Dr. Ruckman did not express the
most radical version of the King James-only
believers’ belief: that foreign language versions should be translated directly
from the King James Bible.[1]
Translating into foreign languages directly from the King James Bible had been a practice in some historical contexts in
America but was hardly a universal position among late twentieth century King James-only adherents. Ruckman acknowledged that it was acceptable
for missionaries to use foreign language versions that were based in the same
Greek text that the Authorized Version was,
even if their publication preceded that version, and even if there were
differences in the wording - an allowance he refused to grant to versions newer
than the King James.[2]
Ruckman
made several other points in his polemic against modern Bible versions which
included the KJV translators’ use of
italics when they inserted words that were not present in a Greek manuscript
for the purpose of grammatical sense, or inserting a word found in Hebrew but
not present in a Greek text that quoted a Hebrew verse. Ruckman complained that
many modern versions did not italicize words not in the “original” manuscripts
which, to him, made the translators of the AV
more honest and trustworthy.[3]
Another point Ruckman made was the lack of a copyright for the KJV, which is something that modern
Bibles carry in that, presumably, one would have to get the publisher’s
permission to copy large parts of their work. The “crown copyright,” which the King James Bible carries, does not
affect its use or reproduction.[4] To Ruckman and his followers, these arguments
against modern Bible versions bolstered the AV’s
credibility.
One
of the more interesting arguments that King
James-only proponents made was Ruckman’s declaration that the King James Bible exalted Jesus Christ
more than modern versions do. In fact, he accused Bible translators of the
versions based in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of downgrading Christ’s status
as God in the flesh. Ruckman accused the translators of the new versions,
particularly those published since the Revised
Version, as not only following the Roman Catholic editions but even
following Mormon belief as well as the errors of early church fathers, Eusebius
and Origen. He linked modern Bible versions to the doctrines of the Arians who
did not believe in the deity of Christ.[5] Ruckman’s exaltation of the King James Bible included the statement,
“We are saying that the King James Bible is
true to the exaltation of Jesus Christ….[and] puts Jesus up where He belongs in
God’s sight,” insisting that modern Bible versions do not.[6]
Ruckman
alluded to a book by J.J. Ray entitled God
Only Wrote One Bible, which, like the Edward Hills book mentioned
previously, was not written by a King
James-only proponent.[7]
Ray promoted the Textus Receptus above the work of the Anglican Revision of 1881 and
insisted that the Bible was preserved in that Greek text from which the AV was translated.[8] Ray had plagiarized an earlier book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,
written by Seventh-Day Adventist professor, Benjamin Wilkinson, in which, he, Professor Wilkinson,
declared that the, “original Scriptures were written by direct inspiration of
God,” and that any Bible translated faithfully from the Textus Receptus was the, “Word of God.” [9] It was a common practice of Ruckman and
others in the movement in the beginning to quote as authorities to underscore
their own viewpoint those who uplifted the Textus
Receptus as God’s inspired words, even if those authorities did not hold up
the King James Bible as anything but
a reliable or the most reliable English expression of that Greek manuscript
line.
Was
There A King James-only Movement
before Bible Babel?
The head of the ASV translating committee and noted
Christian historian, Philip Schaff, acknowledged the assumption made by many
that the King James Bible or Authorized Version was virtually the
inspired word of God. However, this
assumption by some Christians of the authority of the King James Bible was based on it being the translation most readily
available to them, and not on any understanding of the differences in opinion
on the translation of Greek words or manuscript evidence. Still, King James-only proponents use any statement
about the authority of the “English Bible” in historical context in the same
way they quote scholars and laymen who upheld the King James Bible as the most reliable translation of the
traditional text, as supporting their position. For example, KJV-only believer Joey Faust, in his
book entitled The Word: God Will Keep It!
The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement, refers to an
apocryphal conversation that seventeenth century Protestant noteworthy, John
Bunyan, allegedly had with a scholar who insisted that a knowledge of the
original languages was essential to understanding the Bible. Bunyan expressed
his belief that he had access to the originals through the Bible he used.
“’Then,’ said Mr. Bunyan, ‘so do I believe our English Bible is a true copy of
the original.’” [10]
A second example used
by Faust was that of the church to which nineteenth century scientist, Michael
Faraday, belonged. This church was founded by eighteenth century theologian,
Robert Sandeman, the son-in-law of controversial Scottish nonconformist preacher
John Glas. Faust uses quotations by Glas from his own works, implying that the
Scot was an ardent King James-only
Pastor and that, therefore, the church founded by Robert Sandeman was an
example of an early King James-only
church.[11] What Glas expressed in his own work in an
argument about the value of the original languages was the belief in the
predominant English Bible of his time (the King
James Bible) as an authority in direct contraposition to the Roman Catholic
Church giving it equal standing in importance to Protestant people as the
Church at Rome was to Catholic. “Or, are you indeed for the people’s believing
in your church, instead of their English Bible?” he wrote.[12] The English Bible’s presumed superiority to
the originals lay in its accessibility to the common man and not to any
argument of superior translating methods or abilities or even arguments of
manuscript credibility.
[1]
Peter Heisey, “The Value of Making a Bible Translation from the King James Holy
Bible,” (Worcestor, UK: Time for Truth
Christian Literature, 2013). http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1332198960.pdf
[2]
Ruckman, Bible Babel, 2.
[3]
Ruckman, Bible Babel, 19.
[4]
Ibid., 23.
[5]
Ibid., 32.
[6]
Ibid., 43.
[7]
Ibid., 36.
[8] Jasper James (J.J.) Ray, God Only Wrote One Bible (Eugene, OR:
The Eye Opener Publishers, 1955), 106.
[9] Benjamin G.Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (Payson,
AZ: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1930), 256.
[10] Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible
Only Movement
(Venus, TX: Fundamental Books, 2011), Kindle Edition, chap. 6; Robert Philip, The Life, Times & Characteristics of
John Bunyan: Author of the Pilgrim’s
Progress (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1839), 489; Stephen
B.Wickens, The Life of John Bunyan,
Author of Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: J. Collard, 1845), 261.
[11]
Faust, The Word, ch. 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment