How do Ethiopian Orthodox liturgy and lectionary influence biblical interpretation compared to Roman Catholic and Protestant services?
Executive summary
Ethiopian Orthodox worship shapes biblical interpretation through a larger canon (often cited as up to 81 books) and a liturgical, tradition-centered hermeneutic that integrates Judaic customs, liturgy, and national identity—contrasting with Roman Catholicism’s 73-book canon and Protestantism’s 66-book canon and sola scriptura emphasis [1] [2] [3]. Scholars and primary-source accounts show the Ethiopian Church reads Scripture through longstanding liturgical texts and the Andemta, producing interpretations that emphasize continuity with Israelite practice and distinctive doctrines such as an expanded role for Mary [4] [5].
1. Liturgy as interpretive framework: scripture lived and sung
In the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, Scripture is not mainly a private text to be proof‑texted; it is embedded in the Qeddassé (liturgy), anaphoras, and the Andemta (liturgical commentaries), so biblical meaning is produced through ritual rhythm and communal recitation rather than isolated exegesis [4]. That liturgical embedding privileges typology, national memory (identification with Israel), and sacramental readings that read Old Testament law and imagery as living precedents for Christian rites—an approach different from the sermon‑centered Protestant service and more ritual‑integrated than many Catholic Masses [4] [6].
2. Canon size changes what counts as authoritative text
The Ethiopian canon includes books (for example 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 1–3 Meqabyan) absent from Protestant and many Catholic lists; those books shape theology and biblical reference points used in preaching and liturgy, thereby producing interpretive conclusions unavailable to churches that exclude them [3] [2]. Protestant churches, by contrast, adhere closely to the Jewish/Protestant canon and interpret mainly from that narrower set of texts, while Roman Catholicism uses a middle ground with its deuterocanonical books [2] [7].
3. Tradition vs. sola scriptura: different authority hierarchies
In Ethiopian Orthodox practice, tradition—liturgical practice, patristic and monastic commentaries, and national historical memory—stands alongside Scripture as a guiding authority, so exegetical conclusions often flow from received rites and communal identity [3] [4]. Protestants typically prioritize sola scriptura, making individual or congregational reading and sermon exegesis central; Roman Catholicism also holds tradition and magisterial interpretation alongside Scripture but operates within a different institutional framework than the Ethiopian synodic and monastic authorities [3] [8].
4. Judaic continuity and liturgical law: interpretive emphases
Ethiopian Orthodox interpretation carries clear Judaic inflections—observance patterns, relationship to Israelite typology, and older liturgical calendars—that shape how texts are read and applied, including a persistent Old Testament horizon for Christian practice [4]. This Judaic continuity contrasts with many Protestant readings that stress New Testament antitypes and theological reformulations, and it also differs from Catholic liturgical development which, while sacramental and liturgical, does not replicate the same set of Judaic practices described in Ethiopian sources [4] [5].
5. Marian theology and sacramental interpretation
Ethiopian Orthodoxy places strong emphasis on Mary’s role—sometimes described as having a redemptive aspect—affecting readings of salvation history and typology in Scripture; Protestants generally exclude Mary from redemptive function while Catholics also emphasize Marian intercession but not always to the Ethiopian extent [5]. These doctrinal priorities are reinforced by liturgy and popular piety and therefore shape homiletics and exegesis in ways distinct from other traditions [5].
6. Historical memory, identity politics, and hermeneutics
Historic tensions with Western missionaries and the framing of Catholicism and Protestantism as “foreign” or heterodox have hardened interpretive boundaries: for many Ethiopians biblical reading is bound up with national and ecclesial identity, so interpretation can serve boundary‑making as much as theological inquiry [6] [9]. External observers and missionaries historically judged Ethiopian teaching “distorted,” while Ethiopians defended their liturgical and canonical integrity—this dispute has influenced how each tradition reads contested passages and canons [9] [6].
7. Limitations and competing views in the sources
Available sources document canon differences, liturgical centrality, Judaic influences and distinctive Marian theology [3] [2] [4] [5] [1]. They also record historical conflicts with missionaries and national identity dynamics [6] [9]. Sources do not provide a uniform, detailed comparative table of how specific passages (e.g., Romans, Revelation) are read differently across the three traditions; that granular exegetical mapping is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
If you listen to an Ethiopian Orthodox service you will encounter a biblical hermeneutic formed by a larger canon, ritualized reading, Judaic continuities, and communal memory—interpretive drivers distinct from Protestant sola scriptura and yet different in practice from Roman Catholic magisterial tradition [3] [2] [4] [5]. Understanding those liturgical and canonical differences is essential to grasp why the same biblical verses can lead to different doctrines and devotional practices across these Christian traditions [4] [2].