Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger

by Grotto Press

Product Description

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.

Product Details

• Shipping Information: View shipping rates and policies
• ASIN: 1581880103
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

84 of 88 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars So why do bibles differ? Who made the changes, and when?, August 5, 2007

By 

Jeri Nevermind "loves to read" (Idaho) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Paperback)

Michuta tackles a very touchy subject, one with direct bearing upon sola scriptura. Why do only Catholic bibles have the texts known as the Deuterocanonicals?

The problem is compounded by the fact that Protestant bibles used to contain these same texts. "Before 1599 nearly all Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonical books...It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the tide began to turn" (p 245) and the texts were removed. Michurta sets out to explain how, and why, this came about.

The ancient Jews did not develop a canon before Christ died. "Judaism was comprised of as many as twenty-four distinct parties...and each...had its own distinctive theology and preferences in matters of canonicity" (p 13).

One fact Michurta proves is that the early Christians used the Deuteros frequently. There are quotations from the Deuteros in Luke, Revelation, Matthew, Romans, Hebrews, and James. In addition, 1 Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp, Hermas, the Didache, and many more used portions of the Deuteros.

So how and when did the number of Jewish texts begin to differ from those of the early Christians? Michuta provides an in-depth discussion of how the canon was chosen, for both the Jews and the Christians, regarding the Deuteroes. He lists all the councils where they were discussed, as well as all the early fathers who quoted from the Deuteroes.

This is an outstanding book. Yes, you need it in your library.

36 of 38 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Trouble for Sola Scriptura, January 29, 2008

By 

Stratiotes Doxha Theon "2 Thes 2:15" (Richmond, Missouri) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Paperback)

Mr. Michuta's work will be trouble for the Sola Scriptura crowd. After all, how can one claim to follow the Bible alone when one cannot claim to know what books are to be included in the Bible? Perhaps they would do better to claim "part of the Bible alone" instead. Such is the evidence contained in this thorough study of the deuterocanonical books.

Mr. Michuta begins this study with the Protestant assertion that the new testament writers did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canonical. With a dizzying array of new testament to deuterocanonical parallels, he buries that assertion under the tremendous weight of evidence to the contrary. He proceeds then to bury the claim that the apostolic, ante-Nicene, and early church fathers did not consider these books canonical - and again Mr. Michuta provides a plethora of evidence to the contrary. In the process of providing the historical evidence to bury the Protestant position, Mr. Michuta gives us some insight through the effect of the second Jewish rebellion and anti-Christian bias on the development of the Jewish canon on which Protestants base their own canon. It is a damning indictment indeed that the Protestant canon would be based on the work of enemies of the faith.

But Mr. Michuta is not finished with this dark history of the Protestant rejection of the very scripture they would claim to venerate. He continues with the influence of Jerome's "Hebrew veritas" and why it was rejected by the church. Then he proceeds to challenge the Protestant apparent belief in the infallibility of Jerome above the church. He also provides us with the summary of Martin Luther's test - simply stated, only books that support Martin Luther's theology were accepted by Martin Luther. Rejecting the pillar and foundation of truth, Luther was left with his fiat alone - his questionable doctrines being the test of scripture rather than the other way around as has been claimed for too long. The same seems to be apparent from the evidence of writings from other "reformers" as well.

The assertion of the Bible alone as a replacement for the true pillar and foundation of truth is quite obviously not scriptural. Nor is it supported by historical evidence. It is, of course, a logical assertion in light of the related assertion of private interpretation - after all, if we each can interpret scripture with equal authority, then why not just claim to have the power of interpreting what is included in scripture? Sola scriptura is a position fraught with contradictions and ambiguity. This solid work of historical and scriptural evidence makes those contradictions quite evident to any open-minded enough to see them.

Mr. Michuta closes this work with two appendixes to further enhance our understanding of the Protestant position of sola scriptura and Biblical inerrancy. Both are problematic in light of the evidence contained earlier in the book and Mr. Michuta provides thoughtful nuances to that evidence in these appendixes. Do not neglect to read them as well.

This is an important subject. It is a subject that cannot be taken so lightly as it has been in the past. Catholics who might be thinking of conversion would do well to study and understand the rejection of scripture that conversion would entail. Protestants who claim to venerate the scriptures would do well to better understand the historical and scriptural evidence that seem to contradict their claim. No one who asserts the scriptures as authority can afford to ignore this topic.

43 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Try it, June 19, 2007

By 

Brenda Polk (Steubenville, OH) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Paperback)

This material is especially worthwhile for two kinds of readers: 1) Protestants desiring to understand one more element of the Catholic Church and 2) Catholics who don't know why they have "extra" books. The footnotes and works cited also provide plenty of further reading for serious students. This isn't light reading or devotional material, but clearly defends the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. [...].