Whose Bible is Untouched? Orthodoxy vs. Ethiopia

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6yloim-whose-bible-is-untouched-orthodoxy-vs.-ethiopia.html

Forward

A listener EnochPewtress wrote me today about an apologist father named Stephen De Young and his books about the changes of Bibles over the years. In The Religion of the Apostles, De Young argues that Orthodox Christianity is in continuity with the faith of the apostles and not a later invention or corruption. He rejects the idea that the Church evolved doctrines like the Trinity or Christ’s divinity over time, insisting they were present from the beginning. He also pushes back against claims that there is a rupture between the Old and New Testaments or between the New Testament and early Church Fathers, saying these assumptions distort history.

In God Is a Man of War, he stresses that attempts to “unhitch” or dismiss the Old Testament are dangerous because they echo Marcionite heresy. For him, Yahweh of the Old Testament is the same Christ revealed in the New, and Orthodox tradition preserves this unity. So, far from exposing Orthodox corruption, De Young consistently upholds the Orthodox Church as the faithful guardian of scripture and tradition. His critique is aimed at modern scholarship, Protestant reductions of the canon, and popular Christian misunderstandings—not at Orthodoxy itself.

But how does it hold up to the Ethiopian canon which predates De Young’s European beliefs? EnochPewtress was trying to convey that even though we have definitive proof that the Orthodox version was not changed like the King James, scholars remain faithful to their roots, instead of pursuing what we would call outside of the box or country? Tonight we will explore these questions and hat tip EnochPewtress for the great find!

Monologue

Every church tells the same story: we are the guardians of the true faith, and we have never tampered with it. For most Christians, that claim belongs to the Orthodox Church. It says its worship today is the same worship of the apostles, its doctrine unchanged, its canon pure. Men like Father Stephen De Young write passionately that Orthodoxy never invented the Trinity, never manufactured Christ’s divinity, never abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints. They say the Orthodox Church has always been the faithful steward of the Scriptures, guarding them from corruption.

But far to the south, across deserts and mountains, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church makes a very different claim. It does not boast of a smaller canon carefully protected by councils, but of a vast canon—eighty-one books—that includes Enoch, Jubilees, Meqabyan, the Book of the Covenant, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Books most of the Christian world forgot, Ethiopia never let go of. Where the Orthodox Church claims continuity of worship, the Ethiopians claim continuity of texts. Where one points to the unbroken line of liturgy, the other points to the preserved library of heaven.

And so we are faced with a question that has never gone away: whose Bible is untouched? Did the Orthodox world preserve the faith by refusing to change its worship, even if some books fell away? Or did God safeguard a hidden witness in Ethiopia, where the fullness of Scripture remained intact while the rest of the world shrank its canon?

This is not just a matter of history. It is a matter of trust. If Orthodoxy is right, then the liturgy itself is the proof of unbroken faith, and the councils merely confirmed what had always been there. But if Ethiopia is right, then much of Christianity today has been living with a Bible cut in half—missing the very books that explain angels, demons, the divine council, and the end of days.

Tonight we lay these claims side by side. Orthodoxy versus Ethiopia. Continuity of practice versus continuity of text. And we will ask: when you open your Bible, are you reading the whole counsel of God—or only what survived the scissors of history?

Part 1 – The Orthodox Self-Defense

If you listen to the voice of Orthodoxy today, it speaks with a quiet certainty: the Church has never changed. From the Upper Room in Jerusalem to the Divine Liturgy sung in Byzantine chant, Orthodoxy insists that it is not an invention, not a reform, not a deviation. It is continuity itself.

Father Stephen De Young has become one of the most articulate defenders of this claim. In his book The Religion of the Apostles, he argues that the faith of the early church was never a patchwork of borrowed doctrines or evolving philosophies. It was complete from the very beginning. He pushes back against scholars who say the Trinity or the divinity of Christ only emerged centuries later. To De Young, the apostles already saw Christ as Yahweh Himself—the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush, the Word of the Lord who spoke to the prophets, the Son of Man enthroned in Daniel’s vision. For him, the New Testament does not invent these truths; it reveals what was already written in Israel’s Scriptures.

Orthodoxy builds its case not only on theology but on worship. When you walk into an Orthodox church, you step into what they claim is the living continuation of apostolic practice. The incense, the vestments, the chanting, the icons—they are not innovations, De Young argues, but the natural flowering of worship that began in the temple and carried forward into the Church. The councils of the fourth and fifth centuries did not create new beliefs but confirmed what the faithful had always confessed in their prayers and hymns.

And here lies the Orthodox defense against all charges of corruption. They point to the unbroken liturgy as evidence that nothing essential was ever lost. Even if Protestantism reduced the canon and Catholicism added scholastic refinements, Orthodoxy insists it alone has remained untouched. The Church never discarded the Old Testament but read it through the Septuagint. It never spiritualized away the divine council but confessed it openly in its hymns. It never wavered in identifying Jesus Christ as Yahweh, enthroned from eternity.

For Orthodoxy, the proof of authenticity is not a library of extra books but a seamless tradition of worship. And in this, Stephen De Young is uncompromising: Orthodoxy does not claim to have recovered apostolic faith. It claims it has never lost it.

Part 2 – Ethiopia’s Wider Canon

While Orthodoxy points to its liturgy as proof of unbroken faith, Ethiopia points to its Bible. And here the contrast could not be sharper. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church preserves the broadest canon in all of Christendom—eighty-one books in total. It includes not only the familiar Old and New Testaments but writings most Christians have never heard read from a pulpit.

There you will find the Book of Enoch, with its visions of the Watchers, the giants, and the heavenly throne. You will find Jubilees, a rewriting of Genesis that expands the story of angels, the law, and the destiny of Israel. You will find the three Meqabyan books, not the Maccabees known in Catholic or Orthodox Bibles but unique Ethiopian texts of resistance and faith. The canon also preserves the Book of the Covenant, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didascalia of the Apostles, and other works that never made it into the Western or Eastern canon.

Why does Ethiopia keep these books? Their answer is simple: God gave them to His people, and they were never meant to be discarded. Where other churches pruned their canon through rabbinic influence, Greek philosophical taste, or Reformation zeal, Ethiopia never let go. Theirs is a witness not of councils debating which books to keep, but of a church that held fast to the library handed down through ancient Jewish and early Christian communities.

And the content of these books matters. In Enoch, you find the clearest picture of the fallen angels and the origin of demons, a worldview assumed by the apostles but lost to most Christians when Enoch was cast aside. In Jubilees, you see a cosmic calendar that shapes how time itself is governed by God, explaining prophecies and festivals that appear suddenly in the New Testament. In Hermas, you hear echoes of early Christian visions of repentance and the struggle for purity in the last days.

For Ethiopia, this is not about liturgical continuity—it is about textual fullness. They see themselves not as innovators, but as preservers of a larger inheritance. Where Orthodoxy claims nothing essential was lost, Ethiopia claims much was lost by others but preserved here. The wider canon is their testimony that God ensured His people would never be left without a witness.

Part 3 – Ancient Jewish Roots

Both Orthodoxy and Ethiopia look backward to the same soil—the religion of Israel in the Second Temple period. But the way they cultivate that soil is very different.

For Stephen De Young and the Orthodox tradition, Second Temple Judaism is the key to understanding how the apostles saw Christ. He points to what scholars call the “two powers in heaven” tradition: that ancient Jews believed Yahweh existed in more than one hypostasis, or person.

The Angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses, the Word of the Lord who came to the prophets, the Son of Man enthroned in Daniel’s vision—all of these were understood as manifestations of Israel’s God. De Young insists that the apostles were not inventing new theology when they proclaimed Jesus as divine; they were recognizing Him as the very figure their Scriptures had already revealed. Orthodoxy takes this to mean that its Trinitarian doctrine was not a later philosophical import, but simply the apostolic recognition of what Israel had always known in part.

Ethiopia agrees that the roots of Christian faith are sunk deep in Second Temple Judaism, but it insists that the real context can only be seen with the wider canon intact. Books like Enoch and Jubilees are not side stories—they are the backdrop to the New Testament itself. When Jude says that Jesus delivered Israel out of Egypt, Ethiopia points to Enoch’s vision where the Son of Man sits on His throne long before Bethlehem. When Peter and Paul talk about angels chained in darkness, Ethiopia says the reference only makes sense if you know the story of the Watchers in Enoch. When Jesus speaks of cosmic signs and final judgment, Ethiopia finds the explanation not in Greek philosophy but in Jubilees’ vision of heavenly calendars and ages.

So Orthodoxy roots itself in Jewish tradition through its liturgy and interpretation of the canonical Old Testament, while Ethiopia roots itself in Jewish tradition by preserving the very books that shaped Jewish and early Christian imagination. Both claim continuity with Israel, but they draw their nourishment from different streams. Orthodoxy says the Church has always interpreted the Hebrew Bible rightly. Ethiopia says the Church needs the texts others cut away in order to understand what the apostles already knew.

Part 4 – Angelology and Spiritual Warfare

If there is one arena where the difference between Orthodoxy and Ethiopia leaps off the page, it is in the unseen realm—the world of angels, demons, and spiritual powers.

Stephen De Young, drawing on both Scripture and Orthodox tradition, describes the cosmos as governed by God’s divine council. The angels are not just messengers but rulers of nations, stars that represent heavenly powers.

He identifies three great rebellions: the fall of Satan, the corruption of the Watchers in Genesis 6, and the rebellion of Israel in the wilderness. For De Young, this is not myth but the backdrop of the Bible. Christ came to overthrow these powers, to reclaim the nations, to restore creation. Orthodoxy affirms this cosmic war every time its liturgy invokes angels, martyrs, and saints to stand with the faithful in prayer.

But Ethiopia presses even deeper, because its canon contains the Book of Enoch. And Enoch names the angels who fell. It records their sins, their unions with human women, their forbidden teachings of war, magic, and corruption. It shows how their offspring—the Nephilim—brought violence and destruction upon the earth until the flood washed them away. It even explains why demons exist at all: the wandering spirits of those giants, doomed to hunger for human breath until the final judgment.

In Jubilees, Ethiopia finds the calendar of heavenly feasts, the order of angels who keep watch, and the cosmic history of rebellion and redemption. To them, the New Testament’s talk of “principalities and powers” is not vague metaphor but a direct reference to beings named in their scriptures. Ethiopia insists that without Enoch and Jubilees, Christians only glimpse shadows of the true spiritual war.

So Orthodoxy and Ethiopia stand on common ground: both reject the modern church’s habit of reducing angels to symbols and demons to superstition. Both insist that the spiritual world is real, active, and decisive in human history. But Orthodoxy works within a tighter frame, guided by its liturgical prayers and canonical texts. Ethiopia throws open the library of heaven, pointing to Enoch and Jubilees as indispensable guides to the invisible war.

The question is not whether angels and demons are real. Both agree they are. The question is: who tells their story most fully—the Orthodox liturgy, or the Ethiopian canon?

Part 5 – Christology and the Old Testament

At the very heart of both traditions stands the same confession: Jesus Christ is not just Messiah—He is Yahweh, the God of Israel, made flesh. But how they frame that confession differs, shaped by what each holds as scripture.

Stephen De Young argues that the Old Testament is already filled with Christ. The Angel of the Lord who spoke to Moses in the burning bush? That was Christ. The Word of the Lord who came to the prophets? That was Christ. The Son of Man who received dominion in Daniel’s vision? That was Christ. 

For Orthodoxy, the Old Testament is not a record of shadows waiting for New Testament fulfillment—it is already the story of Christ’s presence. And when the apostles declared Jesus as Lord, they were simply naming the One Israel had already encountered in their Scriptures. Orthodoxy insists that this recognition never needed invention. It was there from the beginning.

Ethiopia, however, tells this same story with a larger canvas. In the Book of Enoch, the Son of Man is enthroned in glory before creation, revealed to the righteous as the One who will judge kings and nations. In Jubilees, the Messiah is woven into the cycles of time itself, the One who will restore all things at the appointed hour. Ethiopia does not merely affirm Christ in the Old Testament—it sees Him enthroned across extra-biblical visions, reigning long before His incarnation.

The difference is striking. Orthodoxy anchors its Christology in the continuity of temple worship, in the Septuagint text, and in the early Fathers’ exegesis. Ethiopia roots its Christology in apocalyptic revelation, insisting that God gave His people visions beyond the Hebrew canon that point directly to the Son of Man. Both are saying the same truth—that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the Ethiopian witness insists that the world’s narrowed canon has muted the thunder of that revelation.

So we are left with two streams flowing from the same source. Orthodoxy proclaims Christ as Yahweh by reading the Hebrew Bible through the eyes of the apostles. Ethiopia proclaims Him as Yahweh by reading the wider testimony of Enoch, Jubilees, and beyond. The Christ is the same—but the witness looks very different depending on which books you allow to speak.

Part 6 – Eschatology and Prophecy

No matter how you slice it, the future was always on the apostles’ minds. The return of Christ, the final judgment, the new heavens and the new earth—these were not abstract hopes but the living heartbeat of the early church. Orthodoxy and Ethiopia both hold fast to this expectation, but they frame it in very different ways.

Orthodoxy reads the end of the age through the lens of Revelation and the liturgy. In the Divine Liturgy, every Eucharist is a participation in the marriage supper of the Lamb. Every hymn sung of the saints is a proclamation that Christ reigns already, even as we await His return. Stephen De Young emphasizes that the book of Revelation is not about decoding dates or secrets but about unveiling who Jesus really is: the Alpha and the Omega, the Lamb on the throne, the Judge who comes quickly. For Orthodoxy, prophecy is fulfilled not in hidden calendars but in the Church’s worship, which gathers heaven and earth together.

Ethiopia, however, leans heavily into the apocalyptic books of its canon. Enoch describes the judgment of rebellious angels, the opening of heavenly books, the punishment of kings and rulers. Jubilees maps history into a cosmic schedule of jubilees, showing how the flow of time itself is under God’s governance. Where Orthodoxy tends to read Revelation symbolically, Ethiopia insists that the apocalyptic texts provide concrete details of angelic rebellion, demonic deception, and the ultimate restoration of creation. For Ethiopians, these writings are not marginal—they are central, giving believers a framework for understanding why the world groans and how it will be set free.

The divergence is clear. Orthodoxy emphasizes participation—that by entering into the worship of the Church, believers already taste the age to come. Ethiopia emphasizes prophecy—that God gave visions, preserved in their canon, which describe the coming judgment and the cosmic battle in vivid detail. Both look to the same end: the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. But they hand the believer very different tools to imagine what that end looks like.

So we must ask: is eschatology best kept in the sanctuary, hidden in the mystery of the Eucharist? Or is it best preserved in apocalyptic books, spelling out the cosmic script for the final days?

Part 7 – Liturgy vs. Library

At the center of this debate lies a deeper question: how do you prove that your faith has never been corrupted? Orthodoxy and Ethiopia give two very different answers.

For Orthodoxy, the answer is liturgy. The Church’s worship is the living memory of the apostles. The hymns, the prayers, the incense, the vestments, the structure of the Eucharist—all of these, Orthodoxy says, are the proof that nothing essential has been lost. Even if modern Bibles differ in length, even if translations vary, the unbroken liturgical life of the Church is taken as the strongest evidence that the faith itself has remained intact. Worship is the anchor, the vessel that has carried the apostles’ faith across centuries of storm.

For Ethiopia, the answer is library. Their canon, eighty-one books strong, is the testimony that the people of God did not forget what He had revealed. Where other churches allowed books to be pruned away—whether by rabbinic pressure, by Greek philosophical taste, or by Reformation zeal—Ethiopia preserved them. For Ethiopians, worship is important, but worship without the full Word of God risks drifting away from truth. To them, the wider canon is the anchor that keeps the Church from being blown off course.

These two strategies could not be more different. Orthodoxy says, “Look at our worship, unchanged from the days of the apostles.” Ethiopia says, “Look at our scriptures, untouched when others were lost.” One guards the faith through continuity of practice; the other through continuity of text.

So the real clash is not just about which books belong in the Bible. It is about what you trust more: the memory of the Church expressed in ritual, or the memory of God expressed in writing. Which is the truer safeguard of apostolic faith—the liturgy that lives on the lips of the faithful, or the canon that rests on the page?

Part 8 – What Was Lost, What Was Kept

Every church claims to be the faithful steward of God’s truth. But history is not so simple. The record shows not only what was preserved, but also what was forgotten.

Orthodoxy insists that nothing essential was ever lost. The councils did not invent doctrines; they clarified them. The liturgy was never rewritten; it was carried forward intact. Even the canon, though not identical across every Orthodox jurisdiction, is said to represent the same faith as the apostles. For them, heresies came and went, but the Church itself never abandoned the apostolic deposit.

Ethiopia tells a different story. To them, much was lost in the wider Christian world—cut away when the Septuagint was trimmed, when rabbinic influence narrowed the Hebrew canon, when Western churches discarded books they considered too apocalyptic or too Jewish. But in Ethiopia, those books survived. Enoch still thundered against fallen angels. Jubilees still mapped the cycles of time. Meqabyan still stirred the faithful to resist idolatry. Ethiopia claims to be the witness God preserved to show the rest of the world what was missing.

This clash raises an uncomfortable question: is it possible that both are partly right? That Orthodoxy did preserve the worship, but Ethiopia preserved the texts? That God used two streams to carry forward His truth, one in liturgy, the other in scripture? Or must we choose one as the sole guardian, declaring the other incomplete?

What was lost, and what was kept, depends on where you stand. Orthodoxy says the faith itself was never lost, only challenged. Ethiopia says the fullness of scripture was lost elsewhere, but preserved in their hands. Between these two testimonies lies a mystery: perhaps God allowed His revelation to scatter, so that no single church could boast, but all would need to seek Him in humility.

Part 9 – The Clash in Modern Apologetics

Today, the debate between Orthodoxy and Ethiopia is not just about history—it is about how each confronts the modern world.

Orthodoxy, through voices like Stephen De Young, positions itself against secular scholarship. Modern academics often claim that Christian doctrine “developed” over time: that Jesus was first seen as a mere man, then exalted as divine, and only later defined as God at the councils. Orthodoxy counters by saying this narrative is false. The apostles already saw Christ as Yahweh, and the councils merely defended that truth against heresy. In apologetics, Orthodoxy leans heavily on continuity, showing that nothing new was invented but everything confirmed by worship and scripture together.

Ethiopia’s apologetic takes a different angle. Instead of fighting over whether Christ’s divinity was recognized early, Ethiopia points to the missing books. How can Western churches explain Jude quoting Enoch if Enoch is not scripture? How can Peter talk about angels in chains without Enoch’s account of the Watchers? How can Revelation’s visions make sense without Jubilees’ heavenly calendars? Ethiopia presses the claim that without their canon, much of the New Testament’s language floats without context. Their defense of the faith is not against development but against reduction—the cutting away of books that once gave Christians their apocalyptic framework.

Here the clash is sharp. Orthodoxy says the danger is novelty—adding or inventing doctrines never taught by the apostles. Ethiopia says the danger is subtraction—losing texts and with them the worldview of the apostles. One apologetic aims to defend the faith against charges of innovation. The other defends the faith against charges of amnesia.

In a world where skepticism and modern criticism gnaw at the roots of faith, both approaches have power. Orthodoxy reassures believers that their worship has never been broken. Ethiopia challenges believers to look again at what has been left out. And together they confront the same modern enemy: a church that has forgotten the supernatural worldview of the Bible, reducing angels to metaphors and prophecy to poetry.

Part 10 – The Final Question

After all the history, the theology, and the canon lists, we are left with one question that cannot be avoided: whose claim is true? Whose Bible is untouched?

Orthodoxy says: look at our worship. From the days of the apostles until now, our liturgy has never been broken. The same prayers, the same Eucharist, the same faith. This, they insist, is the proof that the Church has not fallen away. If you want the untouched faith, you must look at the community whose worship still breathes the air of the first century.

Ethiopia says: look at our scriptures. God entrusted His people with more than sixty-six books, and we have preserved them. Others cut them away, but here they remain—Enoch, Jubilees, Meqabyan, Hermas, the Book of the Covenant. This, they insist, is the proof that they hold the untouched Bible. If you want the whole counsel of God, you must open the library that others closed.

Both cannot be entirely right. If Orthodoxy’s claim is sufficient, then Ethiopia’s extra books are unnecessary. If Ethiopia’s claim is true, then the rest of Christendom has been living with an incomplete Bible. But perhaps there is another possibility—that God scattered His truth, ensuring no single church could boast of having it all. Orthodoxy preserving worship, Ethiopia preserving texts, and believers today being called to discern both streams together.

The final question, then, is not simply which church is untouched. It is whether we are willing to seek the fullness of God’s revelation, even if it means admitting that what we inherited may not be complete. Do we trust the continuity of liturgy, or the breadth of canon? Or do we humble ourselves to learn from both?

This is the choice before us. Not a choice between East and Africa, but between complacency and pursuit. Between accepting the Bible as handed down in fragments, or daring to ask if more has been hidden in plain sight. The final question is not only whose Bible is untouched—but whether we are willing to be touched again by the fullness of God’s Word.

Conclusion

Two ancient churches, two powerful claims. Orthodoxy tells us its worship has never been broken—that the apostles’ faith lives on in its hymns, its liturgy, its prayers. Ethiopia tells us its canon has never been trimmed—that the library of God’s revelation remains intact in its eighty-one books. Both point to continuity, but each in a different form.

So where does that leave us? With a choice, but also with a challenge. If Orthodoxy is right, then the heart of the faith is preserved in worship, and nothing essential was ever lost. If Ethiopia is right, then the fullness of scripture cannot be found in most Bibles today, and we must open our eyes to what was cast aside.

But perhaps the truth is that God has not allowed His Word to be hidden in just one stream. Perhaps He preserved the liturgy in one church and the canon in another, ensuring that the fullness of His revelation would survive scattered, waiting for seekers to gather it again.

The question is not only whose Bible is untouched. The question is whether we will pursue the whole counsel of God with humility, refusing to let history’s scissors determine how much of His Word we are willing to read.

The apostles lived in a world alive with angels, demons, divine councils, and apocalyptic visions. They saw Christ as Yahweh, enthroned before the ages, revealed in flesh, and coming again in glory. Orthodoxy carries that vision in its worship. Ethiopia carries it in its scriptures. Together they remind us that the faith once delivered to the saints is bigger, deeper, and richer than we often dare to imagine.

So tonight, let us not close the book too soon. Let us ask again: when you open your Bible, are you reading the whole counsel of God—or only what history allowed to remain?

Outro

The canon and the liturgy, the worship and the word—two witnesses from two ancient churches, each claiming to have preserved what God gave. But beyond all debate, we are reminded of one truth: the Word of God is not chained. It cannot be cut by councils or hidden by history. It lives in Christ Himself, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

So take up the call: seek Him in worship, seek Him in scripture, seek Him in every hidden corner of His revelation. And know this—whether in the hymns of the Church or in the books long forgotten, He has left His fingerprints everywhere for those who will search.

Until the day we see Him face to face, may we hunger for nothing less than the fullness of His truth.

Bibliography & Endnotes

• Stephen De Young. The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021.
• Stephen De Young. God Is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021.
• Andrew Stephen Damick & Stephen De Young. The Lord of Spirits: An Orthodox Christian Framework for the Unseen World. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2023.
• Stephen De Young. Saint Paul the Pharisee: Jewish Apostle to All Nations. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2024.
• Stephen De Young. Apocrypha: An Introduction to Extra-Biblical Literature. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2023.
• Cowley, R. W. The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 1974.
• VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984.
• Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
• The Kebra Nagast: The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek. Translated by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Notes

1. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon includes eighty-one books: the standard Old and New Testaments plus additional works such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 1–3 Meqabyan, the Book of the Covenant, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didascalia of the Apostles.
2. Jude 1:14–15 quotes directly from 1 Enoch, preserved in the Ethiopian canon.
3. Early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus referenced traditions found in Enoch and Jubilees, though these books were later excluded from most Christian canons.
4. Rabbinic Judaism after the second century condemned the “two powers in heaven” theology, which had affirmed multiple hypostases of Yahweh—a concept that Orthodox Christianity connects directly to the Trinity.
5. The Orthodox liturgy, rooted in the Septuagint and temple imagery, is presented as the living continuation of apostolic worship, while the Ethiopian canon is presented as the preserved library of the broader apostolic worldview.