Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 60:240 (Oct 1903)
Article: Notes On British Theology And Philosophy
Author: James Lindsay

BSac 60:240 (Oct 1903) p. 772

Notes On British Theology And Philosophy

James Lindsay

Kilmarnock, Scotland

A work on “Old Testament Critics,” which appeared immediately after the sending of my last notes for the Bibliotheca Sacra, is receiving considerable attention here, as being the strongest and most able pronouncement, from the traditional side, that has yet come from a single writer. The author is an accomplished divine, the Rev. Thomas Whitelaw, M.A., D. D., well known for the excellent exegetical work he has done in connection with the Pulpit Commentary, the Preacher’s Commentary, etc. Published by Kegan Paul, of London,1 it is well printed, and pleasant to read. Dr. Whitelaw is thoroughly competent to speak on equal ground whir the critics themselves, as having devoted himself to the study for over a quarter of a century, at any rate. Though free to confess myself more sympathetically affected towards criticism than the author, I think the only worthy and really scientific attitude is to preserve a perfectly open mind to all that may be advanced from the traditional side. Nor should it be overlooked that Dr. Whitelaw’s aim is not so much to establish the traditional position as to show that the critics are wrong. And his book certainly leaves the mind impressed with a sense of the unsatisfactoriness and flimsiness of a great deal of the critical superstructure. It will be great gain if his hale and hearty skep-

BSac 60:240 (Oct 1903) p. 773

ticism of the disintegrating results of criticism helps to recall criticism to sanity of mind and sobriety of judgment. The work is scrupulously fair, with an occasional banter of the critics which all who are not narrow-minded partisans will quite enjoy. Dr. Whitelaw’s work represents that conservative wing in the United Free Church of Scotland which is dissatisfied with the teachings of Dr. George Adam Smith and others. Among the subjects treated are, “The Truth of Old Testament History”—one of the chapters in which the critical views figure very badly, I honestly think—”The Idea of a Supernatural Religion,” “The Notion of an Inspired Bible”—in which I take a freer view of the inspirational process than that which dominates the mind of the author—and an effective setting forth of “The Improbabilities of Criticism.” Many here do not feel, as this author does, that the divinity of our Lord-in a Trinitarian, not a Ritschlian, sense—is imperilled in the views of the critics, and I personally think if the author had left this aspect and the inspirational one more alone, and kept to the sphere of Old Testament criticism proper, his work would have told more powerfully with theological s...