Edition 26

If It's In The Vatican, It Must Be Catholic!

10/24/23

Introduction

The editions in this study deal with the differences (variants) between the newer text for the New Testament (herein referred to as the GNT) and the much older Textus Receptus (TR). Examining either of the texts is like viewing the original through a thin transparent layer which is ever so slightly clouded. The layer represents the textual variants relative to the original. Even though the man-made layer is there, the essential, divine message of scripture is not obscurred.

The texts have been used as sources for a myriad of Bible translations published in the past 450 years or so. Many have serious problems, but more than a few came from dedicated, gifted, unbiased, and God-fearing translators.

One manuscript source for the GNT is a document called "Codex Vaticanus". As the name implies, it is the property of the Catholic church. For this reason, some critics teach that it introduces Catholic doctrine into GNT-based Bible versions.

This edition reviews a few practices of the Roman church and reveals the degree to which Vaticanus supports them. We'll see that, in the most important sense, the Vaticanus CANNOT be accurately characterized as Catholic.

The applicable scipture in the New Testament is Revelation 22:18-19. (Here we take the position that the verses apply to the entire Bible and not just the Revelation.)

Obviously, one can make the case that Catholics, and perhaps others, have added to and taken away from the Scriptures to affect developments (in their way of thinking, improvements) to the Christian religion but, clearly, by including Revelation 22:18-19, the Vaticanus not only doesn't allow such modification; it strictly forbids it.

Verses 18 and 19 in the KJV (translated from the Textus Receptus) read like this:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If the KJV translators had used the Vaticanus instead, the passage would read something like this:

I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the seven plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Possibly, verse 19 would look like this:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of both the tree of life and the holy city, which are written in this book.

Bible versions based partly on the Vaticanus may be objectionable to many, but the teaching of the Vaticanus itself is definitely not consistant with the Roman church's practice of adding, removing, or changing fundamental doctrines of scriptural Christianity.

Jesus Christ is our high priest forever (Hebrews 5:5-6).  We are compelled to come "boldly" to Him at the throne of grace to obtain mercy and grace.  (Hebrews 4:16). Only the sinless High Priest can forgive sins. Christ is the perfect, sinless sacrifice as well as our great High Priest. There is no scriptural basis for the idea that we need anyone as an intermediary between us and God.

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 4:15 to 5:6 (KJV):

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place,Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

If the KJV translators had used the Vaticanus instead of the Textus Receptus, the passage would look like this:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need. 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

There is a slight difference, but it's clear that nothing in the Vaticanus allows for an earthly priesthood. On the subject of the Catholic priesthood, the Vaticanus is certainly not Catholic.

On one occasion, recorded in Luke 11:27-28, Jesus was speaking to a crowd of people about the dangerous acts of unclean spirits. One woman of the crowd, greatly impressed with His wisdom, spoke out loudly and said:

Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

The woman exalted Jesus' mother in much the same way as Catholics do. However, rather than joining in the exaltation, Jesus turned his attention to those who would pay heed to the Word of God. When someone presented what could be called a key Catholic doctrine, there is no record that Jesus supported it. He did, however, respond to her words. Instead of giving an affirmation, he turned His attention to the crowd and said:

Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

This is the entire passage in the KJV:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

If the verses were translated from the Vaticanus instead of the Textus Receptus, they would read:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Upon careful examination, we see that the two versions of Luke 11:27-28 are identical.

Those with even a mimimal knowledge of Catholic doctrine know that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is much more prominent than she is in original Christianity. She is made sinless by the doctrine of immaculate conception; she is considered as holy as Christ and even referred to as "the mother of God". The original scriptures do not support those ideas at all. One prominent Catholic doctrine is the perpetual virginity of Mary. All applicable manuscripts and other sources used for the TR and GNT texts not only don't support them, but repudiate them thoroughly. This section proves that Codex Vaticanus clearly opposes perpetual virginity.

When the Family Tries to See Jesus

Three of the four gospels record the account of Jesus' family attempting to see Him while He was preaching to a tightly assembled group. The passages clearly indicate that His brothers were there with their mother. Since Jesus had brothers and sisters, obviously their mother was not a virgin. The Catholics' erroneous teaching about the perpetual virginity of Jesus' mother is indirectly refuted by scripture. To be fair with the Catholics, their Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is certainly not the Mary of the Bible. The Vaticanus agrees entirely with TR-based Bible versions. Here are the three passages as they would be if KJV translators had used the Vaticanus as their source:

Mathew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

Mark 3:31-32 There came then his mother and his brethren, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Luke 8:19-20 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 It was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

A careful comparison with the KJV reveals that the only difference is the order of "mother" and "brethren" in the passage from Mark.

Jesus Goes With Others From Cana to Capernaum

John 2:12 records a journey Jesus took from Cana to Capernaum. Regarding this verse, a case can be made that, in the original, "brethren" are not Jesus' brothers by birth. The GNT says "the brethren", but critical notes indicate that a significant number of its sources say "His brethren". The Vaticanus says "the brethren". If used by KJV translators, the verse would say:

John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and the brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

The passage neither supports nor refutes the "perpetual virginity" doctrine. It is neutral on the subject.

Neighbors in Nazareth

Matthew 13:55-56 actually names the brothers of Jesus. His sisters are also mentioned. The passage makes the strongest case against the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Vaticanus is in full agreement. The only difference is the spelling of one of Jesus' brother's name. Using the Vaicanus as the source, the KJV would read:

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

(The name "Joses" appears as "Joseph" when using the Vaticanus as the KJV source.)

No honest Catholic would deny that "the Blessed Virgin" is not the Mary of the Vaticanus.

In Jesus' interaction with His mother recorded in John 2:4-5, Mary clearly takes a subservient role. She does so quite willingly and without the slightest objection. She readily acknowledged that Jesus was the person in authority. If Mary was the “Holy Virgin ”, it's difficult to see how she could have assumed such a role.

In the KJV, the passage is as follows:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

If the translators had used the Vaticanus as their source, the passage would look like this:

and Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

The only difference is the word "and" at the beginning of the sentence.

When the wine issue arose, Mary's first course was to go to Jesus. Her concern, however, was not simply to supply wine for the wedding feast. She wanted Jesus to reveal His majesty with a spectacular show. Jesus refused to do that; He performed the miracle in a very inconspicuous way. Mary did not get what she wished for. She simply was not the “Holy Virgin” who was to be revered in an absolute way.

Catholics practice something they call “last rites ”. It's also called “extreme unction”. There is no scriptural basis for the practice. There is, however, a related passage. It's James 5:14-15. The KJV (translated from the TR) says:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

If it were translated from the Vaticanus, the passage would read like this:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing with oil in his name: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The only difference is "the name of the Lord" vs "his name". Use of a pronoun does not cause any ambiguity. “The Lord” is mentioned in verse 11; The identification carries through to verse 14.

Catholics claim that "extreme unction" or, "last rites" is based on this verse. Both the TR and Vaticanus clearly indicate that the anointing is for the recovery of the sick. It's not to prepare the dying for their certain and soon-coming death.

Perhaps the best known way to identify a Catholic priest is when he is referred to as “Father”. The scriptures have something to say about that practice. Jesus is speaking in Matthew 23:9 (KJV). He says:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

If it were translated from the Vaticanus, the verse would read like this:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your heavenly Father.

The difference is easy to see, but both clearly condemn the practice of referring to a priest (or anyone else) as "Father".

One major Catholic doctrine is purgatory. It teaches that those who die as sinners will by purged from their sin in a place of punishment called “purgatory” before going on to heaven. The duration depends on the severity of their sin. Several verses address this subject. Three of them are
I John 1:7, I John 5:12, and Revelation 22:11.

I John 1:7 (KJV):

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from ALL sin.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from ALL sin.

The only difference is “Christ” in the TR. Either way, the verse teaches that for those who die in Christ, there is NO need for ANY additional cleansing!

I John 5:12 (KJV):

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

No difference at all. The verse clearly teaches that, for he who "hath not the Son of God", there is NO hope of eternal life with the Lord. No amount of "purgatory" can change that.

Revelation 22:11 (KJV):

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him work righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

There may be different points of view regarding "righteous" and "work righteousness". Either way, in the end, there can be no change of spiritual condition for ANYONE.

To work for one's salvation (give to charity, etc.) seems intuitive to many people. As a fully developed religion, it is an integral part of Catholic doctrine. The canonical scriptures, however, teach otherwise.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The two verses are exactly the same.

Romans 4:4-5 (KJV):

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Regarding the Vaticanus, the copyist seems to have written verse 4 and the first part of verse 5, then went back and erased what he had written beginning at "ο μισθος" (the reward, or, wages) in verse 4. He then continues by writing the passage beginning at "ο μισθος". The reason for the erasure is not clear.

The Robinson Byzantine NT matches the GNT exactly; The TR has one minor variant relative to the GNT. It causes no difference in meaning.

Romans 6:23 (KJV):

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(KJV from Vaticanus):

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

No difference.  Like the TR, the Vaticanus teaches that eternal life is a free gift.  No works required.

It should be pointed out that the Vaticanus probably contains some variants relative to the original. Evidence of such changes, if significant, could conceivably disqualify it as a source for standard New Testament texts. Such evidence, however, does not have any bearing on the contention that the Vaticanus teaches the distinctive doctrines and principles of the Roman Catholic church.

We have seen that the Vaticanus does not support some of the most divergent doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, some passages strongly refute Catholic practices. Even though the Vaticanus resides in the Vatican library, the Catholics do not use it to shape their doctrines.

Catholics have not corrupted the authentic New Testament. Instead, it appears that they have abandoned it altogether. We need not remove the Vaticanus from the list of "witnesses" to the original New Testament text just because it resides in the Vatican. Doing that would be like throwing away our King James Bible when we learn that the Pope has a copy in his personal library!

Greek Text sources cited above include:
Aleph(א) (codex Sinaiticus manuscript),
A (codex Alexandrinus manuscript),
B (codex Vaticanus manuscript),
Byz (the Byzantine manuscripts),
TR (Textus Receptus Greek text), and
GNT (Greek New Testament text).

Inspiration for some of the content in this edition comes from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.