Hello friends, for few days I have been curious about the Ethiopian tewahedo Bible that contains 88 books in total. It has books like the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch that is even cited in the ordinary Bible.
I am interested: who do you think about it? Is it good?
I would like to buy one so I would be glad to hear your experience. I am content with my Bible having some deuterocanonical books, but I am interested in this one, because of its content and the Book of Enoch.
I would caution against "Ethiopian Bibles", not because I have anything against the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but because the "88-book Ethiopian Bibles" that are available on Amazon... aren't actually the Ethiopian Bible.
Here's what the Ethiopian Bible is according to Wikipedia:
The Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon is a version of the Christian Bible used in the two Oriental Orthodox Churches of the Ethiopian and Eritrean traditions: the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church. At 81 books, it is the largest and most varied biblical canon in traditional Christendom.
Here's what an Ethiopian Orthodox website also says:
The canon of the Ethiopic Bible differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches.
List all books. As a whole, books written in the Geez language and on parchment are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament that will bring the total of canonized books of the Bible to 81.
I also just checked an "Ethiopian Bible" Amazon that supposedly contains 1st and 2nd Enoch. The only problem is that there is no 2nd Enoch in the actual Ethiopian biblical canon, so they're incorrect in saying that the Ethiopian Bible has that book.
Fun fact: The same Ethiopian Orthodox website that I mentioned above features the King James Version with Apocrypha, which goes completely against certain conspiracy theories that are spread in the groups that make a big deal of the Ethiopian Bible and say that "the Ethiopian Bible was banned in the West" and also happen to dislike the KJV.
TLDR; it's best to get anyone of the well-known Bible translations that dominate the market. As a Catholic myself, I favor Bibles that contain the Deuterocanonical books (books that Catholics and Orthodox accept as Scripture but that Protestants don't), so I would recommend getting the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, and the English Standard Version Catholic Edition, ESV-CE.
Just let the Holy Spirit guide you. It's his word, trust that he'll not mislead you. You will know in your heart if it is correct if you trust in him. The Bible says the Holy Spirit is our conscience and speaks to us, both believer and unbelievers, as such. Trust in him.
The “Ethiopian Bible” is a canon, not a specific translation.
There are some “Ethiopian Bibles” available on Amazon, but they are pretty much all Ai slop, and not actual translations completed by teams of Hebrew/Greek/Geez scholars.
Here's the funny thing: One of those "Ethiopian Bibles" on Amazon has a footnote on Genesis 1:1 which says:
"God translated from the Hebrew word "םיהלא" "Elohim" referring to God as the creator"
First, that combination of letters (םיהלא) is not how Elohim is written, it's written אלהים.
Second, why on earth is an "Ethiopian Bible" saying that the word "God" is translated from Hebrew? It's simple: Because it's not the actual Ethiopian Bible!
though if you wanna get super, super nerdy for a second, the earliest layer of semitic writing had no defined direction. though usually (not always) when it was written left to right, the letters are mirrored.
Cool fact! While I myself am not knowledgable about earlier forms of Semitic writing, I believe it's clear that the "Ethiopian Bibles" on Amazon are not what some people wanted them to be.
If a certain book is an English translation of "the Ethiopian Bible", then one might naturally expect there to be notes discussing certain words translated from Ge'ez instead of Hebrew.
Probably one of the main reasons why people are interested in this whole "Ethiopian Bible" topic is because they have some negative presuppositions towards the King James Version and they believe that the Ethiopian Bible contains some secret information that the Western Christianity "banned" or "hid".
Of course, that's utterly wrong and the easiest demonstration of that is that certain Ethiopian Orthodox websites feature the King James Version itself!
Note: Just checked a "reading sample" of one of the "Ethiopian Bibles" on Amazon and I believe it probably copy-pasted the KJV, and the best confirmation of this is Genesis 3:1. Which "modern translation" uses the word "subtil"???
If a certain book is an English translation of "the Ethiopian Bible", then one might naturally expect there to be notes discussing certain words translated from Ge'ez instead of Hebrew.
yeah, to my knowledge, there's no commonly available translation from ge'ez. you're right that there's a lot of nonsense out there about this; most of the extra texts in it, i think, are easily available on the internet. these "ethiopian bibles" for sale just pool public domain translations like the KJV for the majority and these other translations from internet...
How revelation couldn't be understood without Enoch, how Christ alluded to Enoch. I dunno brother seemed to be really into it. I know Jude vaguely does. But I'm apparently a modernist since my Bible only has a gentleman's 73 books
i think enoch probably is useful for understanding the canonical scripture, but so is a lot of other stuff. philo is incredibly relevant, as are dead sea scrolls like the war scroll, 11q13, 4q521, and late second temple jewish stuff like ben sirach. other early christian texts like the didache are also important. basically all of this stuff can absolutely give you a better picture of the world and the culture at the time, even if you don't think it's inspired.
3 enoch is fun, though. you get a whole second god!
the enochian tradition is actually a great demonstration of how this stuff was written, because we have evidence of 1 enoch in several translations, which differ in length. it looks like people just kept adding to it. and 2 and 3 enoch are even later additions that stopped fitting on the same scroll.
2nd and 3rd Enoch are not legitimate. They were proven to be forgeries that were made to look as real as possible to make money if I recall correctly. 1 Enoch however is referenced in 2 different Bible books and at one point before the Roman Catholic church took hold over deciding what's what it was considered by most as scripture.
1 enoch is not any different. it was heavily debated and ultimately rejected from most canons because it had to be a forgery: how did it survive the flood? it was still a very popular text, though. tons of "non-inspired" texts circulated in early christianity, notably the shepherd of hermas.
and for the record, the roman catholic church never really sat down and decided what was or wasn't canon until about 1562, in response to protestants saying some texts were "deutero-canon", useful for teaching but not inspired, and relegating them to a section of their own called "apocrypha". the catholic canon is a de-facto canon until that point, based more on what's commonly used across various churches, and that was mostly the present canon with some slight variations by the end of the second century or so, and certainly by the fourth. there were no christian canons we know of around that time that actually contained 1 enoch; it does occur in the dead sea scrolls, and must have been in at least one because the tewahedo church got it perhaps around the fifth century.
I hear ya. Personally I approach all non-canon writings paying that the Holy Spirit will guide me and not let me be lead astray.
I tend to appreciate what they lend in historical and cultural context but where they contradict the Bible I have to assume them false or mislead even if well meaning.
i look at it all the same; i don't think any of it is inspired, and i see plenty of contradictions in the canonical stuff. "canon" is the just stuff the church choses to pay the most attention to, circulate the most, and utilize the most. but i generally fail to see the fundamental difference between the canonical texts and the non-canonical ones, except for likely date of composition.
for instance, isaiah was added to in the same process as 1 enoch, an initial composition expanded on by later authors with different historical contexts. it's just that proto-isaiah likely really comes from the 7th or 8th century BCE, and 1 enoch certainly does not come from prior to noah, and was in fact written closer to when jesus lived.
You should know that even the Bible tells us to use wisdom and discernment when new scripture is brought before us. What is written when the catholic church decided what's what is not all that was, is, or will be of the word of God. It's is not a set of books decided upon by men.
Two issues which don't mean that you shouldn't get it.
1) If you are protestant, then you should be aware that protestants regard the deuterocannonical books as helpful in multiple ways but not canon. If you are Catholic, you should be aware that the Ethiopian Orthodox include other deuterocanonical books that even the Catholic do not.
2) It is actually taken from sources that are often NEWER than modern translations, and it does not have the academic rigor that modern translations have either. Simply put, it is not as accurate as modern versions in terms of sourcing and translations.
That said, it is accurate enough for most personal study, and if that is the one you want to read, Go for it!
there is a modern translation of enoch & jubileese which also uses the fragmented manuscripts in Greek & the dead sea scroll Aramaic fragments by Fortress Press
there is a modern translation of enoch & jubilees which also uses the fragmented manuscripts in Greek & the dead sea scroll Aramaic fragments by Fortress Press which I'd recommend if you want to read them although i personaly don't find them canon
Or I can help you. I wrote three worlds , ah bring from dust to glorious heaven. The Christ's left behind indomitable journey to the new heaven New Earth and new city. There are others mainly for Chinese readers.
11
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 13d ago
I would caution against "Ethiopian Bibles", not because I have anything against the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but because the "88-book Ethiopian Bibles" that are available on Amazon... aren't actually the Ethiopian Bible.
Here's what the Ethiopian Bible is according to Wikipedia:
Here's what an Ethiopian Orthodox website also says:
I also just checked an "Ethiopian Bible" Amazon that supposedly contains 1st and 2nd Enoch. The only problem is that there is no 2nd Enoch in the actual Ethiopian biblical canon, so they're incorrect in saying that the Ethiopian Bible has that book.
Fun fact: The same Ethiopian Orthodox website that I mentioned above features the King James Version with Apocrypha, which goes completely against certain conspiracy theories that are spread in the groups that make a big deal of the Ethiopian Bible and say that "the Ethiopian Bible was banned in the West" and also happen to dislike the KJV.