When were books like Enoch and Jubilees accepted into the Ethiopian Orthodox canon?
Executive summary
The books known as 1 Enoch and Jubilees were ancient Jewish works that entered and remained in Ethiopian Christian scriptural practice early and gradually rather than at a single council; they are preserved in full in Geʽez and have long formed part of what the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition commonly numbers as an 81‑book canon (or in broader reckonings even more) [1] [2] [3]. Scholarly consensus and church practice show a slow accretion of authority—textual survival in Geʽez, ecclesiastical usage, the Fetha Negest’s influence, and modern Bible commissions (notably the Haile Selassie edition) all contributed to their canonical status, but there is no single dated “acceptance” event recorded in the sources provided [4] [3] [1].
1. Ancient roots: Enoch and Jubilees predate Christian Ethiopia and were circulating by the Second Temple period
Both works are ancient Jewish compositions: substantial sections of 1 Enoch date to the fourth century BCE and Jubilees is likewise dated to the late Second Temple era, making them part of the same literary matrix that produced many intertestamental writings later read in diverse communities [1] [5]. The survival of multiple 1 Enoch fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms the book’s currency in Jewish circles before Christianity and explains how those traditions could travel and be received in Ethiopian Christianity [5].
2. Integration into Ethiopian Christian practice was gradual and textual—Geʽez preservation was decisive
Unlike the closed canons formed in some other churches, the Ethiopian church preserved these books intact in Geʽez, and their continual liturgical and theological use in Ethiopia gave them a practical authority that functioned as canonical recognition over centuries rather than by a single decree [2] [5]. The Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel) also retained 1 Enoch in Geʽez, underscoring local continuity of these writings in the region’s religious cultures [5].
3. Local canons, law codes, and Bible commissions formalized a tradition rather than invented it
Ethiopian canon lists—sometimes cited as 81 books—appear to have been shaped by local scholarly practice and legal-religious traditions such as the Fetha Negest, which references a larger biblical corpus and led scholars to enumerate specific works; later institutional acts, including the official Bible commissioned under Emperor Haile Selassie, produced an “official” narrower canon that nonetheless reflects preexisting Ethiopian usage [3] [4]. Source accounts show that what an ordinary Ethiopian would find in a Bible often reflects that Haile Selassie–era standard, which includes Enoch and Jubilees among additional books [4].
4. Why Ethiopia retained Enoch and Jubilees when other churches did not
The Ethiopian tradition preserved a broader matrix of Jewish‑Christian literature—apocalyptic, calendrical, and covenantal voices—that other Christian centers marginalized; historiographical explanations point to Ethiopia’s early and independent development of Christianity, strong Geʽez manuscript culture, and theological receptivity to the themes these books amplify (angels, eschatology, sacred chronology), making their retention coherent with local hermeneutics [6] [7]. The result is a canon that differs substantially from modern Protestant and Roman Catholic lists and remains unique to the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches [6] [3].
5. Scholarly caveats and the absence of a single “acceptance” date
Academic studies emphasize that canonicity in Ethiopia is a process: early textual survival, liturgical use, and later juridical and scholarly lists created a broadly agreed corpus, but the sources provided do not record a single synod or date when Enoch and Jubilees were definitively “accepted” [1] [3]. Different manuscripts and printed Bibles show variation (some broader canons list up to 88 books in some reckonings), and scholars warn against simplifying this history into a single moment of adoption; the evidence instead points to long-standing local practice later formalized by legal codes and modern Bible editions [7] [3].