Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do the canons of the Ethiopian and Catholic Bibles compare to the Eastern Orthodox Bible's canon?
Executive Summary
The core finding is that the Ethiopian Orthodox canon is considerably broader than the Catholic canon, traditionally cited as containing about 81 books and including texts such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Shepherd of Hermas, while the Catholic Bible has a narrower fixed canon; the Eastern Orthodox canon sits between and varies by tradition, typically encompassing the Catholic books plus additional Old Testament texts like 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. The two source analyses disagree on motives and emphasize different additions, with publication dates of 2025-09-13 and 2026-01-01 noted for context [1] [2].
1. What the original claims actually say — pulling the headlines apart
The first claim presents the Ethiopian Bible as broader than the Catholic Bible and lists specific books—1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Shepherd of Hermas—asserting they were “intentionally removed from the Western canon for political and institutional reasons” [1]. The second claim frames the Eastern Orthodox canon as variable, usually including everything in the Catholic canon plus extra books such as 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151, and emphasizes differences of inclusion and exclusion between the three traditions [2]. These are competing emphases: breadth and alleged motive versus variance and specific supplements [1] [2].
2. Establishing a compact factual baseline readers can rely on
Factually, the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition preserves a larger Old and New Testament corpus than typical Western canons, historically maintaining books not found in Catholic or Protestant collections; this is presented as a point of difference rather than a judgment [1]. The Eastern Orthodox churches do not present a single fixed canon across all jurisdictions, and their Old Testament lists commonly include works absent from the Catholic canon, such as 1 Esdras and Psalm 151 [2]. Both sources treat canons as historically contingent and varied across Christian communities [1] [2].
3. The Ethiopian canon described: size, examples, and an asserted motive
One source states the Ethiopian canon contains approximately 81 books, explicitly naming 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Shepherd of Hermas among its unique inclusions, portraying these texts as retained in Ethiopia but removed from Western canons [1]. That analysis attributes the exclusions in Western tradition to political and institutional decisions, a claim that frames canon formation as power-laden; this introduces an interpretive layer linking textual selection to church politics rather than purely theological or liturgical criteria [1]. The date of that analysis is 2025-09-13, which situates it near current scholarly debates [1].
4. Catholic canon in context: what’s standard and what’s not
Neither source supplies an exhaustive list for the Catholic canon, but the comparative implication is that the Catholic Old and New Testaments represent a narrower, more standardized canon relative to the Ethiopian collection and that the Catholic canon has been historically stabilized by institutional councils and practice [1] [2]. The characterization is that Catholic scripture is a baseline for comparison, with Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian lists diverging by adding apocryphal or deuterocanonical works in differing configurations [1] [2].
5. Eastern Orthodoxy’s middle path: variability and extra books
The second source emphasizes that the Eastern Orthodox canon varies by jurisdiction but typically includes the entire Catholic canon while adding books like 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151; this places Orthodoxy in an intermediate position between the Catholic and Ethiopian extents [2]. The analysis frames Orthodox lists as less uniform than Catholic ones and highlights canonical pluralism in the East, implying local liturgical history shapes which additional texts are retained [2].
6. Points of agreement, divergence, and what’s left unsaid
Both pieces agree that canons differ across Christian traditions and that Ethiopia preserves books absent from Western collections [1] [2]. They diverge on explanation: one asserts deliberate institutional removal in the West [1], while the other emphasizes descriptive variation without attributing motive [2]. Neither analysis fully documents the historical councils, manuscripts, or church practices that produced these lists, so readers should note a gap between descriptive cataloguing and causal historical explanation in the presented materials [1] [2].
7. Reading motivations: where agendas might shape the story
The claim that Western removal was driven by political and institutional reasons signals an interpretive agenda that frames canon formation as power politics rather than theological adjudication [1]. The second source’s neutral framing and emphasis on variability suggests a descriptive, pluralistic agenda focused on comparative liturgy and tradition [2]. Readers should weigh those rhetorical choices when using these analyses: one advances a causative thesis about exclusion, the other catalogs differences without attributing motive [1] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers wanting to compare canons quickly
If you need a concise takeaway: Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity preserves the broadest set of books of the three, the Catholic canon is more standardized and narrower, and the Eastern Orthodox canon is variable but generally includes the Catholic books plus several additional Old Testament texts. The two source analyses provide complementary descriptive information while disagreeing about motives; note the publication dates—2025-09-13 and 2026-01-01—for their contemporary framing and potential interpretive slants [1] [2].