What do you think?
Rate this book
The Christian's handbook of manuscript evidence
The purpose of this book is not only to affirm the believer's faith in the true word of God, but to present the evidence that disproves the antiquated theories of Westcott and Hort. This handbook will enable the Bible believer to handle problems which may arise from those who resent, disbelieve, ignore, or ridicule the Authorized Version. The problems of sources are defined and analyzed, the evidence from the church fathers and ancient versions is discussed, and the argument by the critics on the "archaic words" in the Authorized Version is answered. The variances between the Greek Textus Receptus and the AV are examined, and the newer versions are compared with the King James and are found to be deficient. In this work, Dr. Ruckman demonstrates the Roman Catholic bias of Westcott and Hort and dissects their theories of textual criticism. Proof is presented for the superiority of the AV over the "original Greek."
227 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
27 people are currently reading
79 people want to read
About the author
Peter S. Ruckman
173 books88 followersPeter Sturges Ruckman (November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016) was an American Independent Baptist pastor and founder of Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida (not to be confused with Pensacola Christian College, also in Pensacola, Florida).
Ruckman was known for his position that the King James Version constituted "advanced revelation" and was the final, preserved word of God for English speakers.
Ruckman was known for his position that the King James Version constituted "advanced revelation" and was the final, preserved word of God for English speakers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 18, 2020
This is Manuscript Evidence for the average man. Peter Ruckman was a scholar who refused to act, talk or write like one. What he saw among "scholars" made him sick and you will see that clearly if you read his response to the critics who spend their careers trying to dethrone the Received Greek Text and the King James Version.
I read this in one day. I couldn't help myself. It was a Saturday and I had intended on a Sabbath-like day doing nothing but reading, listening to music, watching documentaries, playing with the kids and puppies. I ended up reading this between short breaks with the kids and puppies.
I used to say this book is "not for everyone" but I've been surprised at how many people have read and told me they felt the same way I did about not wanting to put it down.
I read this in one day. I couldn't help myself. It was a Saturday and I had intended on a Sabbath-like day doing nothing but reading, listening to music, watching documentaries, playing with the kids and puppies. I ended up reading this between short breaks with the kids and puppies.
I used to say this book is "not for everyone" but I've been surprised at how many people have read and told me they felt the same way I did about not wanting to put it down.
January 16, 2022
Very hard to follow. While it may be true this would quallify as a technical work, most books at least are outlined well and easy to follow along. Seemed as though the author ranted a lot. Takes KJVism to a place I don’t agree with. Read so I could know what he believed and why I disagree with him.
November 15, 2014
Very in-depth.
July 31, 2022
The author Peter Ruckman suffers from confirmation bias. He questions and criticizes other translations, but fails to show why his preferred translation answers such. He simply assumes his preferred translation is the best and reviews the evidence in light of that. While God says he alone knows the heart of man, Peter also claims to know such by assuming ill motives to those involved with manuscripts over the years. I gave it two stars because he actually does address specific manuscripts, as many King James Only people do not. While there is not much to learn from this book, it is worthwhile to read to see the obvious bias Peter has in this subject.
September 17, 2021
A good resource about the manuscripts behind the KJV and the corruptions behind the others.
March 3, 2026
A DEFENSE OF THE KJV, AND AN ATTACK ON “NEW” BIBLE VERSIONS
Peter Sturges Ruckman (1921-2016) was an American Independent Baptist pastor, and founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute. He wrote other books such as 'King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism,' 'The "Errors" in the King James Bible,' 'The Death of Biblical Doctrine,' 'How to Teach Dispensational Truth,' 'Sermons on Hell,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, “The purpose of this book … is to present new evidence which has been uncovered since the theories of Westcott and Hort were presented to the English Revision Committee of 1881-1884. These antiquated theories have been disproved many times since their inception, but the reading public (and in particular the ministerial students at Seminaries) has not been notified of the advancement in knowledge…
"This work has not been written in the ‘popular language’ so that it will not be as dull as most works on Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence. It is plainly a ‘criticism’ of sorts, and pleads guilty to the label… This Handbook will enable the Bible believing student to handle any problems which may arise from those who resent, disbelieve, ignore, or ridicule the [Authorized Version] New Testament text.
"The problems of sources are defined and analyzed, the evidence of the ‘fathers’ and the ancient versions is discussed, the manuscripts are listed, the answer to ‘archaic words’ in the A.V. 1611 is given, the problems of variance between Greek Receptus and the A.V. English are taken up, the newer translations are compared, the Roman bias of the Westcott and Hort text is demonstrated, the theories of the A.V.’s critics are analyzed and dissected, proof is given for the superiority of the A.V. 1611 English over the ‘Original Greek,’ and above all… the discussions are made to stand within the framework of ‘Truth’ as defined by the Bible itself. At no place does this Handbook assume the so-called ‘neutral approach’ when it deals with manuscripts that attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ…”
He states, “It does not take a man with a Master’s degree to see that what the Select Group calls ‘Septuagint Papyrus’ is a collection of fragments written 200-800 years too late to be connected with anything that would resemble a ‘Septuagint.’ People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ, are living in a dream world. The Hebrew believers (from 4 B.C. to the conversion of Paul) had a complete and authoritative Hebrew Bible which God gave to the Hebrews (Rom 3:1-4) for them to use…
"[The Septuagint] was plainly an attempt by the individuals referred to in Romans 11:20, 25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to replace the ‘oracles of God’ with the conjectures of Alexandrian Greek philosophy…It does not take a high school graduate to see that this collection of Chester Beatty papyri proves nothing except that somebody, long after the New Testament was completed, tried to translate the Hebrew into Greek.” (Pg. 50-51)
He argues, “if the ‘shorter reading’ is the best one, then Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should both be scratched at the start of the investigation; they both contain a half dozen books that have been ADDED to the scriptures [i.e., the Apocrypha]. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the A.V. 1611 represents a purified text which has, at last, ‘cleaned up’ from the corruption of 13 centuries?” (Pg. 82)
Of Mark 16:9-20, he says, “The correct reading is found in every Greek manuscript in the world (that contains Mark) except Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This ratio is better than 100 to 1. When any scholar says that ‘the better manuscripts’ omit the passage, or ‘the oldest manuscripts’ omit the passage, or ‘the verses from 9 on “are not in the Greek,”’, he is telling you that 2 manuscripts containing the Apocrypha … are more authoritative than 200 Greek manuscripts which read as the A.V. 1611!” (Pg. 132)
He attacks the members of Bible “revision committees,” asserting that they ‘are usually high up in the political world, and have “mixed motives” in regard to Bible translations… They do NOT fear and tremble at the reading of the true word of God… They have an affinity for Egypt… They are optimistic about world peace… They are DEISTS in their approach to translating. They assume… that there is no such thing as a book written under inspiration… They can be spotted in any generation by a smooth, slick, scholarly vocabulary, and the adoption and use of words that are not in the Bible vocabulary…” (Pg. 141-142)
This forcefully stated defense of the KJV will be of great interest to “KJV Only” advocates; but Ruckman’s sometimes strong “ad hominem” attacks may also turn away some potential readers.
Peter Sturges Ruckman (1921-2016) was an American Independent Baptist pastor, and founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute. He wrote other books such as 'King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism,' 'The "Errors" in the King James Bible,' 'The Death of Biblical Doctrine,' 'How to Teach Dispensational Truth,' 'Sermons on Hell,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, “The purpose of this book … is to present new evidence which has been uncovered since the theories of Westcott and Hort were presented to the English Revision Committee of 1881-1884. These antiquated theories have been disproved many times since their inception, but the reading public (and in particular the ministerial students at Seminaries) has not been notified of the advancement in knowledge…
"This work has not been written in the ‘popular language’ so that it will not be as dull as most works on Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence. It is plainly a ‘criticism’ of sorts, and pleads guilty to the label… This Handbook will enable the Bible believing student to handle any problems which may arise from those who resent, disbelieve, ignore, or ridicule the [Authorized Version] New Testament text.
"The problems of sources are defined and analyzed, the evidence of the ‘fathers’ and the ancient versions is discussed, the manuscripts are listed, the answer to ‘archaic words’ in the A.V. 1611 is given, the problems of variance between Greek Receptus and the A.V. English are taken up, the newer translations are compared, the Roman bias of the Westcott and Hort text is demonstrated, the theories of the A.V.’s critics are analyzed and dissected, proof is given for the superiority of the A.V. 1611 English over the ‘Original Greek,’ and above all… the discussions are made to stand within the framework of ‘Truth’ as defined by the Bible itself. At no place does this Handbook assume the so-called ‘neutral approach’ when it deals with manuscripts that attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ…”
He states, “It does not take a man with a Master’s degree to see that what the Select Group calls ‘Septuagint Papyrus’ is a collection of fragments written 200-800 years too late to be connected with anything that would resemble a ‘Septuagint.’ People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ, are living in a dream world. The Hebrew believers (from 4 B.C. to the conversion of Paul) had a complete and authoritative Hebrew Bible which God gave to the Hebrews (Rom 3:1-4) for them to use…
"[The Septuagint] was plainly an attempt by the individuals referred to in Romans 11:20, 25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to replace the ‘oracles of God’ with the conjectures of Alexandrian Greek philosophy…It does not take a high school graduate to see that this collection of Chester Beatty papyri proves nothing except that somebody, long after the New Testament was completed, tried to translate the Hebrew into Greek.” (Pg. 50-51)
He argues, “if the ‘shorter reading’ is the best one, then Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should both be scratched at the start of the investigation; they both contain a half dozen books that have been ADDED to the scriptures [i.e., the Apocrypha]. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the A.V. 1611 represents a purified text which has, at last, ‘cleaned up’ from the corruption of 13 centuries?” (Pg. 82)
Of Mark 16:9-20, he says, “The correct reading is found in every Greek manuscript in the world (that contains Mark) except Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This ratio is better than 100 to 1. When any scholar says that ‘the better manuscripts’ omit the passage, or ‘the oldest manuscripts’ omit the passage, or ‘the verses from 9 on “are not in the Greek,”’, he is telling you that 2 manuscripts containing the Apocrypha … are more authoritative than 200 Greek manuscripts which read as the A.V. 1611!” (Pg. 132)
He attacks the members of Bible “revision committees,” asserting that they ‘are usually high up in the political world, and have “mixed motives” in regard to Bible translations… They do NOT fear and tremble at the reading of the true word of God… They have an affinity for Egypt… They are optimistic about world peace… They are DEISTS in their approach to translating. They assume… that there is no such thing as a book written under inspiration… They can be spotted in any generation by a smooth, slick, scholarly vocabulary, and the adoption and use of words that are not in the Bible vocabulary…” (Pg. 141-142)
This forcefully stated defense of the KJV will be of great interest to “KJV Only” advocates; but Ruckman’s sometimes strong “ad hominem” attacks may also turn away some potential readers.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews