An Expanded Biblical Canon Including Enoch and Jubilees

First Enoch and Jubilees were both widely read in the centuries around the turn of the era, quoted by New Testament writers and cited by early church fathers, and then dropped from the canon nearly everywhere as Christianity's center of gravity moved west. Their Greek and Aramaic originals survived only in scattered fragments, some not recovered until the Dead Sea Scrolls finds at Qumran in the twentieth century confirmed that Enoch had circulated in something close to its later form centuries before Christianity existed at all. The Ethiopian and Eritrean church tradition never dropped either book, and its Ge'ez translations, made from Greek exemplars sometime before the sixth century, are the only complete versions that survived anywhere in the world across the intervening fifteen hundred years. Western scholarship did not know this until the Scottish traveler James Bruce brought Ge'ez manuscripts of Enoch back from Ethiopia in 1773, and Richard Laurence's English translation from one of them, published in 1821, was for decades the only way most European scholars could read the book at all. A text the wider Christian world had let go of survived because one church's canon never let it go.

Ask how many books sit in the Ethiopian and Eritrean biblical canon and the honest answer is that it depends who is counting and how they count. The widely repeated figure of eighty one comes from a narrower reckoning that treats several multi part works, among them the books of Kings and the Meqabyan collection, as single units; a broader count that splits those works into their constituent parts, the way most Western canons already split Samuel and Kings into separate books, reaches a higher total from the same underlying list. The disagreement is not a sign of carelessness. Canon formation everywhere in Christian history proceeded book by disputed book rather than as a single settled decision handed down once, and the Ethiopian and Eritrean church tradition is unusual mainly in having kept its own list open longer and wider than most, admitting works such as the Sinodos and Didascalia collections that function closer to church order manuals than to scripture as other traditions define it. Lee Martin McDonald's own history of canon formation treats this as one clear case among many of a general pattern: every Christian tradition drew its own line around a body of shared and disputed texts, and the line each one drew reflects that community's own history of use and dispute rather than a single external authority ruling on the question for everyone at once. What looks from outside like an unresolved number is, from inside the tradition, simply a canon that was never forced to close along the same lines everyone else's did.