Spurious changes to the Bible

* * *
4.     THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (John 7:53-8:11)
   The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions.  The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Westcott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin.  The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, an Incident in the Temple.  But as Burgon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.
(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
   The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in

---

106         WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
ancient times.  Early Christians had trouble with this passage.  The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe.  As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John's Gospel.  This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David's sin.  "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation … Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously?  It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc."³⁰
   According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him.  "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin."³¹  Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus … saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things."³²
   That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D.  That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices a and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."³³  There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W.  And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.
   Another evidence of the presence of the pericope de adultera in early Greek manuscripts of John is the citation of it in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on the Didascalia.
____________________
³⁰ Vienna, vol. xxxii, pp. 359-360.
³¹ Vienna, vol xxxxi, p. 387 J
³² 'S.S. Patrum' … J.B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p. 236.
³³ MPL, vol. 23, col. 579.

---

194                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
text.  This naturalistic view, however, is contrary to the evidence, as we shall endeavour to show in the following paragraphs.
(a) The Evidence of Codex W
   In demonstrating the antiquity of the Traditional Text it is well to begin with the evidence of Codex W, the Freer Manuscript of the Gospels, named after C.L. Freer of Detroit, who purchased it in 1906 from an Arab dealer at Gizeh, near Cairo.  It is now housed in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.  In 1912 it was published under the editorship of H.A. Sanders.[1]  It contains the Four Gospels in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.  In John and the first third of Luke the text is Alexandrian in character.  In Mark the text is of the Western type in the first five chapters and of a mixed "Caesarean" type in the remaining chapters.  The especial value of W, however, lies in Matthew and the last two thirds of Luke.  Here the text is Traditional (Byzantine) of a remarkably pure type.   According to Sanders, in Matthew the text of W is of the Kappa 1 type, which von Soden (1906) regarded as the oldest and best form of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text. [2]
   The discovery of W tends to disprove the thesis of Westcott and Hort that the Traditional Text is a fabricated text which was put together in the 4th century by a group of scholars residing at Antioch.  For Codex W is a very ancient manuscript.  B.P.Grenfell regarded it as "probably fourth century."[3]  Other scholars have dated it in the 5th century.  Hence W is one of the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospels in existence, possibly of the same age as Aleph.  Moreover, W seems to have been written in Egypt, since during the first centuries of its existence it seems to have been the property of the Monastery of the Vinedresser, which was located near the third pyramid.[4]  If the Traditional Text had been invented at Antioch in the 4th century, how would it have found its way into Egypt and thence into Codex W so soon thereafter?  Why would the scribe of W, writing in the 4th or early 5th century, have adopted this newly fabricated text in Matthew and Luke in preference to other texts which (according to Hort's hypothesis) were older and more familiar to him?  Thus the presence of the Traditional Text in W indicates that this text is a very ancient text and that it was known in Egypt before the 4th century.
(b) The Evidence of Codex A
   Another witness to the early existence of the Traditional Text is Codex A (Codex Alexandrinus).  This venerable manuscript, which dates from the 5th century, has played a very important role in the history of New Testament textual criticism.  It was given to the King of
____________________
¹ The Washington Manuscript Of The Four Gospels,' by H.C. Sanders, New York: Macmillan, 1912.
² Idem., p. 41.
³ Idem, p. 134.
⁴ Idem, p. 3-4.

---

THE TRADITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT         195
England in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, and for years was regarded as the oldest extant New Testament manuscript.  In Acts and the Epistles Codex A agrees most closely with the Alexandrian text of the B and Aleph type, but in the Gospels it agrees generally with the Traditional Text.  Thus in the Gospels Codex A testifies to the antiquity of the Traditional Text.  According to Gregory (1907) and Kenyon (1937), Codex A was probably written in Egypt.  If this is so, then A is also another witness to the early presence of the Traditional Text upon the Egyptian scene.
(c) The Evidence of the Papyri
   When the Chester Beatty Papyri were published (1933-37), it was found that these early 3rd century fragments agree surprisingly often with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other types of text.  "A number of Byzantine readings," Zuntz (1953) observes, "most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by Pap. 46."  And to this observation he adds the following significant note, "The same is true of the sister-manuscript Pap. 45; see, for example Matt. 26:7 and Acts. 17:13."[5]  And the same is true also of the Bodmer Papyri (published 1956-62).  Birdsall (1960) acknowledges that "the Bodmer Papyrus of John (Papyrus 66) has not a few such Byzantine readings."[6]  And Metzger (1962) lists 23 instances of the agreements of Papyri 45, 46, and 66 with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other text-types.[7]  And at least a dozen more such agreements occur in Papyrus 75.
(d) Traditional (Byzantine) Readings in Origen
   One of the arguments advanced by Westcott and Hort and other naturalistic critics against the early existence and thus against the genuineness of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text is the alleged fact that "distinctively" Traditional readings are never found in the New Testament quotations of Origen and other 2nd and 3rd-century Church Fathers.  In other words, it is alleged that these early Fathers never agree with the Traditional Text in places in which it stands alone in opposition to both the Western and Alexandrian texts.  For example, in Matt. 27:34 the Traditional Text tells us that before the soldiers crucified Jesus they gave Him vinegar mingled with gall, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Psalm 69:21.  Hort thought this to be a late reading suggested by the Psalm.  The true reading, he contended, is that found in Aleph, B, D etc., wine mingled with gall.  Burgon (1896), however, refuted Hort's argument by pointing out that the Traditional reading vinegar was known not only to Origen but also to the pagan philosopher Celsus (c. 180), who used
____________________
⁵ 'The Text Of The Epistles,' G. Zuntz, London: Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 55.
⁶ JTS, n.s., vol. 11 (1960), p. 381.
⁷ "Lucian and the Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible," by B.M. Metzger, NTS, vol. 8, (1962), pp. 202-203.

---

196                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
the passage to ridicule Jesus.[8]  In his treatise Against Celsus Origen takes note of this blasphemy and reproves it, but he never suggests that Celsus has adopted a false reading.  "Those that resist the word of truth," Origen declares, "do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He tastes of it, yet He will not drink it."[9]
   Hence, contrary to the assertions of the naturalistic critics, the distinctive readings of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text were known to Origen, who sometimes adopted them, though perhaps not usually.  Anyone can verify this by scanning the apparatus of Tischendorf.  For instance, in the first 14 chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75) out of 52 instances in which the Traditional Text stands alone Origen agrees with the Traditional Text 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times.  These results make the position of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Traditional Text difficult indeed to maintain.
   Naturalistic critics, it is true, have made a determined effort to explain away the "distinctively" Traditional readings which appear in the New Testament quotations of Origen (and other early Fathers).  It is argued that these Traditional readings are not really Origen's but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works.  These scribes, it is maintained, revised the original quotations of Origen and made them conform to the Traditional Text.  The evidence of the Bodmer Papyri, however, indicates that this is not an adequate explanation of the facts.  Certainly it seems a very unsatisfactory way to account for the phenomena which appear in the first 14 chapters of John.  In these chapters 7 out of 20 "distinctively" Traditional readings which occur in Origen occur also in Papyrus 66 and/or in Papyrus 75.  These 7 readings at least must have been Origen's own readings, not those of the scribes who copied Origen's works, and what is true of these 7 readings is probably true of the other 13, or at least of most of them.  Thus it can hardly be denied that the Traditional Text was known to Origen and that it influenced the wording of his New Testament quotations.
(e) The Evidence of the Peshitta Syriac Version
   The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, agrees closely with the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.  Until about one hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the 2nd century and hence was one of the oldest New Testament versions.  Hence because of its agreement with the Traditional Text the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional Text.  In more recent times, however, naturalistic critics have tried to nullify this testimony of the Peshitta
____________________
⁸ 'The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels,' Burgon and Miller, London: Bell & Sons 1896, Appendix II, "Vinegar," pp. 254-255.
⁹ Berlin, 'Origenes Werke.' vol. 2, pp. 164-165.

---

THE TRADITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT         197
by denying that it is an ancient version.  Burkitt (1904), for example, insisted that the Peshitta did not exist before the 5th century but "was prepared by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (the capital city of Syria) from 411-435 A.D., and published by his authority."[10]
   Burkitt's theory was once generally accepted, but now scholars are realizing that the Peshitta must have been in existence before Rabbula's episcopate, because it was the received text of both the two sects into which the Syrian Church became divided.  Since this division took place in Rabbula's time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these sects, it is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text.  Indeed A. Voobus, in a series of special studies (1947-54),[11] has argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but even that he did not use it, at least not in its present form.  If this is true and if Burkitt's contention is also true, namely, that the Syrian ecclesiastical leaders who lived before Rabbula also did not use the Peshitta, then why was it that the Peshitta was received by all the mutually opposing groups in the Syrian Church as their common, authoritative Bible?  It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Syrian Church continued to be loyal to it regardless of the factions into which they came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders.  It made little difference to them whether these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not.  They persevered in their usage of it, and because of their steadfast devotion this old translation retained its place as the received text of the Syriac-speaking churches.
(f) The Evidence of the Sinaitic Syriac Manuscript
   The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript was discovered by two sisters, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, hence the name.  It contains a type of text which is very old, although not so old as the text of the Peshitta.  Critics assign an early 3rd-century date to the text of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript.  If they are correct in this, then this manuscript is remarkable for the unexpected support which it gives to the Traditional Text.  For Burkitt (1904) found that "not infrequently" this manuscript agreed with the Traditional Text against the Western and Alexandrian texts.[12]  One of these Traditional readings thus supported by the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript is found in the angelic song of Luke 2:14.  Here the Traditional Text and
____________________

⁹ Berlin, 'Origenes Werke,' vol. 2, pp. 164-165.
¹⁰ 'Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe,' vol. 2, p. 5.
¹¹ 'Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa,' Pinneberg, 1947.
'Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitto in the Middle of the Fifth Century, Pinneberg, 1948.
'Neue Angeben Ueber, die Textgeschicht-Zustande in Edessa in den Jahren ca.' 326-340, Stockholm, 1951. '
Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm,' 1954.
¹² 'Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe,' vol. 2, p. 225.
Streeter, 'Four Gospels,' p. 115.

---

198

GOTHIC GOSPELS (St. Matt. vi. 9-16). – Sixth Century.
(Upsala, University Library.)
Portions of the Gothic Version of the Gospels by Ulfilas or Wulfilas, Bishop of the Mœsian Goths, who died A.D. 388.  The MS. is written in uncial letters in silver and gold on purple vellum, and is known as the "Codex Argenteus."

---

THE TRADITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT         199
the Sinaitic Syriac read, good will among {toward) men, while the Western and Alexandrian texts read, among men of good will.
(g) The Evidence of the Gothic Version
   The Gothic version also indicates that the Traditional Text is not a late text.  This New Testament translation was made from the Greek into Gothic shortly after 350 A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary bishop to the Goths.  "The type of text represented in it," Kenyon (1912) tells us, "is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts."[13]  The fact, therefore, that Ulfilas in A.D. 350 produced a Gothic version based on the Traditional Text proves that this text must have been in existence before that date.  In other words, there must have been many manuscripts of the Traditional type on hand in the days of Ulfilas, manuscripts which since that time have perished.
(h) The "Conflate Readings"
   Westcott and Hort found proof for their position that the Traditional Text was a "work of attempted criticism performed deliberately by editors and not merely by scribes" in eight passages in the Gospels in which the Western text contains one half of the reading found in the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian text the other half.[14]  These passages are Mark 6:33; 8:26; 9:38; 9:49; Luke 9:10; 11:54; 12:18; 24:53.  Since Hort discusses the first of these passages at great length, it may serve very well as a sample specimen. Mark 6:33 And the people saw them departing, and many knew Him, and ran together there on foot out of all the cities,  (Then follow three variant readings.) (1) and came before them and came together to Him.  Traditional Reading. (2) and came together there.  Western Reading. (3) and came before them.  Alexandrian Reading.
   Hort argued that here the Traditional reading was deliberately created by editors who produced this effect by adding the other two readings together.  Hort called the Traditional reading a "conflate reading," that is to say, a mixed reading which was formed by combining the Western reading with the Alexandrian reading.  And Hort said the same thing in regard to his seven other specimen passages.  In each case he maintained that the Traditional reading had been made by linking the Western reading with the Alexandrian.  And this, he claimed, indicated that the Traditional Text was the deliberate creation of an editor or a group of editors.
   Dean Burgon (1882) immediately registered one telling criticism of this hypothesis of conflation in the Traditional Text.  Why, he asked,
____________________

¹³ 'Handbook To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament', by F.G. Kenyon, London: Macmillan, 1912, p. 240.
¹⁴ 'N.T. In The Original Greek,' vol. 2, pp. 363-376.

---

200

"SEA OF TIME" GRAPHIC (p 200) – some wording in the graphic, and caption:    Ancient Authors committed their books to the Sea of Time.    Accident, Mutilation, Faulty Copying, Neglect and Loss, False Emendation, Destruction of Manuscripts.    Sailing over the treacherous waves of time the books finally arrive in modern times and reach the hands of textual critics.    Textual Criticism Endeavours to Discover and Repair the Damage Incurred During the Voyage Over the Sea of Time.    [Caption] The texts of many ancient human books have been lost or severely damaged during their voyage over the Sea of Time.  The text of the Holy Bible has been preserved in its purity by the Special Providence of God.

---

THE TRADITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT         201
if conflation was one of the regular practices of the makers of the Traditional Text, could Westcott and Hort find only eight instances of this phenomenon?  "Their theory," Burgon exclaimed, "has at last forced them to make an appeal to Scripture and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning.  After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon eight."[15]
   Westcott and Hort disdained to return any answer to Burgon's objection, but it remains a valid one.  If the Traditional Text was created by 4th-century Antiochian editors, and if one of their habitual practices had been to conflate (combine) Western and Alexandrian readings, then surely more examples of such conflation ought to be discoverable in the Gospels than just Hort's eight.  But only a few more have since been found to add to Hort's small deposit.  Kenyon (1912) candidly admitted that he didn't think that there were very many more.[16]  And this is all the more remarkable because not only the Greek manuscripts but also the versions have been carefully canvassed by experts, such as Burkitt and Souter and Lake, for readings which would reveal conflation in the Traditional Text.
   Moreover, even the eight alleged examples of conflation which Westcott and Hort did bring forward are not at all convincing.  At least they did not approve themselves as such in the eyes of Bousset (1894).  This radical German scholar united with the conservatives in rejecting the conclusions of these two critics.  In only one of their eight instances did he agree with them.  In four of the other instances he regarded the Traditional reading as the original reading, and in the three others he regarded the decision as doubtful.  "Westcott and Hort's chief proof," he observed, "has almost been turned into its opposite."[17]
   In these eight passages, therefore, it is just as easy to believe that the Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination of the other two readings.
(i) Alleged Harmonizations in the Traditional Text
   According to the naturalistic critics, the Traditional Text is characterized by harmonizations, especially in the Gospel of Mark.  In other words, the critics accuse the Traditional Text of being altered in Mark and made to agree with Matthew.  Actually, however, the reverse is the case.  The boldest harmonizations occur not in the Traditional Text but in the Western and Alexandrian texts and not in Mark but in Matthew.  For example, after Matt. 27:49 the following reading is found in Aleph B, C, L and a few other Alexandrian manuscripts:  And another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and there flowed out water and blood.  Because this reading occurs in B, Westcott and Hort were unwilling to
____________________

¹⁵ 'The Revision Revised,' p. 262, note.
¹⁶ 'Handbook,' p. 302.
¹⁷ TU, vol. 11 (1894), pp. 97-101.

---

202

A Map of the Ancient New Testament Versions.

---

Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"

Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews"

Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews"

John 19:19: "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews."

The Greek-language Christian scriptures, in the main, say that Jesus WAS RAISED BY GOD, not "rose" by his own power.  Mainstream Churches, however, say that Jesus rose by his own power, and they argue, illogically, that this proves Jesus was God.  This paper will help to enlighten people who have recited the usual confession of faith or creed and sung the usual hymns, by seeing that this truth peeps through in translations from various traditions.  Some of the original Greek words will be shown with a few of the texts:-
   From then onwards Jesus began to make it clear … to be put to death and to be raised up on the third day. (Bible, Matthew 16:21, New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Pocket edition, RC, 1985), εγερθηναι = egerthēnai, = literally "to be raised up."  It had been incorrectly translated by the Roman Catholics who made the Rheims-Douay (or Douay) Version of the New Testament, dated 1582, as "rise again."  The reformers in England, who later made the Authorised Version (AV), also called the King James Bible, in 1611, correctly translated it as "and be raised again the third day."
   … but three days later he will be raised to life. (Matthew 20:19, Good News Bible (GNB), a.k.a. Today's English Version (TEV), United Bible Societies, 1976.   εγερθησται = "he will be raised up."  Douay and AV: "he shall rise again."
   He isn't here!  God has raised him to life, just as Jesus said he would. … 7 … he has been raised to life and is on his way to Galilee. … (Matthew 28:6-7, The Bible for Today (CEV), American Bible Society, 1995).   And see the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) © 1969.
   "For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!" (Luke 24:34, KIT) ηγερθη
   This then was the third time Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from death. (John 21:14, GNB 1976, and see KIT.  This is in a disputed section of St John's Gospel.   Greek: εγερθεις = "having been raised up").  Contrast with Douay, AV, and NJB Pocket.
   God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. (The Acts of the Apostles, 2:32, New International Version (NIV), reformed and evangelical scholars, 1983 revision)
   And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (The Acts, 3:15, Authorised Version (AV), 1611)
   … yet on the third day God raised him to life … we have eaten and drunk with him after his resurrection from the dead (The Acts 10:40-41, NJB Pocket)
   … he hath raised him from the dead. (The Acts 17:31, AV 1611)
   … It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, ²⁵ who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:24-25, Revised Standard Version (RSV) ©1971; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   … Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father … 9 … since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again … (Romans 6:4 and 6:9, NIV 1983)
   In the same way you, my brothers, through the body of Christ have become dead to the Law and so you are able to belong to someone else, that is, to him who was raised from the dead to make us live fruitfully for God. (Rom 7:4, NJB Pocket 1985)
   And, if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you ; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom 8:11, Douay 1582; noted in McKenzie p 733.))
   So you will be saved, if you honestly say, "Jesus is Lord," and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. (Rom 10:9, CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   Christ died and he lived in order that he might be lord of the dead and the living. (Rom 14:9, literal translation deduced from KIT.  "And lived again" is in the RSV, 1971.  However, "and came back to life" is in God's Word Translation, 1995 and 2003, and "returned to life" in TNIV 2001, 2005.)
   God will raise us from death by the same power that he used when he raised our Lord to life. (1 Corinthians 6:14 CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   … that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:4, Good News Bible (GNB) or (TEV) 1976.  Greek εγηγερται = egēgertai = "he has been raised up."  See it again in verses 16, 17.)

   CONTRAST the true Bible translations of that verse (1 Corinthians 15:4) with this:  And the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures. – The Nicene Creed, from a Roman Catholic mass-book, The Missal in Latin and English; Being the text of the Missale Romanum with English rubrics and a new translation, 1949, Burns Oates and Washbourne, London, page 717.  In Latin, Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. - page 716.  And see pp 697, 696.  (Thanks TB for knowing the scripture text.)
   PLEASE NOTE: The Nicene Creed was not composed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 (see Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed), 1977, p 357).  And the apostles did not compose the Apostles' Creed! (same book, p 29).
   … Christ has been raised from the dead … ¹⁵ … God … raised Christ from the dead … (1 Cor 15:12, 15; and read verses 16, 17, 20, New International Version (NIV) 1983, and see NJB Pocket, 1985.)
   … he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. (2 Cor 4:14, RSV, 1971; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   Although he was weak when he was nailed to the cross, he now lives by the power of God. … (2 Cor 13:4, CEV, 1995; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   Paul … appointed … by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead … (Galatians 1:1, R.C. Knox version, 1957; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   … he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 1:20, New World Translation of the Holy Scripture (NWT), 1984; see McKenzie p 733.)
   Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Philippians 2:9, NIV 1983; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   … God, who hath raised him from the dead.  (Colossians 2:12, AV 1611)
   And to wait for his Son from heaven (whom he raised up from the dead), Jesus, who hath delivered us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:10, RC Douay 1582; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   For if we are believing that Jesus died and he stood up … (1 Thessalonians 4:14, see KIT 1969).
   Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead … (A disputed Epistle, 2 Timothy 2:8, NWT 1984, and see NIV)
   Through him you now have faith in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory … (Another disputed Epistle, 1 Peter 1:21, NJB Pocket; discovered by KJJM 26 Jun 2005; noted in McKenzie p 733.)
   For Christ also died for our sins … In the body he was put to death; in the spirit he was brought to life.  (1 Peter 3:18, The New English Bible (NEB), revised, © 1961, 1970.)
   EPILOGUE, based on Burton Mack (Feb 2, 2006):  The Religion Clarity Campaign director in February 2004 bought Who wrote the New Testament? 1995, by Burton L. Mack (and watched some of the television series) that had as its theme that the early groups of Jesus-believers had various beliefs about whether he was an inspiring uplifting man, a Teacher or Rabbi, a Prophet, and/or that he was a Messiah or Christ, or a Kyrie or Lord, or that he had been promoted by God and worked miracles.  Others said Jesus was a pre-existing spirit being who became man, and/or was or became the Son of God, while others then or later claimed that he had been part of the original godhead ("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father") being Son of God, and Creator too.
   This paper, once the blinkers were removed, required research, but enlightenment followed.  The two main conclusions are:  (1) The N.T. AUTHORS in nearly every case carefully AVOIDED saying that Jesus rose of himself, and instead gave God all the credit.  (2) However, the mainstream Churches' TRANSLATIONS have bent over backwards in many places to foster the "Jesus rose from the dead and therefore is God" theory (that is, Christolatry), which also supports the cognate pressure in some major Churches to promote Mary from mother of Jesus, to mother of God (that is, Maryolatry). 
   RECOMMENDED READING:

Elizabeth A. LIVINGSTONE (ed), 1977, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Burton L. MACK, 1995, Who wrote the New Testament?  HarperSanFrancisco, New York. 225.6.

John L. McKENZIE, 1968, Dictionary of the Bible, Geoffrey Chapman, London. 220.3.

Ralph O. MUNCASTER, © 2002, Are there contradictions in the Bible? Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (Oregon, USA). 220.1.