YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

HISTOEIOAL AOOOUl^T

OF THB

WOEK OF THE

Ameeioak Committee of Reyisiot^t

OF THE

Authorized Eng-Iish Version of the Bible,

PREPAEBD FROM THE DOCUMENTS
AND COEBESPONDENCE OF THE COMMITTEE.

NBW TORE:
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
1885.

peefatory note.
The following Historical Account of the Anglo-American Ee-
vision of the English Version of the Bible, so far as it relates to
the work of the American Committee, is based upon the docu
ments and correspondence in their possession, and is, accordingly,
of the nature of a Documentary History. These documents and
papers were arranged with great care by the President, Eev.
Philip Schaff, D.D., and presented by him to the Committee at
their meeting in May, 1884; whereupon it was voted that an
Historical Account should be prepared under the direction of a
special committee of three appointed for the purpose. At a sub
sequent meeting of the Committee of Eevision, held at the Bible
House, New York, on the 28th of November, 1884^ the History
which is contained in this volume was read, and the following
vote was unanimously passed :
" That the Documentary History of the Eevision which has now
been presented be adopted and printed, and that a copy of the
same be sent to each subscriber to the Memorial Edition of the
Eevised Version of the Old Testament."
May 21, 1885.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT
OF THE WOEK

OF THE

AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION.

The American Committee of Bible Eevision, as they close the
labors in which they have been engaged for more than twelve
years, desire to present to those who have co-operated with them
by providing for the necessary expenses of their undertaking, a
brief historical account of the origin and progress of the work.
Such an account demands for its completeness a statement
respecting the organization of the English Committee, and the
purpose which the Convocation of Canterbury had in view in call
ing it into being and committing to it its appointed task. The
American body, as is well known, was invited to act by the
Committee which had already been constituted in England. It
was thus summoned to participate in a work, the aim and prin
ciples of which were determined before it began to exist, and no
proper understanding of its own history ean be reached, except as
the history of what had taken place on the pther side of the At
lantic is made known.
For this reason the Committee avail themselves of an "Authori
tative Exposition of the History and Purpose of Eevision," which
appeared in the London Times (weekly edition). May 20, 1881,
and was understood to have been written by a late prominent
member of the New Testament Company, — beUeving that it wUl
give the clearest and briefest presentation of what is introductory
to the narrative of their own work, while, at the same time, it will
describe the method of working in America as weU as in England.
This Exposition is in the foUowing words :
" On a December day, 346 years ago, the members of the Upper
House of the Convocation of Canterbury were engaged on the
same subject which wiU this day come before that ancient body

A HISTOEIOAL ACOOTJNT OF THE WOEK
— the faithful rendering of the Holy Scriptures into the vulgar
tongue. They then unanimously agreed that the King should
vouchsafe to decree that the Scriptures should be translated " by
some honest and learned men to be nominated by the King, and
to be deUvered to the people according to their learning." As we
know, no immediate results foUowed this very laudable resolution.
The King, however, two years afterwards, made a proclamation in
which, while he stoutly forbade the public reading of the Scrip
tures in English, he did, nevertheless, graciously allow " such as
can and wiU read in the English tongue " to do so " quietly and
reverently," and " by themselves secretly, at all times and places
convenient for their own instruction." The Archbishop, too, ap
pears to have done his best. Cranmer is said to have sent por
tions of Tyndale's Testament to several bishops to be reviewed
and considered, and it is said that all returned their revisions.
But there the matter ended. The subject, indeed, was revived in
1542, but in a reactionary spirit, and in the sequel with an equally
unproductive result.
The Convocation of Canterbury of our own day have, however,
been more fortunate. They have not only suggested that a faith
ful rendering of the Scriptures should be undertaken, but, by
means of members of their own body and co-optated scholars
and divines, they have completed one portion of the work, and to
day will publicly receive it. The Eevised Version of the New
Testament will be presented this morning to both Houses of Con
vocation. Before we make any comments on the work itself we may, per
haps not unprofitably, give our readers some general account of
the origin of this really great undertaking, and briefly specify the
manner in which the work has been done. Our columns for the
last eleven years have contained short notices of the meetings
that have been held by the Companies, and of the silent progress
of the work. We may now give the history of that progress, and
also mention the various circumstances connected with the early
history of that portion of the work that has now been completed.
To find the true origin of this undertaking we must look back
about twenty-five years. The year 1856 was marked by several
distinct movements in favor of a revision of the Authorised Ver
sion, and by one particularly, on which, as a sort of first step in
the now completed work, it may be desirable to speak a little in
detaU. The subjeot was alluded- to both in Convocation and in

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 6
Parliament. On February 1, 1856, the late Canon Selwyn, who
had long been deeply interested in the subject, gave notice in the
Southern Convocation of a resolution in which Convocation
was to pray the Sovereign to appoint a Eoyal Commission for re
ceiving and suggesting amendments in the Authorised Version of
the Bible. The same course was recommended iu Parliament by
Mr. Heywood, one of the members for North Lancashire ; but in
both oases the result was the same. Neither the clerical nor the
lay mind was prepared for such a leap in the dark as the appoint
ment of a commission to modify the venerable version that has so
long maintained its supremacy. Sir George Grey more blandly,
and Archdeacon Denison more trenchantly, disposed of the Eoyal
Commission, and, as far as any public action went, no steps were
taken, though there were few probably, either in Convocation or
Parliament, who did not feel that the subjeot could not long be
postponed. Private effort, however, was much more successful. The Eev.
Ernest Hawkins, then secretary of the Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel, was so deeply impressed with the importance of
making some organized effort that he determined to try and
gather together a small body of scholars that should undertake
the revision of a portion of the New Testament, and that should
show by actual results not only that the work needed to be done,
but that it could be done, and that, too, on safe and conservative
principles. After many efforts he succeeded in gaining the sup
port and co-operation of a few scholars who were known, either
by their works or by general reputation, to be interested in the
study of the New Testament. He drew together, in the summer
of 1856, the Eev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury ;
Eev. John Barrow, D.D., Principal of St. Edmund Hall; Eev. C.
J. ElUcott, now Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol ; Eev. W. H.
G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields ; and Eev. G.
Moberly, D.C.L., then Head-Master of Winchester College and
now Bishop of SaUsbury. These five scholars agreed to make
an attempt by the revision of the Authorised Version of St. John's
Gospel. They began their work in the autumn, meeting regu
larly at the vicarage of St. Martin's-in-the Fields, with their gentle
taskmaster, Ernest Hawkins, acting frequently as their secretary',
and they concluded the first portion of their revision in the course
of the ensuing year. The Preface — a composition that will still
bear attentive perusal — was written by Dr. Moberly ; the press

4 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
arrangements were superintended by Canon Hawkins ; and a thin
volume in royal octavo, bearing the title " The Authorised Version
of St. John's Gospel, revised by Five Clergymen," appeared in
March, 1857, as the first sample of a revision of the Authorised
Version produced by the co-operation of several different minds.
It was followed by the Epistle to the Eomans, the Epistles to the
Corinthians (the preface to which was written by Professor Elli
cott), and subsequently by the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephe
sians, and Philippians, by four of the number. Dr. Barrow having
then left England. The work was very favorably received both in
England and America. It received the commendation of Arch
bishop Trench, and was spoken of in America by Mr. Marsh, in
his lectures on the English language, as "by far the most judicious
modern recension " that was known to him. It passed through
several editions, and, though now almost forgotten, must certainly
be considered as the germ of the present revision. It showed
clearly two things — first, that a revision could be made without
seriously interfering with either the diction or the rhythm of the
Authorised Version ; secondly, that a revision, if made at aU,
must be made by a similar co-operation of independent minds and
by corporate and collegiate discussion. A third fact also was dis
closed which had a salutary effect in checking premature efforts —
viz., that, as these revisers themselves said, the work was " one
of extreme difficulty," and of a difficulty which they believed was
" scarcely capable of being entirely surmounted." And they were
right : the present revision, good in the main as we certainly be
lieve it will be found to be, confirms the correctness of their ex
perience. As we shall hereafter see, there are difficulties connected
with a conservative revision of the existing translation of the Greek
Testament that are practically insuperable.
After this effort, which from the very first was felt to be only
prelusive and tentative, the immediate interest in revision sen
sibly languished. There were those, however, who were determined
that the efforts already made should not become utterly fruitless.
As year by year went onward, every change in public opinion was
closely watched by those who had taken part in the revision just
mentioned, and especiaUy by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bris
tol and Dean Alford. It was thought in 1869 that many things
pointed to a revival in the interest felt in the revision. The
Bishop and Dean frequently conferred on the subject, consulted
aU those who were in any degree likely to forward the under-

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 0
taking, and at length obtained the hearty aid and support of
Bishop Wilberforce. The Bishop entered into the movement
with real interest, and, as the sequel proved, materiaUy contri
buted to its finally receiving a definite and authoritative sanction.
The real difficulty was how to break ground. It was urged by
those most interested that precedent seemed in favor of a Eoyal
Commission. In the revision of 1611 the King was the sole
actor ; and, in the case of the only other Bible tliat rests on any
really valid authority, the Great Bible, the king's vicegerent. Lord
CromweU, has always been deemed to have been the real mover,
and the one to whom the sole editor, Coverdale, was entirely re
sponsible. It was also not forgotten that, in the two abortive
attempts in Parliament and Convocation which have been already
referred to, the proposal to proceed by way of a Eoyal Commission
was not in itself objected to. There was, further, this very im
portant consideration, that the extreme difficulties connected with
the choice of those who were to undertake the revision would be
much diminished in the case of a Eoyal designation. Those not
chosen would be more likely to aceept the decision, and in the
sequel to prove more impartial and tolerant critics. The spretce
injuria formce, as the case of Hugh Broughton in reference to the
Authorised Version very distinctly shows, and as the Revision of
1881 will also find out to its cost, is a very serious element in the
early criticisms that are passed upon a work done by a necessarily
selected few out of a larger and hardly less competent body.
For these reasons it was deemed desirable that an address to the
Crown should be moved for in the House of Lords, and in the
foUowing terms : " That a humble address be presented to Her
Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Eoyal Commission to
revise the Authorised Version in aU those passages where clear
and plain errors, whether in the Greek text originally adopted by
the translators, or in the translation made from the same, shall,
on due investigation, be found to exist." Before, however, so re
sponsible a step was taken, careful inquiry was made how far such
a resolution would obtain the support of those in authority. It
was found that support could not be promised. It was pointed
out that the choice of the future revisers would involve the greatest
possible difficulties ; that a Commission, really to carry weight,
must be very inclusive ; and that both its size and the necessarUy
heterogeneous nature of its elements would involve difficulties in
the execution of the work, and still more in the final reception of

6 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
it, that were judged to be too great to justify the experiment.
The advice, frankly and considerately given, was acted upon, and
the plan of a Eoyal Commission was at once given up.
It was obvious that the onLy other authoritative body before
which the subject could be brought was Convocation. It was,
indeed, feared that if Convocation undertook the work it would
not unnaturally choose the revisers mainly out of its own mem
bers, and that thus, however weU the work might be done, the
results would never secure a really national acceptance. StUl,
there was no choice left. If Convocation were not applied to, it
was clear the work would have to be postponed tUl a Eoyal Com
mission might seem more attainable ; and this, with the rapid
movement of modern thought, and the necessity for the inclusion
of very heterogeneous elements, would evidently become year by
year a more hopeless anticipation. So it was finally resolved to
bring the subject before Convocation, and to place that confidence
in the wisdom of the venerable body which the sequel showed
was not placed there in vain.
All was then arranged, and on February 10, 1870, the then
Bishop of Winchester raoved, and the Bishop of Gloucester and
Bristol seconded, the following resolution :
" That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power
to confer with any committee that may be appointed by the Con
vocation of the Northern Province, to report upon the desirable
ness of a revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testa
ment, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those
passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Greek text
originaUy adopted by the translators, or in the translation made
from the same, shaU on due investigation be found to exist."
The resolution was afterwards extended, on the motion of the
Bishop of Llandaff, seconded by the Bishop of St. David's (Dr.
Thirlwall), to the Old Testament ; the necessary words were in
serted ; the practically unanimous assent of the House was given
to the amended resolution, and a committee appointed. The
committee consisted of the Bishops of Winchester (Dr. Wilber
force), Gloucester and Bristol, St. David's, Llandaff, Ely (Dr.
Browne), Lincoln, Bath and Wells, and Salisbury. This resolu
tion was communicated at once to the Lower House, and there
assented to very readily. It was moved by Canon Selwyn, and
seconded by Dr. Jebb, that the Convocations of Armagh and

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 7
DubUn should be consulted, as well as the Convocation of York,
but this addition seems afterwards to have fallen through. The
foUowing committee of the Lower House was then appointed :
The Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth), the Deans of Canterbury (Dr.
Alford), Westminster, and Lincoln (Dr. Jeremie) ; the Archdeacons
of Bedford (Mr. Eose), Exeter (Mr. Freeman), and Eochester;
Chancellor Massingberd ; Canons Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swain-
son, and Woodgate ; Dr. Kay, Dr. Jebb, and Mr. De Winton.
The subject was discussed shortly afterwards by the Convoca
tion of York, but, unfortunately, owing to completely exaggerated
fears as to the nature of the proposal, the Northern Convoca
tion declined to co-operate.
The Joint Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury, formed
of the two lists just specified, met March 24, 1870, and drew up
their report in the form of the foUowing resolutions :
" 1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Ver
sion 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, or any alteration of the language,
except where in the judgment 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." The report was presented May 3, and the following resolution
adopted :'
" That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to
Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in
the report now adopted. That the Bishops of Winchester, St.
David's, Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln,
and Bath and WeUs, be members of the committee. That the
committee be empowered to invite the co-operation of those whom

8 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
they may judge fit from their Biblical scholarship to aid them in
their work."
' This resolution was communicated to the Lower House. After
one day of discussion, and some consideration of details on the
foUowing day, the report of the large Joint Committee was adopted,
and the foUowing members of the Lower House appointed to
co-operate with the Bishops above mentioned in carrying out the
work : the Prolocutor, the Deans of Canterbury and Westminster,
the Archdeacon of Bedford, Canons Selwyn and Blakesley, Dr.
Jebb, and Dr. Kay.
This second or, so to speak, executive, committee then seriously
took the work in hand. They first met May 25, divided them
selves into two bodies, or, as they were afterwards caUed, Com
panies, the one fpr the Old Testament, the other for the New, and
proceeded to the difficult and delicate task of choosing colleagues,
and of framing general and special rules for the carrying on of the
work. The labors of the Committee were Kghtened by the fact
that those originally most interested in the cause had already
carefully collected the names of scholars who were judged to be
most likely to aid the undertaking, and, when the Committee met,
had a sufficiently full list to present to it. The general and
special rules had also been prepared beforehand in draft by the
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and were accepted with but
slight modifications.
The names of those invited at the above meeting, and at a short
subsequent meeting on July 5, to become members of the Old
Testament Company were as follow : Eev. Dr. W. L. Alexander,
Mr. Bensly, Professor Chenery, Eev. Canon Cook, Eev. Professor
A. B. Davidson, Eev. Dr. B. Davies, Eev. Dr. Douglas, Professor
Fairbairn, Eev. F. Field, Eev. J. D. Geden, Rev. Dr. Ginsburg,
Eev. Dr. Gotch, Ven. Archdeacon Harrison, Eev. Professor
Leathes, Eev. Professor M'Gill, Eev. Canon Payne Smith, Eev.
Professor J. H. Perowne, Eev. Professor Plumptre, EeY. Canon
Pusey, Eev. Dr. Weir, Dr. Wright (British Museum), and Mr. W.
A. Wright (Cambridge).
The names of those invited at the meetings of May 25 and July
5 to become members of the New Testament Company were as
follow : The Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of St. Andrews,
Eev. Dr. Angus, Eev. Dr. David Brown, Eev. F. J. A. Hort, ,Eev.
Prebendary Humphry, Eev. Canon Kennedy, Ven. Archdeacon

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 9
Lee, Eev. Dr. Lightfoot, Eev. Professor Milligan, Eev. Professor
Moulton, Eev. Dr. Newman, Eev. Professor Newth, Eev. Dr.
Eoberts, Eev. G. Vance Smith, Eev. Dr. Scott (Master of Balliol
CoUege), Eev. Dr. Scrivener, Eev. Dr. Thompson (Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge), Eev. Dr. Tregelles, Eev. Dr. Vaughan,
and Eev. Canon Westcott.
Of this long Ust of names some declined to talce the position
offered to them, though in every case with a courteous and friendly
recognition of the proffered honor. Among these were Canons
Cook and Pusey, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Newman. The Bishop
of Lincoln and Dr. Jebb also soon afterwards resigned their
places on the Old Testament Company. Of the New Testament
Company (with which we are now more immediately concerned),
it may be here mentioned that four were removed by death
previous to the completion of the work — viz.. Dean Alford, Dr.
TregeUes, Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. Eadie. As Dr. Tregelles
was never able to attend, and Bishop Wilberforce only attended
once, their places were not filled up. The place of Dean Alford
was supplied by Dean Merivale, who, after attending for a short
time, resigned, and was succeeded by Professor Palmer, now Arch
deacon of Oxford. The place of Dr. Eadie was not filled up, as
his death took place at a time when much of the work was done.
The number of the working members of the New Testament Com
pany was thus for the greater portion of the time twenty-four,
and so continued to the close of the work.
The first meeting of the New Testament Company took place
on June 22, 1870, under the presidency of the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, who held the position of chairman unin
terruptedly to the end of the ten years and a half, over which the
labors of the revision extended. The titular chairman. Bishop
WUberforce, attended once for about a couple of hours ; but it
became, even in that time, apparent to the Company, and perhaps
was so to the Bishop himself, that a little lighter hand and looser
rein were required to guide the Company pleasantly through the
intricacies of criticism and scholarship in which they were almost
hourly finding themselves involved. The Bishop, however,
remained a kind friend to the movement, which his own eloquence
had so largely assisted, and was interested in it to the time of hia
lamented death.
During the remainder of the year the work went quietly on
ward. The New Testament Company found an able and accurate

10 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
secretary in the Eev. J. Troutbeck, one of the Minor Canons of
Westminster, and soon became thoroughly organized and habit
uated to their complicated labors. In the second year of the
work some difficulties that beset them were completely removed.
The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of
the Cambridge University Press entered into a Uberal arrange
ment with the two Companies by which funds were regularly
forthcoming for all their expenses. It may be remembered that
the revisers of 1611 were by no means so fortunate, and that the
way in which their expenses were met during the greater period
of their labors was very far from satisfactory.
The year that followed was marked by an event of great im
portance to the cause of revision — the formation in America of
two Committees * to co-operate with the two English Companies.
Into the details of this movement in America, all of which are fuU
of interest, our space wUl not allow us to enter. In this more
general narrative it may be enough to say that on July 7, 1870,
it was moved in the Lower House of Convocation by the present
Prolocutor (Lord Alwyne Compton) that the Upper House should
be requested to instruct the Committee of Convocation " to invite
the co-operation of some American divines." This was at once
assented to by the Upper House. It was, we believe, afterwards
unofficially agreed that Bishop Wilberforce and the Dean of
Westminster should undertake to act for the Committee in open
ing communications — ^the Bishop with the Episcopal Church, the
Dean with the leading members of other communions. The result
of this was that towards the close of 1871 two Committees were
formed in America to communicate with the two English Com
panies on the basis of the rules that had been already laid down
for the revisers in this country. Very soon afterwards portions
of the first revision that had by that time been finished in England
were transmitted to America, and a system of communication
fully established. The work then went on continuously in both
countries, the English Companies revising, and the American
Committees reviewing what was thus revised, and returning their
suggestions, both as regards the first and second revision, to the
two Companies at Westminster. The volume that will be
published this day wUl contain a list of readings and renderings
in which the American divines ultimately differ from the revisers in
[* One Committee, divided into two Companies.]

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 11
this country. When this list is fuUy considered, the general reader
wiU, we think, be surprised to find that the differences are reaUy
of such little moment, and in very many cases wUl probably won
der that the American divines thought it worth while thus to
formally record their dissent.*
Such is a brief sketch of the history of the movement. It may
now be convenient to mention the manner in which the actual
work of revision was carried on by the Company. This will be
more easily understood if we specify the principal rules which
were laid down at the commencement of the undertaking, and to
which allusion has already been made in the earlier part of this
narrative. These rules were as follows :
"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 earUer 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 each 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 tUl 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, 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."
In conformity with these rules the whole of the Authorised
Version of the New Testament underwent a first revision. This
[* With this judgment few Americans will agree.]

12 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
extended over six years. The results were arrived at, in accord
ance with rule 5, by simple majorities, the Authorised Version
having no further advantage than this — that it was considered to
be the form before the Company, and that in accordance with the
system of voting in the House of Lords it was maintained if the
votes were equal. This first revision was transmitted, portion by
portion, to America, and returned with the suggestions of the
American Committee, their rules (as we have already impUed)
being the same as those laid down for the English Company.
On the completion of the first revision, the whole was gone over
again, with the advantage of the criticisms and suggestions of the
American Committee, but the voting was under changed prin
ciples. The Authorised Version was placed in a position of dis
tinct advantage, and if raised in competition with the first
revision, whether English or American, could only be prevented
from returning by two-thirds voting against it. Where there was
a difference of reading in the Greek, the rule of two-thirds
was not considered applicable, and the question was decided by a
simple majority. Many renderings that had been removed from
the Authorised Version were thus brought back again, though by
no means to so large an extent as might have been beforehand
supposed. The Company had been silently accumulating for
itself a rough code of principles, and commonly remained true to
them, even when the Authorised Version was raised in opposition
to the newly formed revision. Close and continued inspection
had also served to reveal that, admirable aud thoroughly idio
matic as the Authorised Version might be, it was frequently very
far from consistent : nay, even that it studiously affected a variety
of diction when there was nothing to justify it in the original.
These and other considerations led to the maintenance of the first
revision to a greater extent than at first seemed probable.
The second revision, like the first, was communicated, portion
by portion, to the American Committee, and by them returned
with criticisms and suggestions. This, combined with the obvious
necessity of endeavoring to preserve a harmony of rendering, as
far as it was reasonable and possible, led to a further review of
the whole work, under, however, this common-sense condition,
that the now twice-revised version was not to be changed except
by a majority of two-thirds. The Eevised Version, in fact, then
had the prerogative which had belonged to the Authorised Version
at an earlier stage of the work.

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 18
Such in general outline was the course of the procedure. Fuller
details will be found in the Preface, but the above fairly repre
sents the broad principles on which the Eevised Version was con
structed, and will probably suggest some confidence in the results.
The Authorised Version had that supremacy assigned to it which
the spirit of the rules absolutely required, and which, it may be
said, the revisers were always ready most loyally to concede to it.
The occasions, however, would of course be many in which the
grave question of what constitutes " faithfulness " (Eule 1) would
be somewhat differently interpreted by the individual members of
a large company. A merely tentative revision, after which much
would still remain to be done at a future time, would have been
a grave mistake. This has certainly not been the case with the
present work. Eevision has been carried out to a fair and reason
able extent, but not, as it would appear, in any degree beyond it.
The same remark applies in great measure to the critical work
of the Company in connection with the Greek text, which, we are
glad to find, is to be published in a clear and handsome form by
the University Press of Oxford. The principle in regard to text
ual criticism, it will be observed, was prescribed to be that of
change only on " decidedly preponderating evidence." But here,
as in the case of faithfulness in regard to the rendering, it is ob
vious that the estimate of what really constitutes decidedly pre
ponderating evidence will be widely different with equally honest
and impartial critics. To one, the long array of uncial witnesses,
even though it may be almost certain that the mass of them were
reproductions of some common exemplar, will seem clearly to
constitute " decidedly preponderating evidence." To another,
who may be guided by the well-known canon non numerare sed
appendere, the concurrence of a comparatively small number of
ancient authorities, representing independent textual traditions,
and found by experience to be most worthy of credit, may be re
garded, and justly regarded, as distinctly evidence of the nature
referred to in the rule. It seems clear that this last was the pre
vailing interpretation given to the rule by the majority of the
Company, so that, in textual criticism as well as rendering, a
decided line has been taken, and a standard maintained happUy
beyond that of a mere provisional and temporary revision.
There seems reason to believe that a close examination wUl
show this to have been very consistently maintained, and that the
evU of a text sometimes up to a good critical standard, and some-

14 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
times decidedly below it, has been successfuUy avoided. It might
have been supposed from the action of the rule requiring two-
thirds to reverse a reading supposed to underlie the Authorised
Version, and, stiU more, from the necessarily fluctuating nature
of the Company from month to month, and sometimes even from
day to day, that such a standard could hardly have been main
tained. It must, however, be remembered that loyalty to prin
ciples already felt out would always tend to repress any disturb
ing use of the rule ; and, further, that, in spite of fluctuations,
there was a stable element in the Company which greatly helped
in keeping up its traditions and principles. The punctuaUty of
attendance is, indeed, one of the most striking features of this un
dertaking ; and when the length of the time is considered, and the
distances at which many of the members resided from the place
of meeting, probably unexampled in the history of committees.
Out of the 407 meetings the chairman attended 405 times. Some
others reached also a very high standard ; and, of those who
attended more than three-fourths of the whole series of meetings,
the number amounted fully to one-third of the whole Company.
The existence of this comparatively stable element has tended
to preserve harmony and consistency, and wiU be found to have
been an important element in the success which we beUeve has
been achieved by the work.
A very noticeable feature in the volume is the large amount of
marginal notes. Of these some are short notes bearing on differ
ences of reading in the Greek text adopted by the revisers, but
the greater number are short notes specifying differences of ren
dering, which, either as having been preferred by a minority of the
Company or as having been advocated by scholars of eminence,
it seemed proper to specify. In the case of the Authorised Ver
sion, it has often been said that the marginal note presents the
rendering which was probably deemed by the revisers of that day
to be really the most accurate. However this may be, the remark
will not apply to the Eevised Version. The text adopted repre
sents that rendering which was deemed by at least one-third of
the Company then present to be correct in the case of maintain
ing a rendering of the Authorised Version, and of at least two-
thirds in departing from it. The text, therefore, as is obviously
most desirable, records plainly the opinion either of the actual
clear majority of those who considered and discussed the render
ing, or of that portion of them which constituted a legal majority.

OF THE A.MEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 15
We have thus in the Eevised Version a clear expression of an
opinion, and are left in no uncertainty, as is sometimes the case
. in the Authorised Version, as to the actual meaning that is deemed
to be conveyed by the original Greek.
The last portion of the work of the revisers is the Preface, a
carefully constructed and elaborate document, in which the prin
ciples on which the revision has been made are set forth with
considerable fulness of detail. This important introduction to the
study of the volume was thus constructed : it was prepared in
draft by the chairman several months before the conclusion of the
work. A copy was sent round to each member inviting remarks
and corrections. The copies so sent out were returned to the
chairman, and formed the basis of a second and revised edition
of the original draft. The document so amended was finally con
sidered by the whole body collectively, and, after careful revision,
accepted as the authoritative description of their work. It is to
be hoped, in justice to the revision, that no formal criticisms wiU
be passed on the labors of the Company until this careful and ex
plicit document has been thoroughly mastered. If it teaches
anything it will teach this — first, that the revision of a translation
such as the Authorized Version is a work of almost insuperable
difficulty ; secondly, that criticism, to be just, must not content
itself with merely sporadic approval or disapproval of the render
ings adopted, but must first inteUigently master all the circum
stances, conditions, and modifying details of the highly compli
cated undertaking.
What is stated by the revisers on the subject of alterations ren
dered necessary h^y consequence is well worthy of the most careful
attention. From the single example that is adduced it will readily
be inferred what strong reasons there may be in the background
for changes which a mere off-hand critic might condemn with some
passing show of plausibility. A work executed with the obvious care
and devotion to the subject which every paragraph of the revision
abundantly disjjlays may, with justice, deprecate a criticism that
has not taken equal pains to arrive at the true aspects of the
passage or the circumstances under consideration. That there
will be, especially at first, much criticism of a very precipitate
nature is a matter of the most perfect certainty, but it is equally
certain that criticism of this nature will not affect in the slightest
degree the ultimate and probably slowly formed estimate of the
present revision. What that estimate' will finally be, it would be

16 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF TUE WOEK
now utterly premature even to attempt to forecast. Our belief is
that in the main it wUl be favorable, and the beUef is founded
upon the unquestionable fact that a body of competent scholars
has bestowed extraordinary pains, for a lengthened period of time,
on the revision aUke of the text and the current rendering of the
original. It seems contrary to experience that such carefully organ
ized efforts should ultimately fail. It is quite probable that here
and there throughout the volume particular renderings wiU be ob
jected to on reasons that will be ultimately considered valid ; and
it is to be hoped that where such should be the case nothing wiU
prevent the revisers from reconsidering their former decisions.
This, as we know, took place in the case of the Bishops' Bible in
1568, and may properly take place, if found necessary, in the
Convocation-Testament of 1881. What is desired on all hands
is, not only a technically correct rendering, but one also that by
its diction, rhythm, and loyal adherence, where possible, to the
version now in use, should commend itself to the religious judg
ment of English-speaking people throughout the world."

The following account of the meeting of Convocation, at the
time when the Eevised Version of the New Testament was pre
sented to it by the Eevisers, wiU give the reader additional in
formation.
CONVOCATION OF CANTEEBUEY.
May 17, 1881.
On Tuesday both Houses of the Convocation of the Province of
Canterbury met at Westminster for the despatch of business.
THE UPPEE HOUSE.
The Archbishop of Canterbury presided over the Upper House,
which met in the Board-room of Queen Anne's Bounty Office.
There were present the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Glouces
ter and Bristol, the Bishop of St. Alban's, the Bishop of Here- •
ford, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the Bishop
of Truro, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Eochester, the
Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of
Ely, the Bishop of Bath and WeUs, the Bishop of Bangor, and the
Bishop of Llandaff.

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 17
The Archbishop read a message, which he had ordered to be
sent to the Lower House, to the effect that his Grace the Presi
dent desired the attendance of the Prolocutor and such members
of the Lower House as could conveniently attend to receive the
report on the revision of the Scriptures.
In obedience to this message the Prolocutor (Lord Alwyne
Compton) and a very large number of members of the Lower
House attended.
The Archbishop, addressing them, said, —
" I have requested the presence of the Prolocutor and such of
the members of the Lower House as might wish to take part in
this solemnity, as I regard it as a matter of great importance for
you to hear now what are the results of the deliberations of the
body who for many years have been engaged upon the solemn
and onerous task of a revision of the Holy Scriptures in the Eng
lish tongue. The first report — that upon the New Testament —
is to be presented to-day. We have good reason for beUeving
and hoping that at no far distant date we shaU have the second
report — that upon the Old Testament ; but to-day you will have
only the first, and I have to call upon the Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on the
Eevision, to lay the report before you."
The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol presented the following
report : — •
" The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Convocation, ap
pointed May 5, 1870, for the revision of the Authorised Version of
the Holy Scriptures, beg leave to report that, with the assistance
of the scholars and divines whose co-operation they were
authorized to invite, they have completed one portion of their
labors, — viz., the New Testament, — and now present the volume
containing the same to his Grace in Convocation."
His Lordship then expressed his deep thankfulness for the
mercies vouchsafed to the Committee during the long time in
which they had been engaged in the solemn and important task
committed to their care ; and he expressed also his hope that the
blessing of God would further rest upon those labors, and that the
Holy Scriptures would more and more be brought to the hearts
and homes of every English-speaking people.
The Archbishop, addressing the Lower House, said that he had

18 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
thought the occasion should not be aUowed to pass without his
expressing, on behalf of this Convocation, the deep thanks of both
Houses to the Committee who had undertaken and carried out
this work. Of course, this work had not yet been examined, and
the Houses had yet to examine the revision in detail ; but, never
theless, the House would be thankful to the Committee for their
labors. The Lower House then retired to their own chamber.
The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol then rose and said, —
"I have now the honor and responsibility of placing before
your lordships a portion of the important work assigned by Con
vocation eleven years ago to a joint committee of the two Houses
of this province] I now lay upon your lordships' table the revision
of the Authorised Version of the New Testament as completed by
the Company of which I have the honor to be the chairman. In
placing before you such a work, so intimately connected with the
past, and so closely bound up with the noblest labors of former
centuries, it is not possible for me to leave unnoticed in such a
speech as the present the various public efforts of which this is
the last, that for well-nigh 350 years have had for their object the
setting forth, in the tongue wherein we were bom, of the holy and
inspired words of the written Book of Life. I must therefore ask
your lordships to bear with me if I briefly allude to the various
stages in the progress of the great work, and especiaUy to the
share which this House of Convocation has had in aiding and
furthering the labors of the translators and revisers of the past.
That share has not been a large one. Convocation, till this last
revision, has never taken any prominent part in reference to the
successive translations of the Holy Scriptures. Nay, at times, I
fear, it has shown itself hostUe and reactionary. Still it has its
history in reference to the English Bible ; and now to that history,
as well as to the other movements that have publicly been made,
I will at once very briefly advert. We must look back 350 years.
Tyndale's version of the New Testament had come over to this
kingdom, and had been about four years in private but wide
spread circulation. The souls of men were profoundly stirred,
and the desire to have at length the Word of God in our own
mother-tongue was vivid and universal. The first pubUc action
on the part of the Church was, I grieve to say, to condemn that
version which was the bone and sinew of all that have foUowed

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 19
it, — Tyndale's translation of the New Testament. At a Council
held at Westminster, under Archbishop Warham, in May, 1530,
that version was condemned, but we may be thankful also to re
member that it was agreed that the Archbishop should send out a
document to be read by all preachers, in which the King's promise
that the Scriptures should be translated in English was fully set
forth. Four eventful years then passed away. The King's
supremacy was acknowledged the next year, and the first steps
taken for emancipating this country from the tyranny of Eome.
In 1534 the subject of the translation of the Scriptures was re
newed, and on the 19th of December in that year this Upper
House of Convocation agreed that the Archbishop should, in the
name of the members of the House, ' make instance with the King
that Holy Scripture should be translated into the vulgar tongue.'
Cranmer at once set about the work : he appears to have sent
portions of Tyndale's Testament to several bishops for review and
revision. The bishops, it would seem, all returned their revisions ;
but, from some cause or other, it miscarried. The next year
(1535) Coverdale's translation, dedicated to the King, stole into
this country, and was allowed to circulate, though not formally
Ucensed till 1537. The prayer of Convocation was thus still be
fore the country. It was not directly granted, but it appears to
have had this indirect effect, that, not more than three years after
wards, the royal license was given to the second edition of. Cover-
dale's Bible, and to Eogers' or Matthews' Bible, and that two
years later, in 1539, the Great Bible was published, of which Cov
erdale was the sole editor. This was an event of great impor
tance, and may be regarded, in a certain sense, as the practical
answer to the prayer of Convocation three years before. Convo
cation, however, I regret to say, was by no means satisfied
with the answer, as very soon afterwards, in February, 1542,
it was decided by this House that the Great Bible should be
revised according to the Bible then in current use, or, in other
words, to the Vulgate. Two committees were appointed.
The Old Testament Committee was presided over by tl
Archbishop of York ; the New Testament Committge-43yThe
Bishop of Durham. The matter was subsequently referred by the
King to the Universities, but in the sequel it happily fell through.
A generation then passed away. The Great Bible had meanwhile
been revised, though in a very different manner to what the Con
vocation of 1542 had hoped for and had attempted. It had now

20 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
passed, by the process of a revision, performed by several hands,
into the Bishops' Bible. The Genevan version had also been
published, and was obtaining so wide a circulation that in 1571
Convocation made a special enactment in favor of what it deemed
the more orthodox volume — the Bishops' Bible. Every Bishop
was to have a copy in his palace. Cathedrals, and, as far as
possible, parish churches, were to provide themselves with this
last authoritative revision. Somewhere about this time there ap
pears to have been some thought of a movement in ParUament,
as an undated paper bas been found among the archives of the
House of Lords, containing the sketch of a biU for ' reducing
diversities of Bibles now extant in the English tongue to one
settled vulgar translated from the original.' Another generation
then passed away, during the whole of which three versions were in
practically competitive circulation — the Great Bible, the Genevan
version, and the Bishops' Bible. In Convocation there seems to
have been some little reaction in favor of the Great Bible, for in
May, 1604, Canon 80 was passed, by which it was provided that
every church- warden was to provide for each parish a Bible ' am-
plissimi voluminis,' or, as it would certainly seem to imply, the
Great Bible of more than sixty years before. But a great and
signal change was now very near at hand. In February of the
same year (1604) a passing remark of Dr. Eeynolds, at the Hamp
ton Court Conference, led the King seriously to take up the sub
ject of a revision of the existing translations, and before the con
ference broke up it appeared as one of the points desired by the
King, and, in fact, carried at his instigation, viz. , ' That a trans
lation be made of the whole Bible as consonant as can be to the
original Hebrew and Greek.' This was the fundamental resolu
tion, and, as we well know, by the action of the King and some
unknown but most competent advisers, learned men were oaUed
together, and the great work which we familiarly know by the
name of the Authorised Version was set forth to the Church and
the world in the year of our Lord 1611. In reference to this
version nothing was said or done either in Convocation or ParUa
ment. This revision is to be attributed solely to the King and to
the wise and learned men whom he was providentially able to
call together for the execution of this great and time-honored
work. More than a generation then passed away, during which
the Authorised Version was steadily growing in public favor and
vindicating year by year its distinct superiority not only over the

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 21
Bishops' Bible, but over the popular Genevan Bible. And it was,
perhaps, owing to this last fact that we find Dr. Lightfoot urging,
in a sermon preached before the House of Commons in August,
1645, the desirableness of a revision of the Scriptures, and appar
ently with some effect ; for, in 1653, a biU was actually introduced
for a new revision. Some preparatory steps were taken ; but hap
pUy the Parliament — the Long Parliament — was dissolved, and
the plan entirely fell through. For two hundred years aU desire
for any further authoritative revision had entirely died out. There
were revised portions of Holy Scripture, in this long interval, by
individual scholars, bnt nothing that in any degree helped forward
the present movement. At the end of this long period, however,
it was plain that the desire for a new revision had revived, and
that the subject was beginning to take its place among the lead
ing questions of the day. In the year 1856, which might rightly
be characterized as the germinal year of the present movement.
Canon Selwyn (ever a true and warm supporter of revision) moved
in Convocation, and Mr. Heywood a few months afterwards
moved in Parliament, for the appointment of a Eoyal Commission
to consider the whole question. The public movements failed ;
but a private movement made by five clergymen (one of whom is
the present speaker, and another my Eight Eev. brother the Bishop
of SaUsbury) in great measure succeeded. The publication in the
following year (1857) of a revised version of the Gospel of St.
John by these five clergymen was generally admitted to have
established these two positions — (1) that a sober and conservative
revision of the Holy Scriptures might iu due time very hopefully
be undertaken ; (2) that when undertaken it would be, almost
beyond doubt, on the principles which this little company of
scholars had graduaUy and experimentaUy felt out. The time,
however, was not then ripe, though the process of maturation
had commenced. So half a generation passed away. Fresh
critical subsidies were accumulating ; new exegetical works were
multiplying ; and at last the time was ripe, and the great move
ment with which Convocation has been so intimately connected
began in February, 1870, and shortly after assumed an author
itative and practical form. In that month, as your lordships weU
remember, the late Bishop of Winchester moved in this House,
and the present speaker seconded, a preUminary resolution, which
was accepted by both Houses practically unanimously, and acted
upon in Uttle more than four months afterwards. An executive

22 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
committee was formed ; some forty scholars and divines outside
Convocation were invited to take part in the work. Two Com
panies were formed, the one for the Old Testament and the other
for the New Testament, and both at once addressed themselves to
their long and responsible work. Soon afterwards two Commit
tees were formed in America, and regular and systematic com
munication established between the scholars on this side and the
other side of the Atlantic. The New Testament Company com
menced its labors on June 22, 1.870, and closed them on Novem
ber 11, 1880, and the result of those labors is the volume which I
have had the honor and responsibility of placing upon the table
of this venerable House. And here I might, not improperly, close
this present address; yet, if I rightly interpret my present
duty, and perhaps also the wishes and desires of your lordships,
I ought not to do so, on this somewhat memorable occasion, with
out saying a few words on the manner in which the task com
mitted to us has 'been done, and also a few words, but only a few
words, on the nature and characteristics of the revision. In regard
of the manner in which the work of revision was carried on, I
may remind your lordships that it was in accordance with rules
which had been laid down at the commencement of the work.
They were framed with due regard to modern requirements and
ancient precedents, being in many respects identical with the
rules prescribed for the revisers of 1611, and the rules which ap
pear to have been observed by those who took part in the Bishops'
Bible fifty years before. These rules were constantly tested, and
I am thankful to say (for I was in some measure responsible for
them), proved efficient and sufficient to the end. These rules it
may, perhaps, be convenient that I should read to your lordships,
as they set forth in a succinct form the course which was to be
followed by the Companies in the prosecution of their work : — (1)
To introduce as few alterations as possible into 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 finaUy, 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

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 23
retain no change in the text on the second and final revision by
each Company except two-thirds of those present approve of the
same, but on tlie first revision to decide by simple majorities. (6)
In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to
discus.sion, to defer the voting thereupon tiU the next meeting,
whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those pre
sent at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the
notice for the next meeting. (7) To revise the headings of chap
ters, pages, paragraphs, italics and punctuation. (8) To refer, on
the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to ^ivines,
scholars and literairy men, whether at home or abroad, for their
opinions. Of these rules, one only was found to be superfluous—
the rule which prescribes that, if required by one-third of the
Company, the voting might be deferred on any difficult and de
bated question till the^ following day. The object was to prevent
any lingering heat of controversy having any influence on the final
decision, and to insure a perfectly calm and, as far as possible,
unbiassed decision. The rule, however, was never put in action.
By the mercy and blessing of God, no occasion ever arose which
made it in any degree necessary. Amid ceaseless differences of
opinion and countless divisions, the brotherly feeling and harmony
that prevailed among us remained unimpaired to the very end,
and rendered aU such postponement of the final expression of
opinion wholly unnecessary. All the rest of these rules, as our
preface wiU show more fully in detail, were very carefully observed.
They were felt by us to present three broad principles, upon
which I will venture to make a few observations, as tending to
Ulustrate that on which I now am speaking — the manner in which
we have endeavored to execute our work. In the first place, we
have felt that what was required of us, not only in the criticism
and translation, but in all the details of the revision, was to ex
press a corporate and coUective judgment. It is this which dis
tinguishes our work from every other revision that has preceded
it. It has been the work of a large body of men sitting together,
and arriving at their results after full corporate discussion. This,
as we know, was not the case with the Bishops' Bible. Our latest
historian of the English versions of the Bible (Dr. Eadie) reminds
us not only that there was no consultation among the revisers,
but even no final supervision. We have no reason for thinking
that it was otherwise with the Genevan Bible, which, though the
work of persons dweUing for a time in the same city, does not

24 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
present any traces of having been executed or discussed in com
mon. The first edition, indeed, of the New Testament is known
to have been the work of a single hand. Even in our Authorised
Version the work of revision was carried on, in the case of the
New Testament, by two separate companies, that only communi
cated their results to each other, but never discussed them in
common. In the final supervision, which, however, only lasted
nine months for the whole Bible, the discussion was probably cor
porate,, but it was only by a smaU number, and, from the very
nature of the case, was probably more of a merely harmonizing
nature than a revision in the true sense of the word. In our case
it has been utterly different. Eevision and supervision have been
carried through by the whole Company. Every detaU has been
submitted to it ; every decision has emanated from it ; every judg
ment rests solely upon its authority. The volume now lying upon
your lordships' table is the result, in every part and portion, of
united and corporate discussion. And if this was our first prin
ciple, not less strictly observed was our second principle, viz., to
express that corporate judgment with precision and distinctness.
I do not think there will be found in the whole volume the faintest
trace of a rendering which would adjust itself to one or other of
two competing views of the meaning of the original Greek. Our
rule was invariably to put in the text the judgment of the majority,
and that of the minority in the margin, that majority and minority
being of the nature defined by the rules. There is thus nowhere
any uncertain sound. Nor is there any ground whatever for sup
posing, as is sometimes the case in the Authorised Version, that
the margin is the more correct rendering, which, for some reason
or other, it was not deemed desirable to place in the text. How
ever it may be with the Authorised Version, it is certainly
not so with the Eevised. The text expresses the rendering or
decision of the majority of the Company — that which it deliber
ately preferred ; the margin expresses the view of the minority,
and is to be so regarded by the reader. Our third principle was
not only to express our corporate judgment with clearness, but to
do so only after the fullest and most varied consideration. There
is not a hastily arrived at judgment to be found in any page of
the Eevised Version. No precipitate decision has any place what
ever in the results that are now submitted to you. When I men
tion that the work has actually gone through seven revisions I
feel that I am justified in making the statement which I have just

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 25
made to your lordships in regard to the decisions arrived at in this
volume. Yes, my lords, seven revisions, aU more or less thorough
and complete. First, the whole of the version committed to the
Company was revised by it, and then transmitted to America. It
was then reviewed by the American Committee, and returned
back again to England. It then underwent, in accordance with
the rules, a second revision in England, and was again transmitted
to America. After these four revisions it yet underwent a fifth
revision in England, mainly with a view of removing any hardness
of diction, or of remedying any rhythmical defects which might
have beeu introduced through the various changes which had
been imported in the course of this fourfold revision. There was
yet a sixth and most important revision in the form of a harmo
nizing review of the whole, thus far, completed work. A Greek
concordance of the New Testament was divided into fourteen
parts. Of these, twelve of the members most constant in their
attendance each took a part (the chairman taking two), and made
themselves individually responsible for a close examination of aU
the renderings of the words, each in the portion allotted to them.
All varieties of rendering were thus brought up before the Com
pany, and wheresoever necessary the judgment of the collective
body formally taken upon them. Thus there was a sixth revision.
And even, in a certain sense, a seventh ; for it so happened that
one of the two portions taken by the chairman contained the
article and the relative pronouns. This involved on the part of
the chairman a careful reading through, line by line, of the whole
volume. This reading revealed several inconsistencies in the use
of the English relative that had escaped notice, and also disclosed
a few slight inconsistencies in other words or expressions which
had in some way or other eluded the vigilance of the revisers.
When I add to this that throughout all this lengthened process
the attendance was most remarkable in regard to numbers and
punctuaUty — the average attendance during the whole ten and a
half years being as high as sixteen out of twenty-four- — I think I
may be justified when I say that the third principle at which we
aimed — the expression of opinions only after the fullest and most
varied consideration — was thoroughly and faithfully observed. I
now pass, in the last place, to a few remarks on the nature and
characteristics of the version itself, which is now lying on our
table. Much I need not say, as the Preface which is prefixed to
the volume really tells this with a fulness and a detail that leave

26 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
little to be added on the present occasion. Perhaps, as before, it
may be best for me to gather up my remarks into the form of two
or three general comments. Permit me, then, to say that these
three characteristics will certainly be found on every page of the
Eevised Version — thoroughness, loyalty to the Authorised Ver
sion, and due recognition of the best judgments of antiquity. Our
version is certainly thorough — thorough both in regard of the text
and the rendering. That thoroughness, as your lordships will
remember from the rules which I but recently read to you, was
to be regulated by the principle of faithfulness in regard of
the translation and a due regard to decidedly preponderating
evidence in the case of th'e Greek text which we regarded as the
basis of our rendering. Faithfulness and decidedly preponder
ating evidence are, of course, both of them expressions which
admit of a great variety of interpretations, and in a numerous
body Uke that of the New Testament Company, were certain to
receive them. Without troubling your lordships with any enu
meration of these varying shades of opinion, it maybe sufficient to
mention, as the general result, that the revision both of the Greek
text and of the Authorised translation has been thorough and up
to a fuU standard of correction. And it would have been a great
misfortune if it had been otherwise. A timid revision that had
not the nerve to aim at comparative finality, but was simply sug
gestive of a renewal of the process when the pubUc mind might
be judged to be again ready for itj would have had a very un
settling effect, and really would have frustrated the very progress
that it contemplated ; for such a kind of revision would be used
as a standing argument against any revision at all. Moreover, to
modify a high standard, in some subsequent review, is a process
comparatively easy ; but to elevate a lower and tentative standard,
in the case of a translation of the New Testament, would be
found, if attempted, a work of such peculiar difficulty that it
would be very speedily abandoned. No such misfortune has hap
pened to the Eevised Version. It represents as full a measure
of correction as is required by faithfulness, fairly estimated, but
nothing beyond it. The minor changes by which it is marked
are certainly numerous, but all have only one common object —
the setting forth with greater clearness, force, and freshness the
language and teaching of the inspired original. Eleven years ago
I alarmed your lordships by the estimate which I then formed of
the amount of change that would be needed ; and, I remember, I

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 27
led my brother of SaUsbury to say that my words would frighten
people from one end of the land to the other. If the estimate
was deemed to be alarming, I fear I may alarm your lordships
still more wheal state the actual results and compare them with
what was thenT>nly anticipated. I comfort myself, however, with
the thought that when you go to the revision itself these alarms
wiU speedily be dissipated. What I stated as the very lowest
estimate was six changes for every five verses, one of these six
changes being for critical and textual reasons. What has actuaUy
taken place is an average for the Gospels of between eight and
nine changes in every five verses — somewhere about one and a
half, or three in every ten verses, being for critical changes. As
might be expected, the average for the Epistles is still higher. It
appears to amount to about fifteen changes for every five verses —
one and a half as before being due to critical changes. I have
formed this calculation on a rigidly accurate examination of the
revised version of the Sermon on the Mount and the General
Epistle of St. James, two connected portions of Holy Scripture
containing each about the same number of verses. Yet, with all this
thoroughness of revision and numerically high standard of cor
rection, the effect to the general hearer or reader wUl reaUy hardly
be perceptible. This is due to the second characteristic of our
version, its persistent loyalty to the Authorised translation. To
any candid reader nothing will be raore patent than this through
out the whole volume. Our words in the Preface will show the
great reverence that we have ever felt for that venerable version,
and our practice on every page will show how, even when words
may have been changed, our reverence has shown itself in such a
careful assimilation to the tone and rhythm of that marveUous
translation that the actual amount of change will scarcely ever be
felt or recognized. Sometimes this has been effected by the
choice of a word of the same rhythmic quality as that which is
displaced; sometimes by a fortunate inversion; sometimes by
the reproduction of a familiar and idiomatic turn ; sometimes by
the preservation of the cadence even when more than one of the
words which had originally helped to make it up had become
modified or changed. In a word, our care throughout has been,
while faithfully carrying out revision wheresoever it might seem
needed, to make the new work and the old so blend together that
the venerable aspect of the Authorised Version might never be
lost, and its fair proportions never sacrificed to the rigidity of a

28 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
merely pedantic accuracy. The third characteristic of the ver
sion — due recognition of the best judgments of antiquity — though
not equaUy patent, wiU, I hope and beUeve, rarely be looked for
in vain. In all more difficult passages we h^re ever given
especial heed to the great early versions, and to "e voice, wher
ever it could be heard in the same language as that which we
were translating, of primitive and patristic antiquity. In many
of those passages, perhaps, on which hereafter we may be most
severely criticised^ — as, for instance, in the ' deliver us from the
EvU One ' of the Lord's Prayer — ^it wiU be found that we are but
reproducing that which had always been the interpretation of the
best and earliest writers of tho Greek-speaking Primitive Church.
We have thus sought to tread the old paths as well as the new,
and, while never neglecting modern scholarship, have never re
versed old interpretations without such a clear amount of con
textual or linguistic authority as rendered such a reversal a matter
of distinct and indisputable faithfulness. But, my lords, I must
detain you no longer. Such, in general outline, is the Eevision
which I now have the honor of placing before you. Whatever
may be its faults and shortcomings, it has been done faithfully,
and it has been done prayerfully. Its pages bear the results of
long-continued and arduous labors ; but those labors would have
been as nothing if they had not been haUowed and quickened by
prayer. Such is this revision of 1881 ; not unworthy, I trust and
believe, to take its place among the great English versions of the
past ; not also without the hope of holding a place among them
of honor, and, perhaps, even of pre-eminence. But those things
belong to the future. For the present, it is enough that I com
mend this volume to the favorable consideration of your lordships,
and ask for it your fatherly prayers."
The Archbishop, on behalf of the House, recorded thanks to
those members of the Eevision Committee who were not ap
pointed by Convocation, and his Grace also expressed his opinion
that the House was very fortunate in having had the advantage
of the services of a scholar such as the Bishop of Gloucester and
Bristol to take part on behalf of the House in this revision.
The Bishop of London expressed his hope that the position
this Eevised Version would take would not be misunderstood.
He feared that this position had been misunderstood. The Ee
vised Version had been spoken of as if it would at once take the

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 29
place of the Authorised Version. He begged to remind the House
that no one could at present use this Eevised Version. When
the whole work was completed it would go out to the pubUc and
would be before the Church for consideration ; it might be years
before the proposed alterations from the Authorised Version had
so approved themselves to the Church — both clergy and laity-—
that steps could be taken to give authority for the use of the Ee
vised Version. However, it raust be understood that the Eevised
Version could not now be used in the churches. He begged to
express the hope that there might not be, for the next two or
three years, frequent speaking and discussion by young clergy
men, especiaUy by those who most probably could not construe
the original, on the proposed alterations set forth. A great deal
of patient study ought to precede any attempt at criticism of the
proposed alterations, and clergymen — ^young clergymen especially
— who had little knowledge of the original, sliould be careful not
too readily to express an opinion as to the superiority of the one
version over the other. The real purpose and value of the re
vision was that it laid before the Church and the laity alike the
opinions of ripe scholars and of the ancient Church, and the
result was an exceedingly valuable one, upon which, however, no
opinion could be given until after full study and with adequate
knowledge. The House would be thankful for the work which,
under the blessing of God, had thus been carried out — a work,
however, which did not supersede that version of the Scriptures
which all English-speaking Christians had learnt to esteem and love.

OEGANIZATION OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE.
The first steps towards the formation of an American Commit
tee of Eevision were taken almost immediately after the organiza
tion of the English Companies. As stated in the " Historical Ex
position" (see page 9 above), the first meeting of the New Testa
ment Company in England was held on the 22d of June, 1870.
On the 7th of July next foUowing, the two Houses of Convocation
voted "to invite the co-operation of some American divines," and
to Bishop Wilberforce and Dean Stanley was assigned soon after
wards the duty of holding such communications with America as
might be necessary for the accomplishment of the desired result.

30 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
As the Eev. Dr. Angus was at that time intending to visit the
United States, in connection with a proposed meeting of the
Evangelical Alliance in the City of New York, it was deemed ex
pedient to authorize him to open correspondence with the Eev.
Dr. Schaff, and some other scholars, whUe in this country. In this
way it was thought that the raatter might be most easUy explained.
in its details, and an interchange of views might be held in the
most satisfactory way. Accordingly Bishop Ellicott, who had
been made chairman of the English New Testament Company, ad
dressed to Dr. Angus in the name of that company, one of the two
following letters whic'n might serve to introduce the subject to
scholars here, aud Dr. Angus himself prepared the other, which
was sent to a few of those whose views and co-operation were
especially desired."* [Letter of Bishop Ellicott to Eev. Dr. Angus.J
Portland Place, London, July 20 [1870J .
Dear De. Angus :
As you do me the favor of asking me, I take the responsibUity,
as acting chairman of the New Testament Company of the re
vision body, herewith to commend you as one of our most trusty
helpers to the scholars in the United States who may be interested
in the undertaking. Perhaps you will kindly explain to them
how we work, viz., round a common table, and how it is thus diffi
cult for us to incorporate our brethren across the water. It wiU,
however, be very easy for us to transmit our work in its provi
sional state to an authorised committee in the United States, and
pay all attention to the corrections they may suggest and the ob
servations they may be pleased to offer. We shall be very inter
ested in hearing when you corae back how you may have arranged.
Pray give my respectful compliments to any scholars with whom
you may confer, and believe me very sincerely,
Yours, C. J. Gloucestee and Bristol.
[Bishop Ellicott, Chairman of the N. T. Company :\

[* These and all other letters and documents embodied in this volume, are pub-
lishel with the consent of the British Revisers and the University Presses.]

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 31
[Letter of Dr. Angus to American Scholars.— Sent out in August, 1870.]
Mt Dear Sir :
I am not sure whether you have seen the enclosed plan of
.Bible revision [the rules, etc., of the English Company]. The
method adopted of having the work done by each Company to
gether makes it impracticable to ask the co-operation of brethren
in America at the initial stage of their proceeding : but there is a
strong and general feeUng among the revisers that we should get
their co-operation to the extent at least of securing their criti
cisms and suggestions before our revision is finally published.
Could you help in such a work by looking over the revision as we
prepare it, and giving -suggestions? If a coraraittee of a dozen or
eighteen were formed in the States, we could send the copy of
the revise to each, and they raight meet and agree on suggestions.
If meetings are impracticable, we might stUl obtain individual
judgments ; but the plan of a united judgraent has obvious advan
tages. The expense of such meetings would not be great : and
probably it might be met by friends interested in our work. In
England the revisers give their time and labor ; and we propose
to meet the expenses of printing and travelling by an appeal to
the English public. Expenses in America raight be raet in a like
way ; or we might add these expenses to ours, and meet them all
out of a common fund. I had hoped to confer with you on this
subject during the N. Y. AUiance raeetings. They, however, are
postponed, and I must therefore trust largely to correspondence.
Bishop Ellicott (our acting chairman) gives me an introduction
and asks me to obtain such help as I ara now writing about.
Dr. Schaff and Dr. Conant agree to help either individuaUy or
in coraraittee. When you have thought the matter over, favor rae
with a reply addressed to the Alliance Eooms, Bible House, New
York. Yours very sincerely, ¦Joseph Angus.
Dr. Angus held communication in person and by letter with Dr.
Schaff while in America, the result of which was the selection of
certain gentleraen who were fitted for the work, and were likely to
be regarded as authorities in Biblical learning by the American
public, and the submission of their names to Bishop ElUcott and
Dean Stanley as representing the English body. A few months
later. Dean Stanley made the first formal communication by letter.

32 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
in discharge of the duty assigned to him after the vote of Convoca
tion in July, 1870. On the 13th of January, 1871, he wrote to
Dr. Schaff as foUows : Deanery, Westminster Abbey, )
London, Jan. 13, 1871. j
My Dear Sir :
I have been in communication with Dr. Angus on the subject
of the revision of the Authorised Version of the Bible, now set on
foot by two Companies of English, Scottish, and Irish scholars
appointed under the authority of the Committee of the Convoca
tion of the Province of Canterbury.
By that Committee, and in pursuance of. a vote of the* Lower
House of Convocation, the Bishop of Winchester and myself were
requested to ask the friendly co-operation of some divines from
the United States of America in a work that, it was felt, concerned
that vast part of the English-speaking races of the world as nearly
as ourselves. I find that the Bishop of Winchester has already
communicated on the subject with Bishop Potter, with the view
of procuring the assistance of such scholars as the Protestant
Episcopal Church of America may furnish ; and I, therefore,
undertake the charge of addressing myself to you, as having been
the centre, as I understand, of the communications of the non-
Episcopalian churches with Dr. Angus during his recent visit.
May I ask you, in consideration of the distance of space and the
length of time which would be involved in repeated correspond
ence with each member, to enter into such negotiations as you
may deera advisable with the scholars of these churches ?
It will, of course, be readily understood that the object of
the Coraraittee of Convocation and of the revising Corapanies is
to procure the assistance of which I speak purely on the ground
of scholastic and Biblical qualifications — the assistance, as the
vote of Convocation expressed it, " of any erainent for scholar
ship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong."
With this view I have consulted with Dr. Angus and others, and
venture to submit a Ust of such eminent persons as have occurred
to us as falling within the above description. You wiU, perhaps,
have no difficulty in arranging with them, and, also (if you think
fit) with Bishop Potter, representing the Protestant Episcopal
Church, and to whom I have not written, as the Bishop will
understand, only because he has already received a communication
from my superior in rank, the Bishop of Winchester.

OF TUE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 33
The details of the mode of co-operation wUl easUy suggest
themselves : on them I need not at present enter, but will con
clude with the hope that the joint and cordial co-operation in this
great and holy work may add another Unk to the friendly inter
course and comraunion between English Christendom and that
powerful and ever-increasing offspring that it has produced be
yond the Atlantic. Yours very faithfuUy, A. P. Stanley.
Bishop Wilberforce had, somewhat earlier, written to Bishop
Potter, of New York, asking the co-operation of the divines of the
Episcopal Church in this country. But as the General Conven
tion of the Church did not meet untU the foUowing autumn, the
subject could not be formally brought to the notice of the House
of Bishops before that time. Under date of August 7, 1871, Bishop
WUberforce again addressed Bishop Potter in a letter which was
submitted by the latter to the House of Bishops, and which is
here inserted, together with the minute adopted by the House
with regard to the suggestions contained in it.
[Letter of Bishop Wilberforce, of Winchester, to Bishop Potter of New York.]
(Copied from the " Journal and Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of
the Protestant Episcopal Church," 1873, pp. 615-616.)
BusBRiDGE Hall, Godalming, Aug. 7, 1871.
Eight Eeverend Brother :
As the time of your General Convention approaches, it seems
to me due to my high respect and brotherly affection for your
venerable body that I should, as Chairman of the Coraraittee of
the Convocation of Canterbury, which is charged with the duty of
preparing a revised text of our Authorised Yersion of the Sacred
Scriptures, communicate formally to you what has been done, is
doing, and is intended, touching an enterprise which must, I
think, deeply interest all the English-speaking branches of the
Church of Christ, and, very especially, our beloved sister commun
ion in America. The purpose for which the Coramittee was ap
pointed was this : — ^not to make a new translation, but to exhibit,
in a revised version of the existing translations, any corrections
which either the discovery of new manuscripts and versions or

34 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OP THE WOEK
the advance of scholarship, aUowed the Committee to recommend.
It was onr universal belief that these corrections, though impor
tant as to technical accuracy, would affect no doctrine, and add to
instead of diminishing the authority of the present version. We
felt that there was danger in leaving suspicion free to exaggerate
according to her wont, smaU defects, and swell thera to dimensions
which might weaken the authority of the existing version. The
Committee having been appointed with power to seek aliunde the
assistance of experts qualified by classical and biblical learning for
the task, has formed, out of itself and such associated workmen,
two companies : one of which is proceeding with a proposed revi
sion of the Old, and the other of the New Testament. From the
first, our Convocation desired the aid of your body, and I have
myself made various coraraunications froin it to individual raem
bers of your Episcopate. The approaching session of your Gen
eral Convention gives rae the opportunity of a more formal com
munication, which I now make to you as the Presiding Bishop,
requesting you to bring the matter, in such a way as you deem
meet, before the General Convention. As our work has pro
ceeded, it has appeared impossible for us to obtain from you in
the progress of our labors that aid to which we stiU look forward
at their close. When the work of the Companies is finished, it
will be the duty of the Coraraittee of the Convocation in its sepa
rate unity to revise the work done, and either to reject it, or to lay
it, with or without alterations, before the Convocation of Canter
bury. That body will then judge for itself of the merit or demerit
of what its Committee so presents to it. Should the Convocation
judge it so far successful, it would authorise such other steps as it
may deem fit. One of these, I have little doubt, would be to sub
mit the tentative revisions to the other English-speaking branches
of the Church, and should your Convention encourage our doing
so, pre-eminently to you. No such iraportant change as any alter
ation in the Authorised Version of the Sacred Scriptures could
be carried out without allowing fuU time for all such judgments
as that of your branch of the Church to be forraed and expressed ;
nor until the revised version had received the sanction of general
approbation could it, in any sense, be authorised amongst our
selves. Commending this important matter to your care, and earnestly
seeking your prayers for the due fulfilment of the work in hand,
through the heavenly assistance of God the Holy Ghost, for the

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 35
glory of the eternal and ever-blessed Trinity, and the edification of
the Church of Christ, I remain, right reverend and dear brother.
Yours in the bonds of the common faith,
(Signed) Samuel Wintonensis.
The Eight Rev. the Pbesiding Bishop op the Church est Ambkica.
[Action of the House of Bishops on the preceding letter.]
(From the "Journal," etc., pp. 262-353.)
A coraraunication from the Eight Eev. the Lord Bishop of
Winchester, Chairman of the Committee of the Convocation of
Canterbury on the Eevision of the Authorized Version of the
Holy Scriptures, to the Presiding Bishop, was read by the Sec
retary. On motion of the Bishop of New York it was
Resolved, That this corandunication be laid on the table, and
printed for the use of the House (p. 262).
The Bishop of New York offered the foUowing resolution :
Itesolved, That the Eight Eev. the Presiding Bishop be and is
hereby requested to return to the Eight Eev. the Lord Bishop of
Winchester a courteous and brotherly acknowledgraent of his
communication relating to a revision of the English of the Holy
Scriptures, stating that this House, having had no part in origi
nating or organizing the said work of revision, is not at present
in a condition to deliver any judgment respecting it, and at the
same time expressing the disposition of this House to consider
with candor the work undertaken by the Convocation of Canter
bury, whenever it shaU have been completed, and its results laid
before them.
The Bishop of Louisiana moved to strike out the following
words: "Having had no part in originating or organizing the
said work of revision '" ; which was lost.
The question recurring on the original motion of the Bishop of
New York, it was adopted (p. 353).
About two months after this action of the House of Bishops, an
invitation was sent, at the request of the English Committee, to a
number of gentlemen who had already been communicated with
respecting the subject, to meet in New York, for the purpose of
receiving information as to the work in England, and of forming a
Committee of Eevision in this country. At this meeting, which

36 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
was held on the 7th of December, 1871, the following persons
were present :
Prof. PhUip Schaff, D.D., New York ; Prof. Henry B. Smith,
D.D., NewYork; Prof. William Henry Green, D.D., Princeton,
N. J. ; Prof. George Emlen Hare, D.D., PhUadelphia, Pa. ; Prof.
Chas. P. Krauth, D.D., Philadelphia ; Eev. Thos. J. Conant,
D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y.; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven,
Conn.; Ezra Abbot, LL.D., Cambridge, Mass. ; Eev. Edward A.
Washburn, D.D., New York.
Dr. Howson, Dean of Chester, was also present by special invi
tation, and took part in the deliberations.
Ex-President Woolsey, Prof. Hackett, Prof. Strong, and others,
were prevented from attending, but expressed by letter their
hearty interest in the proposed work, and their readiness to co
operate. The meeting was organized by the appointment of Prof. Henry
B. Smith as Chairman, and Prof. George E. Day as Secretary.
After prayer by the Chairman, Dr. Schaff introduced the sub
ject ofthe meeting by stating that he had been requested by the
British Committee for the Eevision of the Authorized EngUsh
Version of the Scriptures, through the Dean of Westminster, to
invite American scholars to co-operate with thera in this work.
He had accordingly extended such an invitation to a limited
number of scholars, most of thera professors of biblical learniag
in theological seminaries of the leading Protestant denominations.
In the delicate task of selection, he had reference, first of all, to
the reputation and occupation of the gentleraen as bibUcal
scholars ; next to their denominational connection and standing
so far as to have a fair representation of the American churches ;
and lastly, to local convenience, in order to secure regular attend
ance on the meetings'. He would have gladly invited others, but
thought it best to leave the responsibiUty of enlargement to the
Committee itself when properly constituted. He had personally
conferred during the last suraraer with Bishop EUicott, Dean
Stanley, Prof. Lightfoot, Prof. Westcott, Dr. Angus, and other
British revisers, about the details of the proposed plan of co-opera
tion, and was happy to state that it raet their cordial approval.
Dr. Schaff also read a list of scholars who had been invited to
engage in the work and who had accepted the invitation.
A public meeting in the interests of the work of Eevision was
also held on the evening of the same day in Calvary Episcopal

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 37
Church, in New York, which was very largely attended by clergy
men and intelligent laymen. It was conducted by the Eector,
Eev. Dr. Washburn, and addresses were made by Dean Howson,
of England, and Dr. Schaff.
It was hoped, at this time, that the work of the Araerican Com
mittee might be begun at a very early day. But it was incidental
to so great an undertaking, which was to continue for years, that
many preliminary arrangements should be made. Some provision
was needed for the necessary expenses of the work, and it was
desirable to secure the co-operation of various bodies of Christians.
As the authorities of the EstabUshed Church in the Convocation
of Canterbury had originated the whole plan and undertaking in
England, and learned men of other Christian bodies in Great
Britain had been admitted to the Eevision Companies by their
invitation, it was very naturally desired by the English Eevisers
that some of the Episcopal Bishops in this country should becorae
members of the American Committee, before the actual work here
should begin. It was believed that their participation in the Ee
vision would facUitate co-operation with the EngUsh Coraraittee,
and would give satisfaction to the raembers of the Anglican com
munion in England. When the House of Bishops, therefore,
formaUy declined to take the part proposed to them in their cor
porate capacity, considerable disappointment was felt by the
English Coramittee. The resolution adopted by the House, how
ever, was not intended to be binding with reference to individual
Bishops. They were understood to be left free to act in accord
ance with their own judgment. Correspondence was, therefore,
opened very soon with several of the more eminent among them,
and invitations were extended to them to becorae members of the
Araerican Coramittee. This correspondence, together with the
necessary interchange of communications with England, occupied
a few months, thus delaying the organization of the Committee
until after the middle of the year 1872. Three or four of the
Bishops felt themselves constrained by the action taken at the
time of the General Convention to decline the invitations person-
aUy addressed to them, or for other reasons of a more private
character found it impossible to undertake the work. All, how
ever, expressed an interest in the proposed Eevision, and stated
that their grounds for decUning to have an active part in it were
others than those which could be connected with any disapproval

38 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
of the plan, or want of sympathy with the body which orig
inated it.* Bishop Lee, of Delaware, then the oldest but one of
[* Bishop Mcllvaine, D.D., LL.D., to Dr. Schaff.]
Cincinnati, May 30, 1871.
Key. and Dear Sie :
I have just returned home after a week's absence, having received in the
hour of departure your obliging communication on the subject of revision of the
Scripture version.
I am glad that as the revision in England was set on foot by a Convocation
of the Church of England, and is proceeding mainly under such guidance and
control, in constituting an American Committee to co-operate, the work of forma
tion has been given by the British Committee to a non-Episcopalian, and to you.
This will greatly help not only the all-sidedness of the work, but in case it shall
be desirable to introduce it into substitution for the present version will very
materially prepare the way for such result.
I am much indebted to you for the kind estimate you evince of my revisionary
qualifications, in doing me so great au honor as to ask me to be on the American
Committee. But I am sure you have over-estimated my ability. The sort of life
a Bishop must have led, who for almost forty years has superintended this large
diocese, is not favorable to the sharpness and fulness of that sort of learning
and that habit of mind which such revision demands. But there is a reason
for my asking you to excuse me which admits of no question. The state of
Jrasira-health is such that I can undertake nothing that would require close inves
tigation, and especially critical study. It seems to have become so established
that, during the few years, at the very longest, that I may be continued here, I
can expect nothing but, by great caution and quietness, to be enabled to do my
moderate and untasking work. I shall carefully mind your word " confidential."
Tours very respectfully, Chas. P. McIl vaine.
[Bishop Williams, D.D., LL.D., to Dr. Schaff.]
Middletown, Feb. 36, 1873.
My Deae Dr. Schaff :
In some correspondence with the Bishop of Winchester I have respectfully
declined to take even the very humble part I could take in the now pending re
vision of the Bible.
Let me assure you it is from no feeling that a revision is not needed, nor yet
from any unwillingness to invoke aid in making it from others than members of
the Church of England that I have been led to this view of my duty. Quite
other grounds than those are the ones I stand on, though I need uot trouble you
with any details as to their character. With great respect traly yours, J. Williams.
[Bishop Whittingham, D.D., LL.D., to Dr. Schaff.]
Baltimore, Feb. 34, 1873.
Mt Dear Dr. Schafk :
I have already, some time ago, declined an invitation from the Bisbop of
Winchester (late of Oxford) to take part in the revision of the Authorized Version

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 39
the American Bishops (now the Senior Bishop), and held in
esteem as one of the best qualified among them for the special
work devolved upon the Committee, accepted the invitation and
joined the New Testament Corapany in May, 1872. Soon after
this the final arrangements were consummated by Eev. Dr. Schaff,
who visited Europe in the summer of 1872, and on his return in
the autumn the Committee, being duly organized, began its work.
The delay occasioned by the various causes, which have been re
ferred to as incidental to the formation of such a body, and by
the necessity of communication and co-operation between the
representatives of the two Committees on opposite sides of the
ocean, caused the American Companies to be nearly two years
later than the English in beginning their duties. They pressed
forward their work with much energy, however, and were enabled
to complete it contemporaneously with their English brethren.

The first raeeting of the Araerican Coramittee, when its organ
ization was completed, was held at the Bible House in New York
on the 4th of October, 1872. The foUowing record and letters
will give the reader the account of this raeeting and organization.
[Circular Letter of Dr. Schaff to the American Eevisers.]
New York, Sept. 13, 1872.
Dear Sir:
I have the honor to inform you that, during a recent visit to
England, I have succeeded in completing the arrangements for
co-operation with the British Coraraittee on Bible Eevision, and
that confidential copies of the revised version of several books of
the Old and New Testaraents have been forwarded to me for the
use of the members of the Araerican Committee.
You are therefore requested to attend a meeting of the Ameri
can revisers to be held on Friday, Oct. 4, 1872, at 2 p.m., in my
study in the Bible House, for the purpose of completing the
now carrying on by the Convocation of Canterbury, for reasons made known to
him — not arising out of any hostility on my part to the revision itself.
Of course, I am unable to accept the gratifying and courteous invitation
which yon now extend to me.
I am glad of the opportunity thus afforded me of saying how much pleasure 1
have in any approach to the renewal of well-remembered profitable intercourse
enjoyed in former days, and how trtily I am
Tour faithful and affectionate friend and brother,
W. R. Whittingham.

40 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OP THE WORK
organization and commencing actual work. It is especially im
portant that this meeting should be fuUy attended.
EespectfuUy yours, Philip Schaff.
Rev. Dr. Woolsey, and others.

MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE,
October 4, 1872.
The Organizatiori Completed.
[From the Minutes of the American Committee.]
New York, Oct. 4, 1872.
The Araerican Committee on the Eevision of the English Au
thorized Version of the Bible met this day, at 2 P.M., at the study
of Dr. Schaff, No. 40 Bible House, to complete their organiza
tion and make arrangements for the work before them.
Present : Drs. DeWitt, Green, Hare, Strong, Lee, Woolsey,
Abbot, Kendrick, Thayer, Schaff, and Day.
Eev. Dr. Woolsey was appointed temporary Chairman. After
prayer by Bishop Lee, the minutes of the last meeting were read
and approved.
Prof. Charles Short and Prof. James Hadley were unanimously
elected, and took their seats as raembers of the Committee.
Letters, or messages, were received from Profs. Krauth, Lewis,
Smith, Hackett, Warren, and Eiddle, expressing their regret at
not being able to be present, with the assurance of their con
tinued readiness to co-operate.
Printed copies of the revision by the British Companies, so far
as completed, viz., in the O. T. of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus ;
in the N. T. of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were
then distributed to the members of the American Companies, with
the express understanding that they should be regarded and kept
as strictly confidential.
After a brief statement by Dr. Schaff in regard to the present
state of the work of revision in Great Britain, and the desire of
the British Coraraittee to come into immediate connection with
the American Committee, the following officers were appointed
by ballot : Eev. Dr. PhUip Schaff, President.
Prof. George E. Day, Secretary.
Prof. Charles Short, Treasurer.

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 41
It was then voted :
1. That the two Companies hold their meetings in New York.
2. That the officers of the Committee be authorized to secure
the room No. 42 in the Bible House for one year or less, and to
purchase the necessary furniture.
3. That Professors Short, Day, and Green be a Coraraittee to
report upon the means of obtaining the necessary funds for the
prosecution of the work of the Committee.
The two Companies then separated for the purpose of organiza
tion. On meeting again, the O. T. Company reported that they
had made choice of Prof. WilUam Henry Green as Chairman ; and
Prof. George E. Day, Secretary. The N. T. Company reported
that they had elected Eev. Dr. Woolsey, Chairman ; and Prof.
Charles Short, Secretary.*
The Committee then adjourned to meet at No. 40 Bible House
on Saturday, Nov. 2, at 9 A.M.
George E. Day,
Secretary.
[Dr. Schaff to Bishop Ellicott.]
New York, Oct. 12, 1872.
My Lord :
I have the honor to inform you that the Araerican Committee
of revisers is now fuUy organized, and has entered upon its work.
A meeting of the revisers was held in my study on the 4th of
October. Bishop Lee opened the meeting with prayer. Most of
the members were present ; the rest sent letters asking tq be ex
cused for unavoidable absence, but expressing deep interest in
the work, and their readiness to co-operate.
I distributed among the merabers present copies of the revised
version of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, and of the Gospels of
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, which were intrusted to me
by the British Coraraittee for the exclusive use of the American
Coraraittee. The confidential character of these documents wUl
be sacredly respected.
The organization was then completed by the unanimous elec
tion of the undersigned as President ; of Prof. George E. Day,
[* Afterwards Prof. Thayer was also elected Secretary of the N. T. Company
and relieved Prof. Short of a part of the work, which became very laborious as
the revision proceeded.]

42 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
D.D., of Yale College, New Haven, as Corresponding Secretary ;
and of Prof. Charles Short, LL.D., of Columbia CoUege, New
York, as Treasurer.
The Company for the revision of the Old Testament elected
Prof. W. Henry Green, D.D., of the Theological Seminary at
Princeton, its Chairman, and Prof. Day, Eecording Secretary.
The officers of the New Testament Company are the Eev.
Ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., LL.D, of New
Haven, Chairman, and Prof. Charles Short, Eecording Secre
tary. Both Companies agreed to hold periodical meetings every
month. The next meeting will begin November 2. We have
rented and furnished a roora in the Bible House, and shall soon
take raeasures to provide for the necessary expenses.
As President of the whole Committee it is my duty according
to Art. III. of our constitution to conduct the official correspond
ence with the British revisers.
It is in discharge of this duty that I write this letter.
I look forward with great pleasure to a continuance of the
correspondence with our brethren in England.
I raay add that our recent raeeting was a very harmonious one,
and gives good promise of earnest and vigorous co-operation with
the British Committee. We apprehend no raaterial difference,
and feel confident that so noble and holy a work, which engages
the united labors and prayers of Christian scholars from all
branches of Anglo-Saxon Christendora, will be crowned with the
blessing of the Divine Author of the Scriptures.
I assure you and the members of the Company you represent
of my profound regard and best wishes and prayers for the suc
cess of your work. Truly yours, Philip Schaff.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
Chairman of the New Test. Company of Eevision.
[Bishop Ellicott to Dr. Schaff.]
Gloucestee, Nov. 21, 1872,
Deae Dr. Sohaep :
I am requested by the New Testament Company to thank you
for your kind note and to express their sincere pleasure at hear
ing so exceUent an account of your progress.

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 43
The Company present their kind compliments and best wishes
to the distinguished scholars over whom you preside.
Very faithfully yours,
C. J. Gloucester and Bristol.

The List of the Araerican Committee as finally constituted, and
including both those who participated in the organization of the
body and others who were added to the merabership by election
at some of the earliest meetings, may be appropriately inserted
at this . point. The membership was necessarUy liraited to
scholars whose residence was not so remote frora the City of New
York as to make their attendance at the monthly meetings of the
Committee impossible.
GENEEAL OFFICEES OF THE COMMITTEE:
Philip Schaff, D.D, LL.D., President.
George E. Day, D.D, Secretary.
(1) Old Testament Company :
Professor Wm. Henry Green, D.D., LL. D. (Chairman), Theo
logical Seminary, Princeton, N. J.
Professor George E. Day, D.D. (Secretary), Divinity School of
Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Professor Charles A Aiken, D.D., Theological Seminary,
Princeton, N. J.
The Eev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D, CoUegiate Eeformed
Dutch Church, New York.
Professor Thomas J. Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
Professor John DeWitt, D.D., Theological Seminary, New
Brunswick, N. J.
Professor George Emlen Hare, D.D., LL.D., Divinity School,
Philadelphia. Professor Charles P. Krauth, D.D., LL.D, Vice-Provost of the
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Professor Tayleb Lewis, LL.D., Union College, Schenectady,
N. Y.
Professor Charles M. Mead, Ph.D., Theological Seminary, An
dover, Mass.

44 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE WORK
Professor Howard Osgood, D.D., Theological Seminary,
Eochester, N. Y.
Professor Joseph Packard, D.D., Theological Seminary, Alex
andria, Va.
Professor Calvin E. Stowe, D.D., Hartford, Conn.
Professor James Strong, S. T. D., Theological Seminary, Madi
son, N. J.
Professor C. A. Van Dyck, D.D., M.D., Beirut, Syria (Advisory
Member on questions of Arabic).*
Note. — The American Old Testament Company lost by death Prof. Tayler
Lewis, d. 1877 ; Dr. Krauth, Philadelphia, d. Jan. 3, 1883 ; and Dr. Stowe, by
resignation. (2) New Testament Company.
Ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., LL.D., (Chair
man), New Haven, Conn.
Professor J. Heney Thayer, D.D. (Secretary), Theological Sem
inary, Andover, Mass.
Professor Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D., Divinity School, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass.
The Eev. Jonathan K. Burr, D.D., Trenton, N. J.
President Thomas Chase, LL.D., Haverford College, Pa.
ChanceUor Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D., New York.
Professor Timothy Dwight, D.D., Divinity School of Yale Col
lege, New Haven, Conn.
Professor James Hadley, LL.D., Yale CoUege, New Haven,
Conn. Professor Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., LL.D., Theological Sem
inary, Eochester, N. Y.
Professor Charles Hodge, D.D., LL.D., Theological Seminary,
Princeton, N. J.
Professor A. C. Kendrick, D.D., LL.D., University of Eoches
ter, N. Y.
The Eight Eev. Alfred Lee, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of
Delaware. Professor Matthew B. Eiddle, D.D., Theological Seminary,
Hartford, Conn.
* Dr. Van Dyck has rendered important aid to the Old Testament Company,
both in his corre.'ipondence with them, and by_^the preparation of a full list of the
variations, in the renderings of the recent Arabic translation of the Book of Job,
from the renderings of the Authorized English Version.

OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 45
Professor Philip Sohafe, D.D., LL.D., Union Theological Sem
inary, New York.
Professor Charles Short, LL.D. (Secretary), Columbia Col
lege, New York.
Professor Henry Boynton Smith, D.D., LL.D., Union Theolog
ical Seminary, New York.
The Eev. Edward A. Washburn, D.D., LL.D., Eector of Calvary
Church, New York.
Note. — The American New Testament Company lost by death Prof. James
Hadley (who attended the first session), d. 1873 ; Dr. Henry Boynton SmTH
(who attended one session, and resigned from ill health), d. 1877 ; Dr. Horatio
B. Hackett, d. 1876 ; Dr. Charles Hodge (who never attended the meetings,
but corresponded with the Committee), d. 1878; Rev. Dr. Washburn, d. Feb. 2,
1881 (after the completion of the N. T. Eevision); Eev. Dr. Burr, d. April
34, 1882, and Prof. Ezra Abbot, d. March 30, 1884. Dr. G. R. Crooks and Dr.
W. F. Warren, who accepted the original appointment, found it impossible to
attend any meetings and resigned.
It is an interesting fact connected with the work of Eevision in
America, that only one of those who were actively engaged in the
Eevision of the Version of the New Testaraent — Professor
Hackett — died before it was completed. Professors Henry B.
Smith and Charles Hodge attended no raeetings after the actual
work began, and thus had only a norainal connection with the
Corapany, while Professor Jaraes Hadley was present only at the
first raeeting, his death having occurred in Noveraber, 1872. Of
the Old Testament Corapany Dr. Krauth is the only active mem
ber who has died — Professor Tayler Lewis, who died in 1877,
having been unable to participate in any of the meetings. It is
also interesting to note the fact that the few members who were
not in the Committee at its first organization were elected by the
body almost imraediately afterwards, so that all those who brought
the work to its corapletion had a part in all its stages from the
beginning. The Eevision, so far as it is the work of the Ameri
can Committee, is, thus, the result of the joint labors of an
almost unbroken company during a period of eight years in the New
Testaraent part of it, and twelve years in the Old Testament part.

The rules under which the English Companies carried on the
work were as follows :

46 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
PEINCIPLES AND EULES OF THE BEITISH COM
MITTEE.
At the first raeeting of the Committee, appointed by the Con
vocation of Canterbury, May 6, 1870, in accordance with the sub
joined Eeport,* accepted by Convocation at its last session, the
foUowing resolutions and rules were agreed to as the fundamental
principles on which the revision is to be conducted :
Eesolved, —
I. That the Committee appointed by the Convocation of Can
terbury at its last Session separate itself into two Companies, the
one for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testa
ment, the other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the
New Testament.
IL That the Corapany for the revision of the Authorised Ver
sion of the Old Testament consist of the Bishops of St. David's,
Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln, and Bath and Wells, and of the following
members from the Lower House : Archdeacon Eose, Canon
Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay.
III. That the Company for the revision of the Authorised
Version of the New Testament consist of the Bishops of Win
chester, Gloucester and Bristol, and Salisbury, and of the follow
ing merabers from the Lower House : the Prolocutor, the Deans
of Canterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.
IV. That the first portion ot the work to be undertaken by the
Old Testament Corapany be the revision of the Authorised Ver
sion of the Pentateuch.
V. That the first portion of the work to be undertaken by the
*"1. That it is desirable thata revision of the Authorised Version of the
Holy Scriptures be undertaken."
" 3. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal render
ings 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, or any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgment 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."

OP THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION.

47

New Testament Company be the revision of the Authorised Ver
sion of the Synoptical Gospels.
VI. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join
the Old Testament Company : —

ALEXANDER, Dr. W.L.
CHENERY, Professor
COOK, Canon
DAVIDSON, Professor A.B.
DAVIES, Dr. B.
FAIRBAIRN, Professor
FIELD, Rev. F.

GINSBURG, Dr.
GOTCH, Dr.
HARRISON, Archdeacon
LEATHES, Professor
M'GILL, Professor
PAYNE SMITH, Canon
PEROWNE, Prof. J. H.

PLUMPTRE, Professor
PUSEY, Canon
WRIGHT, Dr. (British
Museum)
WRIGHT, W. A. (Cam
bridge)

VII. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join
the New Testament Company : —

ANGUS, Dr.
BROWN, Dr. DAVID
DUBLIN, Archbishop of
EADIE, Dr.
HORT, Rev. P. J. A.
HUMPHRY, Rev. W. G.
KENNEDY, Canon

LEE, Archdeacon
LIGHTFOOT, Dr.
MILLIGAN, Professor
MOULTOiNi, Professor
NEWMAN, Dr. J. H.
NEWTH, Professor
ROBERTS, Dr. A.
SMITH, Eev. G. VANCE

S0OTT,Dr. (Balliol Coll.)
SCRIVENER, Eev. F.
H. A.
ST. ANDREWS, Bp. of
TREGELLES, Dr.
VAUGHAN, Dr.
WESTCOTT, Canon

VIII. That the general principles to be followed by both Com
panies be as follows :
1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text
of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness.
2. To limit as far as possible the expression of such altera
tions to the language of the Authorised and earlier Eng
lish versions.
3. Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised,
once provisionaUy, the second time finaUy, and on prin
ciples 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 Yer
sion was raade, the alteration be indicated in the raargin.
5. To raake or retaiin no change in the text on the second
final revision by each Corapany, except two-thirds of those
present approve of the sarae, 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.

48 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OP THE WORK
7. To revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs,
italics, and punctuation.
8. To refer, on the part of each Corapany, when considered
desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary raen, whether
at home or abroad, for their opinions.
IX. That the work of each Company be communicated to the
other as it is completed, in order that there may be as little devi
ation from uniformity in language as possible.
X. That the special or by-rules for each Company be as fol
lows :
1. To make aU corrections in writing previous to the
meeting.
2. To place all the corrections due to textual considerations
on the left-hand margin, and all other corrections on the
right-hand margin.
3. To transmit to the chairman, in case of being unable to
attend, the corrections proposed in the portion agreed
upon for consideration.

The rules of the Araerican Coraraittee included those adopted
in England in all essential points, and were set forth in the fol
lowing Constitution :
" I. The American Committee, invited by the British Com
mittee, engaged in the revision of the Authorized English Version
of the Holy Scriptures, to co-operate with them, shall be com
posed of biblical scholars and divines in the United States.
" II. This Coraraittee shall have the power to elect its officers,
to add to its nuraber, and to fiU its own vacancies.
" III. The officers shaU consist of a President, a Corresponding
Secretary, and a Treasurer. The President shall conduct the
official correspondence with the British revisers. The Secretary
shall conduct the home correspondence.
" IV. New members of the Committee and corresponding mem
bers must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unan
imously by ballot.
" V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British
Companies on the basis of the principles and rules of revision
adopted by the British Coraraittee.
" VI. The American Committee shall consist of two Companies,

OP THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 49
the one for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old
Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorized Version
of the New Testament.
" VII. Each Company shall elect its own Chairman and Ee
cording Secretary.
" YIII. The British Companies will submit to the American
Companies, from time to time, such portions of their work as have
passed the first revision, and the American Companies wUl trans
mit their criticisms and suggestions to the British Companies be
fore the second revision.
" IX. A joint meeting of the American and British Companies
shall be held, if possible, in London, before final action.
" X. The American Coraraittee shaU pay their own expenses."
The raeetings of the two American Companies were held every
month, from September to May inclusive, in each year, at rooras
No. 42 and 44 Bible House, New York. A suraraer raeeting was
held in the raonth of July at some place designated by the Com
panies, — usually at New Haven, Andover or Princeton. The
summer meetings continued for a week ; the other meetings for
two days. The members sat around a common table, and freely
and fully discussed such passages or chapters as had been previ
ously assigned for the particular meeting — each member having
already examined and investigated them for himself. In this way
the whole of the New Testament, and of the Old, was minutely
considered and discussed. The work was reviewed in this care
ful manner twice from beginning to end. In the first revision,
changes in the Authorized Version were recorded for further con
sideration in case they were favored by a majority of votes ; but,
in the second revision, the rule demanded a vote of two-thirds in
order to adopt the proposed tehange. Finally, all passages were
exarained a third time in which unreconciled differences still
remained between the views of the English and American Com
panies. The thoroughness and patience with which the work was
done wiU be manifest to the reader from this brief statement. It
may safely be said that no criticism has been made on the New
Testament portion of the work already published, which was not
anticipated, and accorded a fair and fuU discussion by the Eevisers
in the progress of the work. The same wiU, doubtless, prove to
have been the case with respect to the Old Testament, which is
issued simultaneously with this Historical Statement.

50 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OP THE WORK
The membership of the two Companies included scholars of the
principal Protestant denominations. The opportunity was thus
given for a fair and able presentation of the views of each, so far
as such views have a bearing upon the matter of the translation
of words and sentences. Controversy, however, never arose in
the raeetings on points dividing reUgious bodies. The spirit of
scholarship rose far above the sectarian spirit, and the latter was
at no time manifest. It is a satisfaction to aU the revisers in the
retrospect, to know that there was, from the beginning to the
close of their labors, a constant and deUghtful exhibition of Chris
tian unity. This fact, which it is pleasant to remember, may also,
it is beUeved, bear with itself a testimony to the general accuracy
of their work.
The relations between the Committees of Eevision in the two
countries involved some questions of importance which called for
extended correspondence, but were finaUy settled by an agree
ment between the two parties which met the approval of both.
At an early period in the history of the work, an arrangement had
been made between the English Companies and the officers con
nected with the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge,
by which the Eevised Version in Great Britain became the prop
erty of those institutions, on condition that the large expenses
incidental to the preparation of the work in that country should
be paid by them. The copyright, in Great Britain, accordingly,
passed into their control. It was at no time desired by the
American Committee to have any such arrangement made be
tween themselves and publishers in the United States, or in any
way to put a restriction on the sale of the new book, for the pur
pose of securing any remuneration for their own services or any
benefit for themselves whatever. No copyright was thought of or
wished for in this country with any such end in view. At one
time, however, the subject of securing a copyright here for the
sole purpose of preventing the publication of inaccurate and im
perfect editions, was considered and discussed. This led to a
series of communications with the managers of the University
Presses, and also to some inquiries addressed to legal authorities
in the United States. The feeUng, however, on the part of the
members of the American Committee was so general and so per
manent, that the book should be made a free gift to the public,
with no limitation whatever in the way of its widest circulation,
that the whole matter was laid aside by common consent. Diffi-

OF THB AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 51
culties might, not improbably, have arisen in the case of a work
having such a character — the authorship being in the persons of
citizens of two different countries. The correspondence also inci-
dentaUy developed the fact that no satisfactory arrangements
could be made with the Presses, had there been a desire to ac
complish that end. The determination of the American gentlemen
was that they would not receive pecuniary benefit from their work,
or even, in any way, seem to do so ; and, after due consideration,
it was thought that the danger of the appearance of undesirable
editions was not sufficient to lead them to reverse or turn aside
from their settled purpose. As sorae standard edition, however,
was necessary, the American Committee agreed to make a public
statement, that the one issued by the University Presses was the
one for whose accuracy they would hold themselves responsible.
As the American Committee was organized later than the
one in England, and only in accordance with a vote of Con
vocation "to invite their co-operation," it was natural that
questions should arise as to the precise relation of the Araerican
body to the English — whether they were to hold the place
of advisers merely, or of fellow-revisers with their English
brethren. The difficulties connected with the deciding of
questions by the votes of two different bodies of men three
thousand miles apart ; the apparent necessity that the final
determination should be made in one place and by those
who could confer with one another ; the reasonable claim to a
certain priority on the part of the English Companies by reason
of the fact that the work was originated in their country ; and
the equaUy appropriate feeUng that the representatives of our na
tion should have a recognized participation in the work to which
they devoted, as fuUy as did the scholars in England, years of
labor, — aU these points, together with others closely related to
them, were made the subject of communication and, as far as pos
sible, of conference. Several plans were suggested by which
the ends desired by the two parties might be attained. One or
two of them, after some consideration, found favor for a time
with both Committees, but, as unforeseen objections arose, they
were afterwards abandoned. The one most worthy of mention
was a plan by which certain members of each Coraraittee should
be elected into the merabership of the other, and should have the
right of voting by letter. This arrangement, however, seemed

52 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE WORK
cumbersome, and Ukely to be attended by delay and other diffi
culties in its practical operation. It was also exposed to some
objections connected with the relations of the English Committee
to the Presses which had a certain control of their work. In
view of these points it was rejected, and, indeed, was never alto
gether approved as a feasible and desirable one by either party.
The attitude of the EngUsh Committee towards the suggestions
of the American Eevisers was always that of readiness to give
them most respectful consideration. In July,' 1873, when the
question of the relations of the two bodies was first brought under
consideration, both the Old and New Testament Companies in
England declared that they were " glad to have the opportunity
of repeating the assurance that they will give the most careful
consideration," and " wiU attach great weight and importance to
aU the suggestions of the American Committee." Two years later
the same assurance was repeated, the two Companies again de
claring that they "will continue to give the greatest possible
weight to every suggestion of the American Committee and wiU
also endeavor, whether by conference or otherwise, to arrive at an
agreement upon any points of importance as to which the English
Corapanies and the American Committee may not be fully agreed."
Soon afterwards, and in connection with an able presentation of
the case in London by Eev. Dr. Schaff, the plan of electing two
members of each body into the other, which has been already al
luded to, was proposed and adopted by both of the English Com
panies, and subsequently accepted by the American Commit
tee. The difficulties in the way of making the plan effective,
and certain complications connected with the transference of the
pecuniary rights in the work from the Eevisers in England to the
Universities having, however, led to its abandonment, further
negotiations were held with the Syndics and Delegates of the two
Presses and the Eevision Companies. These negotiations led to
the result which was embodied in the following provisions :

MEMOEANDUM OF AGEEEMENT.
(draft SUBMITTED BY THE UNIVERSITY PRESSES, AUG. 3. 1877.)
As a preliminary it seems desirable to state, that the primary
object of the American Committee and the two English Com
panies is assumed to be. To obtain one and the same revision

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OP EEVISION. 53
of the present English Authorized Version of the Holy Script
ures. For this end the following arrangement is proposed:
1. The EngUsh Companies will continue to send their first and
provisional version to the American Coraraittee from tirae to time
for their observations thereon.
2. Such observations wiU be taken (as before) into careful con
sideration by the EngUsh Corapanies in connection with their
second revision. The English Companies will then communi
cate to the American Committee the results of their second re
vision. 3. The English Companies will give reasonable time for the
American Committee to return their remarks on any points that
they may think important in these last coraraunications ; and,
although the English Companies are precluded by the terms of
their Constitution from undertaking a third revision, they wiU
nevertheless take such reraarks of the American Corarait
tee into special consideration before the conclusion of their
labors. 4. If any differences shaU stUl remain, the American Com
mittee wUl yield its preferences for the sake of harmony ; pro
vided that such differences of reading and rendering as the
American Committee raay represent to the English Companies to
be of special importance, be distinctly stated either in the Preface
to the Eevised Version, or in an Appendix to the volume, during
a term of fourteen years from the date of publication, unless the
American Churches shall sooner pronounce a deliberate opinion
upon the Eevised Version with the view of its being taken for
public use.
5. The English Companies wUl comraunicate to the Araerican
Coraraittee copies of their revision in its final form before it is
given to the public.
6. All communications between the American Committee and
the two EngUsh Companies relating to the work of revision
to be regarded (as heretofore) as made in the strictest confi
dence. 7. The American Committee will in no case interfere with the
interests of the two University Presses in the Eevised Version as
finally settled.
They will do what Ues in their power to proraote the freest cir-

54 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
culation of the editions of the University Presses in the United
States, not only by abstaining from issuing any editions of their
own, but by recognizing the editions of the University Presses as
the authorized editions, and in all proper ways favoring such
issues and discouraging irresponsible issues, for the period of
fourteen years.
8. If the Eevised Version be adopted by the American
Churches, it shall, after such term of fourteen years, become
public property in the United States, as the Authorized Version
is now.
Note. — By the term " American Churches " is understood all religious bodies
in the United States which use the present Authorized Version in their public
services. This arrangement, which was proposed in August, 1877, was ac
cepted by the American Committee a month later — the following
resolution having at that time been passed :
(From the Minutes of the American Committee, Sept. 38, 1877.)
Resolved, That the American Bible Eevision Committee hereby
accept and ratify the agreement contained in the Memorial from
Dr. CartmeU accompanying his letter of 3d of August, 1877, with
the understanding in regard to Article 8th that the American
Committee assume no responsibUity in regard to the action of the
American Churches, or in regard to any term beyond the period
of fourteen years.
In consequence of this action, and as carrying out what was
understood by both parties to be intended by the Sth Article of
the agreement, the American Committee caused the statement
which follows to be signed by their President and Secretary, and
given to the American press before the publication of the Eevised
Version of the New Testament.
" The American Committee of Bible Eevision hereby announce
to the American public that only those editions of the New Eevis
ion, including marginal renderings, which are published or ap
proved by the University Presses of England will be recognized
by us as the authorized editions."
The agreement thus finally made between the two bodies of Ee
visers secured sorae important results. It led to the utmost effort,
consistent with due regard for honest convictions, to reach an en-

OF THE AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 55
tirely harmonious conclusion in all cases. It prevented all possi
bility of a twofold Eevision ; and, in case the Authorized Version
should be given up and the new work preferred, it continued to
the churches of both nations one and the same English trans
lation of the Scriptures. It guarded the public from irrespon
sible and imperfect editions, with all their errors, by establish
ing a single standard with which all must be compared, and to
which all that would hope for success must conform. It freed
the book from all restrictions from copyright in this country, and
made it a gift to the people. A large proportion of the sugges
tions of the American Committee were adopted and embodied
in the Eevised Version. Many others, which were not adopted
in their exact words, were inserted in a modified form which satis-
factorUy expressed the American views. A considerable nuraber
of those which were not thus incorporated in the text of the book
were not deemed by the American Eevisers of sufficient import
ance to render it necessary to insist upon them. In cases, how
ever, where such importance was strongly felt by the American
Committee, they were, in accordance with the agreement, dis
tinctly recorded in an Appendix, which the EngUsh Eevisers and
the University Presses obUgated themselves to publish in all their
editions. The reader of the Eevised Version will discover in the
Appendix only a very small part of the results of the work of the
American Committee. These results are found everywhere
throughout the entire book.
It may be proper here to remark, that the heading of the Araeri
can Appendix to the Eevised Version of the New Testament,
which was prepared by the Committee and forwarded with it to
England, was as follows :
The American N. T. Eevision Company, having in many cases
yielded their preference for certain readings and renderings, pre
sent the foUowing instances in which they differ from the EngUsh
Company, as in their view of sufficient importance to be appended
to the revision, in accordance with an understanding between the
Companies. This form sets forth more precisely the character of the Ap
pendix, and the design in confining it within narrow Umits, than
the one which was substituted for it, and which appears in the
New Testament as pubhshed.

56 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION.
The work of the American New Testament Company continued
until the autumn of 1880 ; that of the Old Testament Company
tiU the close of the year 1884. The whole Bible, .after these
twelve years of labor, appears in its Eevised English Version, at
this time, before the people of Great Britain and America. This
Eevised Version is now a fact in history. Those who have
labored in the preparation of it have carefuUy and conscientiously
examined and re-examined every verse and sentence and word.
They now commit it to the English-speaking world. That it will
meet unfavorable criticism — sometimes severe, sometimes thought
less, sometimes from the conservative, and sometimes from the
progressive side — as a part of it has already met such criticism,
they do not doubt. But they entrust it to the future, knowing
that the book will live, while the critics will die, and wishing only
that their labors may contribute, in this generation and the coming
ones, to make the Scriptures clearer in their true meaning to aU
men of the English race.
Whatever may be the final result of their work, the members
of the Committee wUl find an abundant reward for the years
spent upon it in the memory of their common studies and their
long-continued and friendly association.

The Coraraittee desire to record, in this review of their labors,
their acknowledgment of the great service rendered to the cause
of Eevision by their President, Dr. Philip Schaff. His untiring
energy and constant devotion to the interests of the work, from
its inception to its close, deserve the thanks of all who have co
operated in any way in the preparation of the Eevised Version,
and also of aU who shall find in it help and light in their reading
of the Word of God. It was owing to hira, more than to any
other, that the work was undertaken in this country, and to him
hkewise is largely due the success with which the means for car
rying it forward have been secured.

MEMOKIAL PAPEES.
It is believed that those who have aided in the work of the
Coraraittee, and all friends of the Eevision, will be interested in
the foUowing coraraeraorative papers respecting some of those
who were engaged in the work, but were removed by death, either
before the completion of the New Testament portion of it, or be
fore the publication of the entire Eevised Version. They have
accordingly been inserted in this volume at this place, between
the Eecord of the work itself and the account of the generous aid
furnished by many benevolent friends, who enabled the Commit
tee to carry it forward.

MEMORIAL PAPERS.

DE. HACKETT.
[From the Minutes, Nov. 36, 1875, p. 89.]
A committee consisting of Drs. Kendrick, Woolsey and Abbot
was appointed to draft a minute coraraeraorative of our associate.
Dr. Hackett, deceased since our last meeting. They prepared the
following paper, which was ordered to be placed on our records
and a copy to be given to the press for publication : —
" With profound regret this Coramittee have to record the death,
since their last session, of the Eev. Dr. Horatio Balch Hackett,
one of our country's most erainent bibUcal scholars and a loved
and honored member of this board of revision. Dr. Hackett was
bom in Salisbury, Mass., Deceraber 27, 1808. Having been grad
uated with high honor from Amherst College and Andover Theo
logical Seminary, he served for four years, first as adjunct Professor
of the Latin and Greek Languages and Literature in Brown Uni
versity, afterwards for raany years as Professor of Biblical Liter
ature in Newton Theological Institution, and during the last six
years as Professor of New Testaraent Exegesis in the Eochester
Theological Serainary. In all these positions his varied duties
were discharged with erainent abUity.
"As a biblical scholar he rose rapidly to take rank with the
ablest scholars in our own and other lands. As a teacher he was
no less distinguished. Uniting exact learning and vigorous method
with a devout reverence for the sacred Word, and an intense en
thusiasm that kindled into life even the driest grammatical detaUs,
he raade his lecture-roora, to all who frequented it, a place of un
wonted quickening and inspiration. As an author, his various
contributions to sacred literature have been exceedingly valuable.
His Coramentary on the Acts is regarded abroad as well as at
horae as of standard exceUence ; and his enlarged edition (under
taken in conjunction with Dr. Ezra Abbot) of Sraith's Dictionary
of the Bible, to the English edition of which he was a contributor,
has greatly enhanced the value of that exceUent work, and won
for him the lasting gratitude of students of the Scriptures.
" Dr. Hackett came to feel deeply the need of improving our ex
ceUent standard version of the Bible. For several years he lent

60 HISTOEIOAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
his valuable services to the American Bible Union, and when the
American Board of Eevisers was organized to co-operate with the
English Eevision Committee, he entered heartUy into the work as
a member of the New Testament section of our body. Though
his increasingly deUcate health forbade his uniform attendance at
the meetings, yet his presence was always warmly greeted by his
colleagues in revision, and to his opinions, expressed vnth invari
able modesty, was accorded the weight due to ripe learning and
an admirably balanced judgment.
"In his personal character he was no less estimable. Eetiring
as he was in disposition and Uving in scholarly seclusion, few
knew how deep and warm were his affections, and how tender his
sympathies ; how refined were his tastes and how varied his culture ;
how wide was his outlook, and how just were his judgments of pub
Uc affairs ; how fervid was his patriotisra, and how humble and
unaffected was his piety ; in short, what a wealth of noble and
Christian quaUties lay hidden beneath that quiet exterior. In aU
his relations as a man, a teacher, a scholar, and a Christian he
comraanded at once love and veneration, and his later pupUs were
wont to trace in his gentle and chastened enthusiasm a resemblance
to the 'Beloved Disciple' whose writings he so genially expounded.
Nobly has he accomplished his earthly work, and in the higher
sphere to which death has translated hira, he is enjoying, we
doubt not, the fruits of a life of faithful consecration to the serv
ice of the Church and the Church's Lord. With heartfelt grati
tude to Him who has given to the Church the blessing of such a
life we place on record this iraperfect tribute to his high scholarly
and personal exceUence."
Itesolved, That the Secretary of this Committee be requested to
transmit to the family of Dr. Hackett a copy of the above minute,
with the assurance of our tender sympathy with them in their
sore bereavement, and our prayer that the Heavenly Comforter may
impart to them His abundant consolations. Geoege E. Day, Sec.
PEOFESSOE TAYLEE LEWIS.
[From the Minutes, Jan. 25, 1878, pp. 133, 134.]
42 Bible House, New York, Jan. 26, 1878.
The foUowing paper respecting the Ufe and services of the late
Prof. Tayler Lewis was adopted unanimously. It was also voted

of the AMEEICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 61
that it be recorded in the minutes and published in the religious
newspapers :
" The death of so distinguished a scholar as Dr. Lewis calls for
a passing tribute from his brethren of the American Bible Ee
vision Committee. While his physical infirmities liraited his co
operation in our work to the occasional communication of written
suggestions, these were always highly prized, and his interest in
the progress and success of the work was by many signs known
to be deep and genuine. • It was a source of much regret to the
Old Testament Corapany that they could not enjoy raore frequently
and abundantly the results of his prolonged and profound biblical
and phUological studies.
" From the profession of the law, which he had entered. Dr.
Lewis early turned to the more congenial work of a scholar,
teacher, and man of letters. For raore than forty years he was by
profession a teacher, and was nearly the whole of this period con
nected first with the University of New York and later with
Union CoUege. His special departraent was that of the Greek
language and literature ; and after disabling infirraities cut him
off from the ordinary work of the recitation room, his own genius
and enthusiasm continued to inspire class after class in the lecture
room, and in his parlors, with something of his own admiration
for Greek literature and philosophy. His studies in Hebrew and
the cognate languages began early and were prosecuted with char
acteristic energy and with rich results. His well-worn Hebrew
Bible bears witness, through his raeraoranda, to the frequency
with which he had many years ago re-read it in course. And he
left behind him numerous and carefully elaborated comraents on
many of its difficult passages. The Committee cannot withhold
the expression of the wish that these notes, or a judicious selec
tion from them, may yet be published, in addition to the biblical
studies which he had given to the pubUc during his Ufe. Dr.
Lewis was no recluse. In philosophical, political and theological
discussion he was deeply interested, and with unusual versatility
and power took ready part in such debates. He was not merely
a loyal and vaUant, but an aggressive, champion of what he held
to be the truth. Especially were all his energies and resources
ready for the most prompt and vigorous use in maintaining the
supremacy of the Word of God over aU human thinking and
living. With him has passed away one who in the variety and
extent of his resources and attainments has reflected honor upon

62 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE WORK
American scholarship, and whose memory will be cherished by
aU who appreciate his faithful labors for Christ."

DE. NATHAN BISHOP.
[Prom the Minutes, Sept. 35, 1880, p. 148.]
The following paper, prepared by Dr. Schaff, coraraeraorative of
the late Hon. Nathan Bishop, LL.D., was adopted :
" The American Eevision Committee record with profound sor
row the death of Dr. Nathan Bishop, Chairman of the Committee
on Finance, who was called to his reward August 7, 1880, at Sara
toga, aged seventy-two years.
" We share in the universal esteem for his pure and consistently
Christian character, his amiable and catholic spirit, his sound
judgment, his generous liberality in promoting every good cause.
He was a man who delighted in doing good without ostentation,
from principle and from pure love to his Lord and his fellow-men.
He took a deep and intelligent interest in the revision movement
from the start, and never doubted for a moment its final success.
He was the most liberal and cheerful contributor toward the ex
penses of our Committee, and considered it an honor and privilege
to promote a cause so sacred and iraportant to all readers of the
Word of God. His name is identified with the labors of this
Coraraittee, and his meinory will be cherished by all who person-
aUy knew him.
" Eesolved, That a copy of this minute be sent to the widow of
Dr. Bishop."

DE. WASHBUEN.
[Prom the Minutes, Oct. 38, 1881, p. 163.1
The foUowing memorial paper, prepared by Bishop Lee, on the
death of Eev. Dr. Washburn, was read and adopted, and the Sec
retary was directed to send a copy of the same to his widow, and
also to the public press :
" Since the conclusion of the labors of the NewTestament Com
pany, it has pleased Almighty God to take out of this world one
of their number, the Eeverend Edward A. Washburn, D.D., Eector
of Calvary Church, in the City of New York.
" It is the desire of those associated so long with him in this

OP THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 63
important work to place upon their records an expression of their
high estimate of the character of their laraented feUow-laborer,
and of their affectionate regard for his meraory.
" Dr. Washburn was a man whose marked ability and noble
qualities comraanded universal respect, whUe his ready sympathy
and kindliness endeared him to a large circle of friends. He was
a scholar, assiduous and well trained, whose powerful mind readUy
grasped and fed upon knowledge, both secular and sacred. As a
faithful pastor and an instructive, forcible preacher, he stood in
the foremost rank. In the pursuit of truth he was honest and
earnest, and in the avowal of his convictions fearless and out
spoken. In his whole intercourse he was remarkably transparent,
open and genuine — a man to be adraired, trusted and loved.
" In the present revision of the English Bible his interest was
enUsted from the beginning. He took an early and decided
stand as its advocate, and the first public meeting in this country
in behalf of the undertaking was held in his church. Disease,
against which he manfully struggled through a large part of his
life, drove him to a foreign land in search of health soon after the
labors of the Committee comraenced, and after his return the same
cause often interrupted his attendance at our meetings. It has
been a source of great regret to his associates that they lost so
much of the advantage that would have accrued from his raore
frequent co-operation. But when he could be with us his pres
ence was gladly welcoraed, and his suggestions highly valued.
Upon his connection with this work we look back with satisfaction
and gratitude. He was not permitted to hail the public appear
ance of the volume to which he had given so much time and
thought, but its saving truths were dear to his heart, and we can
not doubt through divine grace were instrumental in preparing
him for the event which came so unexpectedly.
" Eemoved in the fulness of his ripened powers and in the height
of his usefulness, his end might seem to us premature, but we bow
in submission to His will who doeth all things weU."

DE. BUEE.
[From the Minutes, Oct. 36, 1883, pp. 175-177.]
The foUowing tribute to the memory of the Eev. Jonathan
Kelsey Burr, D.D., of the New Testament Company, deceased

64 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE WOEK
since our last meeting, presented by Dr. Strong, was unanimously
adopted, and directed to be placed upon our minutes, with the
request to Dr. Strong to communicate the same to the surviving
members of Dr. Burr's family :
" The Eev. Jonathan Kelsey Burr, D.D., a member of the New
Testament Company of the American Bible Eevision Committee,
who died AprU 24, 1882, was born in Middletown, Conn., Septem
ber 21, 1825, and graduated from the Wesleyan University in 1845,
and in 1846 was a student in the Union Theological Seminary.
With the exception of the last two years of his life, when he was
gradually faUing with consumption, he spent the intermediate
years in the active ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
occupying several of the most important pulpits within the bounds
of the New Jersey and the Newark Conferences. As a preacher
and pastor he held a high rank in his denomination, and was uni
versaUy respected and beloved for his scholarly attainments, his
uniform urbanity, and his diligent habits. He was the friend of
the rich and the poor alike, and was equaUy welcome and at
home in the elegant mansion and in the humblest dwelling. He
was a man of extensive reading, of refined taste, and of thorough
culture, as well as of deep but undemonstrative piety. Modesty
corabined with activity was a marked feature of his character,
and his conduct in every relation of life evinced a genuine hearti
ness and an earnest sobriety which were the result of much self-
discipline, a just estimate of his own powers and duties, and a
manly integrity of purpose. His literary qualification for the
position which he fiUed among us with so much ability, credit and
aeceptableness, was also shown in a very exceUent series of anno
tations on the book of Job, and in occasional contributions to the
religious journals. His estimable widow has since deceased, and
two promising sons are thus left entire orphans. We record this
memorial in token of our appreciation of his character and serv
ices, and our sympathy with his surviving friends."

DE. KEAUTH.

At the regular monthly meeting of the Old Testament Company
of the American Bible Eevision Committee held in the Bible House,
NewYork, February 23d, 1883, the foUowing tribute to the memory
of our late associate, the Eev. Dr. Charles P. Krauth, Vice-Provost

OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 65
of the University of Pennsylvania, prepared by the Eev. Dr.
Chambers, was adopted and directed to be presented to the whole
Committee at their next annual meeting in order to be placed
upon their records. George E. Day, Secretary.
Charles Pobtebfield Krauth, D.D., LL. D,
Born March 17th, 1823, in Martinsburg, Va.
Died January 2d, 1883, in Philadelphia, Pa.
His paternal grandfather came to this country from Germany
in the latter part of the last century, and was teacher and organ
ist in one of the Eeformed churches. His father, Charles Philip
Krauth (1797-1867), was successively pastor of Lutheran churches
in Martinsburg and PhUadelphia, President of Pennsylvania Col
lege at Gettysburg, and Professor in the Theological Seminary at
the same place. Our friend and associate was his oldest son, and
consequently enjoyed great advantages in his early training. He
was graduated in 1839 from the coUege of which his father was
president, and immediately comraenced theological studies under
Drs. Schmucker and Schmidt. Having concluded these with high
honor, he was ordained in 1842, and became pastor of a church in
Baltimore. Subsequently he held the sarae office in Winchester,
Va., and in Pittsburgh, Pa. In 1859 he was called to St*. Mark's
Lutheran Church, PhUadelphia, and two years afterward became
editor of the Lutheran and Missionary, through which he made
himself widely felt throughout the religious press. In 1864 he
was appointed Professor of Theology and Church History in the
new Seminary then estabUshed in PhUadelphia. In 1868 he was
elected to the chair of Moral and InteUectual Philosophy in the
University of Pennsylvania, and five years afterward was made
Vice-Provost of the institution. In the discharge of the duties
of these various offices, together with occasional preaching of the
Word, he continued untU his deafli, constantly growing in infiu
ence and usefulness as time developed his rare qualities in guid-
kig and stimulating the young men under his charge. But his
earthly tabernacle proved frailer than one would have supposed
from his comraanding presence. He sought to gain relief from
growing infirmities by a visit to Europe in the year 1880, but the
improvement was superficial and short-lived, and on the 2d day
of this year, after an iUness of a fortnight, he quietly fell asleep in
Jesus. Our friend did not round out the usual measure of man's days,

66 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OP THE WORK
but he performed enough work to satisfy the most exacting de
mand. His course, whether in the pulpit, or the editorial room,
or the professorial chair, was one of incessant activity. His pub
lished writings are numerous. They consist not only of such
elaborate volumes as the Conservative Reformation and its Theol
ogy, the translation of Tholuck's Commentary on the Qospel of John,
the enlargement of Fleming's Vocabulary of Philosophy, a new
edition of Berkeley's Philosophical Writings, but also of various
minor treatises touching questions in Theology and Church His
tory, by which he exerted a vast influence in his own denomina
tion. His mind, strong and versatile by nature, was assiduously
cultivated from early youth. His studies were confined mainly to
theology in its various branches, to philosophy and literature in
its wide acceptation. He had accumulated a very large private
Ubrary (14,000 volumes) which was a selection as weU as a collec
tion. He was, consequently, unusually well informed on all mat
ters relating to his chosen sphere, being a careful as well as a
constant reader. This fact made him a formidable antagonist in
any question respecting the history of opinion.
In his theological views he was a Lutheran of the Lutherans,
being a zealous defender and maintainor of the Augustana, pure
and simple, and he headed the reaction which has been going on
for a generation.in our country against the influences which were
thought to assaU the integrity or the authority of the venerable
Confession of Augsburg. But while he strove with all his might
for the preservation of Lutheran doctrine and order, he cherished
a cathoUo spirit, and took a cordial interest in the prosperity of
all evangelical Christians. He became a member of this body
at its commencement, and although hindered, sometimes by
professional engagements, at others by the state of his health,
from being as regular in attendance as was desirable, his presence
was always an advantage, and his large acquaintance with the
early English versions of the Scriptures, and with the best idioms
of our tongue, made his suggestions often of very great value in
the settlement of a disputed issue. In personal intercourse he
was one of the most delightful of companions, genial, courteous,
fuU of resources, sparkling with wit and anecdote, yet always pre
serving the elevated tone of a Christian gentleman. It would
have been gratifying if he had been spared to witness the termi
nation of our labors, and rejoice with us in a successful result.
But the Lord saw fit to order events otherwise, and we bow in

OP THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF EEVISION. 67
submission to His holy wiU, taking a melancholy pleasure in put
ting on record this testimonial to our departed brother. His
death is a great loss not only to the important religious body of
which he was a shining ornament, but also to the whole Church of
Christ in this land, and to the republic of letters. Our country
has produced few men who united in their own persons so many
of the exceUences which distinguish the scholar, the theologian,
the exegete, the debater, and the leader of his brethren, as did
our accompUshed associate. His learning did not smother his
genius, nor did his philosophical attainments impair the siraplicity
of his faith. AU gifts and all acquisitions were sedulously made
subservient to the Gospel of Christ. He illustrated his teachings
by his life, and has left behind him a meraory precious and fra
grant not only to his own large communion but to multitudes
beyond its pale.

EZEA ABBOT, D.D., LL.D.
Bom in Jackson, Maine, AprU 28, 1819.
Died in Cambridge, Mass., March 21, 1884.
"Tlie grass vniheretJi, and ihe flower falleth ; but the word of the Lord abideth
forever."
In the death of Professor Abbot the New Testament Eevision
Company are summoned a third time, since the completion of
their work, to mourn the departure of one of their number. With
their associates of the Old Testament Company they would rever
ently bow to the Divine appointment, and thoughtfully take to
heart its admonitions.
The secluded life of Dr. Abbot, and his singularly modest and
retiring disposition, rendered him almost, if not quite, a stranger
to every one of us till we entered on our work together in these
rooms. In general deliberations respecting matters of business,
and particularly in those discussions, alike animated and delicate,
which involved our relations to the English Eevisers and the
University Presses, his voice was heard but seldom. Yet when
ever he spoke, his characteristic clearness of apprehension, his
accurate and complete recoUection of facts, his judicial impar
tiality and dispassionateness, and above aU his personal wUling-
ness to become anything or nothiug, if so be the Word of God in

68 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION.
its purity might have the freer course, seldom faUed to become
manifest. His sphere of conspicuous service, however, was the Eevision
work. Always one of the first in his place at the table, and one
of the last to quit it, he brought with him thither the results of
careful preparation. His suggestions were seldom the prompt
ings of the moment. Hence they always commanded considera
tion ; often secured instant adoption. Well versed in the re
sources of our ancestral tongue, gifted with an ear for its rhythm,
and trained to a nice discrimination in his use of it, he rendered
appreciable service in securing for the new translation certain
felicities of expression to which its critics, amid their clamorous
censure of its defects, have hitherto failed to render due recog
nition. But it was in questions affecting the Greek text that Dr.
Abbot's exceptional gifts and attainments were pre-eminently
helpful. Several of his essays on debated passages, appended to
the printed reports of our proceedings which were forwarded from
time to time to the brethren in England, are among the most
thorough discussions of the sort which are extant, won iramediate
respect for American scholarship in this department, and had no
sraaU influence in determining that form of the sacred text which
wUl ultimately, we beUeve, find acceptance with aU Christian
scholars. To his distinction as a scholar. Dr. Abbot added rare exceUence
as a Christian. Such chastened sweetness of disposition, such
disciplined regard for the sensibilities of his associates, such
studied generosity in debate, such patient deference when over
ruled, such magnanimous equanimity in victory as were habitual
with him, were never surpassed araong us. Differing from the
rest of us as he did in some of his theological tenets, his Christ-
Uke temper rendered him a brother beloved, and lends a heavenly
lustre to his memory.
We, his survivors, desire to place on record our affectionate
tribute to his worth, and to offer to his bereaved kindred a tender
expression of our sympathy.
Revision Eooms, 42 and 44 Bible House, New York,
Friday, AprU 25, 1884.
The above minute, presented by Dr. Thayer, was unanimously
adopted by the Committee.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
AND LIST OF DONORS AND SUBSCRIBERS.

OEGANIZATION OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
The Revision of the English Scriptures for public use was undertaken as a
labor of love, without any prospect of reward except the consciousness of doing a
good work for the benefit of English-speaking Christendom. But no enterprise
of such magnitude, embracing so many workers and extending through nearly four
teen years, can be accomplished without considerable expense for traveling, print
ing, clerical aid, books, room-rent and incidentals. The expenses of the English
Committee, to the extent of $100,000 and more, were assumed at an early stage by
the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge in consideration of the exclusive
right of publication within her Majesty's dominions. The expenses of the Ameri
can Committee were raised in our usual American fashion by voluntary contri
butions. No aid was ever asked or offered from any foreign quarter.
For four years the contributions were solicited by the President and a few
members of the Committee, Professor Short acting as Treasurer. A report was
made from time to time to contributors in parlor meetings. Some kind lay
friends volunteered to relieve the Committee of this additional burden ; and in
May, 1875, a Committee of Finance in co-operation with the Revision Committee
was organized.
All the necessary funds for the Revision work have been raised, first by solicit
ing donations, and afterward in the more convenient way of offering to con
tributors of $10 each a presentation copy of the Memorial volume of the New
Testament. The responses enabled the Committee to return to the subscribers
what may be regarded as a full equivalent for their contribution. The Memorial
volumes were ordered from the University Presses and delivered free of charge.
They are gotten up in the very best style of printing and binding, and have given
universal satisfaction. The Memorial copies will increase in value as they grow
older and rarer.
The success of this plan induced the Finance Committee to offer by a circular,
dated January 3, 1883, a Memorial Copy of the Revised Old Testament, bound in
levant morocco, to every contributor of $30 toward meeting the expenses for the
completion of the work. In the autumn of 1884 another circular was issued, in
forming contributors that it had been determined to bind the Memorial copies of
the Old Testament in four volumes, and that the Committee could offer the four-
volume copy at $30, or the two-volume copy at $35, and that those who had
hitherto contributed $30, in consideration of which they were entitled to a two-
volume copy, could increase the contribution to $30 for the other copy, LE that
was preferred. The answer to the circulars was prompt and liberal. The result
is thought to be sufficient for the further expenses. If there should be a balance

70 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE
left in the treasury, it will be devoted to some benevolent object connected with
Bible Revision or Bible distribution..
The gentlemen who first constituted the Finance Committee, or who afterward
became connected with it, are :
Nathan Bishop, LL.D., New York. (D. 1880.)
Rev. WilUam Adams, D.D., New York. (D. 1880.)
Rev. Thos. D. Anderson, D.D., New York. (D. 1881.)
Mr. A. S. Barnes, New York.
Mr. M. 0. D. Borden, New York.
Mr. Alexander Brown, Philadelphia.
Mr. Jas. M. Brown, New York.
Mr. Wm. A. Cauldwell, New York.
Mr. Wm. B. Dodge, New York. (D. 1883.)
Rev. H. Dyer, D.D., New York.
Mr. John Elliott, New York.
Judge E. L. Fancher, LL.D., New York.
Prof. Wm. G-ammell, LL.D., Providence, R. I.
Mr. John C. Havemeyer, New York.
Mr. Morris K. Jesup, New York.
Mr. Francis T. King, Baltimore, Md.
Bt. Eev. Henry C. Potter, D.D., New York.
Mr. Howard Potter, New York.
Mr. S. B. Schieffelin, New York.
Mr. Elliott F. Shepard, New York.
Mr. John Sloane, New York.
Mr. Eoswell Smith, New York. (Resigned 1881.)
Eev. R. S. Storrs, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
Mr. Andrew L. Taylor, New York.
Mr. Chas. Tracy, New York. (D. 1885.)
Mr. John B. Trevor, New York.
Mr. Alexander Van Rensselaer, New York. (D. 1878.)
Mt. Samuel D. Warren, Boston, Mass.
Mr. Norman White, New York. (D. 1883.)
Mr. F. S. Winston, New York. (D. 1885.)
The officers of the Finance Committee have been :
Nathan Bishop, LL.D., Chairman (died, 1880).
Judge B. L. Fancher, LL.D., Chairman (since 1880).
Andrew L. Taylor, Treasurer.
The Treasurer reports the total amount of contributions (including remission of
duties and other items) from the beginning of the work in 1873 to May 11, 1883,
as $44,761.60.
The expenses during the same period for traveling, for clerk hire, for office
expenses, for printing, and for books have been $35,335.66, leaving a balance in the
treasury of $9,585.94 on May 11, 1883, on which date the account was examined
and certified to by the Auditing Committee.
The supplemental statement of the Treasurer from May 11, 1883, to January
39, 1885, shows total receipts to that date $47,561.46, and total payments
$38,469.67, and a balance in the treasury of $9,091.79.

AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION COMMITTEE.

71

The balance in hand will be used for the further expenses of the Committee,
for the publication of a Documentary History, and for the purchase of Memorial
copies of the Revised Old Testament.
The following resolution, passed unanimously by the Revision Committee, finds
an appropriate place at this point :
[From the Minutes, Jan. 37, 1881, p. 160.]
Resolved, That the American Bible Revision Committee recognize and acknowl
edge the efficient and cordial co-operation which has been given to their work by
the gratuitous services of Mr. Andrew L. Taylor, and hereby record their thanks
for the financial furtherance of their labors due to his ready activity as theii
Treasurer. This acknowledgment was unanimously adopted.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY
OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE.

THE EEVISION OF THE ENGLISH VEESION OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT, BY
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.,
CANON OF ST. PATTL's,
AND HDL9EAN PB0FES30K OF DIVINITY, CAMBBIDSB ;
RICHARD CHEVENIX TRENCH, D.D.,
AKCHBI8H0P OP DUBLIN;
C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,
BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.
WITS' AN INTBOBUGTION BT
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL BEMINAEY, NEW YOEK.
NEW YOEK :
HARPER & BROS.
1873.
The Introduction was published separately by order of the Committee (3d ed.
1875), and distributed among the patrons of the Revision as a sort of programme.

ANGLO-AMEEICAN BIBLE EEVISION,
BY
MEMBERS OF THB
AMERICAN EEVISION COMMITTEE.
PKINTEn FOE PEITATE OIECUL ATION.
NEW TOKK:
NOS. 43 & 44 BIBLE HOUSE.
PUBLISHED BT THB AHERIOAN SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION, PHILADELPHIA.
1879.
This book has gone through several editions and was twice reprinted in London
by James Nisbet & Co., and the London Sunday-School Union, 56 Old Bailey.
The following is a list of articles :
List of English Revisers.
List of American Revisers.
Anglo-American Revision.
Introductory Statement. Philip Schaff.
The Authorised Version and English Versions on which it is based.
Chas. P. Keauth.
The English Bible as a Classic. T. W. Chambers.
Reasons for a New Revision. Theodore D. Woolsey.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE, 73
The Current Version and Present Needs. Q-. Emlen Hare.
The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Howard Osqood.
Hebrew Philology and Biblical Science. W. Henry (jEeen.
Helps for Translating the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time the Ancient Version
was Made. George B. Day,
Inaccuracies of the Authorized Version of the Old Testaraent. Joseph Packard.
The New Testament Text. Ezra Abbot.
Inaccuracies of the Authorized Version in respect of Grammar and Exegesis.
A C. Kendrick.
True Conservatism in Respect to Changes in the English and Greek Text.
Timothy Dwight.
The Greek Verb in the New Testament. Matthew B. Riddle.
Unwarranted Verbal Differences and Agreements in the English Version.
. J. Heney Thayee.
Archaisms; or. Obsolete and Unusual Words and Phrases in the English
Bible. Howard Crosby.
The Proper Names of the Bible. Chaeles A. Aiken.
The Use of Italics in the Bible. Thomas Chase.
Paragraphs, Chapters, and Verses in the Bible. Jambs Stkong.
Revision of the Scriptures and Church Authority. Alfred Lee.
General Index.
Index of Texts.

[

THE NEW EEVISION AND ITS STUDY,
JOHN D. WATTLES.
PHILADELPHIA :
1881.
CONTENTS.
The Gospels in the New Revision. By Professor Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D.
The Acts in the New Revision. By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.
The Pauline Epistles in the New Revision. By Professor Timothy Dwight, D.D.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Revision. By Professor J. Henry
Thayer, D.D.
The Catholic Epistles in the New Revision. By Professor A. C. Kendrick, D.D.,
LL.D.
The Revelation in the New Testament. By Chancellor Howard Crosby, D.D.,
LL.D.
PEAISE-SONGS OP ISRAEL.
A NEW EENDEKING OE THE BOOK OE PSALMS,
BY
JOHN De WITT, D.D.
OF THB THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J.
A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN OLD TESTAMENT REVISION COMPANY.
NEW YORK:
RICHARD BRINKBRHOPF. 1884.
Dedicated to the American Revision Committee.

74 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE.
A COMPANION TO THE GREEK TESTAMENT AND
THE ENGLISH VERSION,
BY
PHILIP SCHAFF,
PRESIDENT OF THB AMBBIOAN COMMITTEE ON REVISION.
WITH FAC-SmlLE ILLUSTRATIONS OF MSS. AND STANDARD EDITIONS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
HARPER & BROS.
NEW YORK
MACMILLAN & CO., LONDON.

3d EDITION, REVISED, 1885.
Dedicated to the American Revision Committee.

A COMPANION TO THE REVISED OLD TESTAMENT,
SHOWING THE LEADING CHANGES MADE AND THB REASONS FOR MAKING THEM,
BY
TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D.
A MEMBER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT REVISION COMPANY.
NEW YOEK :
FUNK & WAGNALLS.
1885.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 3875

iwMiiiiWWBMiftewa

-mi MMiiiiljiilgiiJM