The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1903-08-13
That Able Interven=
ton.


role of an interviewer, volun-
teering his able support to $500
as a co-defendant with him on the "Au-
thor of Ecclesiastes" question.
regret that our distinguished schol-
ar of the classics should have SO pub
licly shown his hand in such an exhibit
tion of gross errors and almost disgrace
full ignorance. 1t is certainly another
case where familiarity breeds con-
tempt" His presumption evidently
led him to the conclusion that the con-
tributors to The MIRROR were not sup
posed to detect or "call his bluff" As
a bluff it must fall fiat. He asks for
authority. Had such question been
asked by less distinguished scholar, 1
could repeat the question back to him,
and ask his authority for denying my
statements; but the astounding wisdom
Of ]. D. needs no greater authority
were any such in existence.
The only authority we have for the
statements contained in his entire arti-
Gle except the mighty power Of his own
opinion, is that of an obscure historical
author, to the point that the Greeks
were not liked by the kings of Israel.
a matter entirely irrelevant to the
question of who wrote Ecclesiastes.
Yet far be it from me to lead you to
presume that the words of I. D. need
any collateral authority, which must of
necessity be weak and insufficient in
comparison. Is it not enough that he
has proclaimed it? AS to the original
language from which Ecclesiastes was
translated, will cite works by the
most prominent authorities on ancient
classical languages, yet I cannot help
but despair that even such are INSULT
cient, with the products Of the more
fertile brain of I. D. to the contrary
i. O., "Geike's Commentaries of the Bi.
BILE, )" "Bible Commentary" by Jamison
Faucet and Brown, "Notes on the
Book of Ecclesiastes," by Frost, aCom'
mentaries on the Old Testament" by
Newton. Id. is evidently unfamil
lar with such works, yet why should ht
seek such opinionsp Does not his owr
mind dictate deeper train of thought
have several times translated thu
text from the original Greek, and viii
but ask I. D. if he ever saw the origin
al Hebrew? He states that "Greek wa
not the language Of Jerusalem at th'
time of the Preacher or any other time
AS to just what he intended to convey
if anything, by f"the language we ar'
} left in the dark. am unable to SCI
wherein it has any bearing upon th'
subject in controversy. He has yet Il
. show that it was ever claimed that Ec
clesiastes was written in "the language
of Jerusalem. I certainly made no sucl
: claim. English may be the Language
: of the United States, yet other Ian
guages are also written and spoken here
The fact that the Greeks were hardl,
tolerated by the kings and people of Is
rael in the days Of Solomon, can in n
!, way prove who wrote Ecclesiastes
: Moreover, my article had no referenc
to the "days of Solomon" but positive
: ly referred to days that were not 80
} Solomon"
! Yet we are greatly indebted to |. [
] at this point for his wonderful outpu
? of knowledge. cannot help but ai
4 mire the power of assumption possesse
: by him when he pictures to us Solt
: mon debating to his stenographer hi
d words of wisdom who properly recorde