Ethopian Orthodoxy vs Eastern Orthodoxy: Which one's closer to 1st Century Judaism?

[Gxg (G²)]

GG SSSS Shalom Everyone .....

Concerning why I was writing this, one of my dear brothers in the Lord once shared how the ways that icons/symbolism are done within Judaism is similar and yet distict from how they occur within Orthodoxy---as seen in #19 from the thread entitled Symbols in Judaism versus Icons in Christianity. What is the difference... .. ....and elsewhere amongst brothers/sisters in Messianic Judaism, there was discussion on how the Ethopian Orthodox church is very similar to Jews today in Judaism when it comes to their views on the Law and how they practice differing aspects within Judaism...as seen in the thread entitled Messianic Judaism and Ethiopian Orthodoxy ( specifically in #24 , on how the Ethopian Orthodox Church has been supported by Judaism in supporting Torah on many points ). One poster brought up how the Ethiopian Orthodox already don't eat pork, circumscize, often worship on Saturday (or both), follow OT laws on menstration, and do many other things in line with a Torah observant lifestyle. Some of it gets interesting when considering how many have even noted that things such as the Ark of the Covenant is held by Ethopia---as seen here:

Ethiopian Orthodox church has Ark of Covenant PART 1.
Ethiopia - The Ark of the Covenant 1-5
Digging For Truth - The Ark of Covenant ​

Henry Louis Gates, one of the best black scholars/historians around, actually did a documentary on the issue with PBS, as seen here and here. And for other interesting documentaries on Ethopian Orthodox Christianity...

Direction: Reverse Contextualization: Jesuit Encounter with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church ...​

Christian Traditions in the Contemporary Middle East​

Ancient Christian Defense: Ethopian Coptic Crosses​

Eastern Christian Books: Ethiopian Christology ​

Ethopian Orthodox Song​

Ethiopian Orthodox Song ​

BBC Christianity (Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity)
Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity​

From what I've been able to observe over the years, there've been MANY Messianic Jews who've found the world of Orthodoxy to be one of the best expressions for what they feel the Jewish culture was centered around. When it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodxy (i.e. Coptic, Ethopian, Syrian, Indian, etc), I've met/dialouged with PLENTY who are some of the most loving, caring and informed people I've ever witnessed...and I've learned much from them over the years. The Eastern Mindset toward spirituality is something that is often missed in the Western world---and much of it is often directly in line with how early Jewish culture would've operated. As is it, there are many coming from a Hasidic Jewish background that end up going into the liturgical circles of Orthodoxy (as well as Catholisicm) because of the fact that they feel it seems more similar to how the early church would've operated. On where more was shared on the issue, one can go here to #33.
As a former monk of the Eastern Orthodox Church


There was actually a book I was able to read on the subject that was very beautiful in content. It was recommended to me by the rabbi of the Messianic Jewish fellowship I attend ---known as Congregation Miskan David and Mivdad Shem Hakodesh---as he was a former monk of the Eastern Orthodox Church for a good bit---and the name of the book he gave me is entitled "Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity With the Temple, the Synagogue and the Early Church" ( ).

With that said, I was curious as to what the thoughts of others were as it concerns discussion on which specific branch of Orthodoxy/Ancient Christianity seems to be the most similar in regards to what 1st century Judaism was like....and why that'd be the case. I know that there've been many battles between those who are for Ethopian/Oriental Orthodoxy and those within Eastern Orthodoxy over a host of issues, though I'm also aware that there has been reconcilliation at many points when it comes to certain points---and for some, its not so much a "contest" between which one represents Ancient Judaism better as much as its a discussion about where each of them represent differing aspects of the Jewish worldview/ministry.

 

[Lukaris]

I cannot give you an informed or authoritative answer but despite the split between the Eastern & Oriental churches since Chalcedon, there seems to be a general understanding that both are Orthodox in faith. Since the Ethiopians retained many aspects of the old covenant I would guess that many were Jews when they received the Gospel and may actually be closer by default because of culture. Their retention of certain old covenant tradition, as far as I know, was never a problem within Orthodoxy since it does not seem to have had any bearing on the alleged monophysite disagreement at Chalcedon. Obviously the other OO churches that rejected Chalcedon do not retain many of the customs that the Ethiopians do also.

The reception of the Gospel among the Gentiles is of course no less than that which would have been received by the Messianic Jews as the apostolic council in Acts 15 determined.

 

[Lukaris]

I am also thankful and fascinated that the book of Enoch was preserved within the Ethiopian Church. Would you know if writings like The Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs & the Odes Of Solomon were also preserved in Ethiopia?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I cannot give you an informed or authoritative answer but despite the split between the Eastern & Oriental churches since Chalcedon, there seems to be a general understanding that both are Orthodox in faith..

GGot ya. ..and thanks for sharing. On the split issue, it has always been rather fascinating to me in studying the history of Oriental Orthodoxy..and it has actually been interesting to see instances where it seems that there was an understanding on how united both camps were and that some of the ecumenical councils were not meant to be a matter of division as much as they were a matter of misunderstanding in interpretations on what the Lord was about. There are many good resources on that issue--and there have been other scholars that've done some excellent work on the issue of sharing more in-depth treatment of the many ways that Oriental Orthodoxy have not been understood proprely.


One of the best places around is known as "Orthodox Unity: Supporting the Joint Commission"

Since the Ethiopians retained many aspects of the old covenant I would guess that many were Jews when they received the Gospel and may actually be closer by default because of culture.

That would seem to me to be more than an educated guess...as its highly likely, in light of how even within Judaism its the case that amazement has occurred when others have come and studied those known as the Falasha---Ethopian Jews who are VERY MUCH similar to Judaism even though they were disconnected from so many for centuries...and others wondered "Why is it that people in the State of Israel think we're not Jewish??!"

On that issue, some of this was discussed more in-depth elsewhere, as seen here in #3 and #5 . Additionally, there was actually an insightful video I was able to come across on the issue of Ethopian Jews. For more information on them:

• Falasha - Exile of the Black Jews - Part 1
• Falasha - Exile of the Black Jews - Part 2
• Falasha - Exile of the Black Jews - Part 3
• Falasha - Exile of the Black Jews - Part 4[Final]

As it concerns the Ethopian Orthodox church, it truly is fascinating to study the many ways in which it operates in a manner VERY much similar to Judaism. They have Shabbat, cashrus, a replica of the Aron habrit and actual priests officiating to it. IMHO, they're almost a kind of "messianic catholic" church...except that their camp is a historical movement with a very RICH history behind it. For those who were already Jewish in their background and yet were reached out to by Orthodox, it'd seem that perhaps their cultural practices were assimilated into one specific branch of Orthodoxy and thus you see all of the striking parallels to Judaism that are found within Ethopian Orthodoxy...whereas other camps assimilated people that had no connection to Judaism--and thus, what occurred was that a differing picture/variation developed amongst those within the Gentile branch of Orthodoxy.

Their retention of certain old covenant tradition, as far as I know, was never a problem within Orthodoxy since it does not seem to have had any bearing on the alleged monophysite disagreement at Chalcedon. Obviously the other OO churches that rejected Chalcedon do not retain many of the customs that the Ethiopians do also.

Indeed, many of the vast differences between Oriental Orthodoxy is a matter of changing cultures..for in example, the Ethopian Orthodox church is vastly different from those Oriental Orthodox churches pertaining more so to areas such as India. Something that's interesting, however, is that even the Oriental Orthodox churches within the Indian culture have MANY aspects of Judaism amongst them that mirror the dynamics found within the Ethopian Orthodox church--and much of this is due to how many within Indian CULTURE were also Jewish (due to differing diaspora's/travel ) and the Oriental Orthodox churches that sprang there took on the Jewish Indian aspects into their own churches as well. On the issue of Indian Jews/Orthodoxy within Indian culture, there was actually more discussion elsewhere in #12 / the thread entitled "Cochin & Hindu Hebrews: Are most Messianic Jews familar with Indian Jewish Believers?" ( ) . To see how many apart of things within Indian culture were often mistreated by other Jews in Judaism because of their practices is amazing enough.....but that's another issue .

Some of the history is rather fascinating to study in-depth .

As it concerns the monophysite disagreements at Chalcedon, its rather fascinating to consider the many sides of history that may get lost when it comes to discussion on the various debates others had on the nature of Christ--especially in regards to how many Oriental Orthodox have long noted that the term "monophysite" is something that doesn't really reflect what they've always believed. Ethopian Orthodox would prefer to be called tewahido (made one)......and in their mindset, misunderstandings occurred more so over not understanding what another meant and then carrying that misunderstanding further over the years. Yet even in the disagreements, there was still much fruit.






For more clarity on where I'm coming from, there’s a book I was blessed to read recently by one of my favorite scholars, Philip Jenkins---entitled "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died"

It was very brilliant in discussing the many experiences of believers, whether Jewish or Non-Jewish, who literally spread around the world with the Gospel of Messiah---and yet experienced many pains/difficulties despite the victories they had.

As one reviewer said best:

When I was in seminary, I didn't learn much about the Nestorians or the Monophysites, except that both were labeled heretics by Protestant, Catholic, and the eastern Orthodox churches alike. In 431 the Council of Ephesus declared the Nestorians heretical for their view that the two natures of Christ were not united but distinct. The Monophysites believed that Christ had only one nature, not two, and so were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Consequently and tragically, as Philip Jenkins shows, the histories of both traditions were "lost" to almost all the rest of Christendom.


This is startling for several reasons. Both the west Syrian Monophysites (or Jacobites), and the east Syrian Nestorians or Assyrian Church of the East in what are now Iraq and Iran, affirmed the decrees of the council of Nicea. The Nestorian patriarch Timothy (c. 800), for example, pointed out the fundamentals of the faith that all Christians shared, including the Trinity, Incarnation, baptism, adoration of the cross, Eucharist, the two testaments, the resurrection of the dead, eternal life, the return of Christ, and the last judgment. "We must never think of these churches as fringe sects rather than the Christian mainstream," writes Jenkins.


That their history remains "lost" is even more remarkable when we consider the speed, scale, and scope of their geographical expansion, political power, intellectual legacy, and spiritual vibrancy. When Timothy became the leader of these churches in the east around the year 780, based in Seleucia on the Tigris River, he wielded more influence over more Christians than the pope in Rome and perhaps the patriarch in Constantinople. It's true that the gospel spread west to Rome and east to Constantinople, but also true that it spread faster and even further east, thanks to the Monophysites and Nestorians, to what are now Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, India, Tibet and China. These lands and peoples were as much or even more Christian for a thousand years than their counterparts to the west.


Jenkins' book is a detailed work of historical retrieval and reconstruction. But just as he restores this lost history of expansion, he also gives due consideration to the near extinction of Christianity in these lands by about 1300. This requires a nuanced discussion of the "ferocious organized violence" (pp. 101, 141) of Islam that conquered many of these Christian lands, and Jenkins takes care not to say too much or too little. Between the years 1200 and 1400 most all of these churches had vanished except for significant remnants like Coptic Christians in Egypt. By around the year 1900, writes Jenkins, "the whole Middle East accounted for just 0.9 percent of the world's Christians" (155) — a stunning reversal of fortunes for a once powerful presence.


​

May wish to investigate the read, as it was very on point on a host of levels. And for some good reviews on the subject that may bless you, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective titles:

• Toward a Theology of Church Extinction | The Theology Pilgrim" ( )

• "Lost Christianity: A Q&A with Philip Jenkins - Text Messages ( )

• "Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 "

• Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2 "

• "YouTube - Seaver College Distinguished Lecture Series - Phillip Jenkins"

In his book, the author does an excellent job documenting the world of Eastern Christianity and how much of it was wiped out-and what the implications of that are for our world today. Another excellent book by Jenkins I think you'd enjoy on the issue is known as "Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years " ( ) Peter Jenkins, who is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University and Distinguished Senior Fellow, Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, argued that the official orthodoxy of Christianity today was predominately forged by the political machinations of certain key political players of the fifth century. ...and often the cannon that is accepted is due more so to which group was able to survive the longest. With the Ethopians and others within Oriental Orthodoxy, its interesting to consider how many of the elements they retained from their own cultures were hard-fought....

The great fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 was, like the others, called by an emperor and supposed to settle the controversy over whether Christ has two natures (Antioch's view) or one (Alexandria's view). Out of the council came the Chalcedonian Definition, which articulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus Christ was one person of two natures "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." But it did anything but settle the controversy. Eventually, through much bloodshed, most Christians in Egypt and the Middle East broke from the churches of Rome and Constantinople and founded rival Christian traditions. One of those traditions is Nestorianism (because of belief that Christ's two natures were and are in some sense separate, even though unified in purpose), the other Monophysitism (because of belief that Christ's two natures merged to form one—primarily if not exclusively divine).

With Jenkins, he attributed the Chalcedonian Definition to "political accident...whereas some attribute it to divine providence. For example, if emperor Theodosius II, champion of the Monophysite cause who condoned the Alexandrian murder of patriarch Flavian at the Gangster Synod in 449, had not been killed in a horse-riding accident in July 450, the Christian world may have become permanently Monophysite. Jenkins treats this crucial event, which made possible the defeat of Monophysitism at Chalcedon possible if not certain, as accident. Of course, many orthodox Christians view it as divine intervention.

For a good review on the issue, Jenkis discussed the issue with other Orthodox Members here:

• Eastern Orthodox Church | Grateful to the dead

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The reception of the Gospel among the Gentiles is of course no less than that which would have been received by the Messianic Jews as the apostolic council in Acts 15 determined

I agree---as the Acts 15 council made clear that Jews didn't cease being Jews in their cultural heritages while the Gentiles didn't have to forsake their own cultural heritages when it came to learning of Messianic Judaism. There could be peace ...

I am also thankful and fascinated that the book of Enoch was preserved within the Ethiopian Church.

I'm also VERY Glad that the Book of Enoch was preserved within the Ethopian Church. Its always odd seeing people trip on it, despite the fact that its already referenced within the Book of Jude---and the early Jewish church had no problem with many of the thoughts held within it when it came to the concept of a Divine Council, the Watchers and many other things..

I'm always amazed at how many seem to not be amazed at the beauty of the Ethiopian Orthodox Old Testament...as there's truly so much depth to it that many don't seem able to realize.


The Ethiopian canon is basically the same as the LXX canon plus Jubilees and Enoch and different Maccabees tales (which many scholars see as a later attempt to replace lost scrolls), much like what has been found at the Dead Sea Caves. Commenting on the influence of certain councils regarding the sacredness of the Book of Enoch and the canon, it seems that the the Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. Jude 1:6, Gen 6, 1st Peter 3:19-20, and 2nd Peter 2:4 immediately come to mind, though there are more passages that either directly quote or refer to the Book of Enoch. And its not surprising, seeing that it was considered scripture by many early Christians...as the earliest literature of "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture".....so its very odd, IMHO, that the Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon whereas other branches of Orthodoxy reject it (to my knowledge). For it was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ.

One can go here to read it

Would you know if writings like The Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs & the Odes Of Solomon were also preserved in Ethiopia?

On the other books you mentioned, I'm not so certain about things such as the Testomony of the 12 Patriarches and the Odes of Solomon, as the 12 Patriarches (to my knowledge) is considered as not being very valid on many levels.


On the Patriarchs, the ancient Hebrews commonly gave a "testimony" to their children just before they died. In the Biblical text we have Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob's "testimonies" to their children recorded. The book of "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" is apparently the attempt at showing the testimonies of Jacob's twelve sons to their children. It had been believed that this work was a product of a very late authorship, sometime after the second or third century CE. But, fragments of this work were found within the Dead Sea caves proving a much older origin than previously thought. While it is probable that this book was first written between 500 and 100 BCE, it is very probable that its origins are much older. In the ancient Hebrew culture oral traditions were very important. The stories and teachings in this work may be the actual words of the twelve patriarchs that were passed down from generation to generation until finally recorded in writing. ...but again, there's no way of knowing for certainty.

For more information, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective titles:

• "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs << Early Christian Writings"

As it stands, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is a constituent of the apocryphal scriptures connected with the Bible. It is a pseudepigraphical work, meaning that it is apart of falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded...and a work, simply, whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.

 

[Lukaris]

Thak you for this info esp. the research of Jenkins whose book I plan to get. I would like to say though that I do not believe that the proportion of Middle Eastern Christians among world Christians was as low as .9% Mr Jenkins states by 1900 (please note that in no way am I questioniong his integrity or criticisng your info here). I would suggest taking a glance at a book titled: The Burning Tigris by Peter Balakian which documents the Armenian genocide of the 20th c. from which I gather that the amount of Christians in Turkey (for ex.) would be much higher today if natural demographics would not have been affected by genocide. Or for ex. look at the exodus of Christians fro Iraq since 2003, they were 10% of the population there prior. Or in Lebanon, which was slightly majority Christian prior to 1970. The Egyptian Copts etc.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thak you for this info esp. the research of Jenkins whose book I plan to get..

Hoping that the read is an enjoyable one for you Philip Jenkins&#8217; opus &#8220;The Lost History of Christianity&#8221; is truly beautiful in the way in which he details the history of what are now known as the Oriental churches which split with the rest of the church over differences in Christological terminology. This split took place after the Councils of Nicaea (321), Ephesus (431) and ultimately Chalcedon(451)..and there were also Nestorian (beginning in the 5th century) and Jacobite churches in flourishing existence throughout much of the Middle East, Africa and Asia long before the Latin churches were, at best, tenuously established in Europe.

It really is interesting to consider what Jenkins often notes, in regards to his stand against current scholars who assert that variant, alternative Christianities disappeared in the fourth and fifth centuries on the heels of a newly formed hierarchy under Constantine, intent on crushing unorthodox views. Many have taken issue with Jenkins for his advocating that the largest churches in the world were the &#8220;heretics&#8221; who lost the orthodoxy battles...and it frustrates others when it seems he (or others within the world of Orthodoxy) believe that these so-called heretics were in fact the most influential Christian groups throughout Asia, and their influence lasted an additional one thousand years beyond their supposed demise.

Some scholars take this dynamic and extend it a step too far, IMHO...making it seem that anything under the label of "Christian" was legitimate. An example of this would be the book by Bart Erhman entitled "Lost Christianities"-but thankfully, there are others who've sought to bring balance on that issue...discussing that there was more going on to certain forms of Orthodoxy lasting simply because of one group surviving/coming out on top. For one example/good review on such, one can consider this:

• "Archaic Christianity - Review of Ehrman's Lost Christianities" ( )

I would like to say though that I do not believe that the proportion of Middle Eastern Christians among world Christians was as low as .9% Mr Jenkins states by 1900 (please note that in no way am I questioniong his integrity or criticisng your info here).

Understood..

The numbers/figures are things I believe were stated in light of the severe persecution that occurred amongst Middle Eastern Christians---to the point that substantial numbers of Christians/Churches were destroyed....whereas others were taken over many times by rival religions and the history of Christianity precedding it was often lost in many areas---and many today are not aware of it. Some of this can be found discussed more in-depth here, if interested, concerning the history of declines for Eastern Christians in the Middle Eastern areas. This is also something Jenkins sought to discuss in his book "The Lost Christianity" from a unique perspective--for in his final pages Jenkins moves beyond the confines of secular history to a "theology of extinction" (249). He inquires what existential meaning for faith we might derive from this story of our Christian forbears. Even if some churches die, the Church lives on, and the possibility for resurrection rests in the recovery of historical memory

As said best in a review by &#8220;Christianity Today&#8221;

You argue that we are lacking a theology of church extinction. Why do we need one?

I sometimes ask audiences how many people have ever read a book on the growth or establishment of a church, and many people raise their hands. Then I ask how many people have ever read a book on the death or extinction of a church, and virtually nobody does. But in history, church death is a very common phenomenon. Christianity moves from one area to another, but it also dies in areas where it has been strong. That fact violates a lot of what we expect about Christian growth. We have a theology of mission, not a theology of retreat. So do we explain these episodes as the churches doing something horribly wrong? Do we regard them as a natural part of historical development? Do we think that if Muslims replaced Christians in a country like Iraq, the expansion of Islam must be within God's plan? How Christians actually deal with things like the destruction of the church in Iraq is by not talking about it. We pay no attention to it because we don't know about it.

​

I would suggest taking a glance at a book titled: The Burning Tigris by Peter Balakian which documents the Armenian genocide of the 20th c. from which I gather that the amount of Christians in Turkey (for ex.) would be much higher today if natural demographics would not have been affected by genocide

Sounds like a VERY interesting read. Many thanks for sharing it with me, as I do think that the Armenian genocide by the Turks is something that many treat as if its of no consequence...even though it was on the same level as the Holocaust in a Myriad of ways, IMHO. May I ask what it was that you personally got out of it?

Or for ex. look at the exodus of Christians fro Iraq since 2003, they were 10% of the population there prior. Or in Lebanon, which was slightly majority Christian prior to 1970. The Egyptian Copts etc

Got ya. Thanks for sharing the info...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am also thankful and fascinated that the book of Enoch was preserved within the Ethiopian Church. Would you know if writings like The Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs & the Odes Of Solomon were also preserved in Ethiopia?

If I may ask, concerning the issue of Ethopian Orthodoxy being perhaps closer to Jewish culture and thought, why would you say that the Book of Enoch is essential for understanding/appreciating the ancient culture of Judaism?

Additionally, what is it specifically about the 12 Patriarches that you were curious about when asking? Do you personally support the books--and if so, why?

 

[Lukaris]

If I may ask, concerning the issue of Ethopian Orthodoxy being perhaps closer to Jewish culture and thought, why would you say that the Book of Enoch is essential for understanding/appreciating the ancient culture of Judaism?

Additionally, what is it specifically about the 12 Patriarches that you were curious about when asking? Do you personally support the books--and if so, why?

I cannot reply till another time from this post but I think the ethiopian Enoch being an expression of most late ancient Judaism & prophetic of the Lord Jesus Christ (not to mention that another "Enoch" was written after the Ethiopic that did not relate to the coming Lord, hmmm...). The 12 Patriarchs, if it has validity to being written prior to the Lord Jesus Christ, seems to have prophetic value towards him and itself cites the book of Enoch as scripture. The 12 Patriarchs also seems in some parts rather highly expressive of aspects of Phariseeism that the Lord expressed His dispproval of but again this would show the pattern of religiosity He sought to reform. Have to go hope to chime in again.God bless.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I cannot reply till another time from this post but I think the ethiopian Enoch being an expression of most late ancient Judaism & prophetic of the Lord Jesus Christ (not to mention that another "Enoch" was written after the Ethiopic that did not relate to the coming Lord, hmmm...)..

Interesting to consider, concerning the latter addition that didn't reflect Christ in His return as compared to the other "Enoch." Perhaps a parallel...

The 12 Patriarchs, if it has validity to being written prior to the Lord Jesus Christ, seems to have prophetic value towards him and itself cites the book of Enoch as scripture. The 12 Patriarchs also seems in some parts rather highly expressive of aspects of Phariseeism that the Lord expressed His dispproval of but again this would show the pattern of religiosity He sought to reform.

Good point...

Have to go hope to chime in again.God bless

Thanks for sharing thus far..

 

[buzuxi02]

I just want to add that the menstruation laws observed among the ethiopians is actually derived from Alexandrian christianity. There based on the two canonical epistles of Patriarchs Dionysios and Timothy of Alexandria. On the other hand saturday and sunday worship is indeed closer to judaism than to the coptic/alexandrian tradition. While Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople celebrated liturgy on both the sabbath and the Lord's Day and consider both days festive, Rome (till the 14th century) and Alexandria (till the 4-5th centuries) shunned the sabbath and prefered fasting and wanted to do away with the judaizing observance.

The menstrual rules are still observed in certain quarters of Eastern Orthodoxy and obviously more strictly within the coptic tradition. Of course there is more diversity within Oriental orthodoxy than there is in EO. For instance theres external differences between armenian and coptic liturgical practises.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I just want to add that the menstruation laws observed among the ethiopians is actually derived from Alexandrian christianity. There based on the two canonical epistles of Patriarchs Dionysios and Timothy of Alexandria. On the other hand saturday and sunday worship is indeed closer to judaism than to the coptic/alexandrian tradition. .

Interesting to consider. Would you mind directing me to where I could confirm the information you shared on Alexandrian Christianity being the basis for the menstruation....specifically, where in the canonical epistles of Patriarchs Dionysios and Timothy of Alexandria it could be found?

As it concerns worship, I'd say that its predominately worship on Saturday that is closer to Judaism than worship on Sunday..as for many within Messianic Judaism, celebrating the day Christ rose was something that occurred on Saturday rather than Sunday...

While Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople celebrated liturgy on both the sabbath and the Lord's Day and consider both days festive, Rome (till the 14th century) and Alexandria (till the 4-5th centuries) shunned the sabbath and prefered fasting and wanted to do away with the judaizing observance.

Wild...

The menstrual rules are still observed in certain quarters of Eastern Orthodoxy and obviously more strictly within the coptic tradition.

Which quarters of Eastern Orthodoxy are you referring to? Not doubting you, but curious as to the exact location...

Of course there is more diversity within Oriental orthodoxy than there is in EO. For instance theres external differences between armenian and coptic liturgical practises

I agree....and as it stands, nearly all of the liturgies of Oriental Orthodoxy vary...be it Coptic, Armenian, Ethopian, Syrian or many others. The diversity I've seen in Oriental Orthodoxy has been rather stunning..

 

[buzuxi02]

What i mean is elements within eastern orthodoxy still observe these rules during menstruation like not recieving communion during menses. Some women do not even venerate the icons or approach the altar. This has eased up in this generation of liberalization but was prevalent in past generations.

It was always the tradition in alexandrian christianity to refrain from certain things during menstruation and the epistles of Dionysius and Timothy reflect that and had impact on the rest of the east. Dionysios of Alexandria responding to an inquiry by bishop Basilides wrote in 250 a.d.:

. Concerning menstruous women, whether they ought to enter the temple of God while in such a state, I think it superfluous even to put the question. For, I opine, not even they themselves, being faithful and pious, would dare when in this state either to approach the Holy Table or to touch the body and blood of Christ. For not even the woman with a twelve years&#8217; issue would come into actual contact with Him, but only with the edge of His garment, to be cured. There is no objection to one&#8217;s praying no matter how he may be or to one&#8217;s remembering the Lord at any time and in any state whatever, and petitioning to receive help; but if one is not wholly clean both in soul and in body, he shall be prevented from coming up to the Holies of Holies.

In 372a.d. Timothy of Alexandria reaffirmed these practises when questioned by an inquirer:

6. Question: If a woman who is a catechumen has given her name in order to be enlightened, and on the day appointed for the baptism she incurs the plight which regularly afflicts women, ought she to be enlightened on that day, or defer, and how long ought she to defer?
Answer: She ought to defer, until she has been purified

. Question: If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day, or not?
Answer: She ought not to do so, until she has been purified.

John the Faster of Constantinople in the 6th century acknowledged the alexandrian practise as normative:


17. As for women occupying a separate seat, let them not touch holy things for as many as seven days, the second Canon of St. Dionysius, but in particular the seventh Canon of Timothy bids. This is also what the old Law ordered, but neither did it permit them to have any sexual intercourse with men; for it happens on this account that the seeds sown become weak and evanescent. Hence it was that divine Moses ordered the father of a defective to be stoned to death, on the ground that on account of his intemperance he failed to await the purification of his wife. But as for a woman who has been so scornful of the same uncleanness during this period and has touched the divine Mysteries, they bid her to remain communionless for forty days.

 

[choirfiend]

Philip Jenkins is an AWFUL example of Christian scholar. He's basically an ANTI Christian scholar. He should NOT be seen as an unbiased source.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What i mean is elements within eastern orthodoxy still observe these rules during menstruation like not recieving communion during menses. Some women do not even venerate the icons or approach the altar. This has eased up in this generation of liberalization but was prevalent in past generations.
.

Understood. Its interesting to consider, in light of how many place focus upon the Blood of the Messiah being able to cleanse all of us from the worse of impurities (such as Hebrews 8-10 notes ) in a superior way than it was under the ceremonial system when one had to literally be kept out of the camp during a menstruation cycle that contaminated others.

It was always the tradition in alexandrian christianity to refrain from certain things during menstruation and the epistles of Dionysius and Timothy reflect that and had impact on the rest of the east. Dionysios of Alexandria responding to an inquiry by bishop Basilides wrote in 250 a.d.:

. Concerning menstruous women, whether they ought to enter the temple of God while in such a state, I think it superfluous even to put the question. For, I opine, not even they themselves, being faithful and pious, would dare when in this state either to approach the Holy Table or to touch the body and blood of Christ. For not even the woman with a twelve years&#8217; issue would come into actual contact with Him, but only with the edge of His garment, to be cured. There is no objection to one&#8217;s praying no matter how he may be or to one&#8217;s remembering the Lord at any time and in any state whatever, and petitioning to receive help; but if one is not wholly clean both in soul and in body, he shall be prevented from coming up to the Holies of Holies.

In 372a.d. Timothy of Alexandria reaffirmed these practises when questioned by an inquirer:

6. Question: If a woman who is a catechumen has given her name in order to be enlightened, and on the day appointed for the baptism she incurs the plight which regularly afflicts women, ought she to be enlightened on that day, or defer, and how long ought she to defer?
Answer: She ought to defer, until she has been purified

. Question: If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day, or not?
Answer: She ought not to do so, until she has been purified.

John the Faster of Constantinople in the 6th century acknowledged the alexandrian practise as normative:



17. As for women occupying a separate seat, let them not touch holy things for as many as seven days, the second Canon of St. Dionysius, but in particular the seventh Canon of Timothy bids. This is also what the old Law ordered, but neither did it permit them to have any sexual intercourse with men; for it happens on this account that the seeds sown become weak and evanescent. Hence it was that divine Moses ordered the father of a defective to be stoned to death, on the ground that on account of his intemperance he failed to await the purification of his wife. But as for a woman who has been so scornful of the same uncleanness during this period and has touched the divine Mysteries, they bid her to remain communionless for forty days

Interesting to consider. FOr though Alexandrian christianity taught that it was necessary to refrain from certain things during menstruation, its amazing to consider that much of it was simply an extension of what was advocated in the Judaic worldview when it came to purity in Leviticus 15/Leviticus 15:15

​

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Do you have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church near you, Easy?

 

[Basil the Great]

This is an extremely fascinating thread. I would add that I have seen documentaries on television concerning the Ark of the Covenant and some believe that a particular church in Ethiopia houses the Ark to this day. If indeed the Ethiopian Church has strong ties to Judaism, I suppose that this tradition might possibly be true.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Do you have an Ethiopian Orthodox Church near you, Easy?

Thankfully, there's one near my area. There's another one that's rather new and in Stone Mountain, GA.

St. Mary Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church - Atlanta​

There's one I was planning to go to that was about 30min away from where I'm at--known as Debre Bisrate St. Gabriel Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. I had tried to attend once, but was unable to....but as its located within Atlanta near my college/university, it shouldn't be difficult. Despite the drive, again, I've heard many wonderful things about it/plan on attending at some point when I have time. They also have had some Ethopian Day Celebrations which have been rather amazing, as seen here.

One of the men I know, who himself is Ethopian/owns an Ethopian store and attended an Ethopian Orthodox church in another part of Georgia, told me of how there are differing ones...and some of them don't really interact well with one another, sadly, even though they are there for others to investigate if they wish.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is an extremely fascinating thread..

Glad to know its a blessing/of interest

I would add that I have seen documentaries on television concerning the Ark of the Covenant and some believe that a particular church in Ethiopia houses the Ark to this day. If indeed the Ethiopian Church has strong ties to Judaism, I suppose that this tradition might possibly be true

One never knows...but from the archelogical and anthropological dynamics that've been brought up by many scholars on the subject, it does seem highly convincing. That Ethopian has strong ties to Judaism is something that seems beyond question to me---but to actually be in possession of the actual Ark would be wild when it comes to further establishing Judaic ties..

 

[buzuxi02]

There is a possibility that the Ethiopian Monastery on Aksum houses the Ark of the Covenant. The relic is carefully guarded and I've heard from a knowledgeable EO (who has since passed away) that one reason needed for this 24 hour security is that mossad agents have tried to infiltrate it. True, sounds highly conspiratory, but if there is a good chance this is the real Ark of the Covenant, the Israelis will want to be certain, and would also love to get their hands on it.