The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1903-08-06
SALTWATER MINNESOTA THURSDAY AUGUST

astes was ascribed to Solomon, the son
of David, king over Israel, in Jerusa-
lem. In trying to prove an alibi for the
said Solomon, the son of David, ETC.,
Mr. E. e. E. tells us 1--WE need not GO
away from the book itself to prove
that Solomon never wrote it. Turning
to the first chapter of Ecclesiastes, and
18th verse, we find these words: I the
Preacher was king over Israel in Jeru-
salem,' The original Greek, from which
this was first translated, by virtue of
popularity of said language reveals to
us this fact: The Greek has tense not
found in any other language-known
as the Aorist Tense. It denotes a state |
of being having existed at one time,
but at the present time having ceased
to exist. The verb was contained in
the said 18th verse in the original Greek
is in the aorist tense showing US that
T. the author of Ecclesiastes, was at
one time king over Israel in Jerusa-
lem,' but at the time of his writing had
ceased so to be-"
One is tempted to ask: How does
Mr.. E. E. E. know the book of Ecciesi-
astes was originally written in Greek
And how does he know the aorist tense
is found only in the Greek languagep
Is he learned in all the languages of the
earth? And if not, whose opinion is
he thrusting upon us as his own? Does
it not seem that one who takes upon
himself the Office of correcting another
should first make sure of his ground,
and be able to speak from knowledge
self-acquired2 And if Mr.. E. E. E.
interprets tie 18th verse OF the first
chapter as meaning: II, the Preacher,
was ii. 9. was at one time, but now have
ceased to be) king over jerusalem"
would he interpret the 9th verse of the
18th chapter as meaning: "And more
over, because the Preacher was(L g..
was at one time, but now has ceased to
bel wise, and still taught the people
knowledge" ETC.? Or does our philo-
logically learned critic work on the
Max Muller plan by ascribing dozen
different meanings to word, and then
select one certain meaning for no other
reason than that it suits his purpose?
Let us now turn to the book of Ec-
clesiastes itself for light upon the mat
ter under discussion. The opening
verse reads: "The words of the Preach
er, the son of David, king in Jerusa-
lem." Why did Mr.. E. E. E. pass by
this verse, and select the 18th verse for
the elucidation of his theory that Solo
mon could not have written the book
of Ecclesiastes /? If the book of Eccles-
tastes contains the words of the Preach
or, the son of David, king in Jerusalem,
then the name of that king must have
been Solomon, for he, of all the sons of
David was the only one who reigned
over Israel in Jerusalem. It is true
that Absolom, the sen of David, made
an attempt to supplant his father, but
his overweening ambition was nipped
in the bud by certain Joab, chief exc
j cutioner for the house of David. We
doubt very much that even E. E. E.
will attempt to foist the authorship OF
! Ecclesiastes upon Absoiom. And if it
} be contended that the appellation sSon
} of David" as used In the Bible, is very
: comprehensive, and may mean any de-
+ scendant Of David, however remote, we
+ answer that with the exception of Sol
f omon none of the descendants Of Dav.
! i'd were king over Israel in Jerusalem
Q they were kings over Judah only
: Again, if Mr.. E. E. e. will take tht
: trouble to read-and carefully read
the book of Ecclesiastes, he will fine
: that what the Preacher wrote abou,
: himself, and his works, and his wisdom
: could be said of only one of the king
) over Israel: namely, Solomon. Further
< more, we are told the Preacher "sough
t out, and set in order many proverbs.
o Can Mr.. E. E. E. name any other kin,
over Israel besides Solomon who wen
s into the wholesale proyerb business
= Judging then from the book itsel
n only, itseems ore is justified in conclud
# ing that the book Of EccIesiastes wa
y either written BY Solomon himself, or b.
n someone who collected and edited tn
sayings of Solomon, as did the men o
!, Hezekiah, king of Judah, with some Q
s. the proverbs of Solomon. And if thi
,e hypothesis is. correct, then the philose
i ply taught in the book of Ecclesiaste