How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc.?

And have we not here a very complete answer to the oft-raised question of infidelity, "How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?" If indeed we believe in Christ; if we own Him to be the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, very God and very man, we cannot fail to see the moral force of the fact that this divine Person constantly appeals to the scriptures — to Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, as to a divine standard. Did He not know them to be the word of God? Undoubtedly. As God, He had given them; as Man, He received them, lived by them, and owned their paramount authority, in all things.

The Roman Catholics include within the covers of their Bible the books commonly known as "The Apocrypha." These books were never received as canonical by the Jews; they do not afford the internal evidences of divine inspiration as do the books of "the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets"; they are never quoted either by the Lord Himself or the apostles: so that we have very good reasons for not regarding them as divinely given, however authentic as histories some of them may be.

Sometimes we are asked how can we tell that the Apocrypha is not inspired. A brief answer can be given under three heads. (1) It is never once quoted in the New Testament, whilst the Old Testament Scriptures are constantly quoted. (2) It apologizes for itself, which the inspired Scriptures never do. (3) The perusal of it makes the reader very conscious that it is far below the lofty standard of the inspired writings.

The Council of Trent in A.D. 1546, professing to be guided by the Holy Spirit, declared the Apocrypha to be a part of the Holy Scripture. The above fourteen books formed part of the English Authorised Version of 1611, but are now seldom attached to the canonical books. Besides the above there are a few others, as the III., IV., and V. Maccabees, book of Enoch, etc., not regarded by any one as a part of scripture. It may be noticed

That the canonical books of the O.T. were written in Hebrew (except parts of Ezra and Daniel which were in Chaldee); whereas the Apocrypha has reached us only in Greek or Latin, though Jerome says some of it had been seen in Hebrew.

Though the Apocrypha is supposed to have been written not later than B.C. 30, the Lord never in any way alludes to any part of it; nor do any of the writers of the N.T., though both the Lord and the apostles constantly quote the canonical books.

With this total absence of divine dignity in the contents of the Apocrypha, could you with any truth assert that the choice of books now included in the Bible was in any sense arbitrary? The Jews knew far more than we do of the Old Testament, and they had no doubt very good contemporary reasons for not accepting these books. But Christ did not recognise them: that is enough for me.

The inspired Volume carries its own credentials with it. It speaks for itself. It comes to us with an overwhelming body of evidence, both internal and external. The Apocrypha, on the contrary, carried its own condemnation. It contains passages which you have only to read to be convinced that they were never inspired by the Spirit of God. We reject it on the ground of evidence, both internal and external.

As some of the spurious books were added to the LXX Version (the O.T. in the Greek) and to the Latin translation of the LXX, some of the early Christian writers were in doubt as to whether they should be received or not, and this uncertainty existed more or less until the before mentioned Council of Trent decided that the greater part of the Apocrypha was to be regarded as canonical. Happily at that time the Reformation had opened the eyes of many Christians to the extreme corruption of the church of Rome, and in rejecting the claims of that church they were also freed from its judgement as to the Apocryphal books.

The internal evidences of the human authorship of the Apocrypha ought to convince any Christian that it can form no part of holy scripture.

Expressions of the writers themselves show that they had no thought of their books being taken for scripture. There are also contradictions in them such as are common to human productions. Evil doctrines also are found therein: let one suffice: "Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin." Tobit 12:9. The value of holy scripture as the fountain of truth is such that anything that might in any way contaminate that spring should be refused with decision and scorn. Some parts of the Apocryphal books may be true as history, but in every other respect they should be refused as spurious. Nor can it be granted that we need the judgement of the church, could a universal judgement be arrived at, as to what is to be regarded as the canon of scripture. The Bible carries its own credentials to the hearts and consciences of the saints who are willing to let its power be felt.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

The following statements are important to remember: No portion of the Apocrypha was written in Hebrew, but all in Greek, although by Jews, and never formed part of the Hebrew canon. It was written more than a century after the completion of the Old Testament. It was never regarded by the Jews or their writers as possessing the slightest claim to inspiration. Neither the Lord nor Apostles ever cited from, or referred to, the Apocrypha.

The word κανών signified a rod or rule by which things were tested. It is thus used by Paul in Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16. As to the scriptures the expression refers to what books should be included: thus the 'canon' of scripture is often spoken of, and the books are called 'canonical' or 'uncanonical.' Happily most Christians are not troubled with such questions. In christian simplicity they believe that in the Bible they have nothing but what God caused to be written, and that it contains all that He intended to form a part of His book. Still, as everything is now challenged it may be well to examine the subject a little.

In the first place, the Church of Rome boldly declared that it was only 'the church' that could decide what books were canonical: as early as the Council of Carthage (about A.D. 400) lists of the books were made out, and at the Council of Trent they dogmatically settled what books constituted the scripture. They decided to include the books now known as the APOCRYPHA (q.v.), as may be seen in the Latin Vulgate, which is the version used by that church. Now the scripture informs us that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3:2, and as is well known they most carefully guarded the O.T. scriptures for centuries before there was any christian church. The books were written in the Jews' language — the Hebrew — with which the Apocrypha never had a place. They were written in Greek, and were first added to the LXX. The above principle — that the scriptures require to be accredited by the church — is false. Surely God could make a revelation that would in no wise need to have the seal of a body of men placed upon it, be they ever so holy. But the Church of Rome was not holy, nor was it universal, so that even if the alleged principle were correct, that corrupt section of the church would be the last to be taken as an authoritative guide.

The N.T. has also had its perils. With the Greek MSS apocryphal books are found, parts of which were read in the churches in early days. Later on several of the Fathers of the church so called had their doubts respecting some of the Epistles. Even as late as the Reformers it was the same. Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and set them apart at the end of his version. Calvin doubted the authenticity of James, 2 Peter, and Jude. In modern times many portions of books in the O.T. and N.T. are being called in question. But the Bible needs not to be accredited by man. It carries its own credentials to the heart and conscience of the Christian in the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man is not competent to judge of such a question. The Bible has the stamp of God upon it, and the more it is studied by the Christian the more perfect it is found to be — no part redundant, and no part lacking.