Peter
Ruckman’s autobiography:
The Full Cup provided a great deal of valuable information about his background
and insights into his combative nature. Ruckman was the son of a U.S. Army
officer whose father and grandfather were both graduates from West Point and
who rose to the rank of Colonel by the time World War II began. Peter
Ruckman himself became an officer in the U.S. Army and taught hand to hand
combat during World War II although he never saw any actual fighting. During
his service time he experimented with Buddhism and after his military service
he began the process of becoming a Roman Catholic. This ended with his
conversion to fundamentalist and Baptist religious beliefs in 1949.
He was drawn to the staunchly
fundamentalist Bob Jones University (BJU) in 1949. Ruckman was “saved” by a
preacher using a King James Bible, but
found that at Bob Jones University, that Bible’s accuracy and credibility were
downplayed, although it was used in public services. He also realized that BJU
preferred the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, which is also known as the Critical
Text. As he became more acquainted with the school’s teaching, he found himself
more at odds with their philosophy. Finally, although he chose to stay and get
his PhD, he accepted that staunchly fundamentalist BJU was too liberal, in his
mind, in what they regarded as the words of God.
Ruckman eventually became a pastor
for Baptist churches in Pensacola, Florida and developed a ministry of chalk
drawings and evangelistic preaching, eventually leading the Bible Baptist
Church on JoJo Road. He published Bible
Babel in 1964, manifesting his utter contempt for the traditional
fundamentalist view of the Bible. In 1965 he founded the Pensacola Bible
Institute to train preachers in his doctrinal views. Ruckman’s church bookstore
produced thousands of cassette tapes, books, and eventually CD’s and MP3’s that
became very popular as the controversy he started continued to grow and many
churches adopted his point of view.
Bible Babel
The opening salvo of the King James-only Movement was an attack
on the belief that only the original autographs were inspired. This original
Bible containing the original manuscripts of the authors, of course, never
actually existed, in fact. It was more of an ideal, as no one has ever claimed
that there was a Bible anywhere at any time in history that contained the
original writings of Moses and Paul. Attacking several prominent fundamentalist
Baptists, Ruckman exclaimed, “The term ‘Word of God’ used by Bob Jones, Jr.,
Bob Jones III, Robert Sumner, Custer, Neal, McCrae, Newman, Panosian, Wisdom,
Alfman, Prince, Price, and John R. Rice is never a reference to any book that anyone
on earth has ever read.”
The primary manuscripts referred to
in most modern Bible versions as the oldest or the best are principally the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts are
known as Alexandrian text type and were assigned the most authority by the
Westcott-Hort Greek text translators. This text has been the basis for virtually
all other Greek texts used for Bible translating for more than a century.
Ruckman referred to those
fundamentalists who followed the Alexandrian textual line of manuscripts as
expressed in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Bibles produced from it as
the, “Alexandrian Cult.”
One of the characteristics of Dr.
Ruckman’s writings was his strong anti-Catholic bias. Ruckman viewed a Roman
Catholic conspiracy behind the newer Bible translations. He accused modern
translators and fundamentalists of attacking the Reformation Bibles by using
Roman Catholic translations. He wrote that “The readings of the ASV and the NASV are the readings of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate where they match the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582.”
It is interesting to note that the authorities he mentions after that statement
as having revealed this information decades before his writing were not devoted
to the perfection of the King James Bible
as he was. In fact, one important author, Dr. Edward F. Hills, expert in
textual criticism, graduate summa cum laude from Yale and graduate of
Westminster and Columbia Theological Seminaries, as well as Harvard University,
published his tome, The King James
Version Defended, in 1956, which although often quoted by King James-only advocates, only went so
far as saying that “it is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy,” while
upholding the Textus Receptus over
the text produced by the Anglican Revision.
Ruckman’s accusations implied that the
traditional fundamentalist was an agent of Rome as he noted, “the FACT that the
ASV and the NASV (as well as the RSV and
the NRSV) are in line with the
official Bible of Rome; they are not revisions of the King James Version,” and referred to anyone who promoted those
Bibles as a, “PAPIST.”
Ruckman went on to accuse the Anglican revisionists of
being, “Puseyites,” a reference to Anglican divine, Edward Pusey, which meant to
Ruckman that they were part of the contingent of nineteenth century Anglicans
who desired reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
The conflict within the nineteenth
century Anglican Church regarding that church’s relationship to the Roman
Catholic Church resulted in several defections of Anglican clergy to the Roman
Catholic Church.
Ruckman’s “Introduction” to Bible Babel concluded with Ruckman’s take on the controversial
verses of Psalms 12:6, 7 in the King
James Bible, stating that they established a doctrine of God’s promise to providentially
preserve His words.
This would become one of the pillars upon which the King James-only Movement would rest. The insistence that God not
only gave words by inspiration as noted in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that these words
were preserved by God throughout the centuries in faithful copies and
translations was fundamental to the movement’s arguments.
His arguments for the authority of the King James Bible also included his
statement that the translators rejected Roman Catholic readings in many verses,
that the translators made no effort to uphold Roman Catholic doctrines such as
Mary’s perpetual virginity, and that at the time of the translation no minister
of any pulpit that believed in the Trinity (the three part personage of God)
denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
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.
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.
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 include italicized words which, to him, made the
translators of the AV more honest and
trustworthy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.’”
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. 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.
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.
While the expression of the
superiority of the King James Bible to
the original autographs, manuscripts, or even languages was based on the fact
that the KJV, unlike the latter, was
available to the common man this in no way implies the same type of perfection
the King James-only proponents claim
for it. The basis for the belief in the authority of the King James Bible before the KJV-only
Movement was expressed very clearly by George Holden in his 1822 work, An Attempt to Illustrate the Book of
Ecclesiastes, where he advised against any revision to the Authorized Version due to the position
it held.
While rival scholars would support their several
systems with the stubbornness of preconceived opinion, the belief of
well-meaning, but illiterate, minds would be liable to be shaken by a change in
what they have been accustomed to revere as the standard of their faith. The
style and phraseology of the authorized version have become venerable; it has
acquired a sacredness of character by being handed down, for two centuries,
from father to son, as the Word of God; its very errors are, in a manner,
consecrated by the reverential respect of the people; and it is not likely that
any superior accuracy would, in the present feverish state of public opinion,
compensate for the dangers of innovation.
Ruckman implied in his autobiography
The Full Cup that J. Frank Norris was
a precursor to himself in the King James-only
movement, but as there are no extant sermons of J. Frank Norris extolling the
virtues of the King James Bible. It is only because of Ruckman’s memory in
distinguishing between the types of fundamentalists he met in his work that he
wrote, “the Texans were the independent, Premillennial, J. Frank Norris, King James Bible crowd. I quickly made
up my mind which side of the fence to get on.”
One traditional fundamentalist author
noted in his arguments against Ruckman’s view that based on his own research,
J. Frank Norris “ascribed inerrancy only to the original language
Scriptures…,”and that “he did not believe that the King James Version was
either a perfect translation or the only acceptable English translation.”
The King James
Bible and its authority in the minds of Protestant believers can be set
against the scholarly belief in the authority of original manuscripts and
languages based on its common usage. This is not the same thing as saying that
the KJV is a superior or divinely inspired
translation not only based on its common usage, but on its presumed perfection
and accuracy. Modern Bible versions are translated with the authority and
credibility given to the Alexandrian textual line of manuscripts. Ruckman
argued that the Syrian or Byzantine textual line, from which the KJV was translated, was superior. He
claimed that not only was it the dominant textual line of the Middle Ages, but
that it represented the Greek Vulgate of the first and second centuries, of
which the only examples extant are in the writings of the early church fathers.
Ruckman also went into relatively great
detail on the differences in the translation of individual words and phrases
between the King James Bible and
modern translations, asserting the accuracy of the former over the latter.
Ruckman’s arguments then were a far cry from and more complex than simple
devotion to a Bible commonly used and revered by Protestants. By this the
unique character of the King James-only
Movement in history is clear: there was no movement of this sort before
Ruckman.
Ruckman differed from fundamentalists who extolled the
virtue of the Byzantine text as being inspired. Those fundamentalists held the King James Bible as it’s most accurate
and authoritative English representative. Fundamentalist preachers who use only
the King James may still believe that
it is merely the best translation of an inspired Greek text but not bearing any
particular stamp of divine inspiration itself. Ruckman challenged that notion.
Dr. Ruckman stated his belief that
the King James Bible was God’s
inerrant, preserved, and inspired word in English in several ways in his 1964
publication entitled Bible Babel. He
attacked the fundamentalist doctrine of the inspiration of the original
manuscripts only, he called those fundamentalists who followed the
Westcott-Hort critical text a “cult”, he accused those fundamentalists and the
Anglican revisers of the King James of
being agents of the Roman Catholic Church whose purpose was to subvert the Protestant’s
faith in the Bible; he uplifted the controversial doctrine that God had
promised to preserve His words in the Bible with the implication that those
words were contained in the Authorized
Version, and, among other things, declared that the King James Version exalted Jesus Christ more than modern versions
of the Bible did.
There is no historical precedent to
the movement that Dr. Ruckman started. The authors that he and those who agreed
with him quoted often were not King James-only.
These authors, such as Dr. Edward Hills or J.J. Ray or Benjamin Wilkinson,
wrote that the Textus Receptus or
traditional Greek manuscript textual line, also called the Byzantine text, best
represented God’s inspired originals, with the King James being simply the best translation. Other historical
figures, churches, and the general Protestant public believed in the divine
authority of the Authorized Version because
it was available to them in a way that the original manuscripts and languages
were not, and that its authority was established by tradition and common usage.
Finally, the King James-only Movement, while being birthed in Protestant,
particularly Baptist, fundamentalism, was a departure from the traditional
fundamentalist view of Biblical inspiration. It was a modern rejection of the
doctrine established by the Princeton Theological Seminary and embraced by most
fundamentalists regarding the unique authority of the original autographs of
the Bible. It also dismissed the Anglican Revision of the AV and the modern science of textual criticism as products of the
Roman Catholic Church and its supporters in attacking the authority and
veracity of the traditional Bible. The King
James-only Movement, as such, did not exist in writing before 1964 and the
publication of Peter S. Ruckman’s Bible
Babel.
Next,
I’ll tell you why I am “King James-only”
and why you should be, too.
Peter S. Ruckman,
The Full Cup: A
Chronicle of Grace (Pensacola, FL: Bible
Baptist Bookstore, 1992), 1.
Peter S. Ruckman,
Bible Babel (Pensacola,
FL: Bible Believer’s Press, 1964), ii.
Eldon Jay Epp, Foreward to
The Greek New
Testament by B.F. Westcott & F.J.A Hort
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2007), xii.
Edward F. Hills,
The King James Version
Defended (1956 Reprint, Ankeny IA: Christian Research
Press, 1984), 184. See Ruckman references to
Hills in
Bible Babel on pages 4, 75.
William P. Grady,
Final Authority: A
Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible
(Knoxville, TN: Grady
Publications, 1993), 321. Gail Riplinger, In
Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its Mystery & History Letter By Letter (Ararat, Va.:
A.V. Publications, 2003), 7.
Jasper James (J.J.) Ray,
God Only Wrote
One Bible (Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener Publishers, 1955), 106.
Benjamin G.Wilkinson,
Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated (Payson, AZ: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1930), 256.
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.
George Holden,“Preliminary Dissertation.”
An
Attempt to Illustrate the Book of Ecclesiastes (London, F.C. & J.
Rivington, 1822), ciii
.
