THE STONES CRY OUT by T. W. FAWTHROP, D. Litt., F.R.G.S., London. Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Price 6/-.
This is one of the most informative books we have read on the archaeological discoveries which have so remarkably confounded the Higher Critics. Dr. Fawthrop has cast his net wide and gathered within it material from ancient times of events and persons from Egypt, Palestine, Babylonia, Asia Minor, etc., which the Higher Critics with their superior knowledge denied as ever having taken place or ever having existed. Though one may be familiar with these remarkable discoveries from reading books on the subject yet their cumulative effect as they are gathered within the compass of one book and skilfully presented by one who is evidently a master of his subject produces an effect on the mind of the utter untenableness of the so-called assured results of the Higher Critics. Unfortunately we cannot recommend the book unreservedly. Dr. Fawthrop’s Arminianism gets in among his archaeology and in our estimation spoils the archaeology. We refer to such expressions as the Saviour dying to redeem the race, dying to redeem mankind, the redemption of the race. In saying the book of Genesis was probably compiled from ancient documents, some of them older than the Abrahamic age, Dr. Fawthrop is adopting a modified documentary hypothesis which if our memory serves us right was held by Dr. Orr. We much prefer the view set forth by Dr. W. H. Green in his Unity of Genesis. One of the most serious statements in the book to which we take exception is that made in connection with the pool of Bethesda narrative. Dr. Fawthrop follows the Wescott-Hort school here and regards the statement regarding the angel as an interpolation. We sincerely hope if a second edition of this book is called for that its learned author will delete what he has written on the above subject on pp. 207, 208. The book is beautifully printed and illustrated, and is a credit to the publishers in its whole get up.
The proof-reading has been well done and only a few mis-prints have been noticed, but none of them is serious enough to call attention to with the exception, perhaps, of “them euzah” for “the mezuzah” which might puzzle the reader.