T
Part 5: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Different Wordings in Westcott-Hort (one)
Discussion of the Westcott-Hort and Textus Receptus Greek texts and the English translation offspring of the Westcott-Hort in posts that are like short chapters is not very popular on Christian Chat. At least for the four parts so far, there have been few readers and few responses.
But the issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand posts longer than a few sentences.
This is especially true for understanding which verses are left out of the Westcott-Hort, as compared to the Textus Receptus, and which verses have obviously different wordings when the two Greek texts are compared. You have to see a number of verses to get any idea about the differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean.
DOCTRINE: THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou
Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou
"uiou tou qeou" or Son of the God is left out of the Westcott-Hort
text for Mark 1: 1
Mark 1: 1 King James Version: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God;
The American Standard Version, New American Standard, New revised
Standard, NIV and Douay-Rheims all have "...Jesus Christ, the Son of
God." But - the NIV for Mark 1: 1 has a footnote saying "Some
manuscripts do not have the Son of God," which casts some doubt on
whether this belongs in the verse.
Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of
"Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV
are in line with gnostic teachings.
ohn 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs
uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o
wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
Note that the Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten
Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten
God. The Greek word monogenes is a little tricky. It is Strong"s
Exhaustive Concordance number 3439, where it says "from 3441, or
monos, "remaining, i.e, sole or single...only."
On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of
Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..."
Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being
a Son of God.
Above, the transliteration of the Greek letters into Latin letters of
the alphabet spells "only begotten" as "monogenhs," The "h" in the
Greek alphabet it is an eta, which can also be transliterated as an e.
So the word can be written also as monogenes.
John 1: 18: King James Version: No man hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
John 1: 18: NIV: No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only,
who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Young's Literal Translation has: God no one hath ever seen; the
only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did
declare. And Green's translation has: No one has seen God at any
time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
declared Him. Both of these are from the Textus Receptus.
Of the English translationns, one that closely follows
the Westcott-Hort Greek is The New American Standard which has the
"only begotten God" wording.
The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts.
Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son>"
The King James, The American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, and, of
course, the Young's Literal and the Green's translation all follow the
Textus Receptus wording, "the only begotten Son."
The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is
consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ
was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics,
especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created
being and not fully God..
T. Holland in Crowned With Glory: The Bible From Ancient Text To
Authorized Version, on page 24 (note number 30) says that in the
writings of gnostics and "heretics" like Tatian, Arius and Valentinus
"only begotten God" rather than "only begotten Son appears. The "only
begotten God" seems to have become a kind of tradition among the
gnostics.
John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw
kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou
John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai
eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou
The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of
the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of
man."
John 9: 35: King James Version: Jesus heard that they had cast him
out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on
the Son of God?
We might expect to find that the new Bible versions has "son of Man"
instead of "Son of God." But the American Standard Version, which
came out in 1901 does follow the textus Receptus and has "son of God,
" and so does the Douay-Rheims, the Green and the Young's Literal
translation. The New American Standard, The New Revised Standard and
the NIV all follow Westcott-Hort and have "son of man."
The web site
Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists
twenty-three Greek texts in addition to most Byzantine texts and the
fifth century Alexandrinus that have the wording at the end of the
sentence the Son of God. The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66, p75, two
coptic (Egyptian) texts and three others have the wording son of man.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus does refer to
himself as the son of man, pointing out that he had taken on human
flesh. But son of man referring to Christ is rarely used in the New
Testament outside of the Gospels which quote Jesus calling himself by
that name. In addition to the use of "son of man' in Hebrews 2: 6, the
son of man clearly refers to Christ in Revelation 1: 13.
Christ is called the Son of God many times in the four Gospels, and in
John he is called Son of God more than son of man, especially if we
count the number of verses which imply he is the Son of God. Christ
is referred to as the Son of God several times in Acts, in Romans, in
II Corinthians, Galatians,, Ephesians, implied in Philippians, and
Colossians, I Thessalonians, Hebrews, II Peter, I John, II John, and
in Revelation. While Jesus often called himself the son of man, his
apostles writing in the New Testament books other than the four
Gospels, nearly always called him the Son of God, indicating he
is fully God.
Gnostics sometimes called the Eternal Father the "Primal Man" or
"First Man". This is part of the gnostic confusion of the godhead.
Early Christians familiar with gnostic teachings might recognize this
change from "Son of God" to "son of man" as being in agreement with
that teaching.
Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein
ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou
Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon
autou
The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton
christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh."
Note that the Westcott-Hort does have "ek karpou tes osphuos," or "of
the fruit of his loins."
Acts 2: 30: King James Version: Therefore being a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of
his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne;
Acts 2: 30: American Standard Version: Being therefore a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of
his loins he would set one upon his throne.
Acts 2: 30: New Revised Standard: Since he was a prophet, he knew
that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his
descendants on his throne.
Acts 2: 30: NIV: But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised
him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
Acts 2: 30 is a good example of the reducton of a verse in the NIV, which
is not a clear statement of the doctrine of Acts 2: 30
While the KJV, Young's Literal, and Green's translation all have "of
the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up
Christ to sit on his throne, " following the Textus Receptus, the
other translations are closer to the Westcott-Hort Greek.
The Douay-Rheims and American Standard follow Westcott-Hort in saying
"of the fruit of his loins," they both omit, "according to the flesh,
to raise up Christ."
But the NIV, the New American Standard and New Revised Standard for
Acts 2: 30 leave out even more than the Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out
of Acts 2: 30. None of these three translations have "of the fruit of
his loins," and certainly do not have "according to the flesh, to
raise up Christ."
In saying God would "place one of his descendants on his throne," the
NIV is not as explicit as the King James Version which says "of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ
to sit on his throne." It is not clear at all in the NIV that it is
Christ, as one of the descendants of David, who will sit on David's
throne. Acts 2: 30 points to the fulfillment of II Samuel 7: 12,
God's promise to David that "...I will set up they seed after thee,
which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his
kingdom." The NIV does not seem to want to acknowledge that by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit to Peter, came the knowledge that it is
Jesus Christ who was to sit on the throne of David. "Thy seed" in II
Samuel 7: 12 is not there identified in an explicit way to be Jesus
Christ.
The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up
Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations
following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic
doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the
Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human
flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings.
Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the
Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil
Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old
Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy
from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period.
"According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the
Greek texts associated with Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Vaticanus. This statement is also not found in the Ephraemi
Rescriptus. The Ephraemi is a mixed type Greek text from the fifth
century, and is not an Alexandrian type text. Apparently, there are
as many Alexandrian as Byzantine wordings of the Gospels in Ephraemi,
but elsewhere in this New Testament Greek text, the Byzantine wordings
outnumber the Alexandrian. The Textus Receptus wording of "according
to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is found, according to
Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament in
the majority of Byzantine texts, as well as in other Greek texts.
Romans 14: 10: Textus Receptus: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai
su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou
christou
Romans 14: 10: Westcott-Hort: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai
su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bemati tou
qeou
The Textus Receptus has "Christou", or Christ. But the Westcott-Hort
has "geou," or God.
The King James Version for Romans 14: 10 says "But why dost thou judge
thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall
all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."
Guess what? The American Standard version, the New American Standard
Version, the New Revised Version, and the NIV all say we will stand
before the judgment seat of God. The Douay-Rheims, the Young's
Literal Translation and Green's translation say we will stand before
the judgment seat of Christ.
You might say that since Christ is God, what difference does it make
to say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ or before that
of God? The problem is that Christ said in John 5: 22 that "...the
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son."
Then in II Corinthians 5: 10 Paul explains that "For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether
it be good or bad." In Romans 2: 16 Paul says "In that day when God
shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel." I know that in Romans 2: 3 Paul says "And thinkest thou this,
O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same,
that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
We have to be suspicious of the Westcott-Hort wording of Romans 14: 10
in saying we will stand before the judgment seat of God rather than of
Christ who was given the job of judgment by the Father. Many verses
that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ and of his incarnation in
human flesh have wordings in Westcott-Hort that agree with the
gnostics. The gnostics cast doubt on the Christian doctrine that
Jesus Christ was fully God and saying that judgment belongs to God
rather than to Jesus Christ is in line with this gnostic doctrine.
Discussion of the Westcott-Hort and Textus Receptus Greek texts and the English translation offspring of the Westcott-Hort in posts that are like short chapters is not very popular on Christian Chat. At least for the four parts so far, there have been few readers and few responses.
But the issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand posts longer than a few sentences.
This is especially true for understanding which verses are left out of the Westcott-Hort, as compared to the Textus Receptus, and which verses have obviously different wordings when the two Greek texts are compared. You have to see a number of verses to get any idea about the differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean.
DOCTRINE: THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou
Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou
"uiou tou qeou" or Son of the God is left out of the Westcott-Hort
text for Mark 1: 1
Mark 1: 1 King James Version: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God;
The American Standard Version, New American Standard, New revised
Standard, NIV and Douay-Rheims all have "...Jesus Christ, the Son of
God." But - the NIV for Mark 1: 1 has a footnote saying "Some
manuscripts do not have the Son of God," which casts some doubt on
whether this belongs in the verse.
Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of
"Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV
are in line with gnostic teachings.
ohn 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs
uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o
wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
Note that the Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten
Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten
God. The Greek word monogenes is a little tricky. It is Strong"s
Exhaustive Concordance number 3439, where it says "from 3441, or
monos, "remaining, i.e, sole or single...only."
On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of
Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..."
Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being
a Son of God.
Above, the transliteration of the Greek letters into Latin letters of
the alphabet spells "only begotten" as "monogenhs," The "h" in the
Greek alphabet it is an eta, which can also be transliterated as an e.
So the word can be written also as monogenes.
John 1: 18: King James Version: No man hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
John 1: 18: NIV: No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only,
who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Young's Literal Translation has: God no one hath ever seen; the
only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did
declare. And Green's translation has: No one has seen God at any
time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
declared Him. Both of these are from the Textus Receptus.
Of the English translationns, one that closely follows
the Westcott-Hort Greek is The New American Standard which has the
"only begotten God" wording.
The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts.
Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son>"
The King James, The American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, and, of
course, the Young's Literal and the Green's translation all follow the
Textus Receptus wording, "the only begotten Son."
The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is
consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ
was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics,
especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created
being and not fully God..
T. Holland in Crowned With Glory: The Bible From Ancient Text To
Authorized Version, on page 24 (note number 30) says that in the
writings of gnostics and "heretics" like Tatian, Arius and Valentinus
"only begotten God" rather than "only begotten Son appears. The "only
begotten God" seems to have become a kind of tradition among the
gnostics.
John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw
kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou
John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai
eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou
The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of
the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of
man."
John 9: 35: King James Version: Jesus heard that they had cast him
out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on
the Son of God?
We might expect to find that the new Bible versions has "son of Man"
instead of "Son of God." But the American Standard Version, which
came out in 1901 does follow the textus Receptus and has "son of God,
" and so does the Douay-Rheims, the Green and the Young's Literal
translation. The New American Standard, The New Revised Standard and
the NIV all follow Westcott-Hort and have "son of man."
The web site
Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists
twenty-three Greek texts in addition to most Byzantine texts and the
fifth century Alexandrinus that have the wording at the end of the
sentence the Son of God. The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66, p75, two
coptic (Egyptian) texts and three others have the wording son of man.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus does refer to
himself as the son of man, pointing out that he had taken on human
flesh. But son of man referring to Christ is rarely used in the New
Testament outside of the Gospels which quote Jesus calling himself by
that name. In addition to the use of "son of man' in Hebrews 2: 6, the
son of man clearly refers to Christ in Revelation 1: 13.
Christ is called the Son of God many times in the four Gospels, and in
John he is called Son of God more than son of man, especially if we
count the number of verses which imply he is the Son of God. Christ
is referred to as the Son of God several times in Acts, in Romans, in
II Corinthians, Galatians,, Ephesians, implied in Philippians, and
Colossians, I Thessalonians, Hebrews, II Peter, I John, II John, and
in Revelation. While Jesus often called himself the son of man, his
apostles writing in the New Testament books other than the four
Gospels, nearly always called him the Son of God, indicating he
is fully God.
Gnostics sometimes called the Eternal Father the "Primal Man" or
"First Man". This is part of the gnostic confusion of the godhead.
Early Christians familiar with gnostic teachings might recognize this
change from "Son of God" to "son of man" as being in agreement with
that teaching.
Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein
ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou
Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon
autou
The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton
christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh."
Note that the Westcott-Hort does have "ek karpou tes osphuos," or "of
the fruit of his loins."
Acts 2: 30: King James Version: Therefore being a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of
his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne;
Acts 2: 30: American Standard Version: Being therefore a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of
his loins he would set one upon his throne.
Acts 2: 30: New Revised Standard: Since he was a prophet, he knew
that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his
descendants on his throne.
Acts 2: 30: NIV: But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised
him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
Acts 2: 30 is a good example of the reducton of a verse in the NIV, which
is not a clear statement of the doctrine of Acts 2: 30
While the KJV, Young's Literal, and Green's translation all have "of
the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up
Christ to sit on his throne, " following the Textus Receptus, the
other translations are closer to the Westcott-Hort Greek.
The Douay-Rheims and American Standard follow Westcott-Hort in saying
"of the fruit of his loins," they both omit, "according to the flesh,
to raise up Christ."
But the NIV, the New American Standard and New Revised Standard for
Acts 2: 30 leave out even more than the Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out
of Acts 2: 30. None of these three translations have "of the fruit of
his loins," and certainly do not have "according to the flesh, to
raise up Christ."
In saying God would "place one of his descendants on his throne," the
NIV is not as explicit as the King James Version which says "of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ
to sit on his throne." It is not clear at all in the NIV that it is
Christ, as one of the descendants of David, who will sit on David's
throne. Acts 2: 30 points to the fulfillment of II Samuel 7: 12,
God's promise to David that "...I will set up they seed after thee,
which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his
kingdom." The NIV does not seem to want to acknowledge that by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit to Peter, came the knowledge that it is
Jesus Christ who was to sit on the throne of David. "Thy seed" in II
Samuel 7: 12 is not there identified in an explicit way to be Jesus
Christ.
The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up
Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations
following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic
doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the
Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human
flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings.
Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the
Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil
Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old
Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy
from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period.
"According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the
Greek texts associated with Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Vaticanus. This statement is also not found in the Ephraemi
Rescriptus. The Ephraemi is a mixed type Greek text from the fifth
century, and is not an Alexandrian type text. Apparently, there are
as many Alexandrian as Byzantine wordings of the Gospels in Ephraemi,
but elsewhere in this New Testament Greek text, the Byzantine wordings
outnumber the Alexandrian. The Textus Receptus wording of "according
to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is found, according to
Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament in
the majority of Byzantine texts, as well as in other Greek texts.
Romans 14: 10: Textus Receptus: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai
su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou
christou
Romans 14: 10: Westcott-Hort: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai
su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bemati tou
qeou
The Textus Receptus has "Christou", or Christ. But the Westcott-Hort
has "geou," or God.
The King James Version for Romans 14: 10 says "But why dost thou judge
thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall
all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."
Guess what? The American Standard version, the New American Standard
Version, the New Revised Version, and the NIV all say we will stand
before the judgment seat of God. The Douay-Rheims, the Young's
Literal Translation and Green's translation say we will stand before
the judgment seat of Christ.
You might say that since Christ is God, what difference does it make
to say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ or before that
of God? The problem is that Christ said in John 5: 22 that "...the
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son."
Then in II Corinthians 5: 10 Paul explains that "For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether
it be good or bad." In Romans 2: 16 Paul says "In that day when God
shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel." I know that in Romans 2: 3 Paul says "And thinkest thou this,
O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same,
that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
We have to be suspicious of the Westcott-Hort wording of Romans 14: 10
in saying we will stand before the judgment seat of God rather than of
Christ who was given the job of judgment by the Father. Many verses
that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ and of his incarnation in
human flesh have wordings in Westcott-Hort that agree with the
gnostics. The gnostics cast doubt on the Christian doctrine that
Jesus Christ was fully God and saying that judgment belongs to God
rather than to Jesus Christ is in line with this gnostic doctrine.