ANIMA MEA:
TO INFINITY – AND BEYOND!
What is “the soul”? What do we mean when we toss around that term in every day life, as if we’re all talking about the same thing? “They’re soulmates!”, people say. But what does that mean? Most people will agree that the "soul" is understood to refer to some intangible part of your self (possibly immortal, at least in the minds of modern day Christians), something that makes you, you - it is some immaterial essence that makes up your person.
In my opinion it is impossible to deny that there is such a thing as immateriality - one must acknowledge that not everything exists in our physical tangible realm, limited to space and time and form. There are some things, such as the soul, the spirit, that must exist in some kind of spiritual realm. It is, I'll admit, arguable what exactly this "spiritual realm" is or what it means to exist in this realm, but human experience seems to point to something of the sort. For Socrates, the soul is immortal. And in the words of Cleopatra, we "are fire and air; [our] other elements, [we] give to baser life." (Shakespeare, Antony & Cleopatra). There is something about life that seems to indicate a "beyond" for the self, found outside of the baseness of physical being.
What is the difference between the "soul" and the "self"? If the "self" is the consciousness that is a result of the physical being, the soul would be the "seat" of that consciousness, from which the physical being and the self spring. However, if there is only the tangible, then the soul is not as distinguishable from the self - in fact, one might do away with the notion of a "soul" altogether. The self is the consciousness that is a result of the physical, the brain, the tangible. If there is only the “self”, then there is no soul and people are only the choices they make and the memories they have/share, but that you can still find meaning in life and value in people by being your own god; we should live to be happy in this life because that is all we have and then we're gone for good.
So the soul is understood to be "the essence of the being" - whatever that is. As an intangible thing the soul is only as definable as the analogies to the tangible reality can convey. If reality is only tangible, then the soul, if there is such a thing, must find its place within this tangible realm. In contrast to the existentialist's claim that “existence precedes essence”, the traditional view of the soul is that it is the “essence” that precedes existence, and that our existence in the world only comes after the fact that our souls exist.
For myself, the “soul” is not just a part of your self, it is your whole self. It is what makes you, you. It is the thing, the essence, that you the person are based on and are of, and you uncover that self, as you explore your "unmapped region," your person and self become more and more a reflection of your soul; the physical being is an extension of the soul, a manifestation of it, but it is not itself the soul. I believe that when our physical bodies are gone our souls will still exist - or, that the destruction of the body does not imply the destruction of the soul. In this way, the soul is not just your consciousness or a collection of actions; it is something that you yourself cannot fully comprehend or grasp because it is both malleable and rigid at the same time.
Our souls are ours to inhabit and ours to do with what we like, but they are also all we have and our lives depend greatly on what we do with the soul that we have. We can choose which parts of it we inhabit or recognize, and it may even be possible to change the "landscape" of our souls if we put in the effort. The soul is the something about a person that makes them "them" - that makes them the "kind of person" they are; in this way it is inescapable. We have to make ourselves what we are and make the most of our life, but at the same time there's a part of a person that makes them what they are. You have to choose to become that person, yes, but the possibility for certain excellencies are already in you, and the possibility for certain evils are already there, too. You make the choice what to do and what to make of the person-stuff you're given. My favorite definition of the soul is from Edith Wharton's novel, The Touchstone, "We live in our own souls as in an unmapped region, a few acres of which we have cleared for our habitation; while of the nature of those nearest us we know but the boundaries that march with ours."
If you ask someone where their soul is, where it is located, they would probably laugh at you. "My soul isn't something I can touch or point to!" they'd say. "It's my spirit! I don't know where it is, just that it is." But if you asked an ancient Italian they would have told you that their soul was in their lungs – obviously!; "soul" was equivalent to “breath.” This idea is also found in ancient Chinese medicine, which stated that the soul resided in the lungs and based many medical practices on this fact. Italians later moved their location of the soul into the stomach, but the association of the soul with the lungs, the organs of life-breath, has remained engrained in the subconscious of culture and language to this day. There is a vital connection between the words "animus"/"anima" (Latin for "consciousness" and "breath", respectively; anima later came to mean "life-soul" as a result of the old world tradition of the soul as one's breath), "nefesh" (the Hebrew word literally meaning "life-breath", but most often translated to mean "soul"), and the English word "soul" for which we have many connotations. This vital connection explains where our idea of what the soul is originated and also reveals how we have changed it over history, straying from blatantly connecting the soul to the body. (Onians 169-173)
Today we identify our "self" with our head/mind, and our "soul" with our hearts, placing - metaphorically, at least - the essence of our being, including unconscious/subconscious desires/thoughts/etc, at our core, and placing our consciousness (from which, some would say, our self/spirit/soul come from) in our brain. The difference between the “mind” and the “heart” is similar to difference between the “soul” and the “self” – however, each of these words seems to be inherently tied to the body in some way, either in an indirect reference to a physical thing or directly defining a physical thing. Despite the advances of science, humans in the Western world today still naturally try to explain their human experience as a spiritual one. They try to define their souls in relation to the physical world that science has revealed to them.
Some of the confusion between the soul and the body which it inhabits may come from this origin of the word soul as "breath." Richard Onians, author of The Origins of European Thought, says in his chapter on the Anima and Animus, "When men better understood what physical breath was and that it was not the stuff of consciousness. animus (…) would naturally continue its connection with consciousness and cease to be identified with the physical breath" (Onians 171). I think it's important to acknowledge that Onians is taking for granted the fact that the soul is, in fact, not connected with the physical breath at all, and that modern day scientists have helped us to realize this. This is not necessarily true.
Onians goes on to say that "for the mere physical breath dissociated from any reference to consciousness the generic anima was used. Being necessary to life, it might be confused with life-soul when the conception of the latter had become indistinct" (Onians 171). This can be seen in the popular Psalm 42, a Psalm often used as inspiration for sacred music. The first verse of the psalm is usually seen in Latin as: Sicut cervus desiderat ad fontes aquarum, ita desiderat anima mea ad te Deus. This is translated to mean: "As a deer longs for springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God." If "anima" was meant to mean "physical breath" and not "life-soul" as the translators interpreted it, the meaning of the Psalm would not carry the same significance . However, this confusion does not have to be a negative thing. In fact, it could simply reveal a connection between the soul and the body that has been underemphasized in the past. As soon as we know the origin of the term "soul" in its Latin form, and the original use of these words, we come to a new and deeper understanding of the relationship of the Psalmist with God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ BREATH OF LIFE - ANIMA IN PSALMS ~
The Psalms present an individual, personal, intimate, immediate, direct, and visceral relationship between the psalmist and the Lord. This relationship is revealed to the reader through the simple beauty of the language, and the choice of metaphors, which reveal the psalmist's understanding of the soul. The soul of the Psalms is the very part of the psalmist that is in contact with God; it is his essence, the thing that transcends the physical to commune with the immaterial being that is his Lord. That is not to say that it is not connected to the body - quite the opposite. For the psalmist, the soul cannot be separated from the body. All physical experiences and sensations are experienced by and connected to the soul, which has its place somewhere in the psalmists physical being, perhaps as the collective whole of the conscious self that is a result of the physical brain and the sum of parts that the consciousness controls and in turn is affected by.
The soul and body can still be seen as separate in the Psalms - it would be foolish to interpret all the imagery given us by the poet as completely literal - but the soul of the Psalms is also inherently related to body. The Psalms are overflowing with physical imagery in relation to the soul or spirit, but it is possible that this is only because the intangible must be understood to exist in the physical reality all we are capable of experiencing, and so must be described through tangible imagery. In defining the soul, the psalmist uses metaphors that are easy to understand in relation to his physical being, but this may not imply that the psalmist understands the soul to actually be physical in any sense. However, closer examinations of the Psalms reveal a deeper sense of the physical nature of the soul through the poets' use of these metaphors. The actions of the body are followed by the feeling of soul, and vice versa.
Robert Alter, a famous Biblical scholar and translator, points out in his translation of the Psalms that the Hebrew word "nefesh," usually translated to mean either "soul" or simply "my being," actually means "life-breath." He argues that this distinction must be made in order to preserve the psalmists intention of simply expressing his earthly and mortal relationship with God, and without any implication of the immortality of the soul. However, I question whether Alter is merely distinguishing between the modern Western use of the word "soul" and the Biblical one. I would argue that, in the Psalms, the definition of soul is "life-breath" – loosely, that is. It is that "thing," that "essence," that gives you life and makes your body more than a body, but an instrument that can "praise the Lord."
PSALM 15
(NIV)
Though this Psalm does not have a direct reference to the "soul," it talks about "dwelling in [the Lord's] sanctuary" and "living on [the Lord's] holy hill, either directly considering the physical the thing that gives life, or using a metaphor to explain the relationship between God and man, comparing man's spiritual essence to his physical essence. This psalm goes on to say that one cannot enter the sanctuary simply by believing in God - it also has to do with your "walk" being "blameless". This tying of the spiritual to the visceral emphasizes the importance of the body in relation to the soul.
PSALM 11
(New American Standard Version)
There is an emphasis throughout the psalms on the intangible being understood or represented in tangible form, such as the heart/soul being “upright” in Psalm 11:2, 7 (the Hebrew that this translation comes from literally means “the straight of heart”). This implies that the soul and the heart are somehow related; the psalmist is also making a comparison of the soul to a physical entity that can be straightened in order to convey an inner sense of righteousness. Some versions of this Psalm have "say to me” instead of “to my soul” in the first verse – is the soul then equivalent to “me”? To what part of “me” is this referring? It seems to be referring to whatever it is that makes an individual who they are, the thing that creates their personhood.
Psalm 11:5 has a surprising turn of phrase: "His Soul hates." Is this a reference to the soul of God?! What does it mean for God to have a "soul"? Throughout this psalm the Lord is being described in physical terms, in comparison to human body parts – despite the fact that the psalmist obviously thinks of God as beyond description and not confined to any sort of physical being. Could this reference to God’s “soul” in this context be an implication that the “soul” is a specifically human, physical trait, that admittedly may or may not be fashioned after some aspect of God “Him”-self?
PSALM 23 (also see Psalm 130)
(NIV)
Again, the poet uses extremely physical, sensual imagery. There is a direct relation between the writer’s soul and the imagined physical contact with God, walking through the “valley of the shadow of death” etc. God is compared to a shepherd, and it is implied that the poet (if David, also a shepherd) is the sheep. In the King James translation, the phrase “He restoreth my soul” is translated by Alter as “My life He brings back” – using the Hebrew meaning of nefesh as mentioned before. He says “The image is of someone who has almost stopped breathing and is revived, brought back to life.” (Alter 78) If the soul resides in the lungs, this image would be one of God bringing back spiritual and physical life in the same action.
To “dwell in the house of the Lord forever” is a reference to the poet's place within God's kingdom, to the destination of the poet's soul. The poet's being will “dwell with” the Lord – physically be with the Lord – forever, meaning the poet is already dwelling there (under the “shadow of [His] wings”) and will continue to be, possibly even after death. If the poet means “forever” to mean something that extends beyond the physical, mortal life of a human being, this interpretation would make sense. However, Alter states in his translation that the Hebrew that the word “forever” is translated from does not actually mean “forever”, but should be translated to mean “for many long days” (especially in relation to the previous verse, “all the days of my life”). Alter says that the poet never specifies that he is talking about anything more than the “here and now”, and the poet is content to say that he will be with the Lord as long as he is alive without making any claims about eternity.
PSALM 26
(NIV)
Psalm 26:9 says, “Do not take away my soul along with sinners, my life with bloodthirsty men." In this phrase the term “soul” and “life” are compared to each other within the parallel structure of the line (traditional of Hebrew poetry). The previous and following sections of the poem talk about hands in relation to both metaphysical and physical deeds, saying that they contain both “wicked schemes” and “bribes” and also are “washed” and belong to “bloodthirsty men”. For the “soul” to be thrown into the middle of the poem alongside all the physical elements implies a connection between the soul and the physical life of the poet. The psalm is also begun by talking about the heart and mind, then followed by specific references to physical action, such as “sitting” and “consorting.” As before, the Lord is said to “dwell” in some kind of house, most likely a metaphor for either the temple, the church/people of the church as a whole/the institution, or within the poet himself.
PSALM 31
(NIV)
This psalm presents an anthropomorphic view of God, as bending His ear to the poet. Is the soul anthropomorphized as well, in the sense that it is given physical human form in addition to its assumed spiritual human form? In verse 5, the Hebrew word for “spirit” is “ruah”, similar to the Hebrew “nefesh,” which means “life-breath” but is translated as “soul.” If the spirit is something directly related to the physical being of the poet, what exactly and how is the poet “committing” into the Lord’s “hands”? In 131:9-10, use of the words “trap” “refuge” “grow” “cling” “consumed” “groaning” etc. emphasize the physical nature of the poet’s sense of self. Everything that happens to his soul is related to a physical experience or sensation. Again, how can the psalmist “commit [their] spirit” to the Lord, and how is the Lord supposed to receive it in His hands?
The phrase “be strong and take heart” implies that “strength” is related to the heart in a way that is not obviously, but possibly intangible, but also in a literal sense. The psalmist receives strength through God in both ways. In Psalm 35:1-4, God is portrayed as a warrior coming to the soul’s defense. The poem is focused on earthly events and the poet’s physical well-being, and does not extend the setting of the poem beyond these bounds. In general, the language of the Psalms uses imagery that is immediately accessible to both the writer and the reader, especially in the time period they were written. This kind of language allows the psalmist to connect with God on a more intimate level by removing layers of confusion and distance that would be created by more complex imagery.
PSALM 63
The parallelism of this poem implies that soul (keep in mind that in the original Hebrew version of the poem, “nefesh” is used) is equivalent to flesh, giving us an image of the soul as manifested in the throat of the poet, thirsting physically as well as spiritually for the Lord. In just the first verse alone, we can clearly see the soul’s immediate relation to the body in the language and imagery the poet uses. There is a sense of urgency in the poet’s language that reflects the relationship between the soul and the body, in words like “earnestly” “seek” “longs for” “dry and weary”… The poet could easily have said that the soul “longed for” God and the body “thirsted” for God, giving the different entities their respective characteristics – but instead inverted them. Alter translates this as “my throat thirsts for you,” claiming that the use of the word "nefesh" here must mean “throat” in relation to “flesh” of the next line (Alter’s version says “my flesh longs for you”) – but I think in making this jump he is shying away from the thought that the soul or life-breath/life-force of the poet may be being purposely conveyed as related to the physical realm.
In verses 3-4, God’s love is “better than life” – the poet claims that God’s love transcends his own mortal life, both in the physical and spiritual sense. If the poet's soul is tied to his imperfect, decaying body, this statement has even more significance than the usual understanding of God’s power and perfection. We are made to see our own lives as only in relation to God, and recognize God’s immortality as something we may never acquire. His love could be the one thing better than life itself because it transcends our understanding and our current realm of being.
The shadow of the Lord's wing in verse 7 can be understood as evidence of His existence. The shadow is not a negative thing but a comfort, a symbol to the psalmist that God is there. Even though the poet cannot fully understand God, he can sense His presence and hold fast to his faith. Just as the shadow is a manifestation of God, evidence of his actual being, the soul can be said to cast its shadow in the form of the poet's physical being.
Psalm 63 is a perfect example of the way the soul in the Psalms can be understood as another part of the body that the psalmist is using to worship God, along with the lips, stomach, throat, and hands. The "soul clings" (NIV) to the Lord, while the Lord is pictured (and felt by the poet either figuratively or literally) to be holding the psalmist upright. The Lord is his strength, in the physical and emotional sense of the word.
PSALM 146
This Psalm, the last in the Biblical anthology, brings together the theme of praise that is repeated throughout the poems. “Praise the Lord, O my soul” is seen throughout the Psalms. Throughout the Psalms, the main instrument of praise is not a musical instrument but the poet's soul! In Robert Alter’s translation, Psalm 146:2 says “let me hymn to my God while I breathe”, but the literal meaning of the Hebrew word “be‘odi” is “while I still [am]”. The Hebrew language in general seems not to separate “being” or "existing" from the physical being, reflective of the philosophy of the culture/religion itself. This phrase also points out the psalmist's immediate and intimate relationship with God, as do many other Psalms - he can praise the Lord and commune with him through his physical experience of God's creation and within his own physical being. This theme can also be seen in Psalm 35, verses 9-12, 18, and 28. The focus is on praising God and God’s physical proximity to the speaker. The purpose of the soul – and the poet as a physical human being – is to praise the Lord “all day long” and “in the great assembly”, in tangible places by tangible means. To lift up one's hands to the Lord is the same as to "lift up my soul," as the Psalmist does in Psalm 143:8.
Psalm 146 also brings to light the psalmist's view of eternity and immortality. The phrase in verse 4, “when their spirit departs, they return to the ground,” reminds the reader that "mortal men" must all die, and that this death is very possibly an end of all life, even that of the soul/spirit. In Psalms 88, 103 and 116, this ephemerality of the soul is expressed in the psalmist's pleading to God to save his "life," and his "spirit," and in the emphasis on "walk[ing] before the Lord in the land of the living" without mention of praising God after death (Psalm 116:9). The psalmist asks God in despair in Psalm 88:10, "Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you?" The dead are referred to in a way that implies they no longer exist, or are no longer in contact with God as the psalmist is.
In 146:10, Alter does not make any effort to change the word “forever” as he did in reference to the poet. Instead, in reference to God, the concept of eternity or immortality is not contradictory to the mortal soul of the human that each person has, wasting away inside of themselves. No where is it said in the Psalms that the soul is an immortal thing, but no where is that idea contradicted either. It is possible that the psalmist may have believed in the possibility of an immortal soul through divine grace, given as a result of a close personal relationship with the Lord while mortal. Or the soul could be understood as the psalmist's immaterial self, manifested in the material form of his body, which he then uses as a vehicle to express his soul's admiration for his God. Instead of limiting the connection to God to the immaterial, to an intangible sensation, the Psalmist expresses and describes the relationship in terms of the soul's physical and emotional connection to God. The physical and emotional, tangible and intangible, immaterial spirit and material form, finite and eternal, are conjoined in one entity - the "soul."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(For the sake of time, I will not be able to further explicate specific Psalms, but please refer to Psalms 35, 43, 57, 62, 77, 84, 130 (one of my personal favorites), 131 and 143 to better understand where my conclusions about the definition of the "soul" in the Psalms comes from.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONCLUSION
It seems that in the Old Testament, and the Psalms specifically, the traditional Western view of the soul is not entirely supported. The soul of the Psalms is not one that can be separated from its physical manifestation, and there is no implication that the soul is immortal or indestructible (most Christians today think that even the souls of those who go to Hell will continue to suffer for all eternity, an immortal punishment for an immortal soul. Ancient Christian interpreters, however, were not as tied down to this idea.). This is not meant to be depressing or discouraging in any way; in fact, the Psalmist would say that his enjoyment of God and his happiness in the relationship were deeper precisely because of the lack of a promise of eternity – each moment would become more precious, and each prayer would be one of thanksgiving for that very moment. Emphasis on the here and now is not meant to push away fear of death, but rather focus on the bliss that can come of living in harmony with God now. The Psalmist is not always happy with God; in fact, many of the Psalms are written from the depths of despair and anger. But this anger and despair is always in the context of a direct and intimate relationship. Disagreement or anger does not mean a severing of ties; it is a new aspect of the relationship being explored by the psalmist and the Lord with each other.
Just as the soul is depicted in physical terms in the Psalms, God is also given physical characteristics; the psalmist uses this tactic to describe the relationship he feels to God. It is questionable whether the poet actually thinks that God can "cast a shadow" as seen in his description in Psalm 63 - it is very possible that he does believe God capable of such a thing, but within the context of the poem.
Your soul may not necessarily be an immortal thing, according to Psalms - but this is not necessarily contradictory to the image of the soul as the essence of a person that is then manifested in physical form. Or is that how we define "self"? It is my understanding that, if one is to abandon the concept of the soul altogether, the "self" is only the consciousness of oneself that comes of having a physical, human form. The soul, even if it is not immortal, would be more than this - or at least different in origin, and possibly destination as well. The "self" is something that can only ever be finite and must perish along with the body. The "self" is not adequate means to commune the Lord God Almighty.
Who are we to say we know where the soul resides? We can only know what the soul is in relation to our individual experience with our own and our struggle to define it. Of course you can claim that your soul has no connection to your body, that there is nothing physical about it - and there may be truth to that; the soul seems to belong to a part of ourselves that is beyond the physical. But can you honestly say that you can't feel the sunshine in your soul, not just on your skin but in you? - the music coursing through your being, radiating through you as chords and notes play with your senses? - the love you have for your mother catching in your throat when you see her for the first time in six months? Our souls are manifested in the physical realm, not as separate entities but as inextricably intertwined with the bodies they either inhabit or are expressions of. Perhaps our experience of the soul is only the result of some physical reaction of neurons The debates among philosophers will rage for millennia to come - is the soul a result of the body, or the body a result of the soul? Is the soul purely physical, or is there a non-physical aspect to it? Are the mind and body separate, or one? Is there such a thing as immortality, or are we limited to our mortal existence?
But the Psalmist is not concerned with these questions, however curious we may be.
At the base, the Psalms are an expression of pure belief and reverent awe. Even in times of struggle and strive, the poet cries out to God in accusation or despair, asking questions, doubting, suffering - but all the while believing. The Psalms are a book of faith, and that faith is something that resides in the soul. The soul in the psalms is the breath of life, breathed into the psalmist by his lover and creator, God.
WORKS CITED
Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: a Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007. Print.
Onians, Richard Broxton. "Anima and Animus." The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World Time, and Fate New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred Evidence Also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs.. Cambridge: University, 1954. 168-73. Print.
Shakespeare. Antony & Clepatra. 1623.
Wharton, Edith. The Touchstone. 1900.
