Inspired In English?: The Implications Of Peter Ruckman's Claims

 

Introduction

There are different beliefs within the King James Only Movement. I would like to explore two of them in this introduction. It is important to understand some key distinctions between these two groups, or else it may seem that I am attacking a position that I am not attacking. Therefore, I will draw a distinction between two different groups within the King James Only Movement.

The first camp simply asserts that the King James Version is the best English translation. This claim could be labelled the "Classic KJV-Only" position. This is the position that was held by what appears to be the majority of people who advocated for the King James Version's superiority to other translations up until about the middle of the 20th century. Typically, a person in this group will hold to the idea that the Textus Receptus is divinely preserved, and the King James Version is the best translation from the Textus Receptus. Or, in some cases, that the Textus Receptus is the best Greek basis for translation, and since the King James Version is the major translation that has come from the Textus Receptus, it should be the standard by default. Therefore, it would be argued, the King James Version is the best English translation. However, this position within the larger King James Version Only Movement usually does not assert that other translations cannot be used. This position is the more moderate of the two positions, and, although many of the premises and assumptions of this position are debatable at best, it does not carry the King James Only position to the extreme that the second group carries it. It appears that Bryan Ross, who I cited in another post, would be an example of this group. 

The second camp goes even further. The second camp asserts that the King James Version is superior to even the original languages. The argument from this group is not that the King James Version is simply the best English translation. It is a position that argues that the even the manuscripts that we have in the original language should be corrected by the King James Version. Many in this group would also argue that the King James Version is itself divinely inspired. This second group may be called the "Ruckmanite" position.¹ This is the position that was held, championed, and (likely) originated with Peter Ruckman. For example, in commenting on Revelation 22:19, Ruckman argues, "Do you mean that you can lose a lot of the exact force of the original? Some fella says: 'Yes.' Maybe the Lord doesn't want you to have the exact force of the original. Maybe he wants you to have the exact force of the English! Did you ever think about that? I told a fellow one time, 'If I had the originals right here in my pulpit tonight, I wouldn't teach them to you'--and I meant it."²

I want to make it clear that, in this post, I am not addressing the first group. Instead, I am addressing issues that must be raised in respect to the second group just mentioned--the Ruckmanite group. There are several issues that are implied in the Ruckmanite position. It is my view that many of these implications create problems for the Ruckmanite position. 

The fact is that, according to historical standards of the Christian faith, the Ruckmanite position is heterodox at best. It was not a position that was held by Christians for the first 1900 or so years of church history. In fact, the Ruckmanite position was not held by any church father or leader during this time period, up to and including the Reformers. It was not held by Erasmus, who himself gave us the Textus Receptus. It was not held by the King James Translators themselves. It was not held by at least the vast majority of others who have published Greek New Testaments.³ The Ruckmanite position was not held by major leaders in the church, including George Whitfield, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, or Billy Graham. It was not held by ANY Bible translators in the history of the Church (again, including the translators of the KJV themselves). The Ruckmanite position is largely an innovation of the mid-20th century. This is important to keep in mind as we explore the Ruckmanite position.

Ruckman's Argument

If we are to offer a fair critique of Ruckman's position, it is important that we understand how Ruckman himself defines his position. Ruckman's argument⁴ essentially states that, since the authors of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament in their writings, and since these quotations were inspired, therefore there is a precedent for the locus of inspiration to be found in a translation. In other words, since the Old Testament quotations of the New Testament authors were divinely inspired (even though they were translated from Hebrew into Greek), then we have a basis for saying that the King James Version (as an English Translation from the Hebrew and the Greek) is also divinely inspired. This argument, however, raises several issues. I will raise a few of them below.

The Historical Issues

When it comes to historical implications, the biggest problem for the Ruckmanite position is not that his position didn't appear for the first 1900 or so years of Church history (although that is an issue). The biggest issue in Ruckman's position from a historical perspective is something entirely different. If the Ruckmanite position is correct, it logically entails that no one had a copy of God's word for the first 16 centuries of Church history. NOT. A. SINGLE. PERSON. If God's word is contained exclusively in the King James Version, and nowhere else, then it follows logically that the vast majority of Christians have never had God's word. Not in their own language, nor in any other. This conclusion is inescapable if we are to take the Ruckmanite position to its logical conclusion. If you hold to Ruckman's position, you can only avoid this conclusion by being inconsistent.

This conclusion causes a couple of issues for the Ruckmanite position. First, you cannot hold this position consistently and also believe that Psalm 12:5-6 is about God's preservation of his words.⁵ The reason is simple: If the KJV, and only the KJV, is the word of God, then God becomes a liar if we permit this interpretation of this passage. If Psalm 12:5-6 does, in fact, teach that God preserved his words, yet it is only in the KJV that they are preserved, then God never actually preserved his words. The way in which Scripture was received, on this view, would have more in common with the way Muslims view the reception of the Koran than how this interpretation of Psalm 12:5-6 perceives God's preservation of his words.

In addition, if the KJV is the only inspired word of God, then there could have been no one faithful to Scripture for the first 1600 years of church history. This would include the Reformers, but also the earliest leaders in the church. Some Ruckmanites might be willing to make this sacrifice, but I'm not willing to. Why? Ultimately, this would turn Jesus into a liar, as well. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his church. On the Ruckmanite view, at least in one sense, they would have for at least 1600 years. If a particular, 17th century English translation of the Bible is as central to the Christian faith as Ruckmanites make it out to be, and if it is all about the specific English words that are used rather than the message that is brought, then no matter how much the average Ruckmanite might be desperate to deny it, they have turned Jesus, our Savior, into a liar by implication.

In addition, Ruckman's view puts him at odds with the translators of the KJV themselves, who recognized the limitations of their translation. By adopting the "re-inspiration" of the KJV, Ruckman implies that the biblical authors of the original Greek and Hebrew, the apostles, Jesus Christ himself, the church as a whole for 1600 years, and most of the church for the past 400 years have gotten their position on this topic incorrect. He implies that it was not until he started teaching the "re-inspiration" of Scripture in the mid 20th century that we finally got it correct. This seems, to me, to be the height of arrogance.

Theological Issues

In his attempt to safeguard God's Word, Ruckman ends up undermining it in multiple ways. In stating that the KJV was "re-inspired" in such a way that the KJV can correct the Hebrew and Greek, Ruckman implies that the Hebrew and Greek can be faulty. However, this creates a contradiction between Ruckman's claim that God's word has been preserved and the claim that the KJV is "re-inspired." If God's word were perfectly preserved, as Ruckman believes Psalm 12 promises, there would be no need for a "re-inspiration." The only alternative to the two horns of this dilemma is to suggest that God can change his word at a whim, which is a position that I don't think even Ruckman would accept (at least, I hope Ruckman would be reasonable enough to not go this route.)

Ruckman is thus trying to have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, he wants to affirm that God has preserved his word. On the other hand, his argument implies that what has been preserved isn't sufficient enough. Instead, God had to "re-inspire" a translation in another language that was not spoken until long after the Scriptures were originally written down.

This isn't the only theological issue that Ruckman's position faces. It is also flies in the face of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura holds that whatever is not contained in Scripture should not be held as a standard for faith and practice. Since the "re-inspiration" of the KJV is not found in Scripture, Ruckman puts himself at odds with the Reformers who came before him, some of which translated the Bible into languages other than Early Modern English.

Finally, Ruckman's efforts actually stifle the call of Jesus to his church. Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20). In fact, he commanded us to go to every nation. The implication is that we bring the Gospel to them rather than expecting them to come to us for the Gospel. Yet, in holding to the "re-inspiration" view, Ruckman actually implies that people will need to come to us and learn English before they can understand God's word. And they have to learn not just any English, but an English that has not been commonly spoken in a couple hundred years. This flies in the face of the charge that Jesus gave to the church.

In fact, Bible translators have understood this for years. Do we not remember William Tyndale's famous statement in response to those who opposed his translation of the Bible: "I will make the boy who drives the plow know more of Scripture than you do."? If we are going to be serious about taking the Gospel to every nation, we have to be willing to bring the Gospel to them.

I realize that there are some Ruckmanites who will argue that we should translate into other languages from the KJV. This position also runs into many of the same issues that Ruckman's "re-inspiration" view does, and often for the same or a similar reason. Perhaps I will write a future post where I address these issues. For now, suffice to say that Ruckman has created more problems than he has solved by proposing the "re-inspiration" of the KJV.

-------------------------------------- 

1 This position may rightfully be called the "Ruckmanite" position for two reasons. First, because it is a position that was pushed primarily by Peter Ruckman. Second, many of the arguments for this position appear to find their origin in Peter Ruckman. That is, some of the arguments used for this position were simply not used prior to Ruckman.^↩

2 Ruckman, "A Survey of the Authorized Version," p. 14. Kindle Edition. Ruckman takes this line of reasoning further later in the same passage, proclaiming, that he would not preach from the original languages, even if an angel from heaven directly handed the originals to him and commanded him to preach from them (ibid, p. 14). He then goes on to proclaim, "A lot of this old, superstitious reverence about 'the original, the original, the original,' is just a cover-up for rejecting what God gave you. You had better watch that stuff." (ibid, p. 14). The context makes clear that by the phrase "what God gave you," Ruckman means the King James Version. In other words, it appears that, in Ruckman's eyes, anyone who wants to look at the Greek and Hebrew that underlies our English translations are just doing so in order to come up with an excuse to abandon the King James Version and insert their own pet doctrines into the text. In order to have the "true" word of God, according to Ruckman, we must abandon the underlying Greek and Hebrew where it would, in any way, shape, or form, differ from the King James Version.

This claim also pops up among IFB pastors on YouTube quite a bit, such as a recent example that was made famous across social media (found  here) ^↩ 

3 I say "at least the vast majority" because I could not find a single publisher of the Greek New Testament who has held this position. I was able to look up several publishers of the Greek New Testament, past and present. However, I have not investigated every single publisher of the Greek New Testament due to time constraints. If someone is aware of a specific publisher of the Greek New Testament after Erasmus who held the Ruckmanite position, please let me know. As of this publishing, I could not find a single one who held this as their official position.^↩

4 Found across Ruckman's writings, but summarized well here.^↩

5 This is the usual position for someone who holds to Ruckman's view. See also my discussion about this passage here and here. ^↩