HKB
fixed plan was pursued in this work, or that the idea was entertained from the first, that these books would one day stand on the same level with the Pentateuch.[96:5]
In the course of time, however, many of the Jews began to consider some of these books as sacred. The Alexandrian Jews adopted books into the canon which those of Jerusalem did not, and this difference of opinion lasted for a long time, even till the second century after Christ. It was not until this time that all the books of the Old Testament acquired divine authority.[96:6] It is not known, however, just when the canon of the Old Testament was closed. The time and manner in which it was done is altogether obscure.[97:1] Jewish tradition indicates that the full canonicity of several books was not free from doubt till the time of the famous Rabbi Akiba,[97:2] who flourished about the beginning of the second century after Christ.[97:3]
After giving a history of the books of the Old Testament, the author of "The Religion of Israel," whom we have followed in this investigation, says:
"The great majority of the writers of the Old Testament had no other source of information about the past history of Israel than simple tradition. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise, for in primitive times no one used to record anything in writing, and the only way of preserving a knowledge of the past was to hand it down by word of mouth. The father told the son what his elders had told him, and the son handed it on to the next generation.
"Not only did the historian of Israel draw from tradition with perfect freedom, and write down without hesitation anything they heard and what was current in the mouths of the people, but they did not shrink from modifying their representation of the past in any way that they thought would be good and useful. It is difficult for us to look at things from this point of view, because our ideas of historical good faith are so utterly different. When we write history, we know that we ought to be guided solely by a desire to represent facts exactly as they really happened. All that we are concerned with is reality; we want to make the old times live again, and we take all possible pains not to remodel the past from the point of view of to-day. All we want to know is what happened, and how men lived, thought, and worked in those days. The Israelites had a very different notion of the nature of historical composition. When a prophet or a priest related something about bygone times, his object was not to convey knowledge about those times; on the contrary, he used history merely as a vehicle for the conveyance of instruction and exhortation. Not only did he confine his narrative to such matters as he thought would serve his purpose but he never hesitated to modify what he knew of the past, and he did not think twice about touching it up from his own imagination, simply that it might be more conducive to the end he had in view and chime in better with his opinions. All the past became colored through and through with the tinge of his own mind. Our own notions of honor and good faith would never permit all this; but we must not measure ancient writers by our own standard; they considered that they were acting quite within their rights and in strict accordance with duty and conscience."[97:4]
It will be noticed that, in our investigations on the authority of the Pentateuch, we have followed, principally, Dr. Knappert's ideas as set forth in "The Religion of Israel."