Gary Michuta's Treatment of Luther and the Protestant Biblical Canon: A Critical Analysis

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

The question of biblical canonicity remains one of the most enduring sources of theological dispute between Protestant and Catholic traditions. Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (first edition, 2007; second revised edition, 2017) stands as a contemporary Catholic apologetic seeking to defend the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books while attributing their removal from Protestant Bibles primarily to the influence of Martin Luther. Michuta devotes over twenty pages (twelve in the main text and ten in an appendix) to scrutinizing Luther’s position on the Apocrypha. Yet a closer analysis of his treatment reveals significant methodological flaws and historical inaccuracies that ultimately undermine his central thesis concerning Luther’s motivations and influence.

Michuta’s Central Argument

At the heart of Michuta’s argument is the claim that Luther was instrumental in excising the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles, doing so out of theological bias rather than historical or textual principle. According to Michuta, Luther’s rejection of these books was not based on evidence of canonical illegitimacy but rather on doctrinal discord with their content. He equates Luther’s approach to that of ancient heretics, asserting, “Like the Marcionites, Ebionites, and Gnostics before him, Luther's theological convictions determined what constituted the canonical Scriptures.”³ Such comparisons imply if not flatly assert that Luther engaged in sectarian editing of Scripture.

Michuta further accuses Luther of the very crime Protestants often attribute to the Roman Church, stating, “He has, to paraphrase Scripture, ‘[made] void the word of God by [his] own tradition.’”⁴ In so doing, Michuta casts Luther as a theological manipulator rather than a conscientious exegete or historical critic. The result is an artificial narrative that reduces Luther’s canonical work to a caricature, one that grossly distorts the nature of his contributions.

Methodological Concerns

Failure to Engage Primary Sources

One of the most glaring deficiencies in Michuta’s analysis is his neglect of Luther’s own detailed writings on the Apocrypha. Despite devoting considerable space to the topic, Michuta fails to cite or engage key portions of Luther’s Works where the Reformer offers his explicit views on the matter. This omission is especially troubling given that Luther repeatedly outlined the rationale for distinguishing between canonical and non-canonical texts.

From the bibliography, it appears Michuta relied on the older six-volume Philadelphia edition of Luther’s Works overseen by Adolph Spaeth and Henry Eyster Jacobs, which omits the relevant prefaces to the Apocryphal books.⁶ Whether this oversight is due to insufficient research or intentional exclusion, the result is the same: a failure to engage Luther on his own terms. Any credible historical treatment must begin with direct interaction with the subject’s own words, especially when those words speak directly to the issue in question. Michuta here fails miserably.

Oversimplified Chronology

Michuta constructs a simplified timeline, asserting that Luther accepted the Apocrypha as canonical until 1518 but rejected them beginning in 1519 due to shifting theological commitments.⁷ He appeals to Luther’s favorable citation of Sirach and Tobit in 1518 as evidence of early canonical acceptance.⁸ Yet this fails to account for the fact that Luther, even after expressing his reservations, continued to quote from these books as edifying, though not divinely inspired, literature.

In his 1533 Preface to Sirach, Luther remarks: “The ancient fathers did not include this one among the books of sacred Scripture, but simply regarded it as the fine work of a wise man.”⁹ His consistent view was that while such texts were useful for instruction, they did not bear the authority of divinely inspired Scripture.

The Leipzig Debate and the Question of Purgatory

The Alleged Turning Point

Michuta presents the 1519 Leipzig Debate with Johann Eck as a key turning point, alleging that Luther was “forced” to reject 2 Maccabees due to its support of purgatory.¹⁰ This, he claims, was a reactionary move driven by theological necessity rather than principled exegesis.

Yet again Michuta's narrative fails to reflect the actual development of Luther’s thought. At the time of the debate, Luther still affirmed belief in purgatory, albeit with qualifications. In 1518, he wrote: “Perhaps the souls in purgatory do render satisfaction for their sins. It is brazen rashness, however, to assert that God demands more of a dying person than a willingness to die.”¹² Thesis Nine similarly reflects belief in purgatory while questioning certain theological embellishments.¹³

Luther’s Gradual Shift

Ewald Plass records that even in 1518, Luther stated, “I am very certain that there is a purgatory.”¹⁴ By late 1519, he remained hesitant to condemn dissenters, writing to Spalatin, “It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory.”¹⁵ His final rejection of purgatory would not solidify until after 1520, long after the Leipzig Debate. Michuta’s assertion that Luther rejected 2 Maccabees in 1519 due to purgatory thus collapses under the weight of the historical record.

Luther’s Textual Rationale

In 1521, Luther gave specific reasons for rejecting 2 Maccabees: “That book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version.”¹⁶ He also criticized its internal inconsistencies, including contradictions with 1 Maccabees and stories he deemed fictitious.¹⁷ These were scholarly objections based on textual evidence, not dogmatic evasion.

Luther’s Preface to 2 Maccabees

Luther’s 1534 Preface offers a mature and comprehensive judgment of 2 Maccabees.¹⁸ He critiques its chronology, style, and teachings—especially the account of Razis’s suicide—as inconsistent with canonical standards.¹⁹ While acknowledging its inspirational elements, he concludes, “It is proper that this second book should be thrown out.”²⁰ Citing Jerome, Luther places himself within a broader tradition of skepticism toward the book’s canonical status.²¹

The Question of Innovation

Luther’s German Bible

Michuta asserts that Luther initiated the removal of the Deuterocanon by placing the Apocrypha in a separate section of his German Bible.²² Yet he also acknowledges that most Protestant Bibles continued to include these books for over a century after Luther.²³ If Luther’s influence were decisive, this would be inexplicable.

Rather than deleting the books, Luther marked them as “books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”²⁴ This editorial move was not an innovation but a return to earlier distinctions upheld by many in church history.

Patristic and Medieval Precedent

Throughout church history, theologians distinguished between canonical and ecclesiastical books. Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem excluded the Apocrypha from the canon despite using the Septuagint.²⁶ Josephus records that Palestinian Jews read books like Tobit and Judith but did not consider them canonical.²⁷ The Belgic Confession echoes this distinction, permitting their use “so far as they agree with the canonical books.”²⁸

Luther’s approach, then, was a rearticulation of an ancient, well-established distinction and not, contra Michuta, a novel departure.

The Council of Trent and Canonical Authority

Canon Certainty Before Trent

Michuta conveniently ignores the fact that prior to Trent (1546), there was no infallible definition of the canon within Roman Catholicism. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, “This decision was not given until rather late… Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books.”²⁹

Luther’s skepticism in the 1520s and 1530s thus preceded and anticipated a formal judgment not yet rendered. His critical engagement cannot be retroactively labeled heretical when even the Church had not spoken definitively.

Other Catholic Critics

Luther was not unique among Catholics in questioning the deuterocanon. Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan both expressed similar doubts.³⁰ If Luther’s critique constitutes rebellion, then consistency demands the same judgment against these Catholic figures. Their dissent illustrates that debate over these books was permissible within the pre-Tridentine Church.

Broader Implications

The Jewish Canon

Michuta’s argument overlooks the canonical boundaries affirmed by Jewish authorities. Paul writes in Romans 3:2 that the Jews were entrusted with “the oracles of God.” The Palestinian Jewish canon excluded the Apocrypha, a fact which Luther and others appealed to not out of anti-Catholicism but as a matter of historical integrity.

A Scholarly, Not Sectarian, Rejection

Contrary to Michuta’s portrayal, Luther’s rejection of the Apocrypha was grounded in historical, linguistic, and theological analysis. His position developed gradually and was informed by earlier precedent and contemporary scholarship. His actions reflected the complex interplay of faith, history, and exegesis—not mere doctrinal bias.

Conclusion

Gary Michuta’s account of Martin Luther’s role in shaping the Protestant canon suffers from serious methodological flaws, historical oversights, and misrepresentations. His failure to engage Luther’s own writings, his inaccurate depiction of Luther’s evolving theology, and his mischaracterization of Luther’s canonical views as novel distort both the Reformer’s legacy and the broader historical context.

Luther’s treatment of the Apocrypha reflected careful, critical, and historically informed judgment, shared by other scholars, both Protestant and Catholic. His decisions were not driven by sectarian motives but by conscientious engagement with the data available to him.

Rather than a reckless innovator, Luther should be understood as a thoughtful participant in a long-standing tradition of canonical reflection. Michuta’s account, in seeking to vilify Luther, ultimately oversimplifies and distorts a rich and nuanced historical reality that deserves more careful treatment.

---

Endnotes

¹ Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), 245–272. A second revised edition was published in 2017 by Catholic Answers in El Cajon, CA.

² Ibid., 252.

³ Ibid., 252.

⁴ Ibid., 253, n.648.

⁵ James Swan, “Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1),” AOBlog, January 22, 2008, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/why-gary-michuta-says-protestant-bibles-are-smaller-1/.

⁶ Ibid. The unabridged, standard version of Luther’s Works is known as the Weimar edition (Weimarer Ausgabe, WA), officially titled D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. The Weimar edition is the comprehensive, critical, and scholarly standard of all Luther’s writings, published in German and Latin, and comprises 127 volumes, completed in 2009. It includes his table talk, letters, and Bible translation, and is recognized as the only complete edition.

For English readers, the most extensive standard edition is the 55-volume Luther’s Works published by Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press. This set is a major scholarly translation, much more complete and authoritative than the Philadelphia edition, though it is still not as exhaustive as the original Weimar edition.

⁷ Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 246.

⁸ Ibid., 247–248.

⁹ Luther’s Works, vol. 35, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 347.

¹⁰ Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 248–249.

¹¹ Luther’s Works, vol. 31, 317–318.

¹² Ibid., 317.

¹³ Ibid., 318.

¹⁴ Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says, vol. 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 387–388, n.25.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Luther’s Works, vol. 32, 96.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Luther’s Works, vol. 35, 352–353.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ibid., 353.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 245.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid., 254.

²⁵ William Webster, cited in James Swan, “Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1),” AO Blog, January 22, 2008, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/why-gary-michuta-says-protestant-bibles-are-smaller-1/

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ The Belgic Confession, art. 6, cited in James Swan, “Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2),” AOBlog, January 24, 2008, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/why-gary-michuta-says-protestant-bibles-are-smaller-2/.

²⁹ New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., s.v. “Canon of the Old Testament,” cited in Swan, “Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2).”

³⁰ Swan, “Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2).”