Debate: Is Codex Vaticanus superior in reliability to the Textus Receptus
"oldest and most reliable manuscripts" â exhibit A: omission of the Pastorals
This classic argument, nowadays common among Protestant writers, is very cleverly sneaky. Apparently the church is to believe that a few dozen verses in the New Testament, preached from the pulpit and by parents to their children for centuries, were interpolated forgeries that never belonged in the Holy Bible to begin with. But is this so?
No. The "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" are a load of Gnosticized Alexandrian edits filled with Arian bias. As for Codex Vaticanus (B), the very name indicates its connection to the Vatican. It was, quite literally, hurriedly snatched out of the Vatican Library during the Counter-Reformation to undermine the TR.
Codex Vaticanus omits the entirety of the Pastoral Epistles and the Book of Revelation. Why? Well, let's start with the Pastorals. Is it not a mere coincidence that modern-day liberal scholarship is persistent in denying the apostolic Pauline authorship of I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus? Likewise did the 2nd-century Gnostic heretic Marcion leave the Pastorals out of his own "Pauline Canon." As it was said in ancient times by a son of David, "there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 2:5) Yes, one mediator, not multiple. There goes the idea that Mary or "the saints" can intercede for the sinner. This is one of countless passages in the Pastorals which are a little problematic for pagan/occult/Gnostic doctrines which exhibited their rear end in the Constantine-era councils. No wonder Codex Vatican-us left out the Pastorals altogether! âLT Rev. 22:13 Sunday, 10:21, March 10, 2024 (EDT)