I know this is a little touchy, and I won't begrudge anyone who might decline to comment, but it is a question that I have wanted to ask for some time.

It is in reference to some comments made by Jung, in Answer to Job. He writes:

Looked at from the distance of 2000 years, it is uncommonly difficult to reconstruct a biographical picture of Christ from the traditions that have been preserved. Not a single text exists which would fulfill even the minimum modern requirements for writing such a history. The historically verifiable facts are extremely scanty, and the little biographically valid material that exists is not sufficient for us to recreate out of it a consistent career or even a remotely probable character...
Perhaps the most disturbing and confusing thing of all is that the oldest writings, those of St. Paul, do not seem to have the slightest interest in Christ's existence as a concrete human being. The Synoptic Gospels are equally unsatisfactory as they have more the character of propaganda than of biography.

I am a little confused, because I thought he was using the Synoptics as the example for his statement that the "little biographically valid material is not sufficient...", Instead it seems he entirely discards the Synoptics, expelling them from the arguement. If that is so, then what are:

1. The scanty historically verifiable facts?
Josephus?

2. The little biographically valid material.

This may be very hastey, cause I have to leave for the in-laws right now, but I have some more ruminations on it later. All in all, I have this exerpt largely memorized and just want to understand it better, understand my convictions.

Age & Gender & Location {Required}: 32, Montana

Have You Posted Before? Date of Last Post {Use Search and Your Post Name to Help Find Last Post} Male

How Did You Find the Dream Forum? Yes

Is the problem of Jesus's "consistent career" to be found in the Synoptics? Is that what Jung is referring to? Where are the inconsistencies in Jesus' biography that Jung is referring to?

The common reaction, is to say, 'look at the Synoptics. They are four similar accounts of Jesus' life. What more proof do you need?"

It doesn't take too much effort to discover some conflicting accounts within the Synoptics themselves. And I just read that Josephus never chronicled Herod's order to kill every male child under 2yrs old in Judea. Apparently Josephus "reviled Herod and took care to lay at his feet every crime for which even a shred of evidence existed." Also, Herod's decree was in Matthew, and absent in Luke.

Is this part of what Jung mentions as an inconsistent career? Or is he just discarding the Synoptics altogether?

I suppose I should concentrate more on the Jesus that is the most real, the universal symbol of the individual soul. Instead of wheeling out a bunch of tiring factual artillery and in the purpose of attacking the literal interpretation, I accidentally destroy the figurative, universal interpretation that presents itself equally positively and beneficial.

Anyway, I just find it interesting to view Jesus in these two distinct ways. I think of it not as diminishing the historicity of the historical Jesus, as much as validating and exploring his spiritual universality. What that soul symbol means directly to me can often be vague and distant, like it's a revelation reserved for a later time in life.

Age & Gender & Location {Required}: 32, Montana

Have You Posted Before? Date of Last Post {Use Search and Your Post Name to Help Find Last Post} Male

How Did You Find the Dream Forum? Yes

Sam,
I will offer only a brief reply since I need to focus on the posted dreams before my time expires {always some social dragons to slay}.

My thoughts on Jesus, admittedly being a recovering Church of Christ/Southern Baptist, is as one example for living a truly spiritual life. Your words, "the universal symbol of the individual soul" is where he fits in my life. I equate Jesus and the Buddha in the same breath. Both were real historical men {although there is little written about Jesus outside what we see in the bible, or in forbidden texts such as the Gnostic Gospels}. Both became mythological figures and what they stand for and not what the myths define is what I see as important. The myth of Jesus as outlined in the bible does not completely square with the Jesus I believe in {I see him more in line with the Gnostic texts}.

What is interesting to me is the difference in Jesus and God. Jesus lived from the feminine aspect of the psyche, God the masculine. As a Jungian I believe our greatest power of the psyche is the feminine aspect, not only because it is what Jesus lived but because it does provide a more balanced attitude toward our fellow man and life. Whereas God became angry or demonstrated signs of ego upon a whim {look what he did to poor Job because of a bet with Satan}, Jesus only showed compassion and love. I tend to follow the example of Jesus as the model to live a spiritual life. As for God, well Luke Skywalker's the 'Force' better defines what I believe that to be. Unseeable but there. And not necessarily masculine.

There may be others at the Forum who wish to comment and it it is a good discussion to have. Understanding who Jesus really was/is does provide insights to how life really is/should be in a spiritual/religious context. I tend to focus on those things I have experienced and my experience is the church asks for too much of faith and too little of the good deeds. I don't believe in faith as the defining agent in my life but what I do in life. As Joseph Campbell said when asked by the Catholic priest about faith his reply was, "I don't need faith, I have experience". Most of my experiences with faith are less than fulfilling whereas the positive results of my good deeds pays dividends time and time and time again.

Jerry

Age & Gender & Location {Required}: 59 Murfreesboro, Tn

Have You Posted Before? Date of Last Post {Use Search and Your Post Name to Help Find Last Post} Male

How Did You Find the Dream Forum? Yes