What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger
Why do Catholic bibles have more books in their Old Testaments than Protestant and Jewish bibles? Did the Catholic Church add books to Scripture or did Protestantism remove them? What was the bible of the earliest Christians? Does my bible have the same books as the historic Christian bible? In this fascinating book, Gary Michuta takes the reader on a journey through history to find out what happened to these books of Scripture. Michuta traces the path of the Deuterocanon (apocrypha) from it pre-Christian roots through the Protestant Reformation to the nineteenth century and definitively settles the question of whether the Council of Trent added books to Scripture in reaction to Protestantism. Not since 1897 has their been a book, written by a Catholic, on the topic of the Old Testament. Many commonly held myths are exposed while uncovering many little known and surprising information concerning these lost books of the Protestant bible.
"No book is more important than the Bible, and no question is more important than what writings belong in the Bible. Controversy has raged since Martin Luther challenged the content of Scriptures. In this excellent book Gary Michuta has put the controversy to rest and provides an easy-to-ready yet scholarly explanation and defense of the Catholic Bible." - Steve Ray
"No book is more important than the Bible, and no question is more important than what writings belong in the Bible. Controversy has raged since Martin Luther challenged the content of Scriptures. In this excellent book Gary Michuta has put the controversy to rest and provides an easy-to-ready yet scholarly explanation and defense of the Catholic Bible." - Steve Ray
383 pages, Paperback
First published July 30, 2013
74 people are currently reading
326 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 1, 2012
John Henry Newman said, "Knowledge of history is the end of Protestantism." Case in point: the debate about the deuterocanonical books. Gary Michuta's study is a wonderful and thorough overview of the history of the deuteros and what really happened regarding those books at Trent and during the Reformation.
Michuta is clearly arguing the Catholic position, but much of the material is simply presented matter of factly. This book is 75% objective, historical survey and only 25% commentary. That approach is appropriate. The Catholic position doesn't need anything more than a minimum amount of commentary to prove itself. The historical facts speak for themselves.
This is one of those issues that very, very few Protestants have ever studied in depth, let only given the Catholic arguments a fair hearing. I'd challenge all Protestants to read this book in order to do exactly that. Speaking as someone who was on the Protestant side for a very long time, I can speak from experience about how enlightening such a study is.
The Protestant position on the Bible simply can't stand up to a rigorous historical, theological, practical or biblical analysis. My prayer is that more Protestants would be willing to look at these issues with open minds and hearts. Perhaps then we can begin to move past our division and toward the unity Christ intends for his people
Michuta is clearly arguing the Catholic position, but much of the material is simply presented matter of factly. This book is 75% objective, historical survey and only 25% commentary. That approach is appropriate. The Catholic position doesn't need anything more than a minimum amount of commentary to prove itself. The historical facts speak for themselves.
This is one of those issues that very, very few Protestants have ever studied in depth, let only given the Catholic arguments a fair hearing. I'd challenge all Protestants to read this book in order to do exactly that. Speaking as someone who was on the Protestant side for a very long time, I can speak from experience about how enlightening such a study is.
The Protestant position on the Bible simply can't stand up to a rigorous historical, theological, practical or biblical analysis. My prayer is that more Protestants would be willing to look at these issues with open minds and hearts. Perhaps then we can begin to move past our division and toward the unity Christ intends for his people
January 20, 2013
This is a good resource book. It's structured somewhat like Jimmy Akin's "The Fathers Know Best", in that it chronologically lists relevant quotes from notable Christians throughout the centuries. As you step forward in time, Michuta does a very fair job of quoting sources from both sides of the debate over the deuterocanonical books of the bible. The books in question are the seven most recent books in the Old Testament of Catholic Bibles that were removed from Protestant Bibles. This book gets into the reasons why those books were removed, starting with what notable Christians in the past have thought. The structure of the book is that of a survey of historical opinions meant to show that the overwhelming majority of Christians through the ages accepted some or all of the deuterocanonical books. The debate then hinges on Jerome, and his Latin Vulgate and concept of "Hebrew verity". Jerome was tasked with writing a new Latin translation of the Bible. But the existing translations he was working from had so many glosses, notes and baggage, that Jerome soon formed the opinion that the Hebrew Masoretic Text was the truest translation of Scripture available. But the Jewish Bible dismissed as unscriptural any books written after Ezra, and did not accept any books not originally written in Hebrew. Since after the Babylonian exile most Jews wrote Greek, the most recent books of the Bible were written in Greek. So the last seven books of the Bible failed to meet the Jewish Bible standards and were rejected. Jerome accepted this as true, and rejected them as well. Since then, almost all those who reject those books cite Jerome as the authority. Michuta briefly mentions that the Dead Sea Scrolls disproved Jerome's assumptions, but doesn't really flesh this idea out. Since nearly every opinion against the Deuteros after Jerome cites Jerome, I think the whole debate on the books of the bible lives and dies with analyzing Jerome. This book spends a chapter on Jerome, and a few more on Luther and the reformers. But I would have liked to see more time spent on Jerome. The book also lacked a lot of setup and background, and there were a lot of typos. But the point was made. Moreover, it was made well in spite of a very generous airing of the opposing side. Michuta makes an airtight case and this is a great resource to have on the shelf.
November 23, 2015
Excellent. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. If you read this and are still not convinced, you really need to spend some serious time in prayer asking God to cure you of your pride and remove the scales from your eyes.
April 25, 2018
Well, it's quite interesting, I didn't get through the whole book because I'm reading so many. I will get back to it, probably when challenged by someone about the authenticity of the Catholic bible. 😍
January 18, 2018
This book contains all you ever wanted to know about the “Catholic” books (aka the Deuterocanon) of the Bible in a popular, easy to read format. (The quality of info, however, is certainly scholarly.) The book is organized in such a way that allows you to read chapters out of order if you are more interested in one particular aspect of the Bible’s formation.
The most interesting thing I picked up from this book was the fact that both Martin Luther and John Calvin cited books of the Deuterocanon to prove their own theological positions. Only later would Luther throw out these books. Interestingly, he found them suitable enough and divinely inspired enough to cite even as he debated Eck that first time. Secondly, the deuterocanon was widely used and cited among the earliest Christians, with virtually the only exception being Jerome.
Those are just two specks of what is covered in this book. Catholics and Protestants alike ought to read this in order to understand the process that brought us all to our canons today. It fully deserves the five stars.
The most interesting thing I picked up from this book was the fact that both Martin Luther and John Calvin cited books of the Deuterocanon to prove their own theological positions. Only later would Luther throw out these books. Interestingly, he found them suitable enough and divinely inspired enough to cite even as he debated Eck that first time. Secondly, the deuterocanon was widely used and cited among the earliest Christians, with virtually the only exception being Jerome.
Those are just two specks of what is covered in this book. Catholics and Protestants alike ought to read this in order to understand the process that brought us all to our canons today. It fully deserves the five stars.
April 14, 2021
Thorough walkthrough of how the 7 books of the deuterocanon have historically been accepted as scripture by the Church. Gary does an excellent job citing both positive evidence as well as addressing counter evidence.
For a ~300pg book, it certainly packs a lot of information in a concise manner. I would highly recommend this treatment to a person interested in the subject of the differences between Protestant and Catholic Bibles.
For a ~300pg book, it certainly packs a lot of information in a concise manner. I would highly recommend this treatment to a person interested in the subject of the differences between Protestant and Catholic Bibles.
March 17, 2025
Honestly, this book is well-laid out, easy to understand, methodical, it doesn't quote people out of context, and you can tell by the footnotes and bibliography that the author has certainly done his research. I really appreciate that the author attempts to trace the history of the Bible from the very start of Christianity rather than addressing just the Reformation. It's certainly made me think a lot about the Canon of Scripture, how it came to be, and which church gets it right.
February 26, 2021
By far the most in depth and persuasive study of the deuterocanon I have ever seen.
January 6, 2024
Clear comprehensive and generally well argued.
There are two views about the Canon of the Bible There is a Protestant view that it is identical to the mainstream Jewish Canon; and there is a Catholic view that the Canon should contain 7 additional books, ie the Deuterocanonical books. This book is an explanation of the Catholic view and it is one of the clearest and most detailed presentation of that perspective.
The author works through the historical texts showing that considerable numbers of Theologians have always used the Deuterocanonical books and happily cited them as Scripture, from the earliest days of Christianity. In the high middle ages (1200-1450) the author can only find 4 writers in the whole of Christendom who rejected the Deuterocanonical books (ie Hugh of St Victor, John of Salisbury, Nicholas of Lyra and William of Occam (Chp.8)).
Even proto-Protestants like Wycliffe can be seen citing the Deuterocanonical books in his writings. More surprisingly, even Martin Luther initially quoted the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. We can see this in his booklet of Resolutions on the Disputation of Indulgences where he quotes the books of Wisdom and Sirach to prove theological points.
The date of Luther’s conversion can be seen in his dispute with Eck in 1519. It occurs in the second disputation when Eck appeals to the book of Maccabees to prove the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther responded on the 8th July 1519 stating that Maccabees is non-canonical so it cannot be used to prove doctrine. The birth of what we know as the modern Protestant canon (arguably) occurs from that point. Calvin later reinforces the point in his response to the Council of Trent, stating that if the Deuterocanonical books are allowed, then that would prove Catholic doctrines, which he rejects.
Although the book is comprehensive and informative, there are a few areas where the book could be improved. The book would benefit from another editorial sweep. In the introduction there is a mistaken list of the Deuterocanonical books because Sirach is quoted twice. Some of the footnotes also lack references. For example footnote 202 includes a quote from Athanasius with the citation of the Deuterocanonical books which it comes from, but there is no reference to where it can be found in Athanasius himself. Footnote 461 is similarly empty.
Across the book as a whole there is also a considerable reliance upon Secondary Sources for citing medieval texts. In controversial topics (like bible canon) historical Secondary sources have sometimes been prone to see what they want to see and they can (accidentally) misrepresent what they are presenting. So to be secure in the accuracy of its presentation, books like this really need to go back to the original texts for every single citation.
Apart from these minor caveats the book is to be recommended as a comprehensive presentation of its viewpoint. The nature of the issues means that there is a lot of citation and referencing, so the book will probably be enjoyed most by those who are already familiar with the broad contour of the issues and are now wanting a deeper understanding.
(These comments are based on the Revised Second Edition, 2017)
There are two views about the Canon of the Bible There is a Protestant view that it is identical to the mainstream Jewish Canon; and there is a Catholic view that the Canon should contain 7 additional books, ie the Deuterocanonical books. This book is an explanation of the Catholic view and it is one of the clearest and most detailed presentation of that perspective.
The author works through the historical texts showing that considerable numbers of Theologians have always used the Deuterocanonical books and happily cited them as Scripture, from the earliest days of Christianity. In the high middle ages (1200-1450) the author can only find 4 writers in the whole of Christendom who rejected the Deuterocanonical books (ie Hugh of St Victor, John of Salisbury, Nicholas of Lyra and William of Occam (Chp.8)).
Even proto-Protestants like Wycliffe can be seen citing the Deuterocanonical books in his writings. More surprisingly, even Martin Luther initially quoted the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. We can see this in his booklet of Resolutions on the Disputation of Indulgences where he quotes the books of Wisdom and Sirach to prove theological points.
The date of Luther’s conversion can be seen in his dispute with Eck in 1519. It occurs in the second disputation when Eck appeals to the book of Maccabees to prove the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther responded on the 8th July 1519 stating that Maccabees is non-canonical so it cannot be used to prove doctrine. The birth of what we know as the modern Protestant canon (arguably) occurs from that point. Calvin later reinforces the point in his response to the Council of Trent, stating that if the Deuterocanonical books are allowed, then that would prove Catholic doctrines, which he rejects.
Although the book is comprehensive and informative, there are a few areas where the book could be improved. The book would benefit from another editorial sweep. In the introduction there is a mistaken list of the Deuterocanonical books because Sirach is quoted twice. Some of the footnotes also lack references. For example footnote 202 includes a quote from Athanasius with the citation of the Deuterocanonical books which it comes from, but there is no reference to where it can be found in Athanasius himself. Footnote 461 is similarly empty.
Across the book as a whole there is also a considerable reliance upon Secondary Sources for citing medieval texts. In controversial topics (like bible canon) historical Secondary sources have sometimes been prone to see what they want to see and they can (accidentally) misrepresent what they are presenting. So to be secure in the accuracy of its presentation, books like this really need to go back to the original texts for every single citation.
Apart from these minor caveats the book is to be recommended as a comprehensive presentation of its viewpoint. The nature of the issues means that there is a lot of citation and referencing, so the book will probably be enjoyed most by those who are already familiar with the broad contour of the issues and are now wanting a deeper understanding.
(These comments are based on the Revised Second Edition, 2017)
September 13, 2024
Great book on the arguments for the Catholic view of Scripture and why the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanon, is not excluded like it is in Protestant Bibles. I am teaching a class on this set of books at my Protestant church, but found this overview to be the best I found on the subject from any point of view. Michuta gives a concise history of the development of the Bible and what different church leaders thought throughout history.
He writes persuasively but fairly. While I was not convinced of his point of view in particular, he did influence where I ended up and I can see his reasoning much more clearly.
If you were like me (a Protestant who didn't know much about the Apocrypha), here are some interesting things to think about:
Martin Luther included it as an appendix in his original translation.
The Swiss-Geneva Bible had it as an appendix as well.
It was included in the original King James Version (as an appendix).
It was in almost all Protestant Bibles in one way or another until around 1830.
Jerome, a church father and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, was the first to really separate it in this way. The reformers think he did this rightly, while Catholics tend to think he was somewhat of a rogue (from my limited understanding).
Overall, excellent book about a very specific subject. Recommended.
He writes persuasively but fairly. While I was not convinced of his point of view in particular, he did influence where I ended up and I can see his reasoning much more clearly.
If you were like me (a Protestant who didn't know much about the Apocrypha), here are some interesting things to think about:
Martin Luther included it as an appendix in his original translation.
The Swiss-Geneva Bible had it as an appendix as well.
It was included in the original King James Version (as an appendix).
It was in almost all Protestant Bibles in one way or another until around 1830.
Jerome, a church father and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, was the first to really separate it in this way. The reformers think he did this rightly, while Catholics tend to think he was somewhat of a rogue (from my limited understanding).
Overall, excellent book about a very specific subject. Recommended.
October 2, 2021
Fascinating read. Well worth it.
January 3, 2021
A good research book or reference book. This book took me a while to read and sometimes I had to take a break. It's a difficult book to just plough through and read because of its scholarly nature. I found the book very dense and very thorough.
June 17, 2019
This book does an excellent in-depth look at how the Catholic bible came to be, and how the Protestant bible ended up differing from it. It goes through the Jewish texts of the Old Testament, St. Jerome's impact on the Bible was, numerous historical Christian figures, Vatican Councils, Protestant Reformation, etc. It is obvious by the sheer number of footnotes that this was a labor of love to detail how and why the Bible is as it is today. An excellent read for anyone who wants to get a deeper understanding of the various events over time that shaped the creation of Scripture.
February 4, 2020
Did you know that there are more books in a Catholic bible than the typical Protestant bible? Do you know why? In Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Gary Michuta draws heavily on original sources to demonstrate how various writings were used in the early Church, how they were collected into codices, and why the deuterocanonical books should be reintroduced to the Protestant Bible. An excellent read and one of much importance for anyone with more than a cursory interest in Christianity.
December 17, 2024
This book thoroughly and accurately investigates the development of the Christian biblical canon, answering the question of why the Catholic Old Testament has more books than the Jewish and Protestant biblical canon. Very informative, telling the forgotten story of how Protestant groups in the 1600s through the 1800s came to delete several Old Testament books and chapters that Christians have been reading as Scripture ever since the first century A.D. I especially appreciated Michuta's chapter on the controversy within Protestantism over the "Apocrypha" that led to Bible Societies in Britain and the U.S. deciding to only circulate Bibles that lacked the old deuterocanonical books and chapters. It's an all-but-forgotten but crucial episode in the history of Protestant Christanity.
August 31, 2019
Excellent work, well researched, proper citations... WHY ARE THERE SO MANY TYPOS???
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews