ELLICOTT'S COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.1 We have on several occasions already expressed our very high appreciation of the value of Prof. Ellicott's Commentaries. This first instalment of an American edition of them we very gladly welcome. We have here a volume quite equal to the English edition in regard to paper, type, accuracy of printing, and general comeliness, and at about half the price. The Introductory Notice is designed to show who Prof. Ellicott is and what he is doing, and his purposes and characteristics as an author; and this it does in a few sober and simple words. It is sometimes said that two of a trade cannot agree; but Dean Alford, who has just completed a very successful commentary on the Greek New Testament, does not hesitate to give a most hearty recommendation of the work of his fellow laborer. He says they [Ellicott's volumes] "have set the first example, in this country [England] of a thorough and fearless examination of the grammatical and philological requirements of every word of the sacred text. I do not know of anything superior to them, in their own particular line, in Germany; and they add what, alas, is so seldom found in that country, profound reverence for the matter and subjects on which the author is laboring; nor is their value lessened by Mr. Ellicott's having confined himself for the most part to one department of a commentator's work,—the grammatical and philological. No student ought to be without them, nor ought he to spare himself in making them his own by continual study.” This expresses exactly our own opinion. The critical part is devoted to the settling of the text, and this is admirably done, with a labor, skill, and conscientiousness unsurpassed. He says in his preface: "By a grammatical commentary, I mean one in which the principles of grammar are either exclusively or principally used to elucidate the meaning; by an exegetical commentary, one in which other considerations, such as the circumstances or known sentiments of the writer, etc., are also taken into the account." With these definitions he intends his commentary shall be grammatical as distinct from exegetical ; yet wherever exegesis is absolutely necessary to develop the meaning, he applies it with the same tact and judgment which he shows in all the other parts of his work. We do not suppose it possible to write a just commentary on any document without the constant application of what Prof. Ellicott calls distinctively exegesis. The celebrated clause in the fourth article of our United States Constitution can be fully interpreted both grammatically and lexically without making it refer at all to fugitive slaves; ACommentary,critical and grammatical, on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, with a revised translation. By Charles J. Ellicott, B. D., Professor of Divinity Kings College, London, with an Introductory Notice by Calvin E. Stowe, D. D., Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1860. pp. 183. 8vo. and it is only when we look exegetically at the history of the times and the debates in the convention, that we can prove it to have any reference to fugitive slaves. The Constitution was designedly and with great ingenuity so framed that it would be without superfluity and without defect at the expected and wished-for time when there would not be a slave in the whole land. Other writings, framed with less ingenuity, especially if remote in time and place, need for their interpretation the frequent application of the principles of exegesis. SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.' Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible is designed to hold the same place in biblical studies, as his Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Biography, and Geography do in the classical. "It is a dictionary of the Bible, not of theology. It is intended to elucidate the antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history of the Old and New Testament, and the Apocrypha; but not to explain systems of theology, or discuss points of controversial divinity." It is to contain a list of all the names occurring in the Bible, which is not the case with any other Bible Dictionary. The Articles which compose the work are contributed by more than fifty eminent scholars, several of them belonging to this country. Besides antiquities, biography, geography, etc., an account of each book of the Bible is given, sufficiently full, in ordinary cases, for an introduction. These accounts are more or less minute, according to the character of the Book, or the difficulties connected with it. They embrace the time and place of writing, the author, canonical authority, genuineness, source of materials, object, analysis, different views or theories entertained respecting some of the Books, as well as the consideration of objections to their genuineness in whole or in part. In this way a condensed view of the several books of the Bible, and the criticisms to which they have been subjected, are made readily accessible. Some of these accounts are quite full, as that on Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Hebrews, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Job. The Articles on Egypt, Canon, Chronology, Jehovah, Jerusalem, Jesus Christ, and Jordan are also full and thorough. Within a few years past much new light has been shed upon the history, geography, antiquities, and languages of Bible lands. The excavation of buried cities and monuments, the deciphering of hieroglyphics, the investigations of missionaries and travellers, and the more extensive study of Oriental languages, have furnished new and rich materials for elucidating biblical subjects. These materials have been skilfully and successfully used 1 Dictionary of the Bible, comprising its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History. Edited by William Smith, LL. D., Editor of the Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Antiquities," "Biography and Mythology," and "Geography." In two volumes, Vol. I. A to Juttah. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. 8vo. pp. 1176. ? Preface. in the present work, which could not have been written a quarter of a century ago. The work indicates a wide range of investigation, a thorough acquaintance with the subjects treated, as well as an appreciation of what the student of the Bible needs. It is more thorough and complete than any previous dictionary of the kind, and will add greatly to the interest and profit in studying the Bible, both for the student of theology, and for all others who may wish to avail themselves of the best facilities for that study. A single instance will illustrate what progress has been made in biblical topography within the last thirty years. In Robinson's Calmet, published in 1832, prepared with great fidelity from the best materials then accessible, the Brook Kedron, after flowing by the east side of Jerusalem, is made to run nearly west, while its actual course is about south east.1 It is but reasonable to expect that there will be a difference of opinion in regard to some of the views presented, both on the ground of the nature and great variety of the topics, and also on account of the diversity of writers. But there is through the work general candor and fairness. There is an evident purpose to present facts rather than to establish theories. There is no straining to impart knowledge where none really exists. The dogmatic claims by which the authorship of a book of the Bible is attributed to a particular person, are not allowed. Sites of places claimed without sufficient authority to have been discovered, are frankly admitted to be yet unknown; Aenon and Emmaus are still to be discovered, much as has been said of their identification. Capernaum too is in doubt. Is it at Kahn Minyeh, where Dr. Robinson finds it, or three miles further north, at Tell Hûm, which Ritter and others claim to be its site? So, too, the sites of Chorazin and Bethsaida are admitted not to be definitely known. This candor on the part of the writers, here as elsewhere, in admitting the full extent of the doubt, is a praiseworthy feature, as it gives the student the facts instead of a partisan view of the subject. But the Dictionary gives an account of two Bethsaidas, one west of the lake of Gennesaret toward the north, the other north-east of the lake, and east of the Jordan; the two were consequently but a few miles apart. There was supposed to be but one place of this name till the time of Reland, the latter part of the last century. The western one is not mentioned by Josephus, and the discovery by Reland that there were two places of the name, was supposed to relieve some inconsistences in the statements of the Evangelists (Luke 9: 10-17, and Mark 6: 32-45), which were thought to exist on the assumption that there was but one Bethsaida. But were there two Bethsaidas? The difficulties are certainly very great if such was the case. Is it probable that the same name would be given to two places so near each other, both within the limits of Galilee (for in its widest sense Galilee extended beyond the Jordan)? Is it to be supposed that Mark refers to one, and Luke to another, without a single qualifying word to deter 1 See Robinson's Calmet, Plan of Jerusalem, p. 556. Comp. Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology. Vol. II., p. 302, et seq. mine which was meant? To which Bethsaida does our Lord send away his disciples after the miracle of feeding the five thousand? But the answer to this involves another question : On which side of the lake was the miracle wrought? If on the north-eastern, as has been of late generally supposed, then the disciples crossed over to the western Bethsaida; but if the miracle was on the western side, on the spot where an early Christian tradition places it (and certainly one who looks upon that spot feels how appropriate a place it was for so numerous an assemblage), then the disciples crossed to the eastern Bethsaida. If there were two Bethsaidas, did our Lord perform his "mighty works" in both? On which did he denounce woe? It is evident, therefore, that however great may be the difficulties if there was but one Bethsaida, they are by no means obviated by assuming two. The Article on Jerusalem, historical and topographical, is generally very satisfactory. Yet in the part relating to the topography of the city, written by James Fergusson, author of an "Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem," ," "Hand-book of Architecture," etc., there are, as it seems to us, some untenable positions. He places the City of David, and the Zion of the biblical period, on the east side of the city, on what is usually known as Mt. Moriah, or the Temple area; whereas these names have, with great unanimity, been appropriated to the southwestern hill of the city, known as Mt. Zion. He also finds the burial-place of the Saviour in the rock beneath the Mosque of Omar, which is in the Temple area; while the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre is in a quite different part of the city. But no considerations which we have seen have been sufficient to establish the claims of either to be the place where the Lord lay. That place, we believe has been wisely hidden from our eyes. It is only by giving a forced construction to the direction of the walls of the city, that either of these localities, claimed as the burial-place of our Saviour, could have been without the walls at the time of the crucifixion. Mr. Fergusson places the Temple in the south-west part of the Temple area, instead of the more central position where the Mosque of Omar now stands, which is very generally regarded as the true site of the Temple. These views seem to us extreme, and ought not to have been made so prominent in a work designed for general use. They might with propriety have been stated in brief as the author's views, without so elaborate a defence of the theory entertained. We are glad, however, to give a hearty approval of the work, though all the views may not harmonize with our own. Only one volume is yet published; the other is promised by the latter part of this year. The community are under special obligations to Messrs. Little, Brown, and Company, for furnishing the work for less than one half the price in England. Though it contains the imprint of this Publishing House, it is the English edition imported. BY REV. EDWARD HITCHCOCK, D. D., LL. D., PROFESSOR OF NATURAL THEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY IN AMHERST COLLEGE. In the conclusion of some lectures, prepared by me a few years ago, on the bearings of geology upon religion, I remarked that I had found "something of the Cross in nature, and something of nature in the Cross." Perhaps, however, I did not attach a very definite meaning to this phrase, till my attention was called to it anew, of late, by the request of a missionary friend and former pupil (Rev. Charles Hartwell), now in China. I propose, in this Article, to state the results of this renewed examination; for I have found, and will attempt to show, that the statement, instead of being mere poetry and sentimentalism, is the exponent of a great and important truth. I am aware that the doctrine of salvation by the cross is universally regarded as a matter of pure revelation. And so it undoubtedly is, as to the facts. But often, when revelation 1 The following extract of a letter from Rev. Charles Hartwell to Edward Hitchcock, Jr., M. D., of East Hampton, dated Fuhchau, China, August 14, 1855, will show how definitely that missionary has stated the leading object of this Article: "Since reading your father's Article in the Bibliotheca Sacra of VOL. XVIII. No. 70. 22 |