What books are included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon compared to the King James Version?
Executive summary
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church uses an expanded biblical canon traditionally counted at 81 books (46 Old Testament, 35 New Testament), substantially larger than the 66‑book Protestant King James Version (KJV) canon (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament) that the KJV follows [1] [2] [3]. The extra Ethiopian books include both texts shared with some other ancient Christian traditions (deuterocanonical) and unique works—most notably 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and three books called Meqabyan—while scholars note that which books are named and their boundaries remain somewhat obscure and debated [4] [5] [6] [2].
1. The numerical gap: 81 versus 66 and what those numbers mean
The simple headline—Ethiopian canon ≈81 books, KJV = 66 books—captures the basic difference but masks nuance: the Ethiopian count is usually given as 46 Old Testament and 35 New Testament books, whereas the Protestant/KJV division is 39 Old / 27 New, totaling 66 [1] [3]. Some popular accounts inflate the Ethiopian total to “between 81 and 88” by counting variant writings or extended church collections, a claim that underlines a real fluidity in transmission and listing rather than a stable alternative number [6] [2].
2. Which books the Ethiopian canon adds: Enoch, Jubilees, Meqabyan and more
Beyond the protocanonical Hebrew scriptures included in both traditions, the Ethiopian Church canonizes several texts absent from the KJV: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (both ancient Jewish compositions preserved in Ge’ez), the three Ethiopian Meqabyan books (which are different from the Greek/Latin Maccabees familiar in other traditions), and a range of deuterocanonical works such as Tobit, Judith and additional sections of Esther—plus writings like Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah and 4 Baruch; liturgical or church‑order books are also sometimes treated as canonical in Ethiopian lists [4] [5] [7] [1]. The Prayer of Manasseh and other short prayers or historical pieces appear in Ethiopian lists where they do not in the Protestant KJV [5].
3. Overlap and unique emphases: what is shared and what is distinctive
Substantially, the Ethiopian Old and New Testaments include the same core narratives and letters that the KJV contains—the Hebrew protocanon and the New Testament apostolic corpus—but add materials that broaden historical, cosmological and legal horizons for the Ethiopian Church [5] [1]. Some of these additions—like Tobit or Judith—are also present in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, while others (1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Meqabyan corpus) are uniquely prominent in the Ethiopian tradition and shaped its liturgy and theology in ways different from Western Christianity [4] [6].
4. Scholarly caution and ecclesial practice: canonical lists are not uniformly fixed
Scholars and church historians emphasize uncertainty: the Ethiopian Church has long claimed an 81‑book canon, yet exactly which books comprise that list is not always uniformly enumerated in available sources and remains the subject of research and debate [2]. Recent publications and efforts to publish the full Ethiopic Bible in Ge’ez aim to stabilize a list for liturgical use, but popular summaries often smooth over scholarly disputes about boundaries, variant texts and the status of secondary collections like the Didascalia or Sinodos that influence Ethiopian canonical thinking [8] [1] [9].
5. Why the difference matters: theology, tradition and identity
The practical effect of the larger Ethiopian canon is theological and cultural: texts such as Enoch and Jubilees carry distinct angelology, chronology and cosmology that feed Ethiopian homiletics and devotional practice, while the inclusion of extra historical and liturgical works underscores the Ethiopian Church’s emphasis on tradition alongside written Scripture—an approach that contrasts with Protestant sola scriptura assumptions embodied in the KJV’s selection [4] [6] [3]. At the same time, competing agendas—national identity, antiquarian claims, and modern scholarly classification—color how different sources present the canon, so careful reading of primary Ethiopian lists and scholarly reviews is essential [2] [9].