear. So long as Job does not actually die, the pointless suffering could be continued indefinitely. We must, however, keep an eye on the background of all these events: it is just possible that something in this background will gradually begin to take shape as a compensation for Job’s undeserved suffering-something to which Yahweh, even if he had only a faint inkling of it, could hardly remain indifferent. Without Yahweh’s knowledge and contrary to his intentions, the tormented though guiltless Job had secretly been lifted up to a superior knowledge of God which God himself did not possess. Had Yahweh consulted his omniscience, Job would not have had the advantage of him. But then, so many other things would
not have happened either.

584 Job realizes God’s inner antinomy, and in the light of this realization his knowledge attains a divine numinosity. The possibility of this development lies, one must suppose, in man’s “godlikeness,” which one should certainly not look for in human morphology. Yahweh himself had guarded against this error by expressly forbidding the making of images. Job, by his insistence on bringing his case before God, even without hope of a hearing, had stood his ground and thus created the very obstacle that forced God to reveal his true nature. With this dramatic climax Yahweh abruptly breaks off his cruel game of cat and mouse. But if anyone should expect that his wrath will now be turned against the slanderer, he will be severely disappointed. Yahweh does not think of bringing this mischief-making son of his to account, nor does it ever occur to him to give Job at least the moral satisfaction of explaining his behaviour. Instead, he comes riding along on the tempest of his almightiness and thunders reproaches at the half-crushed human worm:

Who is this that darkens counsel
by words without insight?

585 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 this nor will there be 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 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.

586 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. In this he is mistaken, as Yahweh’s subsequent words prove. God does not want to be just; he merely flaunts might over right. Job could not get that into his head, because he looked upon God as a moral being. He had never doubted God’s might, but had hoped for right as well. He had, however, already taken back this error when he recognized God’s contradictory
nature, and by so doing he assigned a place to God’s justice and goodness. So one can hardly speak of lack of insight. The answer to Yahweh’s conundrum is therefore: it is Yahweh himself who darkens his own counsel and who has no insight. He turns the tables on Job and blames him for what he himself does: man is not permitted to have an opinion about him, and, in particular, is to have no insight which he himself does not possess. For seventy-one verses he proclaims his world creating power to his miserable victim, who sits in ashes and scratches his sores with potsherds, and who by now has had
more than enough of superhuman violence. Job has absolutely no need of being impressed by further exhibitions of this power. Yahweh, in his omniscience, could have known just how incongruous his attempts at intimidation were in such a situation. He could easily have seen that Job believes in his omnipotence as much as ever and has never doubted it or wavered in his loyalty. Altogether, he pays so little attention to Job’s real situation that one suspects him of having an ulterior motive which is more important to him: Job is no more than the outward occasion for an inward process of dialectic in God. His thunderings at Job so completely miss the point that one cannot help but see how much he is occupied with himself. The tremendous emphasis he lays on his omnipotence and greatness makes no sense in relation to Job, who certainly needs no more convincing, but only becomes intelligible when aimed at a listener who doubts it. This “doubting thought” is Satan, who after completing his evil handiwork has returned to the paternal bosom in order to continue his subversive activity there. Yahweh must have seen that Job’s loyalty was unshakable and that Satan had lost his bet. He must also have realized that, in accepting this bet, he had done everything possible to drive his faithful servant to disloyalty, even to the extent of perpetrating a whole series of crimes. Yet it is not remorse and certainly not moral horror that rises to his consciousness, but an obscure intimation of something that questions his omnipotence. He is particularly sensitive on this point, because “might” is the great argument. But omniscience knows that might excuses nothing. The said intimation refers, of course, to the extremely uncomfortable fact that Yahweh had let himself be bamboozled by Satan. This weakness of his does not reach full consciousness, since Satan is treated with remarkable tolerance and consideration. Evidently Satan’s intrigue is deliberately overlooked at Job’s expense.

588 Luckily enough, Job had noticed during this harangue that everything else had been mentioned except his right. He has understood that it is at present impossible to argue the question of right, as it is only too obvious that Yahweh has no interest whatever in Job’s cause but is far more preoccupied with his own affairs. Satan, that is to say, has somehow to disappear, and this can best be done by casting suspicion on Job as a man of subversive opinions. The problem is thus switched on to another track, and the episode with Satan remains unmentioned and unconscious. To the spectator it is not quite clear why Job is treated to this almighty exhibition of thunder and lightning, but the performance as such is sufficiently magnificent and impressive to convince not only a larger audience but above all Yahweh himself of his unassailable power. Whether Job realizes what violence Yahweh is doing to his own omniscience by behaving like this we do not know, but his silence and submission leave a number of possibilities open. Job has no alternative butformally to revoke his demand for justice, and he therefore answers in the words quoted at the beginning: “I lay my hand on my mouth.”

589 He betrays not the slightest trace of mental reservation in fact, his answer leaves us in no doubt that he has succumbed completely and without question to the tremendous force of the divine demonstration. The most exacting tyrant should have been satisfied with this, and could be quite sure that his servant from terror alone, to say nothing of his undoubted loyalty would not dare to nourish a single improper thought for a very long time to come.

590 Strangely enough, Yahweh does not notice anything of the kind. He does not see Job and his situation at all. It is rather as if he had another powerful opponent in the place of Job, one who was better worth challenging. This is clear from his twice repeated taunt: Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

591 One would have to choose positively grotesque examples to illustrate the disproportion between the two antagonists. Yahweh sees something in Job which we would not ascribe to him but to God, that is, an equal power which causes him to bring out his whole power apparatus and parade it before his opponent. Yahweh projects on to Job a sceptic’s face which is hateful to him because it is his own, and which gazes at him with an uncanny and critical eye. He is afraid of it, for only in face of something frightening does one let off a cannonade of references to one’s power, cleverness, courage, invincibility, etc. What has all that to do with Job? Is it worth the lion’s while to terrify a mouse?

592 Yahweh cannot rest satisfied with the first victorious round. Job has long since been knocked out, but the great antagonist whose phantom is projected on to the pitiable sufferer still stands menacingly upright. Therefore Yahweh raises his arm again:

Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be justified?
Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?

593 Man, abandoned without protection and stripped of his rights, and whose nothingness is thrown in his face at every opportunity, evidently appears to be so dangerous to Yahweh that he must be battered down with the heaviest artillery. What irritates Yahweh can be seen from his challenge to the ostensible
Job:
Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low;
and tread down the wicked where they stand.
Hide them in the dust together;
bind their faces in the hidden place.
Then will I also acknowledge to you
that your own right hand can give you victory.

594 Job is challenged as though he himself were a god. But in the contemporary metaphysics there was no deuteros theos, no other god except Satan, who owns Yahweh’s ear and is able to influence him. He is the only one who can pull the wool over his eyes, beguile him, and put him up to a massive violation of his own penal code. A formidable opponent indeed, and, because of his close kinship, so compromising that he must be concealed with the utmost discretion even to the point of God’s hiding him from his own consciousness in his own bosom! In his stead God must set up his miserable servant as the bugbearwhom he has to fight, in the hope that by banishing the dreaded countenance to “the hidden place” he will be able to maintain himself in a state of unconsciousness.

595 The stage-managing of this imaginary duel, the speechifying, and the impressive performance given by the prehistoric menagerie would not be sufficiently explained if we tried to reduce them to the purely negative factor of Yahweh’s fear of becoming conscious and of the relativization which this entails. The conflict becomes acute for Yahweh as a result of a new factor, which is, however, not hidden from omniscience though in this case the existing knowledge is not accompanied by any conclusion. The new factor is something that has never occurred before in the history of the world, the unheard-of fact that, without knowing it or wanting it, a mortal man is raised by his moral behaviour above the stars in heaven, from which position of advantage he can behold the back of Yahweh, the abysmal world of “shards.”

597 Truly, Yahweh can do all things and permits himself all things without batting an eyelid. With brazen countenance he can project his shadow side and remain unconscious at man’s expense. He can boast of his superior power and enact laws which mean less than air to him. Murder and manslaughter are mere bagatelles, and if the mood takes him he can play the feudal grand seigneur and generously recompense his bond slave for the havoc wrought in his wheat-fields. “So you have lost your sons and daughters? No harm done, I will give you new and better ones.”

598 Job continues (no doubt with downcast eyes and in a lowvoice):

“Who is this that hides counsel without insight?”

Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

“Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.”

I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

599 Shrewdly, Job takes up Yahweh’s aggressive words and prostrates himself at his feet as if he were indeed the defeated antagonist. Guileless as Job’s speech sounds, it could just as well be equivocal. He has learnt his lesson well and experienced “wonderful things” which are none too easily grasped. Before, he had known Yahweh “by the hearing of the ear,” but now he has got a taste of his reality, more so even than David an process of the sefiroth. Therefore the seftroth had to be cleansed of the evil admixture of the shards. This elimination of the shards took place in what is described in the cabalistic writings particularly of Luria and his school as the “breaking of the vessels/’ Through this the powers of evil assumed a separate and real existence incisive lesson that had better not be forgotten. Formerly he was naive, dreaming perhaps of a “good” God, or of a benevolent ruler and just judge. He had imagined that a ”covenant” was alegal matter and that anyone who was party to a contract could insist on his rights as agreed; that God would be faithful and true or at least just, and, as one could assume from the Ten Commandments, would have some recognition of ethical values or at least feel committed to his own legal standpoint. But, to his horror, he has discovered that Yahweh is not human but, in certain respects, less than human, that he is just what Yahweh himself says of Leviathan (the crocodile): He beholds everything that is high: He is king over all proud beasts.

600 Unconsciousness has an animal nature. Like all old gods Yahweh has his animal symbolism with its unmistakable borrowings from the much older theriomorphic gods of Egypt, especially Horus and his four sons. Of the four animals of Yahweh only one has a human face. That is probably Satan, the godfather of man as a spiritual being. EzekieFs vision attributes three-fourths animal nature and only one-fourth human nature to the animal deity, while the upper deity, the one above the “sapphire throne,” merely had the “likeness” of a man. This symbolism explains Yahweh’s behaviour, which, from the human point of view, is so intolerable: it is the behaviour of an unconscious being who cannot be judged morally. Yahweh is a phenomenon and, as Job says, “not a man.”

601 One could, without too much difficulty, impute such a meaning to Job’s speech. Be that as it may, Yahweh calmed down at last. The therapeutic measure of unresisting acceptance had proved its value yet again. Nevertheless, Yahweh is still somewhat nervous of Job’s friends they “have not spoken of me what is right.” The projection of his doubt-complex extends comically enough, one must say to these respectable and slightly pedantic old gentlemen, as though God-knows-what depended on what they thought. But the fact that men should think at all, and especially about him, is maddeningly disquieting and ought somehow to be stopped. It is far too much like the sort of thing his vagrant son is always springing on him, thus hitting him in his weakest spot. How often already has he bitterly regretted his unconsidered outbursts!

602 One can hardly avoid the impression that Omniscience is gradually drawing near to a realization, and is threatened with an insight that seems to be hedged about with fears of selfdestruction. Fortunately, Job’s final declaration is so formulated that one can assume with some certainty that, for the protagonists, the incident is closed for good and all.

603 The commenting chorus on this great tragedy, which has never at any time lost its vitality, do not feel quite like that. For our modern sensibilities it is by no means apparent that with Job’s profound obeisance to the majesty of the divine presence, and his prudent silence, a real answer has been given to the question raised by the Satanic prank of a wager with God. Job has not so much answered as reacted in an adjusted way. In so doing he displayed remarkable self-discipline, but an unequivocal answer has still to be given. To take the most obvious thing, what about the moral wrong Job has suffered? Is man so worthless in God’s eyes that not even a tort moral can be inflicted on him? That contradicts the fact that man is desired by Yahweh and that it obviously matters to him whether men speak “right” of him or not. He needs Job’s loyalty, and it means so much to him that he shrinks at nothing in carrying out his test. This attitude attaches an almost divine importance to man, for what else is there in the whole wide world that could mean anything to one who has everything? Yahweh’s divided attitude, which on the one hand tramples onhuman life and happiness without regard, and on the other hand must have man for a partner, puts the latter in an impossible position. At one moment Yahweh behaves as irrationally as a cataclysm; the next moment he wants to be loved, honoured, worshipped, and praised as just. He reacts irritably to every word that has the faintest suggestion of criticism, while he himself does not care a straw for his own moral code if his actions happen to run counter to its statutes.

605 One can submit to such a God only with fear and trembling, and can try indirectly to propitiate the despot with unctuous praises and ostentatious obedience. But a relationship of trust seems completely out of the question to our modern way of thinking. Nor can moral satisfaction be expected from an unconscious nature god of this kind. Nevertheless, Job got his satisfaction, without Yahweh’s intending it and possibly without himself knowing it, as the poet would have it appear. Yahweh’s allocutions have the unthinking yet none the less transparent purpose of showing Job the brutal power of the demiurge: “This is I, the creator of all the ungovernable, ruthless forces of Nature, which are not subject to any ethical laws. I, too, am an amoral force of Nature, a purely phenomenal personality that cannot see its own back.” This is, or at any rate could be, a moral satisfaction of the first order for Job, because through this declaration man, in spite of his impotence, is set up as a judge over God himself. We do not know whether Job realizes this, but we do know from the numerous commentaries on Job that all succeeding ages have overlooked the fact that a kind of Moira or Dike rules over Yahweh, causing him to give himself away so blatantly. Anyone can see how he unwittingly raises Job by humiliating him in the dust. By so doing he pronounces judgment on himself and gives man the moral satisfaction whose absence we found so painful in the Book of Job.

607 The poet of this drama showed a masterly discretion in ringing down the curtain at the very moment when his hero gave unqualified recognition to the dxo^acm iityaXy of the Demiurge by prostrating himself at the feet of His Divine Majesty. No other impression was permitted to remain. An unusual scandal was blowing up in the realm of metaphysics, with supposedly devastating consequences, and nobody was ready with a saving formula which would rescue the monotheistic conception of God from disaster. Even in those days the critical intellect of a Greek could easily have seized on this new addition to Yahweh’s biography and used it in his disfavour (as indeed happened, though very much later) so as to mete out to him the fate that had already overtaken the Greek gods. But a relativization of God was utterly unthinkable at that time, and remained so for the next two thousand years.

608 The unconscious mind of man sees correctly even when conscious reason is blind and impotent. The drama has been consummated for all eternity: Yahweh’s dual nature has been revealed, and somebody or something has seen and registered this fact. Such a revelation, whether it reached man’s consciousness or not, could not fail to have far-reaching consequences. ~Carl Jung, Answer to Job, Psychology and Religion.

Carl Jung "Answer to Job" [Part 1]

564 Job answers Yahweh thus:

Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer thee?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.

565 And indeed, in the immediate presence of the infinite power of creation, this is the only possible answer for a witness who is still trembling in every limb with the terror of almost total annihilation. What else could a half-crushed human worm, grovelling in the dust, reasonably answer in the circumstances? In spite of his pitiable littleness and feebleness, this man knows that he is confronted with a superhuman being who is personally
most easily provoked. He also knows that it is far better to withhold all moral reflections, to say nothing of certain moral requirements which might be expected to apply to a god.

566 Yahweh’s “justice” is praised, so presumably Job could bring his complaint and the protestation of his innocence before him as ijob 40:4-5. the just judge. But he doubts this possibility. “How can a man be just before God?” “If I summoned him and he answered me, I would not believe that he was listening to my voice/’ “If it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?” He “multiplies my wounds without cause.” “He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.” “If the scourge slay suddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.” “I know,” Job says to Yahweh, “thou wilt not hold me innocent. I shall be condemned.” “If I wash myself . . . never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch.” “For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.” Job wants to explain his point of view to Yahweh, to state his complaint, and tells him: “Thou knowest that I am not guilty, and there is none to deliver out of thy hand.” “I desire to argue my case with God.” “I will defend my ways to his face,” “I know that I shall be vindicated.” Yahweh should summon him and render him an account or at least allow him to plead his cause. Properly estimating the disproportion between man and God, he asks: “Wilt thou break a leaf driven to and fro? and wilt thou pursue the dry stubble?” God has put him in the wrong, but there is no justice. He has “taken away my right.” “Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me. I hold fast to my righteousness, and will not let it go.” His friend Elihu the Buzite does not believe the injusticeof Yahweh: “Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.” Illogically enough, he bases his opinion on God’s power: “Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?” One must “respect the persons of princes and esteem the high more than the low.” But Job is not shaken in his faith, and had already uttered an important truth when he said: “Behold, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high … my eye pours out tears to God, that he would maintain the right of a man with God, like that of a man with his neighbour.” And later: “For I know that my Vindicator lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth.”

567 These words clearly show that Job, in spite of his doubt as to whether man can be just before God, still finds it difficult to relinquish the idea of meeting God on the basis of justice and therefore of morality. Because, in spite of everything, he cannot give up his faith in divine justice, it is not easy for him to accept the knowledge that divine arbitrariness breaks the law. On the other hand, he has to admit that no one except Yahweh himself is doing him injustice and violence. He cannot deny that he is up against a God who does not care a rap for any moral opinion and does not recognize any form of ethics as binding. This is perhaps the greatest thing about Job, that, faced with this difficulty, he does not doubt the unity of God. He clearly sees thatGod is at odds with himself so totally at odds that he, Job, is quite certain of finding in God a helper and an “advocate” against God. As certain as he is of the evil in Yahweh, he is equally certain of the good. In a human being who renders us evil we cannot expect at the same time to find a helper. But Yahweh is not a human being: he is both a persecutor and a helper in one, and the one aspect is as real as the other. Yahweh is not split but is an antinomy a. totality of inner opposites and this is the indispensable condition for his tremendous dynamism, his omniscience and omnipotence. Because of this knowledge Job holds on to his intention of “defending his ways to his face,” i.e., of making his point of view clear to him, since notwithstanding his wrath, Yahweh is also man’s advocate against himself when man puts forth his complaint.

568 One would be even more astonished at Job’s knowledge of God if this were the first time one were hearing of Yahweh’s amorality. His incalculable moods and devastating attacks of wrath had, however, been known from time immemorial. He had proved himself to be a jealous defender of morality and was esspecially sensitive in regard to justice. Hence he had always to be praised as “just/* which, it seemed, was very important to him. Thanks to this circumstance or peculiarity of his, he had a
distinct personality, which differed from that of a more or less archaic king only in scope. His jealous and irritable nature, prying their secret thoughts, compelled a personal relationship between himself and man, who could not help but feel personally called by him. That was the essential difference between Yahweh and the all-ruling Father Zeus, who in a benevolent and somewhatdetached manner allowed the economy of the universe to roll along on its accustomed courses and punished only those who were disorderly. He did not moralize but ruled purely instinctively. He did not demand anything more from human beings than the sacrifices due to him; he did not want to do anything with human beings because he had no plans for them.Father Zeus is certainly a figure but not a personality. Yahweh, on the other hand, was interested in man. Human beings were a matter of first-rate importance to him. He needed them as they needed him, urgently and personally. Zeus too could throw thunderbolts about, but only at hopelessly disorderly individuals. Against mankind as a whole he had no objections but then they did not interest him all that much. Yahweh, however, could get inordinately excited about man as a species and men as individuals if they did not behave as he desired or expected, without ever considering that in his omnipotence he could easily have created something better than these “bad earthenware pots.”

569 In view of this intense personal relatedness to his chosen people, it was only to be expected that a regular covenant would develop which also extended to certain individuals, for instance to David. As we learn from the Eighty-ninth Psalm, Yahweh told him:

My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever,
and my covenant will stand firm for him.
I will not violate my covenant,
or alter the word that went forth from my lips.
Once for all I have sworn by my holiness;
I will not lie to David

And yet it happened that he, who watched so jealously over the fulfilment of laws and contracts, broke his own oath. Modernman, with his sensitive conscience, would have felt the black abyss opening and the ground giving way under his feet, for the least he expects of his God is that he should be superior to mortal man in the sense of being better, higher, nobler but not
his superior in the kind of moral flexibility and unreliability that do not jib even at perjury.

571 Of course one must not tax an archaic god with the requirements of modern ethics. For the people of early antiquity things were rather different. In their gods there was absolutely everything: they teemed with virtues and vices. Hence they could be punished, put in chains, deceived, stirred up against one another with ut losing face, or at least not for long. The man of that epoch was so inured to divine inconsistencies that he was not unduly perturbed when they happened. With Yahweh the case was different because, from quite early on, the personal and moral tie began to play an important part in the religious relationship. In these circumstances a breach of contract was bound to have the effect not only of a personal but of a moral injury. One can see this from the way David answers Yahweh:

How long, Lord? wilt thou hide thyself forever?
shall thy wrath burn like fire?
Remember how short my time is:
wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?
Lord, where are thy former loving kindnesses,
which by thy faithfulness thou didst swear to David?

572 Had this been addressed to a human being it would have run something like this:

“For heaven’s sake, man, pull yourself together and stop being such a senseless savage! It is really too grotesque to get into such a rage when it’s partly your own fault that the plants won’t flourish. You used to be quite reasonable and took good care of the garden you planted, instead of trampling it to pieces.”

573 Certainly our interlocutor would never dare to remonstrate with his almighty partner about this breach of contract. He knows only too well what a row he would get into if he were the wretched breaker of the law. Because anything else would put him in peril of his life, he must retire to the more exalted plane of reason. In this way, without knowing it or wanting it, he shows himself superior to his divine partner both intellectually and morally. Yahweh fails to notice that he is being humoured, just as little as he understands why he has continually to be praised as just. He makes pressing demands on his people to be praised and propitiated in every possible way, for the obvious purpose of keeping him in a good temper at any price.

574 The character thus revealed fits a personality who can only convince himself that he exists through his relation to an object. Such dependence on the object is absolute when the subject is totally lacking in self-reflection and therefore has no insight into himself. It is as if he existed only by reason of the fact that he has an object which assures him that he is really there. If Yahweh, as we would expect of a sensible human being, were really conscious of himself, he would, in view of the true facts of the case, at least have put an end to the panegyrics on his justice. But he is too unconscious to be moral. Morality presupposes consciousness. By this I do not mean to say that Yahweh is imperfect or evil, like a gnostic demiurge. He is everything in its totality; therefore, among other things, he is total justice, and also its total opposite. At least this is the way he must be conceived if one is to form a unified picture of his character. We must only remember that what we have sketched is no more than an anthropomorphic picture which is not even particularly easy to visualize. From the way the divine nature expresses itself we can see that the individual qualities are not adequately related to one another, with the result that they fall apart into mutually contradictory acts. For instance, Yahweh regrets having created human beings, although in his omniscience he must have known all along what would happen to them. ~Carl Jung, Answer to Job, Section 1, Psychology and Religion.

Carl Jung's Prefatory Note to Answer to Job

The suggestion that I should tell you how Answer to Job came to be written sets me a difficult task, because the history of this book can hardly be told in a few words.

I have been occupied with its central problem for years. Many different sources nourished the stream of its thoughts, until one day and after long reflection the time was ripe to put them into words.

The most immediate cause of my writing the book is perhaps to be found in certain problems discussed in my book Aion especially the problems of Christ as a symbolic figure and of the antagonism Christ-Antichrist, represented in the traditional zodiacal symbolism of the two fishes.

In connection with the discussion of these problems and of the doctrine of Redemption, I criticized the idea of the privation bono as not agreeing with the psychological findings.

Psychological experience shows that whatever we call “good” is balanced by an equally substantial “bad” or “evil.” If “evil” is non-existent, then whatever there is must needs be “good.

Dogmatically, neither “good” nor “evil” can be derived from Man, since the “Evil One” existed before Man as one of the “Sons of God.”

The idea of the privatio bono began to play a role in the Church only after Mani.

Before this heresy, Clement of Rome taught that God rules the world with a right and a left hand, the right being Christ, the left Satan.

Clement’s view is clearly monotheistic, as it unites the opposites in one God.

Later Christianity, however, is dualistic, inasmuch as it splits off one half of the opposites, personified in Satan, and he is eternal in his state of damnation.

This crucial question forms the point of departure for the Christian theory of Redemption. It is therefore of prime importance.

If Christianity claims to be a monotheism, it becomes unavoidable to assume the opposites as being contained in God.

But the we are confronted with a major religious problem: the problem of Job. It is the aim of my book to point out its historical evolution since the time of Job down through the centuries to the most recent symbolic phenomena, such as the Assumptio Mariae, etc.

Moreover, the study of medieval natural philosophy of the greatest importance to psychology made me try to find an answer to the question: what image of God did these old philosophers have?

Or rather: how should the symbols which supplement their image of God be understood?

All this pointed to a complexio oppositorurn and thus recalled again the story of Job to my mind: Job who expected help from God against God.

This most peculiar fact presupposes a similar conception of the opposites in God.

On the other hand, numerous questions, not only from my patients, but from all over the world, brought up the problem of giving a more complete and explicit answer than I had given in Aion.

For many years I hesitated to do this because I was quite conscious of the probable consequences, and knew what a storm would be raised.

But I was gripped by the urgency and difficulty of the problem and was unable to throw it off.

Therefore I found myself obliged to deal with the whole problem, and I did so in the form of describing a personal experience, carried by subjective emotions.

I deliberately chose this form because I wanted to avoid the impression that I had any idea of announcing an “eternal truth.”

The book does not pretend to be anything but the voice or question of a single individual who hopes or expects to meet with thoughtfulness in the public.

Prefatory Note to Answer to Job by Carl Jung; Psychology and Religion.

LECTORI BENEVOLO

I am distressed for thee, my brother . . .~II Samuel i : 26 (AV)

On account of its somewhat unusual content, my little book requires a short preface.

I beg of you, dear reader, not to overlook it.

For, in what follows, I shall speak of the venerable objects of religious belief.

Whoever talks of such matters inevitably runs the risk of being torn to pieces by the two parties who are in mortal conflict about those very things.

This conflict is due to the strange supposition that a thing is true only if it presents itself as a physical fact.

Thus some people believe it to be physically true that Christ was born as the son of a virgin, while others deny this as a physical impossibility.

Everyone can see that there is no logical solution to this conflict and that one would do better not to get involved in such sterile disputes. Both are right and both are wrong.

Yet they could easily reach agreement if only they dropped the word “physical.”

“Physical” is not the only criterion of truth: there are also psychic truths which can neither be explained nor proved nor contested in any physical way.

If, for instance, a general belief existed that the river Rhine had at one time flowed backwards from its mouth to its source, then this belief would in itself be a fact even though such an assertion, physically understood, would be deemed utterly incredible.

Beliefs of this kind are psychic facts which cannot be contested and need no proof.

Religious statements are of this type.

They refer without exception to things that cannot be established as physical facts.

If they did not do this, they would inevitably fall into the category of the natural sciences.

Taken as referring to anything physical, they make no sense whatever, and science would dismiss them as non-experienceable.

They would be mere miracles, which are sufficiently exposed to doubt as it is, and yet they could not demonstrate the reality of the spirit or meaning that underlies them, because meaning is something that always demonstrates itself and is experienced on its own merits.

The spirit and meaning of Christ are present and perceptible to us even without the aid of miracles.

Miracles appeal only to the understanding of those who cannot perceive the meaning.

They are mere substitutes for the not understood reality of the spirit. This is not to say that the living presence of the spirit is not occasionally accompanied by marvelous physical happenings.

I only wish to emphasize that these happenings can neither replace nor bring about an understanding of the spirit, which is the one essential thing.

The fact that religious statements frequently conflict with the observed physical phenomena proves that in contrast to physical perception the spirit is autonomous, and that psychic experience is to a certain extent independent of physical data.

The psyche is an autonomous factor, and religious statements are psychic confessions which in the last resort are based on unconscious, i.e., on transcendental, processes.

These processes are not accessible to physical perception but demonstrate their existence through the confessions of the psyche.

The resultant statements are filtered through the medium of human consciousness: that is to say, they are given visible forms which in their turn are subject to manifold influences from within and without.

That is why whenever we speak of religious contents we move in a world of images that point to something ineffable, We do not know how clear or unclear these images, metaphors, and concepts are in respect of their transcendental object.

If, for instance, we say “God,” we give expression to an image or verbal concept which has undergone many changes in the course of time.

We are, however, unable to say with any degree of certainty unless it be by faith whether these changes affect only the images and concepts, or the Unspeakable itself.

After all, we can imagine God as an eternally flowing current of vital energy
that endlessly changes shape just as easily as we can imagine him as an eternally unmoved, unchangeable essence.

Our reason is sure only of one thing: that it manipulates images and ideas which are dependent on human imagination and its temporal and local conditions, and which have therefore changed innumerable times in the course of their long history.

There is no doubt that there is something behind these images that transcends consciousness and operates in such a way that the statements do not vary limitlessly and chaotically, but clearly all relate to a few basic principles or archetypes. These, like the psyche itself, or like matter, are unknowable as such.

All we can do is to construct models of them which we know to be inadequate, a fact which is confirmed again and again by religious statements.

If, therefore, in what follows I concern myself with these “metaphysical” objects, I am quite conscious that I am moving in a world of images and that none of my reflections touches the essence of the Unknowable.

I am also too well aware of how limited are our powers of conception to say nothing of the feebleness and poverty of language to imagine that my remarks mean anything more in principle than what a primitive man means when he conceives of his god as a hare or a snake.

But, although our whole world of religious ideas consists of anthropomorphic images that could never stand up to rational criticism, we should never forget that they are based on numinous archetypes, i.e., on an emotional foundation which is unassailable by reason.

We are dealing with psychic facts which logic can overlook but not eliminate. In this connection Tertullian has already appealed, quite rightly, to the testimony of the soul.

In his De testimonio animae, he says: These testimonies of the soul are as simple as they are true, as obvious as they are simple, as common as they are obvious, as natural as they are common, as divine as they are natural.

I think that they cannot appear to anyone to be trifling and ridiculous if he considers the majesty of Nature, whence the authority of the soul is derived.

What you allow to the mistress you will assign to the disciple.

Nature is the mistress, the soul is the disciple; what the one has taught, or the other has learned, has been delivered to them by God, who is, in truth, the Master even of the mistress herself.

What notion the soul is able to conceive of her first teacher is in your power to judge, from that soul which is in you.

Feel that which causes you to feel; think upon that which is in forebodings your prophet; in omens, your augur; in the events which befall you, your foreseer.

Strange if, being given by God, she knows how to act the diviner for men! Equally strange if she knows Him by whom she has been given!

I would go a step further and say that the statements made in the Holy Scriptures are also utterances of the soul even at the risk of being suspected of psychologism.

The statements of the conscious mind may easily be snares and delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions, but this is certainly not true of the statements of the soul: to begin with they always go over our heads because they point to realities that transcend consciousness.

These entia are the archetypes of the collective unconscious, and they precipitate complexes of ideas in the form of mythological motifs.

Ideas of this kind are never invented, but enter the field of inner perception as finished products, for instance in dreams.

They are spontaneous phenomena which are not subject to our will, and we are therefore justified in ascribing to them a certain autonomy.

They are to be regarded not only as objects but as subjects with laws of their own. From the point of view of consciousness, we can, of course, describe them as objects, and even explain them up to a point, in the same measure as we can describe and explain a living human being.

But then we have to disregard their autonomy.

If that is considered, we are compelled to treat them as subjects; in other words, we have to admit that they possess spontaneity and purposiveness, or a kind of consciousness and free will.

We observe their behaviour and consider their statements. This dual standpoint, which we are forced to adopt towards every relatively independent organism,
naturally has a dual result.

On the one hand it tells me what I do to the object, and on the other hand what it does (possibly to me).

It is obvious that this unavoidable dualism will create a certain amount of confusion in the minds of my readers, particularly as in what follows we shall have to do with the archetype of Deity.

Should any of my readers feel tempted to add an apologetic “only” to the God-images as we perceive them, he would immediately fall foul of experience, which demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt the extraordinary numinosity of these images.

The tremendous effectiveness (mana) of these images is such that they not only give one the feeling of pointing to the Ens realissimum, but make one convinced that they actually express it and establish it as a fact.

This makes discussion uncommonly difficult, if not impossible.

It is, in fact, impossible to demonstrate God’s reality to oneself except by using images which have arisen spontaneously or are sanctified by tradition, and whose psychic nature and effects the naive-minded person has never separated from their unknowable metaphysical background.

He instantly equates the effective image with the transcendental x to which it points.

The seeming justification for this procedure appears self-evident and is not considered a problem so long as the statements of religion are not seriously questioned.

But if there is occasion for criticism, then it must be remembered that the image and the statement are psychic processes which are different from their transcendental object; they do not posit it, they merely point to it.

In the realm of psychic processes criticism and discussion are not only permissible but are unavoidable.

In what follows I shall attempt just such a discussion, such a “coming to terms” with certain religious traditions and ideas.

Since I shall be dealing with numinous factors, my feeling is challenged quite as much as my intellect.

I cannot, therefore, write in a coolly objective manner, but must allow my emotional subjectivity to speak if I want to describe what I feel when I read certain books of the Bible, or when I remember the impressions I have received from the doctrines of our faith.

I do not write as a biblical scholar (which I am not), but as a layman and physician who has been privileged to see deeply into the psychic life of many people.

What I am expressing is first of all my own personal view, but I know that I also speak in the name of many who have had similar experiences. ~Carl Jung; Answer to Job; Prefatory Note to Answer to Job; Psychology and Religion.

Carl Jung and the Reign of the Anti-Christ

Satan is locked up in the bottomless pit for a thousand years, and Christ shall reign for the same length of time.

“After that he must be loosed a little season.”

These thousand years correspond astrologically to the first half of the Pisces aeon.

The setting free of Satan after this time must therefore correspond one cannot imagine any other reason for it to the enantiodromia of the Christian aeon, that is, to the reign of the Antichrist, whose coming could be predicted on astrological grounds. ~Carl Jung, Answer to Job.

Carl Jung: I am not concerned with what is “believable” but simply with what is knowable.

To Bernhard Martin

Dear Dr. Martin, 7 December 1954

It is very kind of you to submit your manuscript to me for an opinion.

I have taken the liberty of marking it with numbers in pencil where a change in the text seems necessary.

You “know” of that which is beyond the psyche only through belief, not through knowledge.

I do not write for believers who already possess the whole truth, rather for unbelieving but intelligent people who want to understand something.

Without the psyche you can neither know nor believe.

Therefore everything about which we can speak at all lies in the psychic realm; even the atom is in this sense a psychic model.

I grant you that the believer will learn nothing from my Answer to Job since he already has everything.

I write only for unbelievers.

Thanks to your belief, you know much more than I do.

Since my earliest youth I have been made to feel how rich and how knowing the believers are, and how disinclined even to listen to anything else.

I do not hesitate to admit my extreme poverty in knowing through believing, and would therefore advise you to shut my book with a bang and inscribe on the inside of the jacket: “Nothing here for the believing Christian” -a sentiment with which I am in complete agreement.

I am not concerned with what is “believable” but simply with what is knowable.

It seems to me that we are not in a position to “generate” or “uphold” belief, for belief is a charisma which God giveth or taketh away.

It would be presumptuous to imagine that we can command it at will.

For the sake of brevity my comments are rather direct and outspoken.

I hope you won’t mind this, but will see how different are the two planes on which the discussion is moving.

Without in any way impugning belief, I confine myself to its assertions.

As you see, I even take the highly controversial new dogma at its face value.

I do not consider myself competent to judge the metaphysical truth of these assertions; I only try to elucidate their content and their psychological associations.

The assertions are, as you yourself admit, anthropomorphic and therefore can hardly be considered reliable with respect to their metaphysical truth.

You as a believer take the stand that the proposition “God is” has as its inevitable corollary God’s Existence in reality, whereas Kant irrefutably pointed out long ago (in his critique of Anselm’s proof of God) that the little word “is” can denote no more than a “copula in the judgment.”

Other religions make equally absolute assertions, but quite different ones.

But as a psychologist on the one hand and a human being on the other I must acknowledge that my brother may be right too.

I do not belong to the elect and the beati possidentes of the sole truth, but must give fair consideration to all human assertions, even the denial of God.

So when you confront me as a Christian apologist you are standing on a different plane from me.

You cling to “believing is knowing,” and I must always be the loser because de fide non est disputandum any more than one can argue about taste.

One cannot argue with the possessor of the truth.

Only the seeker after truth needs to reflect, to inquire, to deliberate, for he admits that he does not know.

As a believer you can only dismiss me out of hand and declare that I am no Christian and what I say is useless, indeed harmful.

Well, gunpowder was a dangerous invention, but it also has its useful applications.

It is notorious that everything can be used for a good or a bad purpose.

Hence there was no valid reason for me to keep silence, quite apart from the fact that the present state of “Christendom” arouses a host of doubts in people’s minds.

As a doctor I have to provide the answers which for many of my patients are not forthcoming from the theologian.

I myself have politely requested the theologians to explain to me what the attitude of modern Protestantism is as regards the identity of the Old and the New Testament concept of God.

Two didn’t answer at all and the third said that nobody bothers any more about God-concepts nowadays.

But for the religious-minded person this is a matter of burning interest, which was one of my motives for
writing Answer to Job.

I would like to recommend Prof. Volz’s Das Daemonische in Jahwe to your attention, and as for the New Testament I pose the question: Is it necessary to placate a “loving Father” with the martyr’s death of his son?

What is the relation here between love and vindictiveness?

And what would I feel about it if my own father exhibited that kind of phenomenology?

Such are the questions of the unbelieving religious man for whom I write.

To him applies the amiable (predestinarian) principle of Matt. 13: 12: “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given,” etc.

But “illis non est datum,” these lost sheep of which another, equally authentic logion says that Christ was sent only to them.

Those who cannot believe would at least like to understand: “Putasne intelligis quae legis?” (Acts 8:30).

But understanding begins at the bottom of the mountain on top of which the believer sits.

He already knows everything much better and can therefore say: “Lord, I thank thee that I am not so dumb and ignorant as those down below, who want to understand” (cf. Luke 18:11).

I cannot anticipate a thing by believing it but must be content with my unbelief until my efforts meet with the grace of illumination, that is, with religious experience.

I cannot make-believe.

To conclude with an indiscreet question: Don’t you think that the angel of the Lord, wrestling with Jacob, also got a few hefty cuffs and kicks? (So much for my “scandalous” criticism of Yahweh!)

I know my Answer to Job is a shocker for which I ought to offer a civil apology (hence my motto).

Yours sincerely,

C.G. Jung ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 197-199.

Carl Jung "Answer to Job" - Anthology

In my view, the discussion of Matter must have a scientific basis. That is why I pressed for [Answer to Job] and[Synchronicity]to be published at the same time. ~Carl Jung, Atom and Archetype, Pages 97-101

God wanted to become man and still wants to ... ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 455.

If there is anything like the spirit seizing one by the scruff of the neck, it was the way this book [Answer to Job] came into being. . . . It came upon me suddenly and unexpectedly during a feverish illness. . . . ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 20.

I am accustomed to living in a more or less complete intellectual vacuum, and my Answer to Job has done nothing to diminish it. On the contrary, it has released an avalanche of prejudice, misunderstanding, and, above all, atrocious stupidity. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 115-116.

The book [Answer to Job] "came to me" during the fever of an illness. It was as if accompanied by the great music of a Bach or a Handel. I don't belong to the auditory type. So I did not hear anything, I just had the feeling of listening to a great composition, or rather of being at a concert. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 115-116.

Allow me to tell you that I am profoundly grateful to you for your most remarkably objective review of my uncouth attempt [Answer to Job] to disturb the obnoxious somnolence of the guardians. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 155-157

Your succour comes at a time when it is badly needed; soon a little book of mine will be published in England which my publishers in USA did not dare to print. Its title is: Answer to Job. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 192-193

The German edition [Answer to Job] over here has already upset the representatives of three religions, not because it is irreligious but because it takes their statements and premises seriously. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 192-193

Already Philip Toynbee has reviewed it [Answer to Job] in an "abysmally stupid" way as R.F.C. Hull, the translator, rightly says (in a letter to me). ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 212-214.

My Answer to Job was left by the Bollingen Press to the English publishers, since they were apparently afraid of something like "Unamerican activities" and the loss of prestige presumably. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 230-232.

They [Archetypes] guide but they also mislead; how much I reserve my criticism for them you can see in Answer to Job, where I subject archetypal statements to what you call "blasphemous" criticism. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 257-264.

The fact of God’s “unconsciousness” throws a peculiar light on the doctrine of salvation. Man is not so much delivered from his sins, even if he is baptized in the prescribed manner and thus washed clean, as delivered from fear of the consequences of sin, that is, from the wrath of God. Consequently, the work of salvation is intended to save man from the fear of God. Answer to Job ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 659.

The tragic counter play between inside and outside (depicted in Job and Faust as the wager with God) represents, at bottom, the energetics of the life process, the polar tension that is necessary for self-regulation. ~Carl Jung, CW 7, Para 311

The fact that the life of Christ is largely myth does absolutely nothing to disprove its factual truth—quite the contrary. I would even go so far as to say that the mythical character of a life is just what expresses its universal human validity. It is perfectly possible, psychologically, for the unconscious or an archetype to take complete possession of a man and to determine his fate down to the smallest detail. At the same time objective, non-psychic parallel phenomena can occur which also represent the archetype. It not only seems so, it simply is so, that the archetype fulfils itself not only psychically in the individual, but objectively outside the individual. My own conjecture is that Christ was such a personality. The life of Christ is just what it had to be if it is the life of a god and a man at the same time. It is a symbolum, a bringing together of heterogeneous natures, rather as if Job and Yahweh were combined in a single personality. Yahweh's intention to become man, which resulted from his collision with Job, is fulfilled in Christ's life and suffering. ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 648

In his striving for unity, therefore, man may always count on the help of a metaphysical advocate, as Job clearly recognized. ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 740

Job realizes God’s inner antinomy, and in the light of this realization his knowledge attains a divine numinosity. ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 584

The fact of God’s “unconsciousness” throws a peculiar light on the doctrine of salvation. Man is not so much delivered from his sins, even if he is baptized in the prescribed manner and thus washed clean, as delivered from fear of the consequences of sin, that is, from the wrath of God. Consequently, the work of salvation is intended to save man from the fear of God. Answer to Job ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 659.

Christ appears as a guarantee of God's benevolence. He is our advocate in Heaven, Job's "God against God." ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 471-473

The primordial experience is not concerned with the historical bases of Christianity but consists in an immediate experience of God (as was had by Moses, Job, Hosea, Ezekiel among others) which "convinces" because it is "overpowering." ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 423-424

Man must know that he is man's worst enemy just as much as God had to learn from Job about His own antithetical nature. ~Carl Jung, Letters, Vol. II, Pages 238-243.

Soon a little book of mine which I have published with the physicist Prof. W. Pauli will come out in English. It is even more shocking than Job, but this time to the scientist, not the theologian. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 230-232.

You should have seen the press reviews of Job! The naive stupidity of it all is beyond imagination. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 104

What you write about the effect of Job on analysts accords with my own experience: the number of individuals capable of reacting is relatively very small and analysts are no exception. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 104

I live in my deepest hell, and from there I cannot fall any further. ~Carl Jung on how he could live with the knowledge he had recorded in the Book of Job, Jung: His Myth in Our Time, Page 174.

Job did not have to suffer for his sins as his friends thought; it was rather that God required Job to look at His dark side as well. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 49.

The inner instability of Yahweh is the prime cause not only of the creation of the world, but also of the pleromatic drama for which mankind serves as a tragic chorus. . . . the two main climaxes are formed first by the Job tragedy and secondly by Ezekiel’s revelation. ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 686.

Carl Jung on "Answer to Job."

God wanted to become man and still wants to ... Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 455.

One should make clear to one self, what it means, when God becomes man. Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 401.

If we say "God"? we give an expression to an image or verbal concept which has undergone many changes in the course of 􀢢me. ... Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 360.

Christianity itself would never have spread through the pagan world with such astonishing rapidity, had its ideas not found an analogous psychic readiness to receive them. Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 441.

But in omniscience there had existed from all eternity a knowledge of the human nature of God or the divine nature of man. This realization is a millennial process. Carl Jung, CW 11, Answer to Job, Page 402.