What are major differences in wording and chapter divisions between the Ethiopian canon and the Septuagint?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo canon contains about 81 books (46 OT, 35 NT) and retains several works absent from most Septuagint-based traditions, notably 1 Enoch and Jubilees, because its Ge’ez Bible was largely made from Septuagint material but preserves a broader collection [1] [2] [3]. Scholarship and church sources agree the Ethiopic corpus derives from Septuagint recensions yet differs in which books were kept, how books are divided and titled, and in the survival of unique Ethiopian books such as 1–3 Meqabyan and 4 Baruch [2] [4] [3].
1. How the origins link the two canons — shared lineage, divergent outcome
Histories converge: the Ethiopic Old and New Testaments were produced from Septuagint material and reflect the LXX’s central role in early Christian scripture, but Ethiopian preservation produced a distinct final collection [2] [3] [5]. Researchers note the Ethiopic translation is from Greek (not Hebrew) and likely from particular Septuagint recensions, so many overlaps with the LXX are expected even as the final Ethiopic list is larger [2] [5].
2. Book count and headline differences — more books, some unique to Ethiopia
The headline contrast is numerical and titular: the Ethiopian canon traditionally totals 81 books (46 Old Testament, 35 New Testament) while canonical Septuagint-based Bibles (Eastern Orthodox) are smaller and vary among churches; Ethiopia includes books like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 1–3 Meqabyan that are not part of most Septuagint-derived canons [1] [3] [6]. Secondary differences include inclusion of 3 Ezra and 4 Ezra and extended Baruch materials that appear variably in other traditions but are fixed in the Tewahedo corpus [2] [4].
3. Wording and language — Ge’ez as the receiving text, not a distinct theological translation
Ethiopia’s Bible exists primarily in Ge’ez, an ancient Semitic liturgical language; that Ge’ez corpus was translated from Greek Septuagint witnesses rather than directly from Hebrew, so “wording” differences often reflect that linguistic pathway (Greek → Ge’ez) and regional textual recensions rather than radically different doctrines [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention systematic modern textual comparisons of specific phrase-level divergences between Ethiopic and extant Septuagint manuscripts beyond noting that Ethiopic derives from a Septuagint tradition [5].
4. Chapter and book divisions — different titles and internal partitions
Ethiopian practice sometimes splits or renames works: what other traditions list as single books may be divided in Ethiopia (for example, multiple Meqabyan books bearing the Maccabean name but different content), and some books accepted elsewhere (Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 4 Baruch) are canonically fixed in Ethiopia [4] [7]. The scholarly literature reports that although the Ethiopian canon tends to include the protocanon of the Hebrew Bible and Catholic deuterocanon, Ethiopia also appends additional writings and sometimes reaches the canonical count of 81 by including extra church-order and apostolic materials [4] [8].
5. Why the collections diverged — reception, liturgy and local authority
The divergence is historical and practical: regional liturgical use, early adoption of Christianity in Ethiopia (4th century), and isolation from later Roman editorial processes allowed Ethiopia to preserve older or alternative Jewish-Christian texts that other churches later omitted from their canons [3] [6]. Scholarly discussion emphasizes reception-history: what a community actually read and used in worship often determined canonicity more than single ecumenical decisions [7].
6. Scholarly uncertainty and internal Ethiopian variation
Researchers caution there is no single, universally published Ethiopian canon and lists can vary; the EOTC itself counts 81 books but which precise items make that list remains obscure in places and the research record remains incomplete [4] [9]. Academic treatments argue the Ethiopian concept of “canon” is looser and more fluid in reception than some modern definitions assume [9].
7. Practical implications for readers and translators
For readers, the practical differences are twofold: you get more texts (Enoch, Jubilees, extra Esdras, Meqabyan) and different book order/divisions; for translators and textual critics, the Ethiopic corpus preserves Septuagint-derived readings and recensional variants that matter for reconstructing early Christian textual history [2] [5] [10]. Some online and popular treatments emphasize the dramatic list of “extra” books [6] [1], while academic pieces stress uncertainty about exact lists and transmission [9].
Limitations: primary source manuscripts and detailed verse-level comparisons between Ethiopic and specific Septuagint codices are not provided in the supplied materials, so precise wording-level divergences cannot be documented here; available sources do not mention specific verse-by-verse translation differences beyond noting language and source-lineage [5] [2].