NATORE 
193 
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1902. 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM AT ITS BEST AND 
WORST. 
Encyclopaedia Biblica; a Critical Dictionary of the 
Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archae- 
ology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible. 
Edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.Litt., D.D., and 
J. Sutherland Black, M.A. LL.D. Vol. iii. (L to P). 
(London : Adam and Charles Black, 1902.) 
HEN the plan of the “ Encyclopzedia Biblica” was 
first announced several years ago, the most 
favourable anticipations were formed with regard to the 
new project by all advocates of a moderate and scientific 
criticism of the Biblical writings. This dictionary was 
to embody the ideal of the late Prof. Robertson Smith, 
an encyclopzedia which should include within its purview 
the results of the latest criticism, provided only that this 
criticism was conceived in common sense, developed 
with moderation and expressed with that consideration 
for the holders of traditional views which in this case 
is absolutely required. The first volume of the ‘“ Ency- 
clopzedia” seemed entirely to fulfil these anticipations, 
and its appearance was welcome to all students of 
Biblical history and archzeology; but in the second, 
various disquieting symptoms were noticeable, especially | 
‘in Prof. Cheyne’s article “Jerahme’el”; the third can 
only be frankly described as disappointing these initial 
hopes and as being, in fact, most damaging to the cause 
of the “higher criticism.” Those who have a working 
knowledge of Biblical criticism will, of course, be able to 
discriminate between those parts of the “ Encyclopzedia” 
which are really useful and suggestive and those which 
are the reverse ; but what of the vast majority of readers 
who do not know? ' It is probable that very many of 
these, wearied by Prof. Cheyne’s incessant discussion 
of his “Jerahmeelites” and “Musrites,” irritated by 
Prof. van Manen’s calm abolition of St. Paul and 
revolting against the inconsiderate tactlessness of Prof. 
Schmiedel’s article “Mary,” will, ignoring the vast 
overplus of sound and _ sterling critical learning 
which is to be found in the book, be driven into the 
Opposing camp of anticritical obscurantism and refuse 
to hear anything further of Biblical criticism. 
will the splendid work of critics of the type of the late 
Profs. Robertson Smith, Tiele and Socin, many of whose 
articles appear in this volume, of Profs. Driver, Néldeke 
and Wellhausen, of President Moore and many others, 
be discredited by the insistent advocacy of a single over- 
mastering theory for which no convincing proof has yet 
been furnished by its author, and by the continual 
display by several of the continental contributors of their 
ignorance of the fact that in approaching British and 
American readers on such a subject as the Nativity of 
Christ or the life of the Virgin Mary the utmost tact is 
necessary. 
We have spoken of Prof. Cheyne’s insistent advocacy 
throughout this volume of the “Encyclopedia” of his 
Jerahmeel-cu7-Musri theory, and have described this 
theory as one for which no convincing proof has yet been 
NO. 1704, VOL. 66] 
furnished by its author. Certainly in the “ Encyclopedia 
Biblica” he has furnished none, either in the article 
“Jerahme’el” in vol. ii. or in the present volume. For a 
convenient summary of all that is apparently known 
about the name “Jerahmeel” and the tribe of the Jerah- 
meelites we may refer the reader to Mr. J. F. Stenning’s 
paragraph on the subject in Hastings’ “ Dictionary of the 
Bible,” vol. 11. p. 568. The Jerahmeelites were a clan of 
southern Judzea, mentioned three or four times in the 
Old Testament; the name Jerahmeel occurs four 
times (1 Chr. ii. 9, 33; xxiv. 29; Jer. xxxvi. 26). Prof. 
Cheyne, however, has built up for himself a vast edifice 
of pure theory all about the Jerahmeelites, in whom he 
sees a powerful tribe of Arabian origin equal in im- 
portance to, and rivalling, the Israelites. This theory ts 
connected by him with Winckler’s unproved theory of the 
existence of a North Arabian country bearing the same 
name in the Assyrian records as did Egypt and a land of 
Northern Syria, z.e. “‘ Musri,” which itself again largely 
rests upon the unproved theories of Glaser with regard 
to the age of the “ Minzean” inscriptions of Yaman. 
So Prof. Cheyne pictures to himself hosts of ‘“ Jerah- 
meelites” and “ Musrites” constantly warring against 
Israel, finding them even serving in the armies of 
Nebuchadnezzar ; they were, according to him, con- 
stantly the objects of prophetic denunciation for the 
evil which they had done unto Israel, although at the 
same time a disproportionate number of the Jewish 
proper names known to us from the Old Testament are 
pronounced by him to be of Jerahmeelite origin. But if 
the Jerahmeelites are only mentioned half-a-dozen times 
in the traditional text of the Old Testament and the 
“Musrites” may quite possibly never have existed, how 
does Prof. Cheyne arrive at these somewhat revolutionary 
conclusions? By a simple process very characteristic of 
the extreme “higher critic,” he merely supposes that the 
name “ Jerahmeel” originally occurred far more in the 
Old Testament than it does at present, and that it has 
been constantly substituted and corrupted ; he then 
proceeds to replace the words “ Jerahmeel” or “ Missur” 
(Musri) wherever he thinks they ought to stand, and in 
this way “restores” the text of the Bible in accordance 
with his theory. Many of his re-substitutions and cor- 
rections are founded on more or less ingenious emenda- 
tions of the text; for others no justification is given ; 
| they rest merely on the zfse dixit of Prof. Cheyne. 
Thus | 
This procedure might be excused in a critic of such 
preeminent standing as Prof. Cheyne, and we would be 
ready to accept from the mine of his great learning many 
conclusions the reasons for which were not fully ap- 
parent were it evident to us that the steps of his reason- 
ing were tending in the direction of what was both pro- 
bable and possible ; but in the case of “* Jerahmeel” we 
confess that we have very little faith in his reasoning, 
and in the connected case of the supposed North Arabian 
Musri we believe that he has been misled by a hasty 
adoption of a theory which is in no way accepted by the 
majority of Assyriologists. 
However this may be, it is in any case on the face of it 
evident that the professor has in the third volume of the 
“ Encyclopaedia” allowed himself to be absolutely over- 
mastered by his theory ; he sees Jerahmeel everywhere ; 
everything is a corruption or a disguise or a distortion 
K 
