                                        EPILOGUE                         125




                                          Epilogue

    The following letter was mailed to Dr. Zane Hodges of
Dallas Theological Seminary more than thirteen years ago
(August 19, 1977). He was THE champion of the Textus Recep-
tus (or ''Majority'' Text") at Dallas. The leKer was written
in answer to a letter that Zane Hodges wrote to a certain Mr.
Gregg in Chattagnooga, Tennessee-a born-again, saved, soul-
winning, once-married, Bible-believer. The letters speaks for
itself and for Zane Hodges. He never answered; not one peep
in fourteen years. The reason will be seen immediately when
one checks paragraphs 6, 7, and 8. Zane Hodges had assumed,
from the start, that he was dealing with a red-neck "jack-leg" 
with no background in Manuscript Evidence, the Greek Critical
Texts, the History of Textual Transmission, or "the textual prob-
lems" (see pp. 70-72 of this work) involved in getting rid of
a King James Bible. When he saw his "buddies'' (''col-
laborators is the Alexandrian cliche) NAMED in paragraphs
6, 7, and 8, Zane Hodges decided that "discretion was the bet-
ter part of valor." He did not answer my letter and he never
wrote to Mr. Gregg again about ANYTHING.

    You see (by my letter), I have dealt with the "celebrities''
in the same language you find in this book. And there is not
ONE of them alive today who doesn't know that my BITE IS
AS BAD AS MY BARK


                 August 19, 1977


Dear Brother Hodges:

I received a copy of a letter which you sent to a certain Mr.
Gregg in Chattanooga. And although it represents the standard
"party line" taught by all the "recognized scholars in the

126      HOW TO TEACH "THE ORIGINAL" GREEK TEXT

Scholars' Union, I thought I might answer briefly and send a
copy to your friend.

1. You seem oblivious of the FACT that you have asked Mr.
Gregg to accept YOUR OPINION about errors in the AV text
without presenting one single verse or word. Aren't you a lit-
tle foolish to write things like: ''Why should anyone take Dr.
Ruckman's word for it that the King James Version is inerrant?"
when you are rascal enough to try to convince a young man
that it has errors on the basis of YOUR OWN OPINION-
undocumented with any facts, whatsoever?

2. My assertion that the AV does not contain errors does not
make that true; however, if it contains no errors then my asser-
tion is true. Since you listed none, mentioned none, or sent none
to Mr. Gregg, I am to presume you haven't found any either,
and are simply trying to bluff your way through. Robertson,
Vincent, Thayer, Souter, Trench, Aland and Metzger OFTEN
DO THAT, and if you would like documentation I would be
glad to send it.

3. Don't be too surprised if some of us are ''persuaded" to
accept the AV text against your scholarship and the scholar-
ship of other ''good godly" etc. men like yourself. In every
age since 1611, there have been several million saved sinners
who had more confidence in the Authorized Version that the
egotistical dunces who thought they could correct it.

4. Ruckman does not "defend errors of the AV" (see your let-
ter), so don't go around lying to young men about such a thing.
You do say "IF'' Dr. Ruckman does, but of course that car-
ries the implication with it-based on your word only-that
there ARE errors in it. What does your opinion matter, my good
brother, alongside the Authoritative God-honoured text?
NOTHING.

5. Please don't worry about getting Gregg to help anyone who
is "confused. " You birds who think you are smart enough to

                                      EPILOGUE                                127

correct the greatest book on this earth have been confused for
so long it is pitiful.

6. I will await some ''reasonable discussion" from you, or Mr.
Gregg; this is what you both seem to think is missing in the
philosophy of those of us who think that the AV is able to cor-
rect the bungling of Nestle, Kittel, Delitzsch, Keil, Robertson,
Rendall, Mauro, Wuest, Metzger, and other members of the
"Union."

7. We both know, Brother Hodges, that no translator translates
all the words the same way every time; we both know that
Anacaluthon would be found in the "originals." We both know
that errors in grammar are relative to the grammarian; we both
know that gender does not always follow gender; we both know
that neither you or your friends would translate every article
in ANY text; we both know that articles are often added to ANY
text; we both know you have no scriptures given to the Apostolic
church to CHECK anything with (see your letter); we both know
that what you and your friends call "mistakes" in translating
from ANY text (Beza, Stephanus, Colineaus, Elzevir, Tregelles,
Scholtz, Griesbach, Tischendorf, etc . ) COULD NOT BE
PROVED IN COURT WITH A BATTERY OF LAWYERS.
So don't put on airs to young men who don't know what you
and I know.

8. I would not have stated that I believed the AV was able to
correct YOUR scholarship (anytime, any place, anywhere)
unless I had not thoroughly checked the men who taught you
what you know. My "Expositor's Greek New Testament,"
ISBE, and Greek and Hebrew lexicons are no different from
yours. I don't give any opinion without checking Nestle's and
Aland's apparatus with the works of Burgon, Miller, Scrivener,
Philpotts, and one of your own men-Pickering.

9. Since you were kind enough to warn the young man about
people being "confused" by a man who claimed an ''advanced
revelation'' (see your letter), I take the liberty with your per-

128         HOW TO TEACH "THE ORIGINAL" GREEK TEXT

mission, of warning Mr. Gregg to beware of any conceited ass
who thinks because he has had 30 years of formal education
he is equipped to judge the word of God and correct it. Con-
ceited asses like that are a dime a dozen these Laodecian days.


                             Sincerely in Jesus Christ,


                                Dr. Peter S. Ruckman




P.S. Don't ever bother your little ole head about ''Ruckman''
being troubled by the "uncertainty engendered by textual and
translational differences" (see letter). Having checked every
word of Aland's and Nestle's text with every reference in the
apparatus, I am no more "uncertain" about ''texts'' and
"translations'' than I am about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Go kid the kiddies who don't know the score.

-----------------------------
* Greek not recognized by our Scanner
-----------------------------

                          POSTSCRIPT                       129





                                 Postscript

                               The "Kiddies"

    ''There is the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD! THE BIBLE!
The Bible IS the inspired Word of God! And when I READ
the INSPIRED and stately writings of the prophets I hear THE
VOICE OF GOD! We believe THE BIBLE IS BREATHED
BY GOD: it is either all true or it should be discarded, and
thank God it is ALL true!l'

    Dr. Wilbur Nelson, a Neo-evangelical (Moody Founder's
Week, Moodv Monthly, 1957).

    "As far as having an INSPIRED and INFALLIBLE BI-
BLE, Yes, I have one . . . THE Greek Testament that I hold in
my hands. . . I will defend EVERY WORD OF IT. So, as far
as having a VERBALLY INSPIRED BIBLE, I READ IT
EVERY DAY.''

    Dr. Stewart Custer, apostate Fundamentalist (Head of the
Bible Department, Bob Jones University, 1981).

    "We have never corrected THE BIBLE. We believe THE
BIBLE is the word of God! It is Peter Ruckman who has cor-
rected THE BIBLE. Peter Ruckman . . . uses the English BIBLE
to correct THE Greek text."

   Curtis Hutson, (Editor of the Sword of the Lord, July 1989).

    While you are reading this print, the kiddies are telling
anywhere from one hundred to five hundred rninisterial students
the following-which can be seen at once, by any HONEST
rnan, to be news media "Double Speak" This is their Iying
creed and profession, which they repeat endlessly, in order to
STEAL your authority from your desk, pulpit, library shelf,
and MIND.

130      HOW TO TEACH "THE ORlGlNAL" GREEK TEXT

    ''Since no single doctrine of the faith is destroyed by any
of these Greek manuscripts, and since we have in our prosses-
sions literally thousands of copies, we may honestly say FOR
ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, that any translation by devout
godly men can be CALLED 'the Word of God,' and is 'SCRIP-
TURE' in the places where it faithfully translates the original.''

    There it is like a dead skunk on the Interstate.

    Every fundamental doctrine of the faith can be found in
the NWT(Jehovah's Witness translation), the Jesuit Rheims (of-
ficial Vatican translation), the Cotton Patch Version, the CEV,
the ASV, RSV, NASV, RV, NRSV, NIV, NKJV, and ANY
OTHER.

    Do you know what the Iying thief above actually said? He
said this:

    "Since we can attack any doctrine any place we please,
and since we can alter all Greek texts where we can't under-
stand them, we may say (as humanistic pragmatists) that any
translation we approve of can be called something it is not, nor
ever shall be, by simply pretending we have the originals when
we don't. "

    That is the honest content of the profession above.

    You just saw it demonstrated for 120 ------pages.

    It was demonstrated again for 342 ------pages in The Last
Grenade.

    It was demonstrated for another 378 ------pages in The Chris-
tian 's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. That is 820 ------pages of
evidence.

    Do you want to see what an HONEST confession of faith
looks like where no "double speak," or secular humanism is
involved? (I'll give you one, since you asked! I will be happy
to oblige. ) Here, for you, is a comparison of two different con-
fessions of faith coming from two different sources, guided by
two different motives, which produce two different kinds of
ministers. Here is the confession:

    ''Since no apostate fundamentalist has ever proved con-
clusively that the Bible we have in our hand is not the Holy
Scripture given to us by inspiration (inspite of Christian scholar-
ship), we accept this Authorized Version we have in our hands

                                   POSTSCRIPT                       131

to be the living words of the living God, as they profess to be
so in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12- 13, and take this Bi-
ble to be, unreservedly, the absolute authority for our lives in
ALL matters of FAITH and practise.''
Do you see the difference?

    The first profession was that of a professional con-artist,
who thought he was God; the second profession is that of OR-
THODOXEVANGELICALFAITH. There is no "double speak''
found anywhere in the latter profession. All the "talking in
unknown tongues " is in the first one.

    The latter profession is the profession of Lester Roloff,
Bob Gray, Bruce Cummons, George Grace, Ken Blue, Sam
Gipp, Jim Modlish, Billy Kelly, Maze Jackson, John Mitchell,,
Jim White, Tim Green, Tim Lee, General William Booth, Sam
Jones, Pappy Reveal, Mel Trotter, Jack Hyles, B.B. Crimm,
Beauchamp Vick, Bill and Larry Bartlett, John Rawlings, Claude
Bonam, and all the CONVERTS saved under Billy Sunday,
Charles G. Finney, George Whitefield, John Wesley, J. Frank
Norris, Bob Jones Sr., Gypsy Smith, Peter Cartwright, and
Dwight Moody.

    Theformer profession is that of B.H. Caroll, Westcott,
Hort, John Broadus, Bobbie Scumner, Bob Jones Jr., Stewart
Custer, John Gill, Eberhard Nestle, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metz-
ger, Arthur Farstad, Pope Paul VI, Dr. A.T. Robertson, James
Price, Alan McCrae, Truman Dollar, Pope John XXIII, Cur-
tis Hutson, Arlin Horton, Dayton Hobbs, Pope John II, Bob
Jones III, Wilbur Pickering, Gary Hudson, Cardinal Spellman,
Doug Kutilek, J.G. Machen, Father O'Brien, A.V. Hender-
son, James Combs, Hot Dog Hymers, Cardinal Sin (Manila),
Sumner Wemp, Elmer Towns, Harold Wilmington, Duke
McCall, Harold Ockenga, Fred Afman, Chuck Swindoll, Bob
Jones IV, John MacArthur, and THE VATICAN HIER-
ARCHY.

    When you get to the Judgment Seat of Christ, you will find
out which profession was the correct "historic position."

    For the present (1992), use the second profession to COR-
RECT all the works, writings, theories, teachings, conjectures,
suggestions, corrections, scholarship, and recornmendations of

132    HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORICINAL'' GREEK TEXT

the first profession of faith. You only need ONE BOOK to do
it with: the one you profess to believe is the "Word" of God,
not because you can "call it'' that, but because you believe it
is just THAT.
---------------------------------------------

                        ERRATA SHEET

--throughout the book
Laodecian should be Laodicean
Wilmington should be Willmington
Duoay should be Douay
------page v-line 13
8:11 should be 8:12
------page 5-8th line from bottom
chose-should be-choose
-------page 1-9th line from bottom should read:
Texts. See samples in Pastoral Epistles, pp. 432-440.)
-------page 4-line 23
 subtlety-should be-subtly
-------page 5-line I should read:
-'ready been seduced from the "simplicity" in Christ" (2 Cor.
 -------page 6-line4
 mammouth-should be-mammoth
 ------page 6-line 9
 cruciual-should be-crucial
 ------page 7-8th line from bottom
 nagivating-should be-navigating
 -------page 9-line 4 should read:
`smart'-like they acted like they did-they got phased out.''
 ------page 17-last line
 unable should be able
 ------page 18-line 13 should read:
Hudson, Hutson, Kutilek, and Sumner? Who was it, where was
 ------page 18-line 17 should read:
do. They never testify. They are ashamed to let you know
 ------page 20-10th line from bottom
    *
 ------page 20-9th line from bottom
 I Cor. 15:7 should be Gal 1:19
 ------page 23-line 20
 Gethsamene should be Gethsemane
 ------page 24-13th line from bottom should read:
  "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
------page 24-last line
1 Corinthians should be 2 Corinthians

----page 25-5th line from bottom
3: 17 should be 2: 17
----page 29-line 9
profession) meant should be profession) copies meant
----page 33-line 21
his should be this
----page 33-line 23
lair should be liar
----page 40-line 8
change should be charge
----page 42-9th line from bottom
Philips should be Phillips
----page 58-line 20
SOCINIANISING should be SOCINIAN
----page 63-line 23
Emer- should be Emerson
----page 66-5th line from bottom
many, should be many),
----page 69-line 20
stood should be stood still
----page 70-line 18
13:31 should be 13:32
----page 73-4th line from bottom
announcement. should be announcement."
----page 78-line 9
enobled should be ennobled
----page 80-line 7
2:29 should be 1:29
----page 82-11th line from bottom
''nothing'' should be nothing''
----page 82-4th line from bottom
Blaikock should be Blaiklock
----page 87-line 16
mammouth should be mammoth
----page 91-7th line from bottom
affections should be affection
----page 93-line 18
Jehosophat's should be Jehoshaphat's
----page 110-line 11 should read:
in this treatise.) We don't graduate infidels. We don't bat 1,000
