Bible Chain of Custody

 

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐘

Judge: "Let us begin. State the purpose of your case."

Protestant: Your Honor, I am here to prove from the Bible that the Catholic Church is false.

Judge: "So let it be entered into the record. Present your evidence."

Protestant: Yes! The Bible is my evidence. The Bible is the highest authority that can ever be.

Judge: "Very well. Bailiff, please take the Bible from the witness and place it on the evidence table."

(Bailiff complies.)

Judge: "Before we admit this document into evidence, however, we must establish its authenticity and chain of custody. This court cannot simply accept evidence because someone claims it is authoritative."

Protestant: But it's the Bible!

Judge: "Indeed... it says so on the cover. And where did you get it?"

Protestant: Well, I bought it. But it came to us from from Christians through history.

Judge: "Oh, so you accept historic precedent. Good.
Now, which Christians?"

Protestant: (smugly) The early church.

Judge: "Which church? And since you accept historic precedent - is that church documented in the historic record?"

Protestant: ...uhhh, what do you mean?

Judge: "Please, we are trying to establish the chain of custody.
We need to ask a few things based on what is already known about your evidence...

Who preserved the manuscripts contained in it, say, during the Roman persecutions?

How were they reproduced throught the course of history? For example, were they copied by hand century after century, and if so, by whom?

Were the biblical texts ever challeneged by heretics, and if so who defended them so you could have them today?

We know the texts you refer to were written in old Greek, but reflect writings also from ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and others. And eventually, these texts were translated into the common language of Latin, and then into 30 or so others. History tells us all of that.
Who did that work?

Since your evidence is a complete, bound group of texts, who decided which books belonged in it, and particualarly in the New Testament portion?

Were there OTHER texts that competed for inclusion, and if so, who examined and rejected those which claimed their own authority?

And since we are talking about a very old compilation of texts, who preserved that book you bring forth and which is now sitting on that table?"

Protestant: (smugly, again) The church, of course.

Judge: "Again, which church? Precisely, please, by name, and if possible with a summary of its history as it relates to the Bible"

Protestant: ...er, well...

Judge: "So you don't know?"

Protestant: Well, yes, it is what we call the "historical church."

Judge: "Who is, 'we'?' You are here by yourself. And so you mean the historical Church known throughout history, as early as the end of the first century, as the Catholic Church?"

Protestant: ...well, uhhhmmm, I don't mean that Church....

Judge: "So those you refer to as 'we' dispute the chain of custody that runs directly through the institution you are attempting to prosecute?"

Protestant: Well, I didn't mean for you to think that....and I think the The Catholic Church was corrupt!

Judge: "Which is something different than what you have etered as your purpose in this court. But setting that misstep aside, for now, we have a serious problem with your evidence.

- Because if The Church was corrupt before the canon of Scripture was settled - as you claim - then we must assume it was also unreliable and your evidence is compromised by default. So we cannot accept it on those grounds.

- However, if the Church was reliable and trustworthy enough to identify and preserve the inspired books that you, yourself, claim as authority, then you must admit that the same Church possessed the authority to do so - but you refuse to acknowledge that.

Which is it?"

Protestant: ...uhhmmmm, well I don't want to give any credit to The Catholic Church!

Judge: "So it seems. But, let us continue.

When a police officer presents evidence in court, he must show an unbroken chain of custody, that goes like this.

- Where was it found and by whom?
- Who collected and preserved it?
- Who transmitted it?
- Who authenticated it?

Without a chain of custody that verifies the evidence, that evidence can be challenged.

Now tell this court: What is the chain of custody for the New Testament?"

Protestant: The Apostles wrote it.

Judge: "That's not what I asked. What is the chain of custody?"

Protstant: well, uh....The Apostles?

Judge: "Are you telling me, or asking?
And after those Apostles died? Who collected and preserved it?"

Protestant: The church.

Judge: "Which Church, exactly?"

Protestant: ... Uhhmmm, the early church, I suppose....

Judge: "You suppose? How far back can you verify that custody?
Would you claim, maybe..., that it was the church Martin Luther began?
If so, we must reject your evidence on the grounds that his church did not exist for fifteen centuries, but the Bible was in existence 1100 hundred years before him. Obviously we have a gap in custody - a very LARGE gap.

How about the following?...

- John Calvin's church 
- The Anglican church
- The Baptist churches
- The Evangelical
- Pentecostal churches,... and all the others.

The problem is, the Bible existed long before all of them.
So....who had custody of it during the centuries before they appeared and started using it?"

Protestant: ... Uhhmmmm...well, I don't want to say The Catholic Church...

Judge: "That's obvious.
But at this point, you are asking this court to trust the Bible as the sole backing authority for your arguments.... while distrusting and disregarding the very documented institution that preserved it, copied it, canonized it, protected it, and transmitted it so you could eventually have a copy.

In short, you want us to accept your key evidence as authentic, while declaring its entire chain of custody fraudulent.

Protestant: But....The Bible alone is my authority!

Judge: "Then show me where the Bible lists its own inspired contents.

- Where is the inspired table of contents, aka, the canon, listed in teh writings?
- Where is the verse that says there are exactly 27 books in the New Testament?
- Where is the divinely revealed list in Scripture, itself?

Again, since we have agreed that history applies here, your evidence is not unknown to this court - history has it recorded. 
So the Bible contains the books... but it does not contain the list of books that should be within its own collected writings.

That list, that canon, was created and then recorded in history...and that history points directly to The Church that existed before all others, and still exists - The Catholic Church that decided the canon and then preserved it."

Protestant: ... Uhhmmm, well....wait!

Judge: "And since you intend to hinge your case on the authority of the Bible, alone, and no other - where does the Bible make the precise statement that it is the one and only authority that can ever be? Without that, we have only your opinion"

Protestant: ... Uhhmmm, well...it says that it is good for instruction  and rebuking, correction...and so on.

Judge: "St. Paul said that about the Scripture of his day - I'm well aware. But you can make much the same claim for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Yet, nowhere does that august compendium make the claim that within its covers is found the one and only authority for people to follow. 

Rather, YOU have made that claim ABOUT the Bible on your own - but that book never designates itself as sole authority."

Judge: "The court finds that the witness is trying to claim his evidence is authoritative by his own interpretation, and, he is attempting to use as evidence a book whose authenticity depends upon a chain of custody maintained by the very institution he seeks to defame and discredit.
We shall set aside all other missteps and unanswered questions at that point, and declare this case dismissed." ⚖️

And let the record also indicate for the sake of awareness, that one should not saw off the branch upon which he is sitting, the branch which has held up him and all others since they appeared - and then try to deny the branch and claim that same branch is false.

✠

"The man arrived to put the Catholic Church on trial, only to discover that his Bible was the Church's first, and only necessary, witness."