Austin Farrers Theory of Images - Report Example

Austin Farrer’s Theory of Images: An Article Analyses Introduction Images perform a fundamental task in revealed faiths. Images by themselves, on the other hand, apparently cannot communicate revelation’s message. To people who are not familiar with, or do not accept as true, the account of the New Testament, Jesus on the cross is merely the portrayal of a tormented human being (Farrer 1948) As Austin Farrer briefly put it in his Images and Inspiration, “The great images interpreted the events of Christ’s ministry, death and resurrection, and the events interpreted the images; the interplay between the two is revelation” (Farrer 1948, 43). Evidently, there is no visual truth which independently would reveal its Christian message. Farrer provides a comprehensively related, though metaphorical, argument. He argues that since the reflection of divine essence overpowers our abilities, we turn to difficult abstraction, help in rational images, and may thus fall into idolization, a threat which revelation aids us to evade: if the power of the passage is observed, arrogance to the position of our abilities can be afforded. This essay will argue that images have an important role in the natural knowledge of God by conducting a deep analysis of Farrer’s two articles, Can Myth be Fact? and Images and Inspiration. Specifically, the thesis of this essay, as claimed by Farrer, is that neither in rational theology or revelation can we deviate from the image to that which the image implies; we should be satisfied to refer to the truth by comprehending what the image informs us. However, revealed images and rational comparisons regarding God do not operate similarly: the revealed images are unnatural, whereas the rational comparisons are natural figures. The rational comparisons are natural with regard to the assumption that they may be, and innately are, natural: unless predetermined elements put themselves upon us as icons of divinity we can have no spontaneous understanding of God. These premises will be thoroughly analyzed in the following sections. Article Analyses Myth, throughout most of the Christian period, has bore the unpleasant undertone represented by the New Testament. According to Farrer, mythology witnessed a grand rebirth through the anthropologist’s discovery of narratives analogous to the stories in the Bible, through the historical critic’s display of practices behind the Bible, and by the Idealist’s stress on the imagination. While expressing that existing mythology saturated the Biblical perspective, Farrer claimed that the Bible itself included no myths for the reason that myths call for multiple gods. This passage strengthens this point (Farrer 1976, 165): A myth is a traditional tale which purports to describe real happenings; for example, that the Olympian Gods came down incognito and paid surprise calls on the householders of Lycia to see what entertainment they would get… However, symbolism was unimportant to the old description of myth as narratives about the gods, though it is necessary to the restored interpretation of myth as symbolic image of reality. The entire Bible is flooded with images, and the Revelation is no exception. Christianity, according to Farrer, is a revival of images, a mechanism that is most visibly distinguished in the Revelation, where John “writes of heaven and things to come, that is, of a realm which has no shape at all but that which the images give it” (Farrer 1986, 17). We may be incapable of precisely linking myth and symbol with reality because they may be the only way by which we can even refer to such truth. This is particularly factual to all reality that is prehistoric, celestial, or yet upcoming, and of which people hence has no actual experience. Those who have been granted images into that reality are quite conscious of their incapability of communicating what they have witnessed. This excerpt exemplifies this point (Fahrer 1976, 173): The prophet who saw the vision of Daniel 7 applied one part of the Adam story alone. God has decreed that the divine image in mankind must have the dominion: in other words, the Son of Man must reign. And this Jesus also says; he said it to the High Priest. But there is another part of the Adam story. This prophet writes of his apparition into heaven in description several levels detached from the truth: the prophet was unable to describe the truth that he witnessed, but symbolism enabled him to reveal that truth. His language is confusing because the truth he witnessed is, in any sense important to us, hazy. This vagueness can make the symbols appear conflicting, but if we attempt to transform them to coherent arrangement we have nonsense. The complex essence of symbolism is disturbing to the scientific, modern mind, but the contemporary worldview with its eagerness to accept diversity of connotation is reliving the power of symbolism. Farrer was advanced in his knowledge of symbolism. Farrer (1976) claimed that images do not imply anything we like; their meaning can be established. However, they still have a remarkable diversity of orientation. If not, what is the reason to explain in images rather than in dull factual style? It has been argued that the objective of scientific explanation is the eradication of vagueness, and the objective of symbol the enclosure of it. We use symbol when we want our expressions to reveal, rather than examine or verify, their theme. Precise account separates a single feature of fact: for instance, a theologian attempts to separate the relation where in Christ’s atoning death stands to the notion of scientific justice. But those who accept the occurrence of atoning death as true should discern in it a reality connected to everything heavenly or human, with as numerous importance as there are elements to which it can be diversely connected. But those who deem that the sheer physical form of the death would never manifest what the Christian believes it, as such, to be (Farrer 1976, 172): So far we have seen the myth of the Son of Man, a myth, and nothing but that; a myth first used to decipher the past and then thrown forward on to a shadowy screen in prophecy of the future; it has not yet grasped the present fact nor translated itself out of words into flesh and blood. Now we reach the crucial point, the point on which our present inquiry turns. Jesus, standing in the High Priest’s court, accused of many things, is silent to most, but himself chooses the issue upon which he wills to die. Nothing could be added from the reality: correct style removes from truth, symbol reveals it. And because of that, symbols have several of the complexity of untamed nature. Symbolic interpretation anticipates a dialogue between reality and image, but with little interest to the entire body of communication. Symbolical interpretations can be outstanding and imaginative, but their lack of comprehensive understanding makes them decisively useless as interpreter of reality. Classic interpretation views the Bible not as a succession of freely-connected images but as a solitary traditional composition extending from creation to revelation. Definitely, the Bible is perhaps the most methodically crafted holy book in the world. According to Farrer (1976), God has granted use the New Testament not by means of the talent of literalist critics or methodical theologians, but by means of that of biblical theologians and ingenious critics. The Christian perspective of truth is hence highly allegorical. The splendid metaphors of Scripture, together with its highly discriminatory depiction of reality, lead to Biblical passages being burdened with background. Recognition of any biblical metaphors hence demands significant background knowledge. The Revelation is more loaded with background than any other passages in the Bible. The revelation of the myth which is fact did not begin suddenly in the first century: it began when men, first reflecting on the paradoxes of their destiny, were inspired to start the weaving of the myth of Adam (Farrer 1976, 175). Farrer (1948) proposes we experience images, image of nature and images in nature, which, independently, are able to astound us with an essence of a higher truth; moreover, visual representations are spontaneous transmitters of meaning, for they imply by resembling, while metaphors imply by tradition. What this essay is trying to do, specifically to present a basic overview of the means where in images operate in natural religion, is basically a follow-up to Farrer’s theory of holy images. Furthermore, it is a kind of objection against current efforts in natural theology, which has employ neither for mental descriptions, nor for images. At this time that form-criticism is reduced as a dominant accepted belief than it was in the lifetime of Farrer, possibly his exceptional legacy to the studies of New Testament will start to gain broader acknowledgement. His defiantly mythical technique of the Gospels allows a welcome presence of fresh perspective to Biblical commentary, which quite frequently is viewed as a closed component of scholarly endeavor, not related to other types of literature. By treating a Gospel as a mythical whole, he allows us to witness the thoughts of evangelists. His style enables us to take critically the component of visual contentment in reading the Bible and persuades us to examine why it must have that impact on us, the same as we might with a novel, poem or play. Conclusion Contrary to the literalist interpretation of the Revelation is the imaginative interpretation, what Farrer refers to us ‘mythical literalism’, which endows us a dual image. The Revelation is a symbolic depiction of fact. Leaving symbols as symbols sustains their factuality for all places and periods in space and time. The classic interpretation of the Revelation is certainly a spiritual practice, because one cannot interpret the book ingeniously without being deeply affected. Definitely, all artistic works have the power to change people’s lives in a manner which no historically factual book can achieve. No book of the Bible has created a diversity of interpretations as the Revelation. It has perhaps disaffected more readers than it has fascinated. Complexities in genre identification crop up from two primary sources: vagueness about how to deal with symbolic expression, and semantic difficulties of description. Neither dilemma is new. Farrer has an unusual understanding of mythology because it did not follow the dominant interpretation of his day. Whether to describe the Revelation as myth is quite debatable given the uncertainty over the concept. In due course, it is not important what identification is awarded to the book; more essential is the description enclosed with the identification. Relying upon the essence of those descriptions, myth may be either quite a proper identification or quite improper identification for the genre of the Revelation. More essential than giving identification to the book is proper acknowledgement of the essence of the contents. The Revelation is written in exceptionally inventive language. Refusing to recognize this, the literalists build their own myth, whereas those who do interpret the book mythically approach reality. Reference Farrer, Austin. A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. Johns Apocalypse. New York: State University of New York, 1986. ----. Interpretation and Belief. SPCK, 1976. —. The Glass of Vision. Dacre Press, 1948. Read More