Ethiopian Christianity

[TheLightWithin]

I don't remember if we had a thread discussing the Ethiopian canon, larger than that of the other Orthodox churches

Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(I wanted to

I also stumbled across this 8 minute video talking about a different or more detailed interpretation about the fallen angels/war in heaven than is common in the west

In case it does not play, the channel is called African History and the title of the video is "They Hid Ethiopia's Version of Heaven's War for a Reason"

African History

African History

www.youtube.com

​

 

[Thomas]

I don't remember if we had a thread discussing the Ethiopian canon, larger than that of the other Orthodox churches.

It's not that radically different, I think?

The additional New Testament texts were known, just not considered canonical, being after the Apostolic Era.

I also stumbled across this 8 minute video talking about a different or more detailed interpretation about the fallen angels/war in heaven than is common in the west

Oooh ... On first listen, I would say this is rather over-blown and dubious video.

I can go through, if you're interested?

 

[TheLightWithin]

It's not that radically different, I think?

88 books. More material. I think the translations are different. They are, I think, miaphysites or something, some subtle difference in theology, there may be more to it. I don't know if there differences are tied to the material in the additional books. I can't help but wonder, if, with 1/3 again as many books to pore over, what ideas bible fundamentalists would have come up with from extra material.

I can go through, if you're interested?

Why not.

 

[Thomas]

88 books. More material.

But most of it was known, just not considered canonical.

The 'unique books' are probably late, and problematic, I think.

I think the translations are different.

Yep, language.

They are, I think, miaphysites or something, some subtle difference in theology, there may be more to it.

Yes, a 4th century debate.

I don't know if there differences are tied to the material in the additional books. I can't help but wonder, if, with 1/3 again as many books to pore over, what ideas bible fundamentalists would have come up with from extra material.

Heaven alone knows ...

Why not.

Time. I'll try and get round to it ...

 

[TheLightWithin]

88 books. More material. I think the translations are different.

They are, I think, miaphysites or something, some subtle difference in theology, there may be more to it.

Yes, a 4th century debate.

I wish I understood it better and what they based it on - in the 4th century, not knowing Jesus, they were debating about his nature.
What did they have to go on? Scripture? Tradition? Just ideas that came up in the moment?

I don't know if there differences are tied to the material in the additional books. I can't help but wonder, if, with 1/3 again as many books to pore over, what ideas bible fundamentalists would have come up with from extra material.

Heaven alone knows ...

Indeed, it would be interesting though. For example what Mormonism might have become if they had access to this material, or if Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses did. I don't know if maybe the Armstrong churches did, their Binitarianism is, I think, a return to something pretty old that hadn't been revisited even though Unitarianism and variations of Arianism has been I think...

 

[Thomas]

I wish I understood it better and what they based it on - in the 4th century, not knowing Jesus, they were debating about his nature.
What did they have to go on? Scripture? Tradition? Just ideas that came up in the moment?

Well, a dialogue with Scripture, based on Tradition.

It's essentially a philosophical debate, and it can become technical and complex, and invariably did ... but it does have significant ramifications.

For example, Jesus is God, Jesus is also man. Is that two persons, or one person in two natures? One soul or two.

What it boils down to is, did Jesus, being God, subsume the human person of Jesus so there was nothing of the man left? Does it metter, well yes, it does, because the answer to that determines what we mean by an afterlife.

A common idiom is the idea of the self uniting with the One as a 'drop in the ocean' – but then does the drop lose its entire identity? Is the drop not extinguished by the ocean ... ?

(The mystical answer is, of course, a paradox ... )

Indeed, it would be interesting though. For example what Mormonism might have become if they had access to this material, or if Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses did. I don't know if maybe the Armstrong churches did, their Binitarianism is, I think, a return to something pretty old that hadn't been revisited even though Unitarianism and variations of Arianism has been I think...

The Ethiopian Church did not have access to any material that wasn't and isn't in the Church as such – the video says:
"a different version of heaven's greatest war has survived untouched by Western doctrine."

"According to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tuhedo Church, the battle between the angelic forces of good and evil was not simply a matter of prideful rebellion as portrayed in European texts ..."
Hang on ... 'Europe' is an anachronism here, and is used to set up an artificial divide.

"... but a test of loyalty to a divine mystery. One that involved the revelation of a future creation, humanity. Ethiopian tradition claims that before the material world was formed, God convened the angels and revealed to them his plan to create man in his own image. It was then that the angel Satinel, once called the bearer of light, rebelled not out of pride alone, but out of disdain for the idea that a being of clay and breath would be exalted above him."
The 'bearer of light' image I think is erroneous, assuming too much of a Lucifer interest ... and to say the rebellion was not out of pride, but disdain, is nonsense, because what gave rise to the disdain, but the idea that the angel thought himself better than human?

This is not unique to the Ethiopian Church ... it was common to Jewish and early Christian thinking.

"While Western Christianity teaches that Lucifer's downfall was rooted solely in hubris, the Ethiopian version introduces a more layered conflict."
and then goes on to describe the angel's hubris, without actually using the word.

+++

The introduction of the Archangel Michael, and so on ... all common knowledge.

 

[TheLightWithin]

For example, Jesus is God, Jesus is also man. Is that two persons, or one person in two natures? One soul or two.

What it boils down to is, did Jesus, being God, subsume the human person of Jesus so there was nothing of the man left?

How were they able to gather enough data to arrive at conclusions they were so confident of they became doctrine?

Does it metter, well yes, it does, because the answer to that determines what we mean by an afterlife.

How?

 

[Thomas]

How were they able to gather enough data to arrive at conclusions they were so confident of they became doctrine?

Scripture and Reason ... that's not to say they're right, but it's all they had to go on...

How?

Well, if the person ceases to exist, then the afterlife is questionable.

And Divine Sublimation is not Divine Union – rather, that two become one by one party ceasing to exist, being fully absorbed into the other.

But Scripture seems to suggest the continuance of the 'person', however that is described, in the eschaton.

There's no doubt Christendom spent a huge amount of time and energy debating things which only theologians worried about – the deep philosophical questions often have little or no impact on the lives of individuals. But some ideas do have impact ... it's just difficult to see, sometimes, the law of unforeseen consequences.

I've studied some later debates, especially the two natures stuff, and it gets so nuanced and so complex ...and then the question is, 'is that what he meant, though?' ... and sometimes even when I think I've got it, I lose sight of the distinctions.

The Orthodox view, after Chalcedon, was that Christ is one Person, in two natures, Divine and human.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches, follow Cyril of Alexandria's miaphysis doctrine, a belief that Christ is one Person, of one, composite nature, both divine and human.

The monophysite is generally a belief that Christ is one Person, a Divine being, having wholly overwhelmed or absorbed his humanity.

 

[wil]

It appears the books shared by the Ethiopian 81 book and Catholic 73 book Bibles, but not the Protestant 66 book Bible, are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. The Ethiopian Bible also includes books not found in either the Catholic or Protestant Bibles, such as Enoch and Jubilees.

In addition it seems sections of Daniel and Esther were written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. are.found in both Catholic amd Ethiopian bibles yet Protestants removed them during the Reformation because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible's canon and were viewed as less authoritative.

Other than that they agree on 66 boooks, except the 10 commandments...the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and many Protestants follow the numbering from the Septuagint, separating "no other gods" and "no graven images" as two distinct commandments. The Catholic and Lutheran traditions combine these two into one commandment and split the "coveting" commandment into two separate commands.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Orthodox view, after Chalcedon, was that Christ is one Person, in two natures, Divine and human.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches, follow Cyril of Alexandria's miaphysis doctrine, a belief that Christ is one Person, of one, composite nature, both divine and human.

The monophysite is generally a belief that Christ is one Person, a Divine being, having wholly overwhelmed or absorbed his humanity.

I guess I do not understand the implications of each view.
Nor do I understand where the data came from. Surely all of this goes waaayyyy beyond scripture.
Why are these things not spelled out in scripture? If they are, in fact, crucial?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Well, if the person ceases to exist, then the afterlife is questionable.

Which person?

Conditional immortality, the way I understand it, posits that you are resurrected in your body, then the wicked die again and the good keep living physical lives indefinitely. Different from a disembodied soul style of existence. At least that is what I have picked up from having it explained again and again growing up then further looking into it years later.

 

[Thomas]

Nor do I understand where the data came from. Surely all of this goes waaayyyy beyond scripture.

Mostly ... yes ... although the basic argument might be:

Is Jesus – Divine but not human?
Such as the Docetists and some Gnostics schools – that Jesus was a spirit who appeared to be flesh and blood, but wasn't.
Arius' original teaching was a variation on this position, that Jesus was a quasi-divine and quasi-human being, in an intermediate class of being between God (Father) and human.

Is Jesus – human, but not Divine?
Such as Adoptionist schools believed. Reading of the Baptism in the Jordan, the ideas range from a human person adopted and deified by God, to an adoption in the moral or legal sense only, in that Jesus was a devout believer favoured by God, but not in any sense divine.

Is Jesus – Divine and human?
Came to be the 'orthodox' position at Chalcedon in 451CE, with the declaration of One Person in Two Natures. Immediately the Oriental Orthodox Church separated under Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed One Person in One Composite Nature.

So in some senses the issue is of real importance, the basic 'God and/or man' questions, which have far-reaching theological ramifications. But then, as ever, the philosophers get into arcane points and nuanced arguments, to the point where I would imagine the vast majority would scratch their heads and ask 'what are you going on about?'

I would say – but then I am biased – that the 'vast majority' thought Jesus was a man and that He was God, but quite how one explains that, they had no idea. Again with the Trinity – they accepted baptism in the name of the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit, but they did not believed in Three Gods – although interrogate that simple belief and make people come up with answers and I'd pretty well guarantee everyone drifts into heresy.

I rather favour the Eastern outlook – it's a mystery – over the Western outlook which seeks to define everything, and gets itself into all manner of quandaries in so doing.

+++

Why are these things not spelled out in scripture? If they are, in fact, crucial?

Well they are crucial in the sense of how the Church evolved ... some questions are crucial, I think, some are not so, but then the authors of Scripture weren't writings manuals or catechisms. The challenges Paul faced in his letters were crucial to him and the Church at that time.

 

[Thomas]

Which person?

That which one thinks of as 'oneself'.

Conditional immortality, the way I understand it, posits that you are resurrected in your body, then the wicked die again and the good keep living physical lives indefinitely. Different from a disembodied soul style of existence. At least that is what I have picked up from having it explained again and again growing up then further looking into it years later.

OK. I'm not saying that's right, or that's wrong ... all I can offer is a complementary view:
"... that you are resurrected in your body ..."
I'd say 'yes', but the precise nature of the body remains in question. St Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit" but Jesus appeared as a 'flesh and blood' person – He was 'present' in a physical or material sense (not just a ghost or spirit or vision) – He could be touched, etc.

Jean Borella proposes that the spiritual is so 'in charge' of itself that it can manifest itself as and how it wishes. So Jesus can manifest with all the apparent qualities of a physical being – He can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, etc, – but He can pass through solid walls. He can walk at your side and you'd not know it was Him, but then, in the next moment, you realise who He is ... (We, here, now, have no such control over our own physical body, let alone our spiritual body.)

"... then the wicked die again and the good keep living physical lives indefinitely... "
I happen to believe the 'wicked' is purified at the moment of death.

I then think each will occupy the right place intended for them, some near, some far, but each being 'home' and, as God is all in all, and everywhere, then no-one is further or nearer to God than any other, rather they are all in a unity.

At some point God then re-incorporates everything into Himself, and in effect nothing exists, in that God does not 'exist' in the way things do.

It's a mystery ...

 

[Adrian Mole]

It appears the books shared by the Ethiopian 81 book and Catholic 73 book Bibles, but not the Protestant 66 book Bible, are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. The Ethiopian Bible also includes books not found in either the Catholic or Protestant Bibles, such as Enoch and Jubilees.

In addition it seems sections of Daniel and Esther were written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. are.found in both Catholic amd Ethiopian bibles yet Protestants removed them during the Reformation because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible's canon and were viewed as less authoritative.

Other than that they agree on 66 boooks, except the 10 commandments...the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and many Protestants follow the numbering from the Septuagint, separating "no other gods" and "no graven images" as two distinct commandments. The Catholic and Lutheran traditions combine these two into one commandment and split the "coveting" commandment into two separate commands.

Actually, the three (not two) books of Meqabyan in the Ethiopic Orthodox Tawahedo canon are nothing to do with the Books of Maccabees in the LXX or the Catholic Deuterocanon. They are completely independent histories of 'the world'. They are sometimes (often) called "Ethiopic Maccabees" but that title arises from a misconception.

Incidentally, if anyone has access to an electronically readable Ethiopic (Ge'ez) text of any of these three books, please, please, let me know.

Jah Rastafari!

 

[Clear]

The Light Within said in the opening post: “I don't remember if we had a thread discussing the Ethiopian canon, larger than that of the other Orthodox churches”

Thomas replied (post #2) “The additional New Testament texts were known, just not considered canonical, being after the Apostolic Era.”

Historically, when one speaks of a biblical “canon”, it is helpful to define which time period and which geographical location one is describing since there have been multiple “canons” having various texts in them. Typically, I notice most of us in the modern, “west” are referring to the modern “western” canon rather than a specific, ancient biblical canon.

For example, 4th century Codex Sinaiticus included Hermas and Barnabas in their canon, as does the modern Ethiopic – Tewahedo canon. American Christians are, typically, unaware of the various earlier biblical canons or canons in different parts of the world. And frequently, they are unaware of the value of such sacred texts as such texts augment and clarify specific, but incomplete, biblical stories.

 

[Adrian Mole]

Does anyone here read or understand Ethiopic (ancient or modern)? I have a PDF of Thomas Pell Platt's 1834 text for the Didascalia and I am wondering if my attempt to digitize it (into Unicode text) is worthwhile. The image-to-text software I use is (surprisingly) good with this text but there are some clear errors and misinterpretations.

Here's an image of the first part of Platt's transcription:

And here's the text I have extracted from it, with quite a lot of editing, already; however, some characters (like the Latin H and P) are clearly wrong but I have no idea what they should be):

ትምህርተ፡ ደድስቅልያ፡ Hአበው ።

——

ቅዴሳን፡ ሐዋርያት፡ በስመ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ አብ፡ አንዜ፡ ኵሉ፡ ወዋሕድ፡ወልዴ፡ኢPሱስ፡ ክርስቶስወጳራቅሊጦስ፡ መንፈስ፡ ቅዴስ ። ። ።​

ንሕነ፡ እሙንቱ፡ ፲ወ፪፡ ሐዋርያት፡ ላሽካኒሁ፡ ለዋሕድ፡ ወልዴ፡ ኢየሱስ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ ተጋቢአነ፡ አሐተኔ፡ በኢPሩሳሌም፡ ሀገሩ፡ ለንጉሥ፡ 0ቢይ፡፡ ወምስ ሌነ፡አንነ፡ ጳውሎስ፡ ኄር፡ ወንጹሕ፡ ሐዋርያሆሙ፡ ለኵሎሙ፡ አሕዛብ፡ ወያዕቆብ፡ አንሁ፡ ለእግዚእነ፡ ዘውእቱ፡ ኤጲስቆጶስ፡ ለዛቲ፡ አሐቲ፡ ሀገር፡ ኢየሩሳሌም፡ ሠራዕና፡ ለዛቲ፡ ርትዕት፡ ሃይማኖት፡ አዘዝነ፡ ከመዝ፡ መዓርገ፡

ሣመታት፡ ለቤተ፡ ክርስቲያን፡ በአርአያ፡ ዘበሰማያት፡ ንሕነ፡ ንገሥጸክሙ፡ ለለ፡ አሐዴ፡አሐዴ፡ እምኔክሙ፡ በአኰቴት፡ ዘጸውዐነ፡ ሽግዚእነ፡ ኢPሱስ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ ውስተ፡ ስብሓቲሁ ። ። ። ኤጲስቆጶስ፡ በአምሳለ፡ የላዌ፡ አባግዕ፡ ወቀሲስ፡ በአምሳለ፡ መገሥጽ፡ ወደያቆንሂ፡ አርአያ፡ ላእክ፡ ወንፈቀ፡ ዲያቆንሂ፡ናሁ፡ ከመ፡ ውአቱ፡ ወአነጕንስጢስሂ፡ ወመዘምራን፡ በጥይቅናኒጲሎባኖስ፡ ወባዕያን፡ ሕዝብ፡ ከመ፡ አለ፡ያፀምኡ፡ ቃለ፡ወንጌል፡ ወዓደ፡

I have 'corrected' many occurrences of colons and double-colons to the proper 'word-break' and 'section break characters, and removed breaks (whitespace) from end-of-line words (there is always a word-break character in Ethiopic). I have also followed RH Charles' convention of adding a whitespace after those characters (look like ':') but not before.

So, is it worthwhile for me to continue with this work? (The Didascalia is a very big book, so it's not a trivial undertaking!) Or is my text just hopelessly full of errors? (Please be honest - I won't take offence!)