Introduction: Finding New Meanings in Ancient Words
Jung wrote extensively about Christianity, about the purpose that it has filled for western culture, and the ways in which it contributed to the development of a Judeo-Christian shadow. In particular, by leaving us with an image of God that is wholly good and wholly masculine, Judeo Christianity has made it difficult for us to fully experience, appreciate, and integrate the darker and feminine dimensions of human life.
But can we really say that Christianity was some sort of
“mistaken path” that humanity undertook some 2,000 years ago? Or should we just
label Christianity as an instrument of social, and particularly patriarchal,
oppression? Clearly, regardless of how we view Christianity, we can’t deny that
has appealed to billions of people and grown to one of the most popular and
enduring faiths. As Jungians, we
have to acknowledge that it has deep archetypal roots and must be an expression
of the human yearning for individuation.
For me, an even more interesting question is how a tiny
gathering of Judeans became so inspired by a new way of thinking that it
revolutionized the world. This question is independent of whether a person
named Jesus ever actually lived, or whether he was literally the son of God, or
the thousands of other theological questions that cannot ultimately be
answered. What we know are the
effects. Something did change in
the Middle East some 2,000 years ago and we are still riding that wave of change
up until today.
The only clues we have about what inspired those Judeans is
contained in the official New Testament and the fragments of the unofficial
texts that were, at some point, revered as a true representation of the words
and teachings of Jesus. In the
first 200 years of the common era, there were hundreds of groups that called
themselves Christian, each of which had it own system of belief, even hundreds
of “gospels” that were shared in an oral tradition. Then came efforts to put the words and acts of Jesus into
writing, and at that moment the diversity began to diminish. Certain selections were made about what
should be written down, and the thoughts, opinions, and recollections of the
literate people made it into the written works, leaving out thousands of
alternative version or stories told by those who could not read or write. A decision would have to be made about
the language to be used. History
says that Jesus himself spoke the language known as Aramaic, but by the time
the writing of the gospels took place, the intended audiences were not Middle
Eastern, they were European, for whom the language of scholarship and faith was
Greek. So there were some texts written in Aramaic and Hebrew, but many more
written in Greek.
A critical turning point occurred in the year 325 of the Common
Era. In that year, the Emperor
Constantine decided that a more unified, stable official religion would lead to
a more stable, unified empire, and he decided to give Christianity a chance to
be that religion. First, though,
the hundreds of competing Christian texts would need to be winnowed down to the
“true” texts, editing out and eliminating the rest. And these texts would need to be written in Greek. He convened the Nicean Council, which
resulted in the compilation of the official New Testament, along with a
delineation of the official faith and many of the practices that are now
recognized as mainstream Christianity.
The rest was labeled as heretical and systematically, even brutally,
repressed and eliminated. On that
foundation was built the Christian church.
To what degree did that leave anything resembling an
meaningful and complete portrayal of what inspired that small group of Judeans
at the dawn of the Common Era? No
one will ever really know, of course.
Jung and the post-Jungians have found, in the official Christian texts
as well as the remains of the others, an expression of the deeper process. We humans struggle to find a way to
relate to the immensity of wholeness, the totality of what has been and could
possibly be true for human beings, to relate to the great assemblage of our
ancestors and that unknowable Other, the Higher Power. And billions have found Christianity at
least a partial path to that end, at least in its most basic form. Christ is a symbol of
individuation. He represents a
divine spark becoming pinned in time and space, taking up the unique and often
excruciating task to know oneself, and to offer that uniqueness back to our
eternal source as the only truly worthy gift.
Modern scholarship has opened a new window into this
question. Although most of today’s
translations start with Greek texts, there is one text that has survived in
something close to the original Aramaic spoke in first century Judea. It is called the Peshitta, which
roughly translates as “simple gospel.” This version of the New Testament was kept intact by
the Syrian Church of the East, which lay outside the control of Constantine and
the Roman Empire. Unlike the
official New Testament, which for most of its history remained out of the hands
of common believers and not even translated into popular vernacular, copies of
the Peshitta were widely available in individual homes and read in its original
Aramaic language.
Why is this so significant? Because the Peshitta gives a special window into the actual
words that so inspired those original Judeans. Aramaic is a very different language from Greek. For example, in Aramaic, there is no
word to distinguish between inner and outer, within versus among. Therefore, Aramaic speakers would be
baffled with the idea of an interior world cut off from exterior others; it is
all one and continuous. In Greek,
there is a distinction between mind, body, emotion, and spirit – no such
distinction is made in Aramaic. In
Aramaic, every word has subtle layers of alternative meanings, and Aramaic
speakers often made use of this to convey depths of alternative meanings. The intention was not to have one
specific meaning, but for all of the possible meanings to be simultaneously
true. For example, the Aramaic
word “shem” simultaneously meant light, sound, name, and atmosphere. So, when Jesus was quoted as saying,
“Pray in my shem,” it was translated into Greek as “pray in my name,” but that
excludes the other, equally important meanings about the atmosphere that
surrounds prayer or the sound of the prayer.
For the next few weeks, we will be exploring some of the
most familiar New Testament passages – particularly the Lord’s Prayer and the
Beatitudes – and trying to experience them as Aramaic speakers might have
experienced them. We will make use
of the work of some modern Aramaic scholars, most notably Neil
Douglas-Klotz. In the process, we
will unearth some very interesting parallels between these ancient texts and
Jungian concepts of psyche, individuation, and Self.
To begin this week, let’s explore the Aramaic word that is
translated as “God” in the English versions of the NT. The word is “alaha.” The layers of meaning are: sacred unity, oneness, the All, the
ultimate power or potential, and the One with no opposite. Imagine how this one
difference in translation could radically change our understanding of NT
statements attributed to Jesus. Any
time Jesus spoke about holiness or sacredness, the Aramaic understanding would
have been “that which participates in or resonates with the Unity or Oncness.”
There is an underlying premise in this work that is very
controversial. Before
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there was a more ancient Middle Eastern
belief system. In this pre-existing system, there was little or no distinction
between inner and outer, human and nonhuman, individual and community. It was all one underlying pattern, one
massive vibrational field, into which anyone could tune. By the time of Jesus,
this pre-existing belief system had been severely challenged, even eradicated,
by invading Roman and Greek forces.
But the old way of being and of thinking was at least partially
preserved in the ancient languages of Aramaic and Hebrew, and despite
mistranslation and editing, some of it survived into scriptural text. The Peshitta, remaining in its original
Aramaic, contains more of this pre-existing belief system intact.
Here is a quote from Douglas-Klotz on this point:
Our usual Western concepts of God and
the sacred are only a partial view of Sacred Unity in the Middle Eastern sense.
It is difficult to over-emphasize this point. Most of us have been raised from
childhood think of God as a being infinitely distant from humanity or nature, d
of the sacred as something separate from the profane. We have been taught that religion operates by different
rules than politics, science, psychology, art, or culture. Yeshua's teaching
and reported dealings with his lowers show that he did riot live from this type
of separation thinking. Indeed, it
should have been difficult for anyone at his time to entirely divorce Alaha from the way that one related to one's community, to nature, or to the political forces of the
time.
In the Gospel of Thomas, various
sayings of Yeshua point to Alaha as Sacred Unity:'
Look for
the Living One while you are alive, so that you will not die and then seek to see him and be unable to see. (Saying 59)
On the day when you were One, you became two; but when you have become two, what will you do? (Saying 11 :4)
The Jesus
of the Gospel of Thomas also repeatedly uses phrases like "and they shall
stand as a single one"-sometimes translated as "solitary one."
Certainly these expressions point to a wandering, preaching lifestyle,
exemplified by Jesus himself. I believe they also point to the Middle Eastern
concept of the divine as Unity, Without opposites. This concept also appears in
the following saying:
When you
make the two One, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the
inner, and the above as the below ... then
you will enter the kingdom. (Saying 22:4,7)
Lets relate this back to Jungian concepts. Here are some statements about the
transcendent Self, one of Jung’s major teachings. Note the similarities with Alaha:
The Self is an archetypal IMAGE of man's fullest potential
and the unity of the personality as a whole. The self as a unifying principle
within the human psyche occupies the central position of authority in relation
to psychological life and, therefore, the destiny of the individual. At times
Jung speaks of the self as initiatory of psychic life; at other times he refers
to its realisation as the goal. He stressed this as an empirical concept and
not a philosophical or theological formulation but the similarity of his views
and a religious hypothesis have needed clarification. One cannot consider the
concept of the Self apart from its similarity to a GOD-IMAGE and, consequently,
analytical PSYCHOLOGY has been confronted both by those who welcome acceptance
of it as an acknowledgment of man's religious core and others, whether doctors,
scientists or religious dogmatists, find such a psychological formulation
unacceptable.
'The self is not only the
centre', Jung writes, 'but also the whole circumference which embraces both
conscious and UNCONSCIOUS; it is the centre of this totality, just as the EGO
is the centre of the conscious mind' (CW 12, para. 144). In life, the self
demands to be recognised, integrated, realised; but there is no hope of
incorporating more than a fragment of such a vast totality within the limited
range human CONSCIOUSNESS. Therefore, the relationship of ego to self is a
never-ending process.
Following Jung conceptually, the
self can be defined as an archetypal urge to coordinate, relativise and mediate
the tension of OPPOSITES. By way of the self, one is confronted with the
polarity of good and EVIL; human and divine. Interaction requires the exercise
of the maximum human freedom in face of life's see inconsistent demands; the
sole and final arbiter being the discovery of MEANING. A person's ability to
integrate such an image without priestly mediation has been questioned by the
clergy, and theologians have been critical of the inclusion of both positive
and negative elements in the God-image. But Jung staunchly defended his
position pointing out that Christian emphasis upon 'the good' alone had left
Western man estranged and divided within himself.
Symbols of the self often possess
a numinosity and convey a sense of necessity which gives them transcendent priority
in psychic life. They carry the authority of a God-image and felt there was no
doubt that alchemists' statements about the considered psychologically,
describe the archetype of the self. Although he claimed to have observed intent
and purpose in psychic manifestations of the self, he nevertheless eschewed making
any statement in regard to the ultimate source of that purpose.
Andrew Samuels, Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis
Possibly, then, Jung was tapping
into a level of relation to Higher Power that is strikingly mirrored in the
original meaning of words attributed to Jesus some 2,000 years ago.
To conclude today, let’s explore a
passage in the New Testament that has been translated from the Greek and then
contrast it to the more subtle, nuanced Aramaic version. The passage is Luke 11:34-35
The light of the
body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is
full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
Take heed therefore
that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
This is one of the more baffling
passages of the NT, which leads you to believe that there is a translation
issue here. Now let’s hear from
Douglas-Klontz:
The Aramaic word used here for "eye" is a complex one. It can mean look, view, opinion. appearance. face. or the surface of something that expresses an inner essence. The word for "single" can also
mean upright, stretched
out, innocent. sincere, or straightforward. The word used here for "body" can also mean
corpse or flesh-the purely phvsical stuff of a human being, without the living breath.
So we could translate this section of the verse as follows:
The degree of your illumination --
your understanding of all that is --
shines through your eyes, your face, and all you do.
When your expression is straight and
expansive, without holding back,
like light through a clear lens, then everything you embody
shows the same flash of intelligence that helped create the world.
In other words, without being
illuminated by nuhra, the light of intelligence , the body is just flesh, a
corpse. More specifically, Jesus' listeners showed by the light in their eyes the degree to which they consciously
understood his teaching.
The word for "evil" in Aramaic means unripe or not at the
right time. The word for "darkness"(heshuka) is the
Aramaic equivalent of the word for darkness
used in Genesis (hoshech). So an expanded reading of this sentence
could be:
But when your expression is veiled
)
the eye cloudy and darting,
the action at the wrong time and place,
what you embody of light and
understanding will be chaotic, swirling, obscure.
Your non-understanding then
participates in the primal darkness of the cosmos.
An obscured gaze shows that a lesson or teaching – light -- is understood
consciously. If something
is received subconsciously, it may not be reflected in one's expression or
action. The rules of the subconscious, like the primal darkness of hoshech, are obscure, indirect and circular. For
a teaching to reach this level of understanding-for light to reach the
darkness-indirect methods, like parables and stories are traditionally used in
the Middle East.
As the passage continues, it becomes more puzzling in its translations (here, KJV): Take heed therefore that the light
which is in thee be not darkness. (Luke 11 :35)
Here the Aramaic version gives a more subtle reading. The word usually translated as “therefore” can also mean perhaps,
unless, or “it may be.” It points out a special circumstance that
amends what been said before. The word "not" does not appear in
either the Aramaic or Greek text of Luke. So two other hearings of this phrase
can be:
Take care in this circumstance:
when the light in you actually becomes darkness. then it is no longer light:
When your understanding loses its clarity
or becomes lost in complexity,
it cannot claim to be teaching or Illumination.
Pay attention that you use clear understanding for what is
straightforward, able to be taught. Use veiling and darkness for what
is circular, indirect, only able to be suggested.
This calls to mind another saying of Jesus
(KJV): "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). The
word for "wise" is related to the methods of Hokhmah, Holy Wisdom,
which operate in the darkness. We will explore this more in chapter seven. The
word [or "harmless" can also mean straightforward, sincere, or
complete.
In the last segment of this passage in Luke, Jesus suggests that the guidance one experiences as illumination can entirely fill one's being.,if the darkness is ready to receive it. In the King James version:
If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dart; the
whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give
thee light. (Luke 11 :36)
Using the expanded meanings of words we have
already seen, we can hear the following nuances of the Aramaic version:
If light comes fully into darkness, if illumination reaches the depths
of your flesh and soul,
then vibrating, swirling obscurity marries radiant, straightforward
clarity.
"Let there be light" becomes your experience. For a candle to
give illumination,
every part of it must participate:
the dark of the wick
the light of the flame,
the aura of the heat.
SOURCE: Douglas-Klotz, Neil. The Hidden Gospels.
No comments:
Post a Comment