Did Luther Create the Protestant Canon All by Himself?

Debunking the "One Guy in Germany" Fallacy: A Response to Fr. Mike Schmitz

A clip from Catholic Friar Mike Schmitz went viral on X.¹ It was a portion of his homily on the “Canon of Scripture” where he explains why the Protestant Bible is different from the Catholic Bible. He claims that Martin Luther, “one guy in Germany,” took 7 books out of the Bible because they contradicted his theology. The clip ends with an emotional appeal, “All 73 books are part of your inheritance. What God has wanted you to have your entire life are all 73 books.”

It sounds like a compelling story at first. One rogue monk. One pair of scissors. One mutilated Bible. And Fr. Mike is a gifted communicator. But on this question almost every historical claim in the clip is false. And the ones that aren’t false are misleading.

I want to walk through Fr. Mike’s specific claims, correct what needs correcting, and then make the positive case for the Protestant canonical position. I’ll do most of it using Catholic sources.

Claim 1: “Martin Luther Took Those Seven Books Out of the Bible”

Fr. Mike says this three times, “Those seven books that Martin Luther took out of the Bible.” And later he says, “One guy in Germany years ago took out” these books.

Luther didn’t take them out. His 1534 German Bible included the deuterocanonical books. He placed them in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments and labeled them, “not held equal to Holy Scripture but useful and good to read.”²

The Geneva Bible (1560) did the same. The King James Bible (1611) did the same. For over two hundred years after Luther, Protestant Bibles included these books. They separated them and labeled them.

That separation wasn’t Luther’s invention. It was Jerome’s.

Claim 2: “In That Moment, Martin Luther Removed or…Moved Those Seven Books”

Fr. Mike claims that during a debate with Johann Eck, Eck cited 2 Maccabees 12 on praying for the dead, “and in that moment, Martin Luther removed, or at least merely moved those seven books from the Bible.”

Three problems.

First, the Leipzig debate was in 1519, not 1520 as Fr. Mike says. Its primary subjects were papal authority, indulgences, and the authority of councils, not the Mass.

Second, Luther didn’t “remove” anything “in that moment.” His German Bible wasn’t published until 1534, which is fifteen years later. The clip compresses fifteen years of theological development into a single dramatic moment. That’s not history. That’s making up stuff to fit a narrative.

Third, and most importantly, Luther’s objection to 2 Maccabees’ canonical authority wasn’t invented on the spot to escape an argument. Jerome had denied 2 Maccabees canonical authority in 391 AD over a thousand years earlier. When Eck cited 2 Maccabees and Luther questioned its authority, Luther wasn’t improvising. He was citing a tradition older than every council Fr. Mike mentions.

Claim 3: “He Appealed to the Jewish Canon That Wasn’t Developed Until a Couple Hundred Years After Jesus”

Fr. Mike says Luther “appealed to the Jewish canon, Jewish list of scriptures, that wasn’t developed until a couple hundred years after Jesus.” The implication is that the Hebrew canon was a late rabbinic invention.

This is misleading. Josephus, writing around 95 AD, which is within the apostolic generation, not “a couple hundred years” later, already described a closed collection of 22 books matching the Protestant Old Testament, “We have not tens of thousands of books, disagreeing and conflicting with one another, but only 22 books.”³ Melito of Sardis, a Christian bishop, traveled to Palestine around 170 AD and recorded the same list.⁴ The evidence for a recognized Hebrew canon is contemporary with the apostolic period.

Claim 4: “At the Time of Jesus, There Wasn’t Actually an Established Jewish Canon”

Fr. Mike claims that at the time of Jesus, “what books were divinely inspired was still a debated topic.”

Jesus himself identified the boundaries of the Hebrew Scriptures he recognized. In Luke 11:51, he said “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” Abel is the first martyr in Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Zechariah is the last martyr in 2 Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew Bible in its traditional Jewish ordering. That’s a merism, a figure of speech meaning “from beginning to end.” Jesus was identifying the scope of his Scriptures. The deuterocanonical books fall outside that range.⁵

The Sadducee example Fr. Mike gives shows the opposite of what he intends. The Sadducees’ rejection of books beyond the Torah was a minority position. Jesus and the Pharisees both recognized the broader Hebrew canon. The existence of a fringe group that held a narrower canon doesn’t mean there was no mainstream consensus. It means the consensus was contested at the margins, just as the NT antilegomena were contested at the margins of the Christian canon.

Claim 5: “That Canon Was Established by Jews Who Had Rejected Jesus as the Messiah. So They’d Have No Authority.”

Fr. Mike says the Jewish canon was “established by Jews who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. So they’d have no authority.”

This is self-defeating. Paul says the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). Jesus used the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative without qualification. He quoted them to settle disputes with Satan (Matthew 4), the Pharisees (Matthew 22), and the Sadducees (Matthew 22). His opponents never questioned the Scriptures’ authority. They questioned his interpretation. The text’s authority was taken as given.

The Hebrew canon wasn’t established by Jews who rejected Jesus. It was inherited from the Jewish community that Jesus himself belonged to and whose Scriptures he quoted as the word of God. And if post-Christian Jews “have no authority” over the canon, then the argument from the Septuagint translation tradition also fails, as the Septuagint was also produced by Jews.⁶

Claim 6: “It Wasn’t Until the Catholic Church in the Year 382”

Fr. Mike says “it wasn’t until the Catholic Church in the year 382 in the Council of Rome, and then again 397, Council of Carthage” that the canon was settled.

The Council of Rome (382) attribution depends on the Decretum Gelasianum, whose connection to that council is disputed by scholars. The Council of Carthage (397) was a regional North African council under Augustine’s influence. It wasn’t binding on the universal Church. Jerome was simultaneously writing the opposite from Bethlehem.

Gallagher, the leading specialist on early Christian canon lists, confirms that “no patristic author had the authority to end all discussion on the matter” and that the lists of “Augustine, Jerome, and even Pope Innocent I” each represent only their own jurisdiction, not the whole church.⁷

Claim 7: “All 73 Books Are Part of Your Inheritance”

Fr. Mike’s emotional close is, “All 73 books are part of your inheritance. What God has wanted you to have your entire life are all 73 books.”

I want to be gracious here, because Fr. Mike is sincere. And he’s right that these books are part of the Christian inheritance. Jerome agreed. He said they’re “read for the edification of the people.” The question isn’t whether they’re valuable. The question is whether they carry doctrinal authority. For over a thousand years, the dominant tradition in Fr. Mike’s own church said they don’t.

The Tradition Luther Inherited

Fr. Mike’s narrative is that Luther innovated. One guy. One moment. One act of theological rebellion. But the canonical judgment Luther expressed had been the dominant position in the Western church for a very long time before he was born.

The chain of transmission is documented and unbroken.

• Melito of Sardis (170 AD): Traveled to Palestine to determine “the accurate books.” His list corresponds to the Hebrew canon. No deuterocanonical books.⁸

• Origen (230 AD): Listed 22 canonical books and placed the Maccabees “outside these.”⁹

• Athanasius (367 AD): He created a three-tier taxonomy. Canonical books are “the springs of salvation” in which “alone the teaching of piety is proclaimed.” The deuterocanonicals sit in the second tier: “not canonized, but prescribed by the ancestors to be read.”¹⁰

• Jerome (391 AD): Wrote the Prologus Galeatus, “What is not found in our list must be placed amongst the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”¹¹

• Jerome, Preface to the Books of Solomon (398 AD): “Just as the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical doctrines.”¹²

• Rufinus (400 AD): Distinguished “canonical” from “ecclesiastical” books, saying the latter are “not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine.”¹³

These prefaces traveled with every copy of the Vulgate. Every medieval scholar who opened a Bible encountered Jerome’s explicit statement that these books aren’t canonical. The distinction was physically present in the Bibles that Catholics point to as containing 73 books.

The tradition continued:

• Gregory the Great (pope, died 604): Called 1 Maccabees “not canonical.”¹⁴

• Hugh of St. Victor (died 1141): Explicitly stated that Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees “are read but are not included in the canon.”¹⁵

• The Glossa Ordinaria: Over 2,000 manuscripts, the standard medieval commentary said these books have “no authority for concluding controversies in matters of Faith.” Individual books were introduced with notes like “Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon.”¹⁶

• Cardinal Cajetan (1532): The papal legate sent to confront Luther, wrote that the deuterocanonical books are “outside the canonical books.”¹⁷

These aren’t obscure people. They’re a pope, the standard medieval commentary, and the cardinal the pope sent to deal with Luther. All holding Jerome’s distinction. All after the councils Fr. Mike cites.

The Catholic Encyclopedia Concedes the Point

Don’t take my word for it. Take the Catholic Encyclopedia‘s:

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.”¹⁸

It says, “few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” That’s a Catholic encyclopedia, bearing a Catholic nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Yves Congar, the Catholic theologian whose work shaped Vatican II said, “An official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.”¹⁹

What Trent Actually Did

The Council of Trent (1546) was the first dogmatic definition of the canon that included the deuterocanonical books as fully canonical, backed by an anathema.²⁰

Before Trent, a Catholic could follow Jerome’s distinction in good standing. After Trent, following Jerome’s distinction is heresy. That’s not “defining what the Church had always believed.” That’s resolving a millennium-long dispute by picking one side and anathematizing the other.

The vote tells the story. 24 in favor. 15 against. 16 abstaining. 44% voted yes. Cardinal Seripando argued for maintaining Jerome’s distinction.²¹ You don’t anathematize a settled consensus. You anathematize a live dispute.

The Bottom Line

Fr. Mike put on full display the “one guy in Germany” fallacy. According to this fallacy, Luther took seven books out of the Bible. The truth is that Luther inherited a canonical distinction held by Jerome, Rufinus, Gregory the Great, the Glossa Ordinaria, and Cardinal Cajetan. He didn’t remove the books from his Bible. He separated them and labeled them, following a tradition over a thousand years old.

The 66-book canonical judgment came first. The 66-book printed Bible came later.

Luther followed Jerome. Trent anathematized Jerome. And it took them 1,546 years to do it. You tell me who innovated.

Notes

1. The clip circulated on X via @Rblv73 on March 11, 2026. It has 425k views as of the writing of this article. And it appears the clip came from TikTok. However, the clip ultimately comes from a Fr. Mike Schmitz homily, “Canon of Scripture,” delivered June 1, 2025. The full homily is found in the video below, and Fr. Mike covers similar material in The Bible in a Year podcast, Day 193: “The Book of Tobit”.

2. Martin Luther, “Preface to the Apocrypha” (1534), “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” See Luther’s Works, American Ed., vol. 35, 337.

3. Josephus, Against Apion 1.38-42 (c. 95 AD). See Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Eerdmans, 1985), ch. 3.

4. Melito of Sardis, canon list preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13-14.

5. On the Abel-to-Zechariah merism as evidence for Jesus’s recognition of the Hebrew canon’s boundaries, see Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 211-222.

6. On Paul’s affirmation of Jewish custodianship of the Scriptures, see Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press, 1989), ch. 2.

7. Edmon L. Gallagher, “What Is a Canon?”, Bible Interp (August 2019), https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/what-canon.

8. Melito of Sardis, canon list preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13-14.

9. Origen, Selecta in Psalmos 1, preserved in Eusebius, HE 6.25.

10. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (367). Text and translation in Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2017), 118-129.

11. Jerome, Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings (Prologus Galeatus), c. 391. English translation in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 6, available at https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html.

12. Jerome, Preface to the Books of Solomon, 398. English translation at https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_solomon.htm.

13. Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed §§36-38, c. 400. Latin text in CCSL 20:170-171.

14. Gregory the Great, Moralia XIX.34. CCSL 143A:983.

15. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon 4.2.

16. Glossa Ordinaria, General Preface. Over 2,000 manuscripts survive.

17. Cardinal Cajetan, Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532), dedicated to Pope Clement VII.

18. Catholic Encyclopedia, “Canon of the Old Testament.” Available at https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm.

19. Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (Macmillan, 1967), 38.

20. Council of Trent, Session 4, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures (April 8, 1546).

21. On the Trent vote, see Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (Oxford, 1957), 246. On Seripando, see Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent (B. Herder, 1947), 270-71.