The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-01-04
Recent Publications.

OF tBe IranslaJlOn Dy bishops anu Otner
Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by
F. c.. Cook. M. A. Canon of Exeter, Preacher
at Lincoln's Inn, Chaplain in ordinary to the
Queen. New Testament. Vol. 1. st. Mat
thew-St. Mark-St. Luke. New York
Charles Scribners Sons. 1873. All rights
are reserved Svo., PIP, Xxi, 472
THE Speakers Commentary" as it is popu-
larly known, gets its name from the fact that in
1858 the Speaker OF the House of Commons con
suited certain Bishops Of the Church of England
rs to the feasibility Of plain, explanatory COM
nentary on the Bible more complete and accur-
ate than was then accessible to English readers
and adapted to the needs Of men Of general in.
formation.
The Archbishop of York organized the plan
and secured the CO operation Of eminent scholars.
The exposition is concise and readable, and aims
to present the results Of learned investigations
during the last half century. Occasionally fuller
discussions Of difficult passages or important
topics are placed at the end of the chapter or OF
the volume The general editor selected was
the Rev. f. G. Cook M. A, Canon of Exeter,
and one of the Queens chaplains. The Arch
bishop Of York, the general editor, and the
Regius professors of Divinity of Oxford and
Cambridge, now form an advisory council to sit
gradual construction of the work
The Old Testament portion is at length COM
plete, and has given satisfaction in the main
(after due abatement has been made for certain
traces of the insinuating and subtle influence of
a semi-rationalistc criticism) to scholars and to
the orthodox as well as to the people generally
The New Testament portion is now going
through the press, and three out of the four vol
umes making up this department of the work
have already appeared. So far this part of the
work may be most cordially commended The
first of these portly volumes is now before u.s.
and in shape of great elegance The elaborate
and mastery Introduction is by Dr. William
Thomson, Archbishop of York. The common.
tary Matthew is chiefly by the late Dean
Mansel, with concluding notes by the editor;
that on Mark is wholly by the editor, and that
of Luke by DIR. W. B. Jones, Bishop of ST.
, Davids and by the editor, DIR. Cook.
The Archbishop in the Introduction discusses
the Gospels collectively and singly, and decides
for the order as given in our common Bibles
Matthew, he thinks, wrote about So A. D., and
Luke between rs and so A. D. He favors the
Z notion that Mark had access TO Matthew and
Luke to Mark These last statements are sub
ject to serious question. He refutes the idea of
common document, but admits the influence
of common oral tradition. This is the most
thorough treatment of the matter we know in
English. He argues for the independence and
originality of the Greek Gospel of Matthew,
though he reluctantly comedies that there may
have been also in Aramaic. FRANKIE, De
litzsch, Ewald, Bleek, Volkmar, and Freytag
regard the Hebrew Matthew as a secondary
production.
Dean Mansel handles thu crucial chapter (the
twenty fourth) of Matthew in a very learned
and satisfactory way. We think the eagles"
may refer to the Roman armies and also to, the
grander events to which he refers them
DR.. Cooks argument is a triumphant one in
favor of the retention of the disputed verses at
the end OF Mark
How extremely critical this commentary is on
some points will be apparent from Dr. Cooks
additional note on the term apelpizo in Luke vi
a 30. The tert varies between a word meaning
4 nothing" and one meaning no one" If we
are to read nothing" with the Authorized
Version, DIR. Cook contends that the translation
in the Authorized Version of the participle is
defensible and probable, though far from GER
tain. If the other reading be preferred with
Westcott, and Hort, and the Revisers) he main
tains the active rendering frustrating" In
our judgment even with the other rendering,
nothing despairing" has the weight of authority.
Westcott and Hort render the masculine form
with the participle "despairing of no man."
- The grounds on which the Archbishop ofYork,
s. In his Introduction, places the publication of
Lukes Gospel as late as the year rs or so, are,
we think, very insufficient The Gospel was
certainly written before Acts, and there is every
probability that Acts was written before the
death of Paul. Moreover, we have in Luke the
81 prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, with
out one word to indicate that that event had
taken place when the book was written.
The chief complaint that one can make
against this work however, is-that there is not
enough of 1.-THE notes are too meagre; that is
to say, they are in general so iudicious and in.
structive that we want more of them.
With the names and the sanction of the dis
tinguished scholars who have prepared it and
sent it FORTH we may regard the commentary as
the expression Of the best religious sentiment
and learning of the Church Of England-as in
fact an authoritative Interpretation Of the sacred
records by the more devout and conservative
element Of that great Christian body We re.
gard II az perhaps tho moot IearroJ r,orr1,r