The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1903-09-10
PRESUMPTIVE PROOF. :


of Ecclesiastes Estates his experience,
and thereby shows his readers that he
speaks from experience" Mr.. E. is the
first one who has discovered that Ec-
clesiastes deals with events; when he
wrote the sentence above quoted, he
must have been mapping. But then,
even Homer mods occasionally.
Mr.. E., in his former article, entitled
Wrongly Accused" positively asserts
Ecclesiastes was originally written in
Greek; but in his last and every Poor
Logic" he admits there probably is no
positive proof. Far be it from me to
presume to be able to bring positive
proof that Ecclesiastes was originally
not written in Greek, but in Hebrew;
but some presumptiye proof there is:
The book of Ecclesiastes is one of the
canonical books of the Hebrews, and if
Mr.. E. will but consider how jealousy
the Jews guarded what they.considered
their sacred canon against ,additions
from books written in foreign tongue,
tho written by pious Jews; and that
the apocryphal books were denied
place in their canon chiefly because
they were not written in the Hebrew,
or the colloquial Aramaic language, and
were for that reason considered unin-
spired by the Jews; it seems that even
he must admit there is every reason to
believe the book of Ecclesiastes, like
the other books constituting 1.-THE Jew
ish canon, was originally written in
Hebrew. Furthermore, we are told by
Josephus land he gives it not as his
own opinion only, but as the universal
opinion of his race-that no books
were added to the Hebrew canon since
the days of Artaxerxes. - ;. This king,
during whose reign Ezra and N Nehamiah
labored to recolonize Canaan with
Jews, reigned from 465-425 B. C. 1t re-
mains for Mr.. E. to prove that Greek
copies of Ecclesiastes existed in, or be-
fore, the days of Artaxerxes, or else
his contention that the Greek copies of
Ecclesiastes are as ancient as those of
the Hebrew, falls to the ground. AS
one who earnestly desires to learn the
truth, even tho the truth come from
the Father of Lies himself, 1 humbly
beg Mr.. E. to enlighten me at his earIi-
est convenience.
Mr.. E., when quoting from my form
er article, "If Not Solomon, Who
Then?" is not over particular in follow
ing the text. The question: "Can Mr..
E. E. E. name any other king over Isra-
ell besides Solomon, who went into the
wholesale proverb business ?" he twists
out of shape by making it read: "Who
else but Solomon went into the whole
sale proverb business ?"-thus giving it
a different meaning from the one in
tended. Again, when asked why he
ignored the opening verse of Ecclesias-
tes, and instead selected the 18th verse
for the elucidation of his theory that
Solomon could not have written the
said book, he lodged the question, and
reverted again to the aorist tense of
the verb "was" in the 18th verse, thus
ignoring the express statement made
in the first verse, which proclaims them
to be "the words of the Preacher, the
son of David, king in Jerusalem"
Mr.. E. defies any one "to prove, that
with the exception of Solomon, none of
the descendants of David were kings
over Israel in Jerusalem" because he
holds that "the history of the time is
not sufficiently complete to sustain
such a claim" He may be in the right;
yet we have at least three distinctive
historical accounts of the descendants
Of David who were kings in Jerusalem,
down to the time of the Babylonian
captivity, and with the exception of
Solomon, none Of these were kings ov-
er Israel they were kings over Judah
only. And since the Preacher was a
son Of David, (Ecclesiastes 1: ~ and
was king over Israel in Jerusalem, (Ec-
clesiastes :12) we must either set aside
the book as altogether untrustworthy
or else admit the words of the Preacher
are the words of Solomon.
Mr.. E. in his article entitled wrong