Proposed Revision of the Scriptures, Canterbury, 1870

I have had trouble readily finding information about the background of the English Revised translation of the Scriptures (1870-1896, beginning to conclusion of the Apocrypha). (Maybe it was just me.) One of its leaders, Bishop Charles John Ellicott, reported on it in Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1901). (Also found in another format HERE.) For your information, I present the following excerpts from that work.
 
The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be desirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the House, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the indirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence of the Northern Convocation. The resolution was as follows:

“That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer with any committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the Northern Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist.”

In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by the insertion of the words “Old and,” so as to include both Testaments, and, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once sent down to the Lower House. After debate it was accepted by them, and, having been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.[i]  
 
Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them, were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in the Lower House:

“1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.
2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorised Version.
3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary.
4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language employed in the existing version be closely followed.
5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.”

These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body.[ii]
 
A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known periodical[iii] that the revisers “largely exceeded their instructions, and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow.”[iv]
 
Ellicott states a communication from the Convocation of York was received “to the effect that”...“The Authorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the Established Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text. That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a committee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified.”[v]
 
Those invited to join the Old Testament were as follows: -- Dr. W. L. Alexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr. B. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch, Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr. Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and valuable secretary of the Company.
 
Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.
 
Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows: -- Dr. Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie, Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman, Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol College), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth), Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.
 
Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health and preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New Testament, was unable to attend.[vi]
 
They adopted what Ellicott calls subsidiary and necessary amplifications of the rules passed by the Convention of Canterbury [rlv]:
 
1. To introduce as few alterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness.
2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorised and earlier English versions.
3. Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided.
4. That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.
5. To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company except two-thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities.
6. In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next meeting.
7. To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation.
8. To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.
9. That the work of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language as possible.[vii]

---

[i] Addresses on the Revised Version, pp. 17-18
[ii] Addresses on the Revised Version, pp. 19-20
[iii] “The Expositor for October, 1892, pp. 241-255. The article was answered by me in the same periodical two months later.”
[iv] Addresses on the Revised Version, p. 21. In answering this objection, Ellicott emphasized that whatever “the most competent scholars” felt necessary was what was meant by the instructions (i.e., actually very little limitation, though many observers thought it was supposed to be quite limiting).
[v] Addresses on the Revised Version, pp. 22-23
[vi] Addresses on the Revised Version, pp. 26-27. Ellicott later mentions (p. 33) that some were added to the Old Testament Company – “Principal Douglas, Professor Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley.”
[vii] The above is found in the text of Addresses on the Revised Version on pages 28 through 32 (rather than as a list as I present it). Note: Charles John Ellicott served on the New Testament committee, as chairman. Though he does not mention himself by name, the permanent committee over the New Testament included the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, which was Ellicott. See page 26.