How did the Ethiopian Orthodox canon historically develop compared with the Catholic and Protestant canons?

1. How Ethiopia’s list grew: local tradition, liturgy and the Fetha Negest

Ethiopia’s canon developed inside a living liturgical and legal culture that treated many writings as authoritative; manuscript lists vary, and scholars note both a “narrow” and a “broader” canon in use historically ^{[1] [6]}. Secondary evidence ties the broader 81‑book total to Ethiopian scholarly readings of the medieval Fetha Negest law code, which asserts an 81‑book canon but only lists 73; commentators filled the gap by identifying additional texts as canonical, producing the broader Ethiopic corpus ^[2].

2. Which books set Ethiopia apart — and why they stayed

The EOTC includes books largely absent from Western canons: 1 Enoch and Jubilees, distinctive Ethiopian Meqabyan books (not the same as Western Maccabees), and other writings preserved in Ge’ez mss; some of these were valued in Ethiopia because of early usage and continuous liturgical reading, criteria the Church applied alongside apostolicity and antiquity ^{[7] [1] [8]}. Oxford‑handbook scholarship notes some of these works were still appreciated by fathers and regional churches before the fourth century, and Ethiopia’s retention reflects different local canonicity decisions ^[8].

3. How Catholic and Protestant canons stabilized elsewhere

Western Christian canon formation relied heavily on the Septuagint as used by early Christians; Rome’s tradition retained the deuterocanonical books and by the late medieval Councils (and definitively at Trent) affirmed a 73‑book canon for Catholics. Protestant reformers, reacting to perceived Jewish and patristic standards, adopted the Hebrew (narrower) Old Testament and settled on 66 books total, treating the deuterocanonical writings as useful but non‑canonical ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

4. Different standards, different outcomes

The divergence is not simply accident but a clash of authorities and criteria: Ethiopian canon formation emphasized indigenous liturgical practice and long local use; Catholic lists leaned on the Septuagint and ecclesial councils; Protestants prioritized consonance with the Hebrew Bible and sola scriptura impulses that excluded later intertestamental works ^{[8] [9] [3]}. Modern summaries emphasize these differing reference points — Septuagint versus Hebrew tradition — as key to why canons differ ^[9].

5. Scholarly uncertainties and competing claims

Scholars warn the EOTC list is not uniform: which books are “canonical” has been obscure and debated; some canonical items were never widely printed in Ge’ez and lists show variation ^{[6] [10]}. Academic treatments stress that Ethiopian canonicity is complex and sometimes under‑researched; project and popular claims of an “oldest complete Bible” must be measured against manuscript variety and scholarly caution ^{[11] [12]}.

6. What this means for readers and historians

Practically, the EOTC’s broader corpus preserves Second Temple and local Christian materials that illuminate early Jewish‑Christian exchanges and regional Christianities suppressed or marginalized elsewhere; Catholics preserve the Septuagint’s extra books with doctrinal implications; Protestants foreground the Hebrew canon and scriptural sufficiency claims ^{[7] [3] [4]}. Any comparative account must therefore read the three canons as different cultural‑theological settlements reached under distinct authorities and historical pressures ^{[8] [4]}.

Limitations: available sources do not give a single, fully detailed chronological “when” for each Ethiopian canon decision; the EOTC’s internal variations and manuscript evidence remain subjects of ongoing research and contested popular narratives ^{[10] [6]}.