SCRIPTURE REVISERS’ JOCU LARITY.

Evening Star, Issue 4098, 15 April 1876, Page 2 (Supplement)

SCRIPTURE REVISERS’ JOCU LARITY.

Ur -Angus, says the ‘Pall Mall Gazette,’ one of the committee appointed for the revision of the authorised version, has lately delivered a lecture at Accrington, from a report of which we gather some interesting details of the progress of the work. That the Accrington people appi’eciated the information may be judged from the frequent “ laughter ” noted by the reporter. Dr Angus had to break to his hearers that a certain text in the Acts which “ they as Baptists were justly proud of ” is not to be found in a single ancient manuscript, and manfully told those who might think this “ a bad thing for the Baptists ” that there was “ no necessity to advance truth by misrepresentation.” So far, there is no objection to be made; but the propriety of revealing some of the incidents which follow, is, to say the least, doubtful. More than two hours, we learn, were spent by the revisers in debating whether the word “ publican ” should stand. “ It was said on one side it was dishonouring a respectable class of people to class them with sinners.” A farmer of taxes is suggested; whereupon a dignitary of the church rises to protest: “ ‘ VVe country clergymen shall never hear the last of it.’ ‘ But it is farmer of revenues,’ said the suggester. ‘ Ah, but the farmer is there,’ said the bishop ; ‘he will never mind the revenues (laughter), but will say you have put us among the sinners.’ (Laughter.)” Next, a bishop directs a little chaff against Dr Angus on the subject of the rival renderings of “bishop” and “overseer.” But perhaps the wit of the Committee sparkles most over the ‘< penny a day ” of the parable. “ It was suggested they should do as their Anglo-American brethren had done; translate it. ‘ Agreed with them for a denari a day;’ upon which a dean remax’ks that it might be read, ‘ Agreed with them for

a deanery a day, and they would think that was not very bad pay.' (Laughter.)” Now all this is harmless enough in itself. Whatever the solemnity of its tesk, the mind of man will relieve itself by an occasional jest, and we do 1 not demand that the revisers shall model their demeanour upon that of the ‘Spectator’s’ Puritan head of a college, “ with half-a-dozen nightcaps upon his head, and religious horror in his countenance.” But it is another matter to have these mild professional jokes—made, very probably, in all confidence that they would never go beyond the the walls of Jerusalem Chamber—repeated for the amusement of a miscellaneous audience.