The Parable of the Photograph
by Kel Richards

In the tiny kingdom of Ruritania there was a crisis. It was a crisis of succession. The old king was dying, and he had no obvious successor. So, who should become king after him?

Because he had no children (no direct heirs) the question of who should now ascend the throne of Ruritania was uppermost in everyone?s minds.

The old king had many second cousins who might have claimed the throne, and who were quite willing to raise armies and battle for the throne if the matter could not be settled legally, and clearly, before the old king passed away.

The old king did have one first cousin, but it was widely believed that this particular first cousin, the young Duke of Battldore was ineligible because he had common blood in his veins. Only a member of the pure blood of the nobility was allowed to ascend to the throne of Ruritania. And back in the 19th century a forebear of the present young Duke of Battledore was suspected of having married a commoner.

At this point the wisest old members of the king?s counsel said: ?But what about the photograph??

It a black and white photograph from 1841 that claimed to show the then Duke of Battledore with his young wife. It was an important photograph because it showed his young wife to be, not a commoner but a princess of the House of Castlefiori. If the photograph should proved to be genuine then the present young duke would have the undisputed right to the throne.

But was the photograph genuine?

There were a number of objections. They said that the photograph was impossible because photography had not arrived in Ruritania in 1841. They claimed that it was a clever piece of trick photography done in a studio somewhere, and not taken in the Ruritanian countryside. And they claimed there was no evidence that the people in the photograph were the people they were claimed to be.

A special meeting was summoned. Before that court were brought those who would argue that the photograph was genuine and those that would argue it was false. They all gave testimony and their evidence was closely considered. Most of all this gathering considered the evidence of the photograph itself.

They examined the photograph.

They looked at the costumes and jewellery and faces of the people in the photograph. They looked at the scenery against which they were photographed. They looked at the markings on the back of the photograph, and at the old letter that accompanied it.

And they reached their decision?

Upon the evidence the counsel decided that the photograph was, indeed, genuine and the young Duke of Battledore was named the legal and proper heir and successor to the throne of Ruritania.

But how did they know the photograph was genuine?

First they looked up their history and discovered that the first form of practical popular photography was invented in France in 1837 and came to Ruritania the following year. This was a form of photography that produced a type photo called a ?Daguerreotype?. And the photograph in front of them was, indeed, a ?Daguerreotype? ? a photograph on a thin sheet of copper. What?s more, a ?Daguerreotype? did not have a negative. It produced only one, positive, image ? and so what they had in front of them was the original picture.

Furthermore, the words printed on the back of the photograph stated that it was a photograph of such-and-such people, taken on such-and-such a date, at such-and-such a locality. It made very specific claims for itself.

Furthermore, the Battledore family had carefully preserved the photograph, and that act in itself was evidence of their belief in it.

Furthermore, they were able to locate the very spot were the photograph was taken, and the geography and the landscape matched the picture perfectly.
Furthermore, it could seen that the young woman in the picture was wearing a signet ring, and this, upon close examination with a magnifying glass, proved to be the signet ring that would be worn by genuine princess of Castlefiori; and the young man in the picture was wearing the signet ring that a Duke of Battledore would wear; and the baby in the picture was wrapped up in a shawl of a very distinctive pattern, and the present young Duke of Battledore was able to produce that self-same shawl from a trunk in his attic.

And the old letter that came with the photograph was definitely from the right period, and had an authenticated signature and said that the writer of the letter had been present when the photograph was taken and swore that it was genuine.
The evidence was overwhelming.

And the same is true for the Bible. The evidence is overwhelming. And most of the evidence is the internal evidence you can find within the Bible itself.

The Bible for example makes claims for itself, just as the writing on the back of the photograph made claims for the photograph. The Bible tells us what it is, it doesn?t leave us guessing.

Furthermore, when we study the history of the time in which the Bible is set, the facts of the Bible fit exactly. And when we study the geography of the places where the Bible is set, once again, the facts fit the Bible exactly.

And just as the photograph had a letter of authenticity that came with it, the Bible has its own ?letter of authenticity? in that it is endorsed by Jesus: the most respected figure in the whole of recorded history.

Furthermore, the internal details all corroborate what is being claimed. It is an honest book that presents all its human figures as genuine human figures, genuine figures of history, with real human failings, and not as the sort of super-perfect, super-heroes you find in myths and legends.

Furthermore, the Bible has (like the photograph in the parable) been remarkably preserved and protected over the centuries. Many have tried to destroy the Bible, and many have predicted its end, but it survives ? remarkably so, perhaps ever miraculously so.

Furthermore, the pattern of human behaviour, changed by the intervention of God in human lives, that the Bible records, is a pattern that is seen again and again even today.

Furthermore, ancient copies of this ancient book are preserved in museums, and in the libraries of the great universities, and there scholars can examine the yellowing papyrus and parchment sheets and see that this really does go back to the period that is claimed for it.

The Bible is the real thing.

It is what it claims to be: the message from the Creator God to the human race. To ignore the evidence, and ignore the message, would be foolish indeed.