LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Brandt, Peter (2013)
Publisher: Universität Hamburg, Hiob Ludolf Centre for Ethiopian Studies
Journal: Aethiopica
Languages: German
Types: Article
Subjects: Ethiopian Studies, Bible; Christianity; Literary Tradition; Canon Lists; Manuscripts;, ddc:200, ddc:220, ddc:230, ddc:400, ddc:490, ddc:800, ddc:890
The canon lists in Sēnodos und Fetḥa nagaśt do not represent the original arrangement of biblical books, since they go back to coptic traditions. Most of the biblical manuscripts are younger than the lists (c. 14 to c. 20), and their order of books is very disparat. Although the original arrangement cannot be identified from them, they reveal aspects of arrangement, which generate a specific ethiopian shape of the bible. Books or groups of books are bound together in different ways. In the OT there are eight books of the Law instead of five, and the rest remains in great variance. In the NT the internal order of the groups is stable, but the ar­rangement of the groups varies. Looking at this variability from a perspective of reception, the manuscripts are important, for they show what the believing community actually had before it. The ethiopian biblical canon seems to be construed as a net of various innerbiblical dialo­gues.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.