How does the placement of the deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphal books in the Ethiopian Bible compare to Roman Catholic and Orthodox canons?
Executive summary
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible includes the Catholic deuterocanonical books but goes further by canonizing works commonly labeled pseudepigraphal elsewhere (for example 1 Enoch and Jubilees) and by incorporating uniquely Ethiopian texts such as the Meqabyan books into its Old Testament, producing a broader corpus (commonly 81 books, and in some reckonings up to 88 when church‑order materials are counted) that is integrated into liturgical and theological life rather than sequestered as “apocrypha” [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, Roman Catholic canons fix 73 books—accepting a defined set of deuterocanonical writings—while the various Eastern Orthodox communions typically recognize roughly 76–79 books and accept many but not all of the extra Ethiopic texts [4] [1] [5].
1. How the Ethiopian canon’s scope and labels differ from Catholic practice
Ethiopia’s canon is expansive and organized so that deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphal works sit within the Old Testament corpus rather than being treated as a separate “apocrypha” collection; the Ethiopian Church’s own list counts 46 Old Testament books and 35 New Testament books, totaling 81, and treats works like Jubilees and 1 Enoch as canonical scripture rather than secondary literature [2] [1] [6]. By contrast, Roman Catholic practice accepts a fixed deuterocanonical list incorporated into the Old Testament—bringing the standard Catholic total to 73 books—while continuing to distinguish between protocanonical books and the historical category of “Deuterocanon” that entered Latin tradition via the Septuagint and the Vulgate [7] [4].
2. Which extra books appear in Ethiopia but not in Rome or Byzantium
The Ethiopian Old Testament explicitly includes writings that are pseudepigraphal or non‑canonical in Roman Catholic and most Eastern Orthodox canons: 1 Enoch and Jubilees are canonical in Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian Maccabees (Meqabyan 1–3) are different works from the Maccabees known in Catholic and Orthodox lists; Ethiopia also preserves additional Jeremiah‑related books and other unique texts that Catholic and Byzantine canons generally do not [6] [5] [1]. Roman Catholic editions, in contrast, do not recognize Enoch or Jubilees as Scripture, and treat Maccabees differently [6] [7].
3. How Eastern Orthodox placement and numbers compare
Eastern Orthodox churches accept more Old Testament books than Rome and include many deuterocanonical writings—some accept around 79 books overall—but the Orthodox world is not monolithic: Greek, Slavonic, and Georgian churches vary in exact lists and treatment of certain works, and none broadly adopt the Ethiopic corpus such as Enoch or Jubilees into their principal canon even when they accept things like the Prayer of Manasseh or 3–4 Ezra in some traditions [4] [5]. Thus Orthodox placement resembles Catholic practice in keeping the deuterocanon within the Old Testament while generally excluding the specifically Ethiopic corpus that Ethiopia treats as authoritative [5] [4].
4. How the canon’s formation and local agendas shaped placement
Scholars and church sources emphasize that Ethiopia formed its canon early and independently, shaped by local translation practices into Ge’ez, longstanding liturgical usage, and a different relationship between “scripture” and “church order”; Ethiopian tradition did not strictly separate canonical from ecclesiastical texts, which helps explain why materials other churches labeled pseudepigraphal became embedded as Scripture in Ethiopian life [1] [2] [3]. Conversely, Roman Catholic and most Orthodox canonical decisions reflect different historical processes (Septuagint reception, Vulgate authority, regional synodal decisions) that produced narrower or at least differently constituted Old Testaments [7] [4].
5. Practical consequences: liturgy, theology and textual transmission
Because Ethiopia integrates its broader set into liturgy and theology, those extra books shape biblical interpretation, hymnography, and ecclesial memory in ways absent from Roman Catholic or (most) Orthodox practice; this is not only a matter of “more books” but of different authoritative materials informing doctrine and devotion. Outside scholars note variants in how many texts are counted (81 in the common Ethiopic count; up to 88 if church‑order texts are included) and emphasize the practical reality that canons function where communities read and treat texts as Scripture, which in Ethiopia has meant an inclusive, locally formed set [2] [3] [1].