On the bookshelf in my home office is a book titled The
Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
This book claims to contain the word of a 16th century
British author. However, the copyright
date makes it abundantly clear that this book was published in 1980. On top of that, further analysis shows that
the book is the 3rd edition, clearly a copy of a copy copied by an
earlier scribe.
If my house was the main site of research into this
alleged “Shakespeare,” and the third edition of his Complete Works was the only copy found in excavations, would we still believe in Shakespeare?
Would we conclude that since the oldest surviving
copy was printed in 1980 then obviously its quotations were unreliable?
Would professors of the Shakespearean mythos profess
that our belief in Shakespeare as an author is far too literal since multiple
editors writing hundreds of years after Shakespeare’s death had obviously added
their own words to his plays?
Would experts argue that the same man could not have
written of honest witches in the book of Macbeth and of a peacemaking priest in
the book of Romeo & Juliet?
Would scholars applying critical literary analysis
conclude that Shakespeare was a myth, that no one could have written that many
plays in a time before laptops?
Nah.
Because obviously the copyright date doesn’t give
the original date that a text was written.
It only tells when a particular company pressed another set of
books. Obviously finding a copy of an
author’s words doesn’t tell us when his words were originally written
down. Obviously, finding copies made 100
years after the fact only proves that 100 years after the fact people were STILL
making copies. Obviously, a circa 1980
copy of Shakespeare’s words doesn’t mean that Shakespeare didn’t live and speak
in the 1600’s. It just proves that what
he wrote was important enough for people to preserve it over hundreds of years
as opposed to all the other things written during the same time period that
have been ignored and lost to time.
Obviously.
Obviously?
Then why isn’t it obvious that the date of a copy of
the gospels only tells you the date the previous copy was copied down? It doesn’t tell us the date of the original
eyewitness’s narrative.
Why isn’t it obvious that finding a 2nd
century copy of a copy of Jesus’ words doesn’t prove that Jesus was
misquoted? It just proves that Jesus’
words were important enough to keep repeating and sharing via the only printing
method available----- hand scribed copies.
It’s obvious that only fool or a rabid conspiracy
theorist would use my 1980 copy of Shakespeare to question the authenticity of
the Bard of Avon?
However, if you use a single scrap of a single page which
doesn’t even claim to be the original manuscript and just happened to not get
lost with the millions of other undiscovered 1st century scrolls to claim that you know when the Bible was
ORIGINALLY written down, you’re not a fool.
You’re not a rabid conspiracy theorist.
You’re a scholar and a
theologian.
Obviously.
---Anderson
T. Graves II is a writer, community organizer
and consultant for education, ministry, and rural leadership development.
Rev. Anderson T. Graves II is pastor of Hall Memorial CME Church in Montgomery, Alabama, executive director of the
Substance Abuse Youth Networking Organization (SAYNO) and director of rural leadership development for
the National Institute for Human Development (NIHD).
To hear sermons, read devotions, and learn more
about the ministry at Hall Memorial CME Church, visit www.hallmemorialcme.blogspot.com .
If this message helps or touches you, please help
support this ministry. Send a donation of any amount by check or money order.
Mail all contributions to :
Hall Memorial CME Church
541 Seibles Road
Montgomery, AL 36116
Mail all contributions to :
Hall Memorial CME Church
541 Seibles Road
Montgomery, AL 36116
