JUNE 26, 1902} 
‘Mesopotamia, the foundation of which is in the legend 
ascribed to a half-mythical hero called Nimrod. It is 
impossible to see what grounds there are for any radical 
alteration of the text, yet Prof. Cheyne arbitrarily assumes 
that all the Mesopotamian names in the passage quoted 
are substitutions for names of obscure places to the south 
of Juda, and he apparently does so merely because 
Nimrod is called ason of Cush, and Dr. Winckler thinks 
there was a country called Cush in northern Arabia. In 
this case we cannot but reject Prof. Cheyne’s alterations, 
which seem to us entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and im- 
probable. 
We have by no means given a full list of the passages 
in the “Encyclopedia” which Prof. Cheyne devotes 
to “‘ Jerahmeel ” and the names which he would iden- 
tify with it, but further enumeration would be weari- 
some. Space, too, fails us wherein to recapitulate 
the obvious arguments against the wildest of all Prof. 
Cheyne’s proposals, 7z.e. to explain Goshen, Pithom 
and Raamses as names, not of Egyptian places, but of 
“the Negeb of S. Palestine or N. Arabia” (co/. 3211), 
and so to deny, in effect, that there ever was any 
Israelitish sojourn in, or exodus from, Egypt at all, the 
exodus having been, according to him, an exodus, not 
from Egypt, but, of course, from the other country of the 
same name in northern Arabia ! (see the article “ Moses ”). 
But here again Prof. Cheyne is merely following Winckler, 
whose theory on the subject he regards as “‘at any rate 
very plausible” (a7¢. “ Mizraim,” col. 3163). 
Now Prof. Cheyne is, of course, at liberty to hold this 
theory if he pleases, and to connect it with the equally 
vague and unestablished theory of Dr. Winckler about 
the “North-Arabian Musri” or with any other theory 
he pleases, but it is doubtful whether he ought to state 
it with such assurance of its validity in a work of this 
kind, which was intended to give its readers the matured 
results of a reasonable criticism, not necessarily the 
latest theories all hot. Prof. Cheyne has, however, in 
the majority of cases chosen to give his readers mere 
neoteristic theories instead of solid and certazz additions 
to knowledge. 
We cannot find that any of his colleagues have 
adopted Prof. Cheyne’s views on the Jerahmeel question, 
with a single exception, and that a most unexpected one. 
It was rather startling to find the name of Mr. T. G. 
Pinches set down as that of one of the contributors to a 
dictionary which was designed to set forth the views of 
the higher critics and is partly edited by the most 
extreme critic of them all, for Mr. Pinches has hitherto 
been conspicuous for his resolute adherence to the 
opposing school of sentiment on these matters, and has, 
indeed, always been looked upon as a pillar of evan- 
gelical orthodoxy ; but now, not only do we find Mr. 
Pinches writing an article in a heterodox encyclopzdia, 
we even find him apparently accepting Prof. Cheyne’s 
most heterodox theory, and admitting into his article 
the statement that “‘Pul’ or ‘Phaloch’ may be a 
corruption of Jerahmeel.” The remark about a “ southern 
Asshur”’ in northern Arabia, which occurs just above 
this, must be due to Prof. Cheyne, but Mr. Pinches 
ought not to have allowed it to appear in his article 
without comment. Apparently the land 457 mentioned 
in the Minzan inscriptions G/. 1083, 1155 (6th century 
NO. 1704, VOL. 66] 
NATURE 
195 
B.C.) is meant; this may be Assyria itself, if it is not 
the land of Asir in western Arabia, between al-Hegaz 
and Yaman. Mr. Pinches’s alternative suggestion that 
Tiglath-Pileser III. may have received the name “ Pul’? 
“on account of the Babylonian opinion of his character 
(cp. Ass. d/u, ‘wild animal’)” cannot be accepted, be- 
cause 6#/u is a generic term for “cattle,” and we do not 
suppose that any sensible Babylonian would have called 
a king or anybody else “a cattle.” 
However, although we may regret that this volume of 
the “Encyclopzdia Biblica” has been made the vehicle 
of a wild and unproven theory, or rather group of 
theories, we ought not to allow this regrettable fact to 
prejudice us against the volume as a whole. When 
Prof. Cheyne can free himself from the baneful influence 
of “Jerahmeel” his work cannot be bettered ; witness 
his article ‘ Ophir,” which finally disposes of the idea, 
started and still maintained by persons with but little 
archeological knowledge, that Mashonaland is Ophir. 
The article of Profs. Néldeke, Buchanan Gray and 
Kautzsch on “ Names” should be carefully read ; it is 
of great interest and value. Prof. Driver’s article, 
““Mesha,” is thoroughly exhaustive and extremely inter- 
esting ; we cannot but regret that only a single contribu- 
tion from his pen is to be found in this volume. The 
articles ‘‘ Persia” and “ Philistines,” by the late Prof. 
Tiele and Prof. F. Brown, and by President G. F. 
Moore respectively, are of the first order, especially the 
latter, which is thoroughly up to date, the author agreeing 
with all those writers who have recently treated of the 
subject in believing the Philistines to have been certainly 
of European, and probably of specifically “ A°gean,” 
origin. The traditional view that they came from Crete 
is borne out on the one hand by the Egyptian records of 
the wars and alliances of the Purvuwsatz and on the other 
by the lately ascertained fact that the “ Mycenzan” 
culture had obtained a foothold in Philistia at some time 
between the fifteenth and twelfth centuries B.C. In this 
connection, Mr. J. L. Myres’s remarks on Mycenzan 
finds in Philistia and on the influence of A:gean pottery- 
types on the native styles should be noted (art. 
“ Pottery ”). 
Prof. Eduard Meyer’s “ Phoenicia” is worthy of so 
distinguished a historian; Mr. W. M. Miiller’s articles 
on subjects connected with Egypt are, while critical, at 
the same time moderate, careful and informing. Evi- 
dently he will not have anything to do with the Jerah- 
meelite theory ; he still believes Pithom to be Pithom in 
the Wady Tiimilat, and holds with the rest of the world 
that the Israelites once lived in the land of Goshen, 
which was in Egypt. 
The Rev. C. H. W. Johns must also be congratulated 
on his non-adherence to the Jerahmeelite theory ; at any 
rate, he treats Gev. x. 8 #7 as referring to Mesopotamia, 
not to Jerahmeel, and evidently continues to think that 
“ Nineveh ” means Nineveh and not Hebron (see above). 
His article ‘“‘ Nineveh” is good ; we find nothing to object 
to init except the statement that “Sir H. Layard by his 
explorations definitely fixed” the city “at Kuyunjik 
(1845-47 and 1849-51).” Asa matter of fact, he claimed 
by his excavations to have proved that Ca/a/ was the site 
of Nineveh, and it was only after Hincks, Rawlinson and 
others had deciphered the inscriptions that the-earlier 
