How The Apocrypha Creates A Dilemma For Ruckmanism
.
Introduction
Peter Ruckman is best known for his view that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the perfect Bible in English. He held the view that the 1611 King James Version was so perfect that it could be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. We have explored some of this in a previous post. In short, Ruckman believed in a type of "re-inspiration" of the King James Version such that it was rendered superior to even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which it was translated.
Ruckman's work consistently makes it clear that it is the 1611 KJV that he believes was "re-inspired," and not a later update to the KJV (we will look at these in a minute). It is the 1611 KJV that he defends with his arguments from crown authority and lack of copyright.1 It is the 1611 KJV that Ruckman argues was re-inspired when he claims that the Holy Spirit urged the King James translators to write.2 It is the 1611 King James Version that Peter Ruckman defended throughout his written work and throughout his teaching. Yet Ruckman's appeal to the 1611 King James Version as "re-inspired" actually becomes his Achilles' heel, since it brings with it an implied contradiction with some of his other teachings. Ruckman was aware of these weaknesses and tried to avoid the conclusion of his argument on this topic, but is ultimately unsuccessful. Before we explore Ruckman's response, let us look at one specific example of the difficulty this appeal causes Ruckman.
It should also be noted that Ruckman has discarded the viewpoints of the King James translators themselves when these viewpoints have gone against his own position. Notably, while the King James translators themselves held the Hebrew and Greek in high regard, Ruckman continually articulates a low view of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. While the King James translators themselves acknowledged the shortcomings of their work and even argued that future translations would be necessary, Ruckman regularly undermines the KJV translators on both of these issues. While the King James translators held future scholars who would accurately translate the Bible in high esteem, Ruckman continually attacks and slanders such scholars.
All of this is said to make a point: For Ruckman, the opinions of the King James translators is irrelevant if it conflicts with his brand of King James Onlyism. For Ruckman, what matters is the final result: The text of the 1611 King James Version. According to Ruckman's view, then, what matters is the inspiration of the 1611 text, regardless of the commentary of the translators of that text.
As a final note before we begin: I just want to note that the purpose of this article is to show the inconsistency in Ruckman's position. As someone who attended a Christian school that was influenced by Ruckmanite ideas, I care deeply about those who have been influenced by Ruckman's teaching. I am also not anti-KJV and have a deep respect for the KJV and the impact that it has had on the church and on the Western World. However, if you are part of the Ruckmanite movement, I urge you to consider the weaknesses in Ruckman's position.
The Apocrypha
The Apocrypha is a collection of Jewish writings which were composed between approximately 250 B.C. and the first century A.D. The word apocrypha itself comes from a Greek word that means "hidden things." The early church often considered these books worth reading, but questions about their canonicity remained.3 These questions came to a head during the Protestant Reformation. On the one hand, the Roman Catholic Church considered these works to be part of the Old Testament canon of Scripture--equal in authority to the the rest of Scripture. The Reformers, however, took a different approach. While these books were translated into the various languages of the Reformers, their canonicity was highly questioned. Martin Luther, for example, translated the books of the Apocrypha into German and, while he denied their canonicity, he considered them as useful for reading.4 The Anglican tradition, which produced the King James Version, utilizes readings from the apocrypha throughout its liturgy and in the Book of Common Prayer.
The 1611 King James Version contained the apocrypha located between the book of Malachi and the New Testament. This was in keeping with the order of King James I to translate a Bible that would replace the previous English translations and become the official Bible of the Anglican church. King James I was seeking a translation that was agreeable to all parties involves and would unify the church in England.
In placing the apocryphal texts in-between the Testaments rather than scattered throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, the translators of the King James Version followed the tradition of the Reformers, such as Martin Luther, who placed these books in the same place in his own translation of the Bible into German. The placement of these books between the Testaments was likely influenced largely by the King James Version translators' understanding of the status of these books, which would have been in line with the understanding of the Anglican Church at the time.
Later editions of the King James Version continued to include the apocrypha. The first Cambridge Revision of the King James Version, produced in 1629, continued this tradition of including the apocrypha between the testaments. This edition was produced to correct printing errors and to standardize spelling. Those who produced this text did not remove the apocrypha from the updated text.
A further edition revision at Cambridge, the second Cambridge Revision of 1638, was published to refine the textual accuracy of the King James Version and to address errors in the text. This edition of the text, as with the previous two editions, also contained the apocrypha. The publisher did not remove the apocrypha in this case, either.
A later revision, the 1769 Blayney Revision was a monumental revision of the text of the King James Version. This revision modernized the spelling of the King James Version, as well as addressed typographical errors in the text. It also served to standardized punctuation. This revision serves as the revision that underlies most of the King James Bibles sold today. In other words, when you purchase a King James Version of the Bible today, you are not purchasing the 1611 edition. You are purchasing the 1769 Blaney Revision.
This revision was significant for a couple of other reasons. Most significant of these is that it was the first revision to exclude the apocrypha from some of its printings (though not all of the printings). Until this revision, the apocrypha remained part of the text of the King James Version. Even in this revision, some printings still contained the apocrypha. The exclusion of the apocrypha from this printing was likely due to the growing Protestant unease surrounding these books.
In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society made a decision to refuse funding to any edition of the King James Version that contained the apocrypha. Thus, in most subsequent editions, the apocrypha was removed by printers. The decision by the printers to remove the apocrypha was likely not driven by a conviction about their non-canonical status, but rather by the financial loss they would face if they continued to print the apocrypha in future editions.
By the 19th century, most editions of the King James Version did not include the apocrypha. If you read the King James Version today, you likely have one that does not include the apocrypha. These books have been removed from the text.
Why does any discussion about the apocrypha matter? It matters because of what Ruckman himself has said. Peter Ruckman has argued that other texts which contain the apocrypha, namely Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are invalid based on the fact that they contain the apocrypha.5 In other words, the presence of the apocrypha, to Ruckman, is a factor that counts against the reliability of these manuscripts.
This creates a dilemma for Ruckman. Either the 1611 King James Version was "reinspired", or it wasn't. There is no third option. If Ruckman believes that the 1611 King James Version was divinely inspired in and of itself, what flows logically and necessarily is that the apocryphal books contained therein were also divinely inspired. If Ruckman denies that the apocrypha is inspired, then he necessarily implies that at least part of the 1611 King James Version was not inspired. There is no logically consistent third option. Ruckman's dilemma can be summarized in the chart below.
Ruckman's Rebuttle
Peter Ruckman was fully aware of this weakness in his view, which is why he spent so much energy trying to avoid the horns of this dilemma. There are two particular lines of reasoning that Ruckman uses to defend his position that the 1611 KJV, except the apocrypha, was inspired, which I think is worth examining. Suffice to say that neither of these two lines of reasoning is strong enough to allow Ruckman to escape this dilemma.
First, Peter Ruckman attempts to argue that the translators of the King James Version placed the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments as a means of signifying that these works were not canonical.6 This is only half-true. They were placed between the Testaments because they were not given the same authority as the remaining books. That much is true. However, Ruckman leaves out a key detail. He chooses to ignore the intentionality with which the Apocrypha was placed within the text of the 1611 KJV. Ruckman cannot argue that they were intended to be excluded from the text of the 1611 King James Version. King James I wanted the Apocrypha to be translated when the King James Version was translated. The translators themselves intentionally placed the Apocrypha within the text of the King James Version. The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the text of the King James Version was intentional, and was influenced by the Anglican context in which the KJV translators worked.
All of this is pointless to argue, however. Ruckman has a bigger issue, namely that the Apocrypha was included in the text at all. If Ruckman holds that the text of the 1611 KJV was inspired in such a way that it has authority over all other texts, and if Ruckman believes that the Apocrypha contained in the 1611 KJV was not inspired, Ruckman has to explain how an uninspired section of text made its way into a translation that, according to Ruckman, is inspired throughout. In short, if the Apocrypha is part of the text of the 1611 KJV (and it is), and Ruckman denies the inspiration of the Apocrypha, then Ruckman casts doubt onto the inspiration of the remainder of the 1611 KJV. How could God allow such a piece of uninspired text as the Apocrypha into the 1611 KJV if the 1611 KJV was to be so inspired as to be capable of correcting the original Hebrew and Greek? Ruckman undermines the inspiration of the KJV by insisting that the Apocrypha is not inspired.
Ruckman's first objection also faces a second problem. Namely, Ruckman's first objection raises questions about the nature of inspiration in the first place. Are the books near the front of the Bible any more inspired than the books near the back, or vice-versa? Of course not. ALL Scripture is God-breathed--Genesis as well as Romans and Joshua as well as the Psalms. The point is that the location of a book doesn't indicate its inspiration any more than the date of a person's birth determines his or her value as a person made in the image of God.
This isn't the only objection that Ruckman raises, however. Ruckman also argues that,
"The AV 1611 translators translated the Apocrypha, but they made a note by it that it was not inspired, and not to be included in the Old Testament. A few years later, they threw it out entirely and didn't even want it in their Bible."7
This is historical revisionism at its finest. Ruckman is not telling his readers what actually happened in regards to the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV. He is telling his readers what he wishes had happened in regards to the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV. There are at least two major historical errors that Ruckman makes here.
First, Ruckman misrepresents the 1611 KJV in this statement. I have, on my bookshelf, a facsimile of the original 1611 KJV that I purchased for the 1611 KJV's 400th anniversary. The copy I have is an exact replica (with the exception of the binding) of the 1611 KJV. There is no note attached to the Apocrypha that the text of the Apocrypha was not to be regarded as Scripture. It simply didn't exist. I have searched for evidence that such a note exists. It simply doesn't.
The second issue isn't an issue of fabrication, but of exaggeration. As we noted above, the King James translators did not get rid of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha remained as part of the KJV text until long after the KJV translators had all passed away. As we saw above, the Apocrypha was removed from most printings after the BFBS decided to stop paying to have Bibles printed which contained the Apocrypha. The reason it was removed wasn't over conviction. It was over finances.
Conclusion
In his effort to safeguard his doctrine of the "re-inspiration" of the 1611 King James Version while rejecting the Apocrypha, Ruckman actually ends up undermining it. He is left with a dilemma: either he can salvage his doctrine of inspiration, or else he can salvage his condemnation of the Apocrypha. He cannot have both.
To be clear, I do not believe that the Apocrypha is inspired. I hold the same view that the Reformers held: the books of the Apocrypha are useful for reading, but are not inspired. Because I do not share Ruckman's doctrine of "re-inspiration" (I believe the KJV is sufficient inasmuch as it faithfully translates the message of the Greek and Hebrew texts), I do not face the same dilemma, nor does the vast majority of Christendom.
I hope and pray that those who need clarity and consistency on this issue find it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Peter Ruckman, The Book Of Acts p. 356↩
6 See, for example, Ruckman's claims in Theological Studies, Volume 2, in which Ruckman claims that the placement of the Apocrypha after the Old Testament was an indication that the Apocrypha was not inspired. He writes, "One must never forget that when Martin Luther translated the Bible and when the King James translators translated their version, they were very careful to separate the Apocrypha from teh Old and New Testaments and place it between the Testaments so you would know that it was not the inspired word of God and not considered to be Holy Scripture." (Ruckman, Theological Studies, Volume 2, Article 39.↩
Comments
Post a Comment