What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments
Protestants and Catholics alike share the faith that all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness (2Tim 3:16). But one area where they disagree is over just which writings make up the Bible. In particular they differ over whether the seven books of the Old Testament sometimes called “deuterocanonical” are inspired scripture or not. In a previous book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Gary Michuta addressed the historical question of whether Protestants removed these books from the Bible or Catholics added them. Now in The Case for the Evidence and Arguments he takes on the burden of showing that they should not have been removed. Bringing together evidence from the New Testament as well as Jewish and early Christian history, he carefully builds a compelling cumulative argument that the disputed books are part of the Bible that Jesus and His Apostles handed on to the Church. They are Scripture in the fullest sense, divinely inspired and capable of confirming Christian doctrine.
328 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 22, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 12, 2025
There are a lot of valuable arguments in this. The typos, esp. towards the end, were a little careless. It’s hard to put too much value in a book with errors that should’ve been caught in a single proofread. One example, “They was…” instead of “They were…”.
July 19, 2026
The problem of the Deuterocanon is one of the issues at dispute between Catholics and Protestants. It is a problem in itself, as it is a question about which texts should be in the bible. But it is also an issue which splits opinions down doctrinal lines because it can have a bearing on other doctrines.
This point was classically shown in the debate between Martin Luther and Johann Eck in 1519 when Eck cited Deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees 12, 42-6 as evidence for the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther’s response was to reject the text as being non-authoritative. Some years, later, Calvin in his response to the Council of Trent made a similar point about how the Deuterocanon supports a number of doctrines which he was also not in favour of. What all this means is that the issue of the Deuterocanon is not a purely canonical issue about the text. There are serious doctrinal implications which influence how people want to interpret the evidence.
When it comes to the evidence, this book does well, to take readers through a whole range of factors. It shows that the Jewish canon was not fixed by the lifetime of Jesus and that it was still being discussed throughout the first century. When Jewish scholars did fix it, there is evidence that part of what they had to deal with is the fact that some Jews had already got used to treating some or all of the Deuterocanonical texts as authoritative. The author also notes that Rabbi Akiba (C. AD 132) explicitly linked the Deuterocanon to the Christian gospels, so part of the motivation for rejecting the Deuterocanon might have involved a deliberate distinction and separation from Christianity. This is especially the case as the Deuterocanonical text of Wisdom 2, provides 12 lines which seems to prophesy 19 separate aspects of Christ’s passion, thus supporting the argument that Jesus is God’s divinely appointed messenger.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that the author works through the first 4 centuries of Patristic texts to try and work out what proportion of theologians accepted or doubted the Deuterocanon. There are 209 texts from 109 different sources (from 33 authors) which refer to the Deuterocanon as scripture. There are 5 texts, from 5 sources (from 2 authors) which deny it.
There are a further 235 instances (from 130 sources and from 39 authors) of where early Church fathers cited a deuterocanonical text to prove a doctrinal point, thus assuming also that their readers accepted the authority of the Deuterocanon. There are only four instances (in four sources from 4 authors) who deny the authority of the Deuterocanon in a context of proving doctrine: Julius Africanus, Rufinus, Jerome and an unnamed Pelagian
The author concludes that it is difficult to escape the conclusion from those statistics that it is just incorrect to assert that the early Church doubted the authority of the Deuterocanon.
The author notes that there are complexities surrounding the canon-lists produced by several figures of the early Church. Part of what makes them complicated is that they seem to imply lists of canonical texts which are different to what those same authors can be seen accepting and using themselves in their own writings. So there is something odd about the nature of some of those canon lists, such that modern readers cannot use them as straightforward evidence of canonicity.
Overall, this is an interesting book which does well to bring a lot of evidence together in a simple and readable format. One problem is that it is so evidently written from a Catholic perspective, to prove a Catholic doctrine about the Deuterocanon, that Protestant readers may well feel that the credibility of the book is somewhat undermined. That is a stylistic shame, as once readers start digging into the actual evidence then the book becomes thought-provoking.
This point was classically shown in the debate between Martin Luther and Johann Eck in 1519 when Eck cited Deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees 12, 42-6 as evidence for the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther’s response was to reject the text as being non-authoritative. Some years, later, Calvin in his response to the Council of Trent made a similar point about how the Deuterocanon supports a number of doctrines which he was also not in favour of. What all this means is that the issue of the Deuterocanon is not a purely canonical issue about the text. There are serious doctrinal implications which influence how people want to interpret the evidence.
When it comes to the evidence, this book does well, to take readers through a whole range of factors. It shows that the Jewish canon was not fixed by the lifetime of Jesus and that it was still being discussed throughout the first century. When Jewish scholars did fix it, there is evidence that part of what they had to deal with is the fact that some Jews had already got used to treating some or all of the Deuterocanonical texts as authoritative. The author also notes that Rabbi Akiba (C. AD 132) explicitly linked the Deuterocanon to the Christian gospels, so part of the motivation for rejecting the Deuterocanon might have involved a deliberate distinction and separation from Christianity. This is especially the case as the Deuterocanonical text of Wisdom 2, provides 12 lines which seems to prophesy 19 separate aspects of Christ’s passion, thus supporting the argument that Jesus is God’s divinely appointed messenger.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that the author works through the first 4 centuries of Patristic texts to try and work out what proportion of theologians accepted or doubted the Deuterocanon. There are 209 texts from 109 different sources (from 33 authors) which refer to the Deuterocanon as scripture. There are 5 texts, from 5 sources (from 2 authors) which deny it.
There are a further 235 instances (from 130 sources and from 39 authors) of where early Church fathers cited a deuterocanonical text to prove a doctrinal point, thus assuming also that their readers accepted the authority of the Deuterocanon. There are only four instances (in four sources from 4 authors) who deny the authority of the Deuterocanon in a context of proving doctrine: Julius Africanus, Rufinus, Jerome and an unnamed Pelagian
The author concludes that it is difficult to escape the conclusion from those statistics that it is just incorrect to assert that the early Church doubted the authority of the Deuterocanon.
The author notes that there are complexities surrounding the canon-lists produced by several figures of the early Church. Part of what makes them complicated is that they seem to imply lists of canonical texts which are different to what those same authors can be seen accepting and using themselves in their own writings. So there is something odd about the nature of some of those canon lists, such that modern readers cannot use them as straightforward evidence of canonicity.
Overall, this is an interesting book which does well to bring a lot of evidence together in a simple and readable format. One problem is that it is so evidently written from a Catholic perspective, to prove a Catholic doctrine about the Deuterocanon, that Protestant readers may well feel that the credibility of the book is somewhat undermined. That is a stylistic shame, as once readers start digging into the actual evidence then the book becomes thought-provoking.
January 8, 2021
Excellent book! It laid out the case for the 7 additional books in a very logical matter. Much of what differentiates Catholic and Protestant theology hinges on the canonicity of these books, which makes this an incredibly important topic. Would highly recommend everyone read this, it will be well worth your time.
September 6, 2016
Gary Michuta has done an extremely thorough job of defending the divine inspiration of the deuterocanon (better known to Protestants as the Apocrypha). He rebuts all the common objections to these seven biblical books, as well as several objections I've never (yet) encountered. He includes hundreds of citations from early church fathers who cite the deuterocanon as scripture, which should lay to rest the popular false claim that there was no wide consensus about the inspiration of the deuterocanon. There are several typographical errors throughout this book which distract from the excellent content. Also, the footnotes are meticulous but there is no comprehensive bibliography at the end, a disappointment for someone like me who would love to easily explore the subject further. Despite these quibbles, I highly recommend this book to both Catholics who want to defend the inspiration of the deuterocanon and Protestants/non-denominationals/Bible Christians who want to know why the Catholic Church believes the Apocrypha is God-breathed Scripture.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews