The Bible as a Psychological Parable
The Enduring Psychological Resonance of Biblical Narratives
Sacred texts across diverse religious traditions, including the Bible, possess a profound and enduring appeal that transcends their theological or historical claims. These ancient narratives are replete with rich psychological themes that resonate deeply with universal human experiences. They offer a compelling lens through which to explore fundamental aspects of the human condition, including processes of self-reflection, the intricate pathways of moral development, the often arduous journey of personal growth and transformation, the complexities of interpersonal relationships, and the diverse strategies individuals employ to cope with suffering and adversity. Such texts provide invaluable perspectives on the human psyche and the dynamics of spiritual evolution. Within their stories, one finds vivid portrayals of emotional experiences—ranging from joy and sorrow to anger, fear, and love—alongside explorations of emotional regulation. They delve into the motivations that drive characters’ actions, such as the desire for spiritual enlightenment, the quest for knowledge, or the pursuit of redemption, as exemplified by figures like Buddha or Moses leading the Exodus. Furthermore, these narratives illustrate various behavioural patterns and their consequences, reflecting principles akin to karma or the rewards and punishments associated with virtuous or transgressive conduct. The internal conflicts, such as the struggle between faith and doubt, and the intricate interpersonal dynamics, including leadership, followership, conflict resolution, and reconciliation, are central to these stories, illuminating the multifaceted nature of human psychology.
The proposition that the Bible functions as a “psychological parable” invites a distinct interpretive approach. The very term “parable” originates from the Greek “parabole,” which literally translates to “to throw beside or alongside”. This etymology signifies the act of placing two ideas in juxtaposition for the purpose of comparison, typically between a familiar object or event and a less familiar idea, truth, or principle. In a psychological context, a parable serves as an analogical comparison, utilizing a known domain (the “base”) to illuminate a less understood spiritual or psychological truth (the “target”). This method facilitates understanding of complex concepts by drawing parallels between underlying relational structures rather than merely superficial features.
This report posits that the Bible's narratives, beyond their traditional consideration as historical records or theological doctrines, can be profoundly understood as psychological parables. They function as rich allegories and symbolic frameworks that illuminate universal human experiences, internal conflicts, developmental stages, and pathways to psychological and spiritual growth. Through this lens, the Bible offers timeless insights into the human condition, serving as a dynamic mirror reflecting the complexities of the human soul. This article will systematically deconstruct the concept of the psychological parable, explore major psychological schools of thought and their application to biblical narratives, analyze specific biblical examples, trace the historical evolution of psychological biblical criticism, and address various criticisms and interpretive challenges inherent in this interdisciplinary endeavour.
Deconstructing the “Psychological Parable”
A “psychological parable” within sacred texts, particularly the Bible, refers to a narrative or teaching that, beyond its literal or theological meaning, offers profound insights into human psychological processes. These texts often explore themes central to human development and well-being. For instance, they delve into self-reflection, encouraging introspection and examination of one's inner world. They provide frameworks for moral development, outlining ethical guidelines and principles that shape concepts of right and wrong, much like the Ten Commandments or the Bhagavad Gita. Personal growth and transformation are recurring motifs, often depicting characters overcoming challenges and obstacles to achieve spiritual evolution and maturation, reminiscent of the “Hero's Journey” in mythology. The narratives also extensively explore interpersonal relationships, including family dynamics and community interactions, as seen in the Parable of the Prodigal Son or Confucian filial piety. Furthermore, they address the profound human experience of coping with suffering and adversity, promoting resilience and perseverance to find meaning in difficult experiences, exemplified by the Book of Job or the Buddhist Four Noble Truths. Finally, identity formation, guiding individuals to understand their role in the world and develop a sense of purpose, is a pervasive theme, parallelling concepts like the Hindu dharma or Islamic fitrah. These stories collectively provide frameworks for understanding spiritual growth and its profound impact on cognition, emotion, and behaviour.
The effectiveness of biblical narratives as psychological parables lies in their function as analogical comparisons. Jesus frequently employed parables as instructional analogies to help his learners grasp the deeper elements of his Gospel message. The fundamental characteristic of analogical thinking, and thus learning through parables, is relational comparison. This means that two situations are considered similar not because their surface features are alike, but because their underlying relationships are comparable. The familiar object or event in the parable serves as the “base” domain, while the less familiar idea, truth, or principle it seeks to illuminate is the “target” domain. For example, in the Parable of the Thief (Luke 12:39-40), Jesus draws a comparison between the relationship of a house owner and the unexpected arrival of a thief, and the relationship of his disciples to his own unexpected coming. The familiar scenario of thieves breaking into houses (the base) helps to convey the less familiar concept of the Son of Man's arrival (the target), with the common underlying point being the necessity of readiness for the unexpected.
This process is further elucidated by Gentner's structure-mapping theory, which highlights the “systematicity principle.” This principle suggests that in interdomain analogies, such as those found in many parables, individuals are most likely to map higher-order systems of relations. These systems are constrained by superordinate concepts, leading learners to disregard irrelevant surface features or isolated relations. For instance, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the core relational system encompasses the son's departure from his father's care, his subsequent repentance, the father's unconditional forgiveness and celebration, the older brother's obedience and labour, and his eventual resentment of the father's acceptance of the younger son. These first-order relations are bound by superordinate concepts of unconditional love and envy, which collectively support the central theme of divine delight in repentant sinners. Superficial details, such as the father's wealth or the specific gifts bestowed (a robe, a ring), are not intended to be mapped as literal characteristics of God, nor are isolated relations, such as the older brother simply being older than the wayward son, meant to convey central meaning.
The inherent design of the Bible's narratives for psychological engagement is evident in this analogical structure. The very nature of parables, as narratives exploring self-reflection, moral development, and personal growth, implies that they are more than mere historical accounts or theological pronouncements. They are fundamentally didactic tools, crafted to facilitate an internal transformation and a deeper understanding of the human condition. This structural characteristic suggests that the Bible, regardless of one's belief in its divine origin, is inherently suited for psychological interpretation. The parable form itself functions as a psychological mechanism, guiding individuals to internalize complex truths by relating them to familiar human experiences.
This powerful instructional method is not without its complexities. The use of parables, while effective, is described as a “double-edged instructional sword”. While parables are potent tools for conveying profound meaning, they carry inherent risks of misunderstanding. Learners may inadvertently map surface attributes or non-systematic relations from the base domain to the target domain, especially when they are unfamiliar with the target concept. Furthermore, complex base domains can suggest multiple systems of relations, potentially leading to the mapping of unintended interpretations. This highlights a crucial psychological challenge in interpreting sacred texts: the very mechanism that makes them effective for conveying deep truths also renders them susceptible to misinterpretation and the projection of personal biases. This inherent ambiguity can lead to a vast array of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, psychological and theological understandings throughout history. It underscores the necessity for careful hermeneutical principles in psychological interpretation to avoid eisegesis—the practice of reading one's own meaning into the text rather than drawing meaning out of it.
Biblical narratives serve as comprehensive frameworks for understanding cognition, emotion, and behaviour. They vividly depict a spectrum of emotional experiences, from joy and sorrow to anger, fear, and love, and often address strategies for emotional regulation, as seen in the Psalms or Sufi poetry. The motivations driving characters' actions are explored in depth, whether it be the desire for spiritual growth, the quest for knowledge, or the pursuit of redemption, exemplified by the Buddha's enlightenment or Moses leading the Exodus. Moreover, these stories illustrate various behavioural patterns and their consequences, showing how virtuous behaviour is rewarded and transgressions are punished, akin to the concept of Karma in Hinduism and Buddhism. Internal conflicts, such as the struggle between faith and doubt, and complex interpersonal dynamics, including leadership, followership, conflict resolution, and reconciliation, are central to these narratives, providing a rich tapestry for psychological analysis.
Psychoanalytic Interpretations with Freud's Critique and Jung's Archetypes
The psychological examination of biblical narratives has been profoundly shaped by the foundational theories of psychoanalysis, particularly those of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Their distinct approaches offer contrasting yet influential perspectives on the psychological underpinnings and functions of religion.
Sigmund Freud and Religion as Illusion and Neurosis
Sigmund Freud, an avowed atheist of Jewish heritage, adopted a profoundly critical stance toward religion, viewing it fundamentally as a human construct rather than a divine revelation. He contended that religion constituted a significant “hindrance to society” and dedicated his intellectual efforts to demonstrating its origins as a mere “product of the mind,” an “illusion”. Across his influential works, such as “The Future of an Illusion” (1927) and “Civilization and Its Discontents” (1930), Freud approached religion with the same analytical rigour he applied to his patients, dissecting its mechanisms and purported benefits.
For Freud, religion was an overt manifestation of underlying psychological neuroses and distress, serving as an elaborate attempt to exert control over the unpredictable external world. He famously likened religion to a “childhood neurosis” and an “infantile delusion,” suggesting that humanity, in its developmental progression, must ultimately transcend such illusions to achieve true maturity. The enduring power of religion, in Freud's view, stemmed from its capacity to align with “instinctual wishful impulses,” offering solace and comfort through idealized concepts such as a benevolent shepherd, a universal divine plan, or the promise of an afterlife. These comforting thoughts, he argued, served to alleviate the inherent pains and anxieties of human existence.
A central tenet of Freud's religious analysis was the connection between religious needs and the Oedipal complex, along with the primal longing for a protective father figure. He proposed that religion represents humanity's unconscious desire to re-enact an infantile relationship with a powerful, benevolent biological father. In this framework, God functions as a substitute father figure, fulfilling the child's deep-seated need for protection and security in the face of adult anxieties and vulnerabilities. This “longing for the father,” Freud asserted, is not merely a fleeting childhood sentiment but is permanently sustained by the pervasive fear of superior powers and the enduring need for paternal safeguarding.
Freud's reductionist approach, however, has drawn significant criticism, particularly from theological perspectives. Critics argue that his deterministic view of humanity stands in direct opposition to biblical teachings, which emphasize personal transformation through a relationship with Christ. From a Christian theological standpoint, concepts such as sin and guilt are not merely societal constructs or psychological neuroses; rather, they are understood as the direct consequences of Adam's transgression against God's moral law, necessitating atonement through Jesus Christ. Freud's attempt to replace the theological concepts of original sin and salvation with psychological constructs like libido and the Oedipal complex is considered a deliberate effort to subvert traditional religious thought. While some Freudian concepts, such as the “id” (representing primal pleasure-seeking impulses), might bear a superficial resemblance to the biblical concept of “sin nature,” the Freudian solution—achieving health through self-awareness and ego strength—is deemed insufficient for true spiritual well-being, which, from a biblical perspective, is believed to originate from Christ. The critique of “psychological fallacy” further labels Freudian interpretations of biblical texts as reductionist, arguing that they reduce complex religious phenomena to purely psychological categories, thereby failing to grasp the profound historical and theological dimensions of the Bible.
Carl Jung’s The Collective Unconscious and the Path of Individuation
In stark contrast to Freud, Carl Jung approached religion with a more positive and nuanced perspective, embracing it as a psychological concept fundamentally oriented towards meaning-making. Jung introduced the concept of the “collective unconscious,” which he posited as a deeper stratum of the human psyche, distinct from the personal unconscious. This collective unconscious is believed to contain universal symbolic patterns and archetypes, shared by all human beings across cultures and developed through the accumulated experiences of ancestors and pre-human ancestry. These archetypes are described as primordial concepts that manifest in various forms, including dreams, fantasies, and even delusions. Within this framework, major personality structures such as the ego, the Shadow (representing the dark, repressed, and often unacknowledged aspects of the personality), the Anima (the female contra-sexual archetype in a man's psyche), the Animus (the male contra-sexual archetype in a woman's psyche), the Primordial Mother (a universal longing for an anxiety-free, nurturing state), and the Hero (an archetypal image of death and rebirth, often symbolizing the ego's struggle to overcome challenges) are all considered archetypal manifestations. The ultimate archetype, the Self, represents the totality of the psyche and the inherent striving for psychological wholeness.
Jung defined the “individuation process” as the step-by-step development of the Self from an unconscious to a conscious state, a demanding and lifelong endeavour. This quest for inner knowledge and wholeness is thought to be leading to profound psychological growth, transcendence, and inner illumination. Jung often equated psychological health with spiritual health, emphasizing the crucial role of symbols in this process.
Jung's understanding of the “God archetype” evolved significantly throughout his work, shaped by his personal experiences and theoretical developments. While his early empirical studies had less explicit mention of “God,” his eventual break from Freud marked a pivotal shift towards a greater emphasis on spiritual and transcendent concepts, with “God” becoming a prominent keyword in his writings. He came to view the God archetype as a universal symbol of wholeness, meaning, and transcendence, closely intertwined with the archetype of the Self. The unconscious, particularly the collective unconscious, serves as a reservoir for these archetypes, and dreams and fantasies are considered channels through which the God archetype communicates with the conscious mind. Jung believed that any image of God, regardless of its literal truth, holds therapeutic value as it reveals the current stage of an individual's individuating process.
A fundamental divergence in the nature of psychological truth exists between Freud and Jung, which profoundly impacts their interpretations of biblical texts. Freud's perspective reduces religion to a neurotic relic, an illusion arising from repressed infantile desires and anxieties. His analysis is largely reductionist, explaining away religious phenomena as mere symptoms of psychological distress. Conversely, Jung perceives religion as a natural and even essential expression of the human psyche's inherent striving for wholeness and meaning, deeply rooted in the collective unconscious and its archetypes. He does not reduce religion to neurosis, but rather views it as a potential path towards psychological health and individuation. This fundamental difference means that while both apply psychological lenses to the Bible, their conclusions regarding its value and origin diverge dramatically. Freud's approach tends to deconstruct and dismiss the Bible's claims of divine truth, interpreting them as symptoms of human psychological weakness. Jung's approach, while not affirming literal divine revelation, imbues biblical narratives with profound psychological significance, viewing them as expressions of universal psychic patterns that can guide personal growth. This demonstrates that “psychological interpretation” is not a monolithic concept; its philosophical underpinnings significantly shape its ultimate conclusions.
Jung's view of religion as a psychological concept, rather than necessarily an objective truth, creates a significant tension with traditional theological truth claims. While Jung famously stated, “I know. I don't need to believe. I know” when asked about his belief in God, his concept of God was distinct from the traditional biblical God. He regarded spirituality as a personal, mystical experience, primarily a means of connecting with the collective unconscious, rather than a truth founded in an objective, external God. This perspective, particularly his suggestions about evil co-existing with good or even Satan being integrated into the Godhead, is considered “clearly unbiblical” by some Christian critics. This highlights a critical fault line in the dialogue between psychology and theology. Psychological interpretations, especially from a Jungian perspective, can offer rich insights into the human experience of the divine and the internal processes fostered by religious narratives. However, when these interpretations implicitly or explicitly negate the objective truth claims of a religion—such as God's actual existence, the historicity of specific events, or moral commandments as divinely ordained—they become problematic for adherents. A comprehensive analysis must navigate this tension, acknowledging the psychological insights without necessarily endorsing the theological implications (or lack thereof) from a secular psychological viewpoint.
Archetypal Journeys and Humanistic Insights in Biblical Narratives
The Bible's narratives serve as a rich tapestry for psychological exploration, offering archetypal patterns and humanistic insights that resonate with universal human experiences. Various psychological frameworks have been applied to these stories, revealing their multi-layered meanings.
Jungian Interpretations of Key Biblical Stories
The Book of Genesis, with its foundational stories of creation, the first human beings, and the patriarchal lineage of Abraham and Joseph, is considered a profound source of archetypal patterns reflecting fundamental realities of human existence. These narratives are believed to embody a “blueprint of creation” and exploring core motifs of human life.
Adam and Eve: Jordan Peterson, among others, interprets the Adam and Eve narrative not as a literal historical account but as a psychological parable illuminating the emergence of self-consciousness, the nature of evil, and the inevitability of death. The Garden of Eden, conceptualized as a “walled garden,” symbolizes an optimal human existence that balances elements of nature and society. The serpent, a pivotal figure in the narrative, is interpreted as a primitive representation of a predator, which evolves in sophistication to symbolize the “ultimate snake that lives within your heart – which is each person's capacity for evil”. Adam's failure to protect Eve and the subsequent refusal of both Adam and Eve to take responsibility for their actions underscore a crucial psychological lesson: the inherent danger of enabling destructive behaviours in those one cares for.
Cain and Abel: Peterson views the story of Cain and Abel as depicting “hostile brothers,” representing not only external conflict but also internal psychological struggles and the origins of human malevolence.
Abraham: Rabbi Laura Duhan-Kaplan interprets God's command to Abram, “Go into yourself, away from your country, away from your birthplace, and away from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), as an archetypal call to individuation. This journey signifies a movement beyond the confines of the ego to encounter the deeper Self. Abraham's willingness to abandon everything familiar and venture into the unknown symbolizes his faith in the transcendent and his capacity to release attachments. However, his journey is presented as “mixed,” marked by failures in his family life (e.g., banishing his older son and second wife, willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his wife's death upon hearing of it), which Duhan-Kaplan suggests indicates an incomplete integration of the Self into his everyday ego consciousness.
Joseph: The narrative of Joseph, from his initial dreams of superiority to his enslavement and eventual rise to power, serves as a compelling example of the individuation process. His early dreams are “seeds of individuation,” symbolizing a deep-seated desire for psychological growth and a yearning to align with the Divine spirit at the centre of creation. His thirteen years of enslavement are interpreted as a transformative period during which he learns discernment, patience, and insight. This period also represents the integration of his “negative Shadow”—the repressed aspects of his personality and the projections of his brothers' resentment—leading to a more complete self. His eventual reconciliation with his brothers symbolizes the successful “integration of ego and Self,” a level of psychological wholeness that Abraham, in Duhan-Kaplan's view, did not fully achieve.
The detailed Jungian interpretations of Genesis narratives, particularly Abraham's journey of individuation and Joseph's integration of the Shadow and Self, along with the Exodus narrative's portrayal of a journey from “constriction” to expanded consciousness (including Moses' self-doubt as internal resistance), suggest that these stories function as more than mere historical accounts. They serve as symbolic maps for universal human psychological and spiritual development. These narratives offer archetypal patterns for confronting internal conflicts, overcoming trauma, and achieving wholeness. This implies that the Bible's enduring relevance stems not solely from its religious claims, but significantly from its profound understanding of the human condition and its capacity to guide individuals through universal life stages and challenges. It operates as a timeless manual for self-development, encoded in narrative form, providing psychological scaffolding for navigating life's complexities.
The Exodus Narrative: The biblical story of Exodus, depicting the journey from slavery to freedom, is considered a quintessential narrative of transformation that touches the deepest human religious imperative. From a Jungian perspective, it is interpreted as a journey of liberation and healing from trauma, representing a transition from a “limited state of consciousness” to an expanded one, aligning with the individuation process. The Hebrew word for “Egypt” itself, Mitzrayim, emphasizes the root meaning of “narrowness” or “constriction,” symbolizing the “restricted consciousness imposed by trauma” that echoes the myth of Egypt.
Moses' self-doubt and the “heavy tongue/heart.” Moses' initial reluctance and refusal to lead his people, citing his perceived inability to speak (“slow of speech and tongue,” Exodus 4:10), is psychologically interpreted as an expression of self-doubt and a profound fear of articulating one's truth. Avivah Zornberg notes that the Hebrew word often translated as “slow” literally means “heavy,” drawing a parallel between Moses' “heavy tongue” and Pharaoh's “heavy heart,” which was hardened against releasing the Israelites. This parallel suggests that both Moses' internal resistance to speaking and Pharaoh's external resistance to letting go are manifestations of being closed off and resistant to change. The psychological interpretation emphasizes that true liberation necessitates overcoming internal resistance and cultivating a belief that change is possible, rather than focusing solely on external oppression. The narrative thus conveys that the “greatest obstacle to liberation is often our own heaviness of tongue and heaviness of heart.”
Healing intergenerational trauma: The Exodus myth provides a powerful framework for understanding and healing intergenerational trauma, particularly relevant for Jewish communities affected by historical suffering such as pogroms and the Holocaust. The journey of liberation, in this context, cannot commence without confronting and processing ancestral memories. Figures like Serach bat Asher, the legendary keeper of ancestral memory, and Lilith, whose transformation from a demonic figure to an assertive woman is reinterpreted, illustrate this process of confronting past pain and honouring the suffering of ancestors.
The interpretation of the Exodus narrative as both an individual journey of transformation (Moses' self-doubt, his path toward individuation) and a collective healing of intergenerational trauma (the Jewish people's journey from “constriction,” processing ancestral memories) highlights a dual psychological function. This suggests that biblical narratives operate on both micro (individual psyche) and macro (collective consciousness, cultural identity, historical trauma) psychological levels. They provide frameworks for personal meaning-making while also serving as foundational myths that integrate a group's sense of origin, belonging, and historical experience. The “psychological parable” thus extends beyond individual self-reflection to encompass the healing and shaping of collective identity.
The Book of Job. While traditionally regarded as a philosophical or theological treatise on the nature of faith and suffering, a modern psychological reading of the Book of Job views it as a profound narrative on adaptation to illness and loss, the dynamics of doctor-patient relationships, and the critical role of belief systems in coping with adversity.
Suffering, schema reconstruction, and coping with adversity. Job's experiences, including the loss of his family, wealth, and health, are categorized as traumatic stressors that lead to a profound “crisis of meaning”. His pre-trauma schema, which assumed a just God who rewarded goodness and punished sin, is radically challenged by his undeserved suffering. His friends, clinging to cognitive conservatism, find it easier to blame Job for his misfortunes than to accept an unfair universe, while Job's intense struggle reflects the “messy enterprise” of cognitive restructuring in response to trauma. His lament, moving through stages of shock, denial, outrage, despair, and defensive rage, illustrates the recognized phases of adaptation to calamity. The ultimate resolution, where God appears from a whirlwind, prompts a cognitive shift in Job towards a more comprehensive understanding of the divine that can accommodate the suffering of the righteous without blame, leading to “post-traumatic growth”.
Jung's radical interpretation of Yahweh's “dark side” and Job's moral superiority: Carl Jung, in his controversial work “Answer to Job,” offers a radical reinterpretation of the narrative. He argues that the incarnation of Christ was not primarily to redeem humanity for its sins against God, but rather to redeem God for His own “sin” against Job. Jung posits that Yahweh, despite being omniscient, was “unconscious” of a “dark side” within Himself, which Jung identifies with Satan, thus acting as an “amoral force of nature” that “cannot see its own back”. In this view, Job is presented as morally superior to Yahweh because he perceives this “inner antinomy” within God and subtly confronts Him with it. This reinterpretation emphasizes the crucial importance of human experience in making the divine “meta-cognitive,” suggesting that human suffering and moral discernment can reveal aspects of the divine that are otherwise hidden or unintegrated. This offers a profound psychological interpretation of the problem of evil and suffering, suggesting a dynamic, evolving relationship between humanity and the divine, where human experience can contribute to a more complete understanding of the “God” archetype, even if that understanding challenges traditional theological perfection.
A Humanistic Reading of the Old Testament
Erich Fromm, a prominent secular humanistic psychologist with deep roots in Jewish tradition, offered a unique and radical interpretation of the Old Testament. He viewed these ancient texts through a humanistic lens, emphasizing their profound ethical values, their insights into human nature, and their aspirations for societal transformation. Fromm identified several core concepts in his humanistic psychology that he argued had direct Jewish antecedents. These included biophilia, which he defined as the love of and moral commitment to the preservation of life, mirroring the Jewish value of pikuah nefesh (sanctity of human life). He also highlighted the biblical rejection of idolatry, which Fromm expanded beyond physical idols to encompass any deification of power, the state, or even a static, authoritarian conception of God, viewing it as a form of “necrophilia” that worships death and destruction. Furthermore, Fromm emphasized moral universalism—the imperative to respect the stranger—as a core principle of Judaism and humanistic psychology, seeing it as a move beyond narcissistic love towards accepting the uniqueness of others. Finally, the concept of free will was central to Fromm's interpretation, arguing that God does not interfere with human choices, allowing humanity to shape its history and salvation. He regarded the Bible as a “revolutionary book” fundamentally concerned with human liberation.
Fromm's interpretations were often radical departures from traditional theological views. He argued that the Old Testament's concept of God evolves from an “unrestrained tyrant” to a “constitutional monarch” bound by His own covenants and rules, citing instances like God repenting after the Flood or Abraham confronting God about justice. His most notable reinterpretation concerned the Adam and Eve story. Fromm viewed their “fall” not as a descent into sin, but as a prerequisite for human freedom, where their act of disobedience was a reasoned choice that liberated them from merely following divine dictates. This, for Fromm, enabled them to develop their own reasoning capacities and make moral distinctions, marking it as the “first act of freedom” and the “beginning of history”. He also candidly highlighted the “serious character flaws” of many biblical heroes—such as Noah's confusion, Cain's irresponsibility, Abraham's cowardice, and King David's “unforgivable crimes”—to illustrate that human beings possess the capacity to overcome their evil inclinations by acknowledging their weaknesses and potential for betterment.
Despite the insightful nature of Fromm's humanistic readings, his interpretations faced skepticism from Old Testament scholars. Critics argued that he combined historical-critical insights and hermeneutics too readily, resulting in an interpretation that was “at best eclectic and at worst eisegetical”. It was contended that Fromm “manipulated” biblical passages to support his preconceived hypotheses, effectively imposing his own philosophical framework onto the scriptures, thereby making them convey meanings their original authors did not intend. His central idea, that “Man's task is the Becoming of God,” was seen by some as a rejection of the biblical authors' understanding of humanity's inherent limits and the indispensable “almost” in the affirmation that man is “almost God”.
The Monomyth and Metaphorical Truth
Joseph Campbell's concept of the “monomyth,” extensively detailed in his seminal work “The Hero of a Thousand Faces,” proposes a universal narrative structure that he believed underlies all myths, religions, fairy tales, and folklore across cultures. This archetypal journey, often referred to as the Hero's Journey, encompasses a series of stages, including the call to adventure, the meeting with a mentor, crossing a guarded threshold into a supernatural world, facing a road of trials, undergoing a supreme ordeal, receiving a reward or “boon,” and ultimately returning with this gift to benefit the ordinary world.
Campbell's perspective on myths was that they do not refer to any objective reality or historical truth. Instead, he viewed them as powerful metaphorical expressions of the “human and cosmic mystery”. He explicitly stated that “Every god, every mythology, every religion, is true in this sense: it is true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery”. For Campbell, God was not a real, personal entity, but rather an idea or a “mask” that points to something beyond human comprehension. He did not adhere to a belief in a personal God.
Central to Campbell's approach was the concept of “transparent to transcendence.” He argued that for mythic material to function effectively, its images, symbols, and narratives must “point beyond themselves to an ultimate and perennial reality beyond all concepts and categories of thinking”. Conversely, when mythic material becomes “opaque to transcendence”—that is, when interpretations become overly literal, culturally specific, or sectarian—it loses its power to connect individuals to this universal, ultimate reality. This transparency is crucial for experiencing “unitive consciousness,” a profound awareness of the oneness of all things.
Campbell applied his monomyth framework to biblical figures, viewing them as archetypal heroes. For instance, the narrative of Moses in Exodus aligns with the Hero's Journey, particularly in its depiction of his birth amid danger, the prophecy surrounding him, his being surrendered to water, taken in by strangers, and his eventual discovery of his true identity as a deliverer. The article extends this to Jesus, presenting him as “the hero with a thousand faces, the myth become fact,” drawing parallels in his birth narrative (e.g., the magi, Herod's decree, escape to Egypt) and his role as a saviour. Campbell also interpreted Jesus' ascension to heaven metaphorically, not as a literal physical ascent into outer space, but as a journey “inward” into consciousness, the source of all being.
Despite its widespread influence, Campbell's monomyth has faced significant criticism. Critics argue that his framework “ignores unique aspects of works of fiction” by over-generalizing and reducing diverse stories to a single, overarching structure. His approach is seen by some as undermining the “heart of the gospel” by reclassifying religions as mere myths and substituting psychology for spirituality. For many adherents, biblical stories are not fabricated myths but accounts of historical events with objective truth claims. Campbell's monomyth is criticized for being too narrowly focused on individual “personal growth and glory,” promoting a self-centred journey rather than one of deep communion with a transcendent God. It is argued that his framework, by not believing in a transcendent God, “shrinks the God of the Bible down to the size of other gods” to fit his assumptions.
The Psychological Significance of Ancient Stories
Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and cultural commentator, has extensively explored the psychological significance of biblical narratives, particularly those in Genesis. He argues that knowledge of these ancient myths and stories is “essential to a profound understanding of Western culture,” which, in turn, is “vital to proper psychological health”. Peterson views human beings as “cultural animals” for whom these foundational narratives provide intrinsic value and guidance.
Peterson's interpretations delve into themes of chaos and order, self-consciousness, and the inherent human capacity for evil. He interprets the Adam and Eve story, the narrative of Cain and Abel, and the Flood narrative as profound psychological insights into these universal human experiences. For instance, the “snake” in the Garden of Eden is not merely a literal creature but a primitive conceptualization of a predator that evolves in sophistication to represent the “ultimate snake that lives within your heart – which is each person's capacity for evil”. These interpretations aim to extract timeless psychological truths and behavioural lessons from the ancient texts.
The detailed Jungian interpretations of Genesis (Abraham's individuation, Joseph's integration of Shadow and Self) and Exodus (the journey from “constriction” to expanded consciousness, Moses' self-doubt as internal resistance) suggest that these narratives aren't just historical accounts but serve as symbolic maps for human psychological and spiritual development. They offer archetypal patterns for confronting internal conflicts, overcoming trauma, and achieving wholeness. This implies that the Bible's enduring relevance stems not just from its religious claims, but from its profound understanding of the human condition and its capacity to guide individuals through universal life stages and challenges. It functions as a timeless self-help manual, encoded in narrative form, providing psychological scaffolding for navigating life's complexities.
The interpretation of the Exodus narrative as both an individual journey of transformation (Moses' self-doubt, his path toward individuation) and a collective healing of intergenerational trauma (the Jewish people's journey from “constriction,” processing ancestral memories) highlights a dual psychological function. This suggests that biblical narratives operate on both micro (individual psyche) and macro (collective consciousness, cultural identity, historical trauma) psychological levels. They provide frameworks for personal meaning-making while also serving as foundational myths that integrate a group's sense of origin, belonging, and historical experience. The “psychological parable” thus extends beyond individual self-reflection to encompass the healing and shaping of collective identity.
Finally, Jung's controversial interpretation of Job, which posits Job's moral superiority over a Yahweh who is “unconscious” of his dark side, represents a radical re-framing of a central biblical narrative. This perspective challenges traditional theological interpretations that uphold divine omnipotence and perfect justice. From a psychological viewpoint, it suggests that the human capacity for moral discernment and suffering can, in some instances, reveal aspects of the divine that are otherwise hidden or unintegrated. This implies a dynamic, evolving relationship between humanity and the divine, where human experience, even profound suffering, can contribute to a more complete understanding of the “God” archetype. This psychological reading offers a way to reconcile the problem of evil and suffering within a framework that still finds meaning in the divine, albeit a less anthropomorphic or traditionally perfect one.
The Historical Trajectory of Psychological Biblical Criticism
The psychological interpretation of biblical texts is not a phenomenon exclusive to modern psychology; its roots can be traced back to ancient traditions and have evolved significantly through various intellectual epochs.
Early forms of psychological interpretations are evident in Orthodox monastic traditions. Writers in the Philokalia, a collection of texts on Christian spirituality, engaged in psychological readings of biblical texts. For example, references to the “enemy” in the Psalms were interpreted not as external adversaries but as “mental temptations” or “demonic attacks,” directing the violence described in imprecatory Psalms towards these internal struggles. The “city” in Psalm 55:9 (“I have seen violence and strife in the city”) was understood metaphorically as the “mind,” and dwelling on “Mount Zion” or in “Jerusalem” was interpreted as achieving a “secure mountain, steady, and free from mental perturbations”. This approach, which understood physical and historical biblical images as referring to internal mental events, was likely also prevalent in Western monastic traditions, indicating a perennial human need to find psychological meaning within sacred narratives.
The Enlightenment period marked a pivotal shift in biblical criticism, fostering the birth and growth of modern sciences, including psychology, in tandem with new approaches to biblical study. This era, characterized by an emphasis on critical rationality and objectivity, led to the development of the “historical-critical method” of biblical interpretation. The aim was to understand biblical texts based on their historical context and grammatical construction, free from the undue influence of modern theological biases. Scholars like Johann Gottfried Eichhorn began to employ the concept of “myth” as a tool for interpreting the Bible, moving beyond purely historical interpretations. This intellectual movement sought a “neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment” in the study of scripture.
The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed the profound integration of depth psychology, particularly the monumental works of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, into biblical studies. Depth psychology, pioneered by Freud and expanded by Jung, delved into the "unconscious" as a deeper, often hidden, part of the human psyche. Scholars like Rollins note that the term "psyche" (or the German "Seele," meaning soul) was a foundational concept for Wilhelm Wundt, the father of modern psychology, and was later adopted by Freud and Jung to express the unified psychic self. Psychological biblical criticism emerged as a re-emerging field, aiming to examine the psychological dimensions of scripture through the lens of behavioral sciences, thereby complementing existing cultural, sociological, and anthropological analyses. This approach investigates the psychological dimensions of the authors of the texts, the material they intended to communicate, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.
Psychological biblical criticism is understood not as a singular method but as a "perspective" that serves as a heuristic tool alongside traditional historical and literary critical methods. It illuminates aspects of purpose and meaning within the language and cognition of biblical texts. This approach seeks to understand the "world behind the text"—the author's mind, background, and motivations—and the "world of the text"—the motivations, actions, and relationships of the characters as presented in the narrative. Proponents argue that this perspective helps bridge the gap between psychology and religion, facilitating dialogue without reducing religious experience to mere drives or internal objects.
The cyclical nature of psychological inquiry into religious texts, from ancient monasticism to modern academia, suggests a perennial human need to understand the inner self through sacred narratives. The early monastic interpretations, which viewed external biblical events as internal mental struggles, demonstrate that the practice of finding psychological meaning in scripture is deeply ingrained in human intellectual and spiritual history. The Enlightenment then formalized this inquiry with a more "scientific" and "objective" lens, leading to modern biblical criticism, which later integrated depth psychology. This historical trajectory indicates that the Bible's capacity to function as a psychological parable is deeply embedded in its structure and themes, allowing for varied psychological interpretations across different historical and intellectual contexts. The modern field is thus a more formalized, systematic continuation of an ancient practice of seeking inner truth within sacred stories.
Julian Jaynes's bicameral mind theory offers a compelling psychological interpretation of the evolution of human consciousness as reflected in ancient texts, particularly the Old Testament. Brian J. McVeigh's "The Psychology of the Bible" explores how the Old Testament reflects a tumultuous transition from an earlier "super-religious" Bronze Age mentality to a new paradigm of interiorized psychology and introspective religiosity that characterized the first millennium BCE. Jaynes's theory posits that conscious interiority—the sense of a willful "I" residing within one's head that authorizes and directs behavior—is a surprisingly recent development, emerging slowly after the Bronze Age collapse around 1000 BCE. Prior to this, Jaynes believed most humans possessed "bicameral mentalities," wherein they "heard" the voices of their ancestors, gods, or divine rulers as direct auditory hallucinations that authorized and directed their behavior. The Old Testament, with its frequent accounts of divine voices, visions, and appearances of heavenly messengers, is analyzed as a neurocultural phenomenon reflecting this earlier bicameral mentality.
This offers a profound psychological interpretation of the Bible's historical progression. It suggests that the evolution of the concept of God within the Bible itself—for instance, Erich Fromm's observation of God evolving from an "unrestrained tyrant" to a "constitutional monarch" —and the changing nature of religious experience depicted in the texts might reflect a corresponding evolution in human psychological landscape. The Bible, in this view, is not merely a record of divine interaction but a chronicle of humanity's evolving consciousness and its increasing capacity for introspection and self-direction. This provides a psychological lens for understanding the development of religious thought and practice over millennia, suggesting that the very way humans experienced and conceptualized the divine shifted as their internal psychological structures became more complex and integrated.
Navigating the Interpretive Landscape
The psychological interpretation of the Bible, while offering profound insights, operates within a complex interpretive landscape fraught with challenges and criticisms from various perspectives, including cognitive biases, theological objections, and methodological limitations.
Cognitive Biases in Biblical Interpretation
The interpretation of complex texts like biblical scriptures is inherently susceptible to a range of cognitive biases and heuristics, which can significantly skew understanding.
Confirmation Bias: This bias leads individuals to favour information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. When interpreting biblical texts, a person might selectively focus on verses or interpretations that align with their existing theological views, while ignoring or rationalizing away passages that conflict with their beliefs.
Anchoring Bias: This occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information they encounter. In the context of biblical interpretation, initial explanations or interpretations can disproportionately influence a reader's understanding of the rest of the text, potentially leading to a skewed perspective.
Availability Heuristic: This heuristic involves overestimating the importance of information that is readily available or memorable. It can cause readers to overemphasize more familiar or frequently quoted biblical passages while neglecting less well-known but equally significant texts.
Dunning-Kruger Effect: This cognitive bias describes individuals with limited knowledge overestimating their ability. In interpreting biblical scriptures, this might manifest as overly simplistic or confident interpretations without a deep understanding of the historical, cultural, or theological complexities of the text.
Framing Effect: People react differently to a particular choice depending on how it is presented. Thus, the way a biblical passage is framed or the context in which it is presented can significantly affect how it is interpreted, potentially leading to biased or skewed interpretations.
Hindsight Bias: Also known as the “knew-it-all-along” effect, this bias can cause individuals to perceive biblical prophetic texts as having been obvious all along, thereby overlooking the inherent complexities and nuances of predictive and apocalyptic literature.
Fundamental Attribution Error: This bias involves attributing others' actions to their character rather than to external factors. When reading biblical narratives, readers might incorrectly attribute the actions or decisions of biblical characters to inherent personality traits, overlooking the situational context or divine intervention described in the scriptures.
Status Quo Bias: This is a preference for the current state of affairs, leading individuals to resist change. In biblical interpretation, this might manifest as a preference for traditional interpretations or translations, even in the face of new scholarly evidence or alternative interpretations that might provide great insights.
Projection Bias: This bias involves assuming that others share the same beliefs or will react in the same way one would. When interpreting biblical texts, individuals might project their feelings, beliefs, or cultural norms onto the text or its characters, rather than seeking to understand the text within its own historical-cultural context.
In-group Bias: Favouring one's own group can affect how one interprets texts related to group identity or behaviour. This bias might lead to interpretations of biblical texts that overly favour the perspective of one's own denominational, cultural, or theological group.
Belief Bias: This is the tendency to evaluate arguments based on the believability of the conclusion. It can lead to accepting interpretations that fit within one's existing system of beliefs while dismissing more credible interpretations that challenge those beliefs.
Narrative Fallacy: This involves creating a coherent story or pattern from disconnected or complex facts. Interpreters might weave biblical passages into a coherent narrative that aligns with their worldviews or theological systems, potentially ignoring the diversity and complexity of the texts.
The extensive list of cognitive biases directly demonstrates that human interpretation is never truly objective. The “double-edged instructional sword” inherent in parables further reinforces how easily unintended meanings can be mapped onto complex narratives. This suggests that while psychological interpretations can offer valuable insights, they are not immune to the very psychological phenomena they seek to explain. The “psychological parable” is thus not a definitive, singular interpretation, but rather a lens through which the Bible can be viewed, a lens that is itself shaped by the interpreter's own psyche and biases. This necessitates a critical self-awareness from interpreters and a humble acknowledgment of the provisional nature of any interpretation.
Theological Objections and the Literal-Symbolic Divide
The relationship between theology and psychology has historically been marked by significant tension, largely due to their differing epistemological foundations and methodologies. Theology, rooted in divine revelation and scriptural authority, primarily seeks to address the spiritual and moral dimensions of human existence. In contrast, psychology, as a scientific discipline, emphasizes empirical investigation into the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of human life. For much of the 20th century, these fields often operated in parallel, leading to a dichotomy that left faith-oriented individuals struggling to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with modern therapeutic practices. Indeed, some Christian circles have historically viewed psychology as “taboo”.
Arguments for a literal interpretation of the Bible assert that a biblical text should be understood according to its “plain meaning,” as conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. This literal meaning is believed to correspond directly to the original authors' intentions. This approach is often, though not necessarily, associated with the belief in verbal inspiration, where the individual words of the divine message were divinely chosen or even dictated. Influential biblical scholars like St. Jerome championed literal interpretation in opposition to what he considered the excesses of allegorical interpretation. Literalists generally believe that unless a passage is clearly intended by the writer as allegory, poetry, or another non-literal genre, it should be interpreted as a literal statement. However, critics point out that a strictly literal interpretation can lead to beliefs deemed unscientific (e.g., young-Earth creationism, a global Noah's Flood) and can expose numerous internal contradictions within the biblical text.
Historically, Christian tradition has not been monolithic in its interpretive approach, often employing a four-fold method known as the Quadriga:
Literal Sense: What God and human ancestors did (historical events).
Allegorical Sense: What one should believe (hidden faith and doctrine).
Moral (Tropological) Sense: How one should act (ethical guidelines for daily life).
Anagogical Sense: Where one's ultimate destiny lies (future events, heaven, eschatology). Early Christian theologians like Origen advocated for allegorical interpretation at multiple levels (flesh, soul, spirit), arguing that many events recounted in the scriptures, if taken literally, are “impossible or nonsensical” and must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. This demonstrates that symbolic and non-literal readings of the Bible are not modern inventions, but have a long historical precedent.
It is also widely recognized that the Bible is a collection of diverse literary genres, and therefore, asserting that “the Bible is literal” or “the Bible is symbolic” as a blanket statement is inaccurate. Different books and passages require different interpretive approaches. For example, a significant portion of the Book of Revelation is widely understood to be symbolic, whereas accounts of Jesus' life and deeds are generally considered to be literal, even if embellished. Jesus himself frequently taught using metaphors and parables, indicating that symbolic communication is an inherent part of biblical discourse.
Humanist critiques of the Bible often reject its claim as the literal word of God, arguing instead that it was written solely by fallible humans in an “ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age”. They cite hundreds of contradictions within the Old and New Testaments—such as inconsistent creation stories, differing accounts of King David's census, discrepancies in Jesus' genealogies, and conflicting narratives of Judas's death and the resurrection—as evidence that the Bible contains numerous incorrect statements. Furthermore, humanists criticize the Bible for its perceived endorsement of “outrageous cruelty and injustice,” arguing that it teaches that God repeatedly harmed innocent people, which is contrary to principles of justice in civilized legal systems. Humanistic psychology, in particular, often attacks or reinterprets core Christian concepts like original sin, asserting humanity's innate goodness and capacity for self-improvement without divine intervention.
Theological critiques often accuse psychological biblical criticism of “psychologism,” which is defined as reducing complex phenomena to purely psychological categories. Critics like Albert Schweitzer and Karl Barth rejected psychobiographical interpretations of Jesus, arguing they lacked historical familiarity and were uncritical in their use of sources. The fundamental concern is that psychological approaches might “reduce religion to mere drives and internal objects”, thereby failing to acknowledge divine revelation, objective moral truth, or the unique theological claims of the Bible.
The irreconcilable epistemological clash between literalist theology and reductionist psychology is a central point of contention. Theological objections explicitly state that psychology, as a scientific discipline, operates on fundamentally different foundations than theology, which is rooted in divine revelation. Literalists insist on the “plain meaning” and verbal inspiration of the text, while a Freudian perspective, for example, reduces religion to neurosis and wish fulfillment, rejecting objective moral codes and divine origin. Humanists further reject the Bible as the word of God due to perceived contradictions and moral issues. This highlights that for some traditional theological viewpoints, psychological interpretations, especially those that deny the literal truth or divine origin of the Bible, are not merely alternative perspectives but fundamental challenges to their core beliefs. The concept of the “psychological parable” becomes problematic when it is considered replacing rather than complementing a literal or divinely inspired understanding. This implies that while integration between psychology and religion is possible in some contexts, there are inherent limits and points of irreconcilable difference, particularly when psychological theories become reductionist or explicitly atheistic in their implications. A comprehensive analysis must acknowledge these deep-seated conflicts rather than presenting a falsely harmonious picture.
Methodological Limitations of Psychological Biblical Criticism
Beyond the philosophical and theological objections, psychological biblical criticism faces inherent methodological limitations that warrant careful consideration.
Temporal and Cultural Distance is a significant challenge in applying traditional psychological theories to ancient texts is the immense “temporal and cultural distance between the analyst and analysand”. It is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to psychoanalyze scriptural writers directly across millennia, given the vast differences in worldview, societal structures, and individual psychology between ancient and modern contexts. This distance makes it challenging to accurately infer the psychological states or intentions of biblical authors and characters.
Psychological biblical criticism itself cautions against the risk of “eisegesis”—reading one's own interpretations or modern psychological frameworks into the text, rather than drawing meaning out of it (exegesis). Interpreters are warned against attempting to reach beyond the “world of the text” to infer the actual historical persons' psychologies, as this can lead to imposing contemporary psychological constructs onto ancient figures or narratives in an anachronistic manner. This risk highlights the need for rigorous hermeneutical principles to maintain interpretive integrity.
The Bible as a Dynamic Mirror of the Human Soul
The comprehensive exploration of the Bible through the lens of a “psychological parable” reveals a multifaceted and enduring text that resonates deeply with the human experience. The analysis has demonstrated that biblical narratives, by their very design, function as analogical comparisons, employing familiar human experiences to illuminate profound, often abstract, psychological and spiritual truths. This inherent structure, particularly evident in the parables of Jesus, invites an interpretation that extends beyond mere literal or historical accounts, drawing upon the “systematicity principle” of human cognition to extract deeper, relational meanings.
From the psychoanalytic critiques of Sigmund Freud, who viewed religion as a collective neurosis and wish fulfillment stemming from infantile helplessness and the longing for a father figure, to the more affirmative archetypal psychology of Carl Jung, who saw biblical narratives as expressions of the collective unconscious and guides for the individuation process, a wide spectrum of psychological interpretations exists. Jung's emphasis on archetypes like the Shadow, Anima, Animus, and the evolving God archetype offers a framework for understanding the Bible as a map for psychological wholeness and spiritual realization. Figures like Abraham and Joseph, through this lens, become archetypal representations of the individuation journey, while the Exodus narrative transforms into a powerful story of liberation from internal “constriction” and the healing of intergenerational trauma. Erich Fromm's humanistic readings further underscore the ethical and liberatory dimensions of the Old Testament, reinterpreting foundational stories like Adam and Eve's “fall” as an act of human freedom and highlighting the complex, flawed humanity of biblical heroes. Joseph Campbell's monomyth posits a universal "Hero's Journey" underlying all myths, including biblical ones, viewing them as metaphors for the human and cosmic mystery, transparent to transcendence rather than objective historical truth. Jordan Peterson, similarly, emphasizes the psychological significance of these ancient stories for understanding Western culture and the human capacity for chaos and evil.
The historical trajectory of psychological biblical criticism reveals that this interpretive endeavour is not a modern invention but a continuation of an ancient practice, evident even in early monastic traditions that sought internal psychological meanings in external biblical events. Julian Jaynes's theory of the bicameral mind offers a compelling explanation for the evolving nature of human consciousness reflected within the Bible itself, suggesting a shift from external divine command to internal psychological processes as a marker of human development. This implies that the Bible chronicles not only theological history but also the evolution of human introspection and self-awareness.
Navigating this interpretive landscape is not without its challenges. The pervasive influence of cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, anchoring, and projection, underscores the inherent subjectivity in any interpretation, including psychological ones. These biases demonstrate that the “psychological parable” is not a singular, definitive reading, but a lens shaped by the interpreter's own psyche. Furthermore, a fundamental epistemological clash exists between literalist theological viewpoints, which assert the Bible's objective, divinely revealed truth, and reductionist psychological approaches that explain away religious phenomena as mere human constructs. While the Quadriga of biblical interpretation (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical) shows a historical precedent for multi-layered readings, the outright rejection of the Bible's literal truth by some psychological and humanist critics creates an irreconcilable divide for many adherents. Methodological limitations, such as the vast temporal and cultural distance from ancient authors and the inherent risk of eisegesis, further complicate the application of modern psychological frameworks.
The proposition that the Bible is a psychological parable is not a definitive statement of its sole nature, but rather an affirmation of a profound and enduring dimension of its meaning. It functions as a dynamic mirror, reflecting universal human experiences, internal conflicts, and developmental pathways. While psychological interpretations may not always align with traditional theological truth claims, they undeniably enrich our understanding of the Bible's timeless relevance to the human soul. By exploring its narratives through psychological lenses, one gains profound insights into the complexities of human nature, the universal quest for meaning, and the perennial journey toward self-understanding and transformation. The Bible, in this sense, remains a potent source of psychological wisdom, continually inviting individuals to explore the depths of their own inner worlds.