“McGarvey on Acts cannot be beat”, R. H. Boll, 1916

“As for helps and commentaries, McGarvey on Acts cannot be beat, $1.50….”

That’s it, at least for this installment.  RHB offers a few comments about books and reading in general, recommends some specific titles and closes with a characteristic (of him at least) caution about the tomes written “by man.”  Such constitutes his first book chat in the pages of Word and Work.  In this same 1916 issue he reviews Rowe and Klingman’s The Bible in Questions and Answers, a book elsewhere billed as a replacment of a whole shelf of Restoration biblical studies tomes since it distills the best of several works. More on that volume later.

Of the items RHB specifically commends, Little Mac on Acts is the only item from the Restoration Movement.  He suggests J. M. Gray on “How to Master the English Bible”, R. A. Torrey’s “How to Study the Bible to Greatest Profit”, Gray’s “Systematic Bible Studies” and the Angus-Green “Cyclopedic Handbook to the Bible.”  The only other commentary he mentions is Hodge on 1 Corinthians (RHB: “I have seen nothing better…”). 

“The greatest little book on the Christian life, just the thing for spirit-burdened, discouraged Christians, is “The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life,” by H. W. S. …”  I wonder if that recommendation grew out of Boll’s own spirit-burdening, discouraging year of 1915?  Was he reading “H. W. S.” when not responding to the Advocate?  He then highly commends Philip Mauro’s “The Number of Man” and “Life in the Word.”

His closing exhortation: “I shall take occasion from time to time to speak of books of which I have personal knowledge.  But while recommending such books I would not understand as endorsing every statement and sentiment they contain, but only in the main.  Every book written by man–no matter who the man–comes under the rule: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

See more here.

3 thoughts on ““McGarvey on Acts cannot be beat”, R. H. Boll, 1916

    • I’ll have to dig out my copy of Gray’s little book and see what clues it might hold to the author’s idenity and church affiliation, but I am almost sure that this JM Gray is not the British RM James M. Gray. I think this Gray is too old to be “our” James Gray. If anyone has input, please chime in. It is well worth inquiring into what Gray suggests as the key to the Bible and comparing it to the hermeneutical landscape among emerging Churches of Christ. Such could occupy a blog for a season!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s