If Your Bible Came From Europe, It Was Strategically Altered—Here’s Why I Read the Ethiopian Bible Instead (With Receipts)
They burned our prophets, banned our books, and gave us theirs. I went back to the scriptures they buried—where the names, laws, and power still live.
I’ve been working on this for a while…
Introduction:
Most people don’t realize the Bible they read has been cut, filtered, and rewritten to serve empires—not the spiritually hungry. What if I told you the original Word wasn’t lost—it was just hidden in plain sight? The Ethiopian Bible is the oldest, most complete Christian canon on earth, untouched by Roman councils, colonial politics, or Western whitewashing. It holds banned books, ancestral names, and unedited power that the King James version stripped away. I chose this Bible because I don’t want a sanitized gospel—I want the raw, divine record. This isn’t rebellion. It’s reclamation. This is returning to the unbroken Word
The King James Version (KJV) was never our book. It was a weapon wrapped in poetry. That Bible was commissioned by King James of England in 1604, edited by 47 male scholars—all under royal and colonial rule. While it became the “official” English Bible, it was designed to serve church and state, not Spirit, not our people, and certainly not our lineage (Nicolson, 2003; McGrath, 2002).
Entire books were removed. Names were changed. Wording was twisted to justify slavery, submission, and silence. It wasn’t written in the spirit of liberation—it was written in the spirit of empire (Metzger, 1987).
Let’s tear the veil all the way off.
The Real King James: Man. Monarch. Manipulator.
King James VI of Scotland / a.k.a. James I of England and Ireland
Born: June 19, 1566
Died: March 27, 1625 (ironically, 348 years to the day before my birth)
Reign:
King of Scotland: From 1567
King of England and Ireland: From 1603
Son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (Fraser, 1975).
James was highly educated—fluent in Latin, Greek, and French—and deeply obsessed with theology, law, and witchcraft. He was paranoid, insecure, and believed he ruled by divine right, meaning any resistance to his authority was resistance to God (Willson, 1956).
Obsession With Religion
James saw religion as political control. Raised Presbyterian, he later embraced Anglicanism to assert power over the Church of England. His views were:
Anti-Catholic (due to fear of uprisings)
Anti-Puritan (due to their challenge to royal authority)
Pro-“One King, One Church, One Bible” doctrine (Sommerville, 1994).
The translation of the KJV was not for the sake of truth, but to silence division and reinforce his control.
King James and Witchcraft
In 1597, King James VI of Scotland (later James I of England) authored a chilling and authoritative book titled Daemonologie, a three-volume treatise written in the form of a dialogue. More than just a theological work, Daemonologie served as a state-sanctioned manual for witch persecution. It outlined detailed arguments supporting the reality of witchcraft, the legality of witch trials, and the theological justification for executing accused witches. James claimed that witches had formed pacts with the Devil, engaged in acts of maleficium (harmful magic), and posed a direct threat to Christian society (Levack, 2015).
But this was more than superstition—it was a strategic consolidation of power. James was obsessed with establishing himself as a divinely chosen monarch. By portraying witches as agents of Satan, he cast himself as a spiritual warrior protecting the realm. Folk healers, cunning women, midwives, astrologers, and even those practicing pre-Christian or Indigenous spiritual systems were suddenly rebranded as “servants of the Devil.” In truth, Daemonologie helped criminalize folk wisdom, ancestral medicine, and spiritual independence—anything outside of Church or royal jurisdiction (Purkiss, 2005).
James’ book wasn’t an isolated intellectual exercise. It directly fueled a rise in witch trials throughout Scotland, most notoriously the North Berwick trials (1590–1592). These trials, partially orchestrated under his influence, featured grotesque confessions extracted under torture. Women were accused of causing storms to kill the king, harming crops, or meeting with the Devil in covens. Many were burned alive. What made James’ role unique is that he didn’t just endorse the trials—he often participated, interrogated suspects, and used the outcomes to shape public perception and justify further crackdowns (Barstow, 1994).
The ripple effect extended beyond Britain. When English colonists crossed the Atlantic, they brought Daemonologie with them—both in ideology and in printed form. The Salem witch trials (1692), though decades later, echoed Jamesian logic. His work helped seed a legacy of fear and violence against any spiritual system not sanctioned by the Church. This included African traditional religions (ATR), Hoodoo, Conjure, and Indigenous healing arts that became targets during colonial expansion (Karlsen, 1987).
So when we talk about Daemonologie, we’re not talking about dusty theology. We’re talking about a blueprint of religious terrorism. A king wrote it. An empire enforced it. And its shadow still stretches into every courtroom, classroom, and church that views folk spirituality with suspicion. These are the people that like to show up on social media platform shouting and regurgitating from their spiritual leaders “Witchcraft!” and the same people that do not research the origin or etymology of anything.
Let’s break down Exodus 22:18
— “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”—
Across the King James Version (KJV), Jewish (Masoretic/Hebrew) texts, and the Ethiopian Bible (Geʽez/Orthodox Tewahedo).
1. King James Version (KJV) – English (1611)
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
— Exodus 22:18, KJV
• Term for “witch”: Broadly understood as anyone practicing supernatural arts.
• Interpretation: Historically used to persecute herbalists, women, and spiritual workers, regardless of whether harm was involved.
• Flaw: Overgeneralizes the term witch, applying it to any conjurer or spiritual practitioner.
Let’s Explore:
The English word “witch” originates from Old English and was first documented between the 9th and 10th centuries CE. The masculine form was “wicca” (pronounced witch-ah) and the feminine was “wicce” (pronounced witch-eh), both referring to individuals believed to use magic or sorcery (Harper, 2023; Hutton, 1999). These terms appear in early Anglo-Saxon legal codes, such as King Ælfred’s Law Code from the late 800s, which condemned “wiccan” practices alongside murder and poison (Pollington, 2003).
The roots of these words lie in Proto-Germanic—likely from wikkjaz or wikkōn, meaning “to bend” or “to twist”—implying one who could spiritually twist fate, reality, or hidden knowledge (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2023). Importantly, these early meanings did not carry inherently negative or satanic connotations. In pre-Christian cultures, these figures were often healers, midwives, or diviners (Hutton, 1999).
It wasn't until the Christianization of Europe that “witch” took on a darker meaning. By the 13th century, “witch” was associated with heresy, Devil-worship, and malevolent sorcery, especially after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum in 1487, which laid the groundwork for witch hunts across Europe (Levack, 2016). By the time of the King James Bible in 1611, the term “witch” had become fully weaponized to describe anyone suspected of spiritual power outside the Church’s control (Chireau, 2003; Norton, 2005).
The biblical verse Exodus 22:18, often translated in the KJV as “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” uses the Hebrew word mekhashephah (מְכַשֵּׁפָה), which more accurately means a poisoner or a malicious sorcerer—someone who harms others using manipulative spiritual or chemical methods (Keener, 2014; Heiser, 2015). The English word “witch” did not exist at the time the Hebrew text was written, and its use in translation represents a mistranslation heavily influenced by medieval fears, not biblical accuracy.
2. Jewish Masoretic Text (Hebrew)
לֹא תְחַיֶּ֖ה מְכַשֵּׁפָֽה׃
Lo teḥayyeh mekhashephah.
— Exodus 22:18, MT
• Literal translation: “Do not allow a mekhashephah to live.”
• Mekhashephah (מְכַשֵּׁפָה): Female sorcerer who uses manipulative, harmful, or poison-based magic (malefic magic).
• Context: This referred to intentional use of spiritual or chemical means to kill, curse, or dominate unjustly—not general spiritual practice, prophecy, or healing.
• Key Insight For You: Not all magic or conjure was condemned in ancient Israel—only destructive, controlling sorcery.
Talmudic commentary (Sanhedrin 67a) even discusses the distinction between illusion, deception, and true harm-based magic.
3. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible (Geʽez)
"ሐዋርያትን ወአማካሪያን አትምረግደው፤ እንተ ደግመኝ በማእዘኑ አምጻኝ እሙት።"
(Transliteration: hawaryatən wä’amakariyan atəmärgädäw... əmut.)
— Geʽez-based translation varies by manuscript; modern rendering:
“You shall not allow the sorceress, who misleads by craft, to live.”
• Meaning: Focused on deceivers and poisoners who lead others astray through magical trickery, often connected to idolatry or spiritual subversion.
• Cultural Lens: The Ethiopian tradition has long recognized holy magic (e.g., the use of Psalms, incantations, angelic seals), so this verse only targets those who manipulate or poison the spiritual order, not divine workers.
• Textual Context: Found in the Book of Exodus in Geʽez, and echoed in moral teachings—not generalized witch-hunts.
Side-by-Side Comparison Table
Translation Language Original Word Real Meaning Misuse in History
KJV (1611) English “Witch” Undefined, broad Used in witch hunts, including Salem
Masoretic (Jewish) Hebrew Mekhashephah A poisoner, harmful sorceress Narrow — only malefic magic condemned
Ethiopian Bible Geʽez Sorceress (varies) One who misleads or corrupts spiritually Never used to attack healers or seers
The Real Lesson:
All three traditions condemn malefic magic — the kind meant to deceive, poison, or kill — not spiritual work, healing, or conjuration done in divine alignment.
Hoodoo, rootwork, and African spiritual systems do not fall under this condemnation, because they were never built on deception or sorcery to harm without just cause. This verse was twisted by colonial powers and weaponized against Indigenous and African practitioners who were actually operating within spiritual law.
The King James Bible (1611)
The KJV was authorized in 1604 and completed in 1611. Its purposes were:
To unify warring religious factions
To replace the Geneva Bible, which had anti-monarchy footnotes
To sanctify James’s authority with majestic language
King James specifically ordered the translators of the 1611 Bible to base their work on the Bishop’s Bible, an earlier English translation aligned with the Church of England. His goal was not just theological clarity—it was political control. Unlike the Geneva Bible, which included marginal notes that questioned monarchy and supported resistance to tyranny, the Bishop’s Bible was devoid of such commentary. James strictly forbade any annotations that might undermine royal authority or embolden commoners to interpret scripture independently (Campbell, 2010). This ensured that the new Bible would reinforce divine-right kingship and silence reformist thought within sacred text.
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was first published in England in 1611 under the commission of King James I as an authorized version for the Church of England (Norton, 2005). While it was influential in England, it did not immediately become the dominant Bible in the American colonies.
Timeline of the KING JAMES BIBLE Arrival in the New World (What would be later called the united states:
1611 – The KJV is published in England.
1620 – The Pilgrims arrive on the Mayflower, landing in what is now Massachusetts. However, they primarily used the Geneva Bible, which had been popular among Puritans for its Calvinist annotations and anti-authoritarian commentary (Campbell, 2010).
1630s–1640s – The KJV begins gaining popularity in the colonies as the Church of England increases its influence, and the Geneva Bible falls out of print due to political and religious shifts in England (Noll, 2002).
By the early 1700s, the KJV becomes the dominant English Bible used in British America, especially as the Geneva Bible was no longer printed and was seen as politically subversive (Hill, 2003).
So as you see:
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was brought to the New World by English colonists in the early 1600s. Although first published in 1611, it arrived in America alongside European settlers, particularly Anglicans and Puritans, beginning around 1620 (Norton, 2005; Campbell, 2010). While many early colonists initially favored the Geneva Bible, the KJV eventually replaced it by the early 1700s, becoming the dominant Bible in churches, homes, and schools throughout the colonies (Hill, 2003).
The KJV was not the first sacred text to exist on this land—Indigenous peoples already here held rich spiritual traditions long before European arrival (Deloria, 2006). Likewise, Africans brought here in chains carried their own sacred cosmologies, ancestral laws, and oral scriptures rooted in West and Central African spiritual systems (Mbiti, 1990; Raboteau, 2004). Although the KJV was later weaponized to justify slavery, Black Americans reinterpreted it through Hoodoo Conjure, and resistance, transforming it into a tool of protection, justice, and spiritual power (Anderson, 2005; Chireau, 2003).
Rumors of Sexuality
King James I's intimate relationships with men—particularly Robert Carr and George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham—have long sparked historical debate. Surviving letters between James and these men are deeply affectionate, emotionally charged, and at times overtly romantic. In one letter to Villiers, James wrote, “I desire only to live in this world for your sake,” and signed another, “I am your own, James Rex” (Bergeron, 1999, p. 52; Young, 2000, p. 127).
Robert Carr, James’s earlier favorite, rose rapidly at court under the king’s patronage, prompting rumors even among contemporaries about the depth of their bond (Fraser, 1975). However, it was James’s relationship with George Villiers that drew the most attention and controversy. James publicly called him “my sweet child and wife,” and often referred to himself as Villiers’ “husband” in court correspondence (Bergeron, 1999). Their connection endured for nearly two decades, with Villiers wielding immense political influence.
Historians remain divided. Some argue these expressions reflected the language of courtly affection typical of the time, rooted in platonic ideals of male friendship within Renaissance and Jacobean culture (Willson, 1956; Crompton, 2003). Others assert that the emotional intensity, political elevation, and personal declarations of love between James and his favorites suggest genuine romantic or sexual relationships (Bergeron, 1999; Young, 2000; Cogswell, 1989).
Regardless of where one falls in the debate, these relationships complicate traditional portrayals of King James—particularly when considering that the King James Bible, a text later weaponized to condemn same-sex relationships, was commissioned by a monarch whose own private life defied such moral strictures (Chireau, 2003; Anderson, 2005).
King James was more loyal to the crown than he ever was to the church. Though crowned the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England,” his allegiance was not to spiritual truth or doctrinal purity—it was to political preservation. His moves were always strategic, aimed at unifying his kingdom through religious conformity. He saw theology as a tool of monarchy, not the other way around. His push for a single Bible—the King James Version—wasn’t born of divine calling. It was born from fear of revolt, fragmentation, and the influence of texts like the Geneva Bible, which dared to suggest that kings could be resisted (Nicolson, 2003; Sommerville, 1994).
James used scripture to legitimize monarchy, writing that kings are “not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods” (James I, as cited in Sommerville, 1994, p. 111). His entire doctrine of the divine right of kings made it clear: church existed to serve state, not the other way around.
Books Authored or Commissioned by King James
Daemonologie (1597)
Basilikon Doron (1599)
The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598)
Speech to Parliament (1609)
Translation Commission Documents for the KJV (1604–1611)
The Book of Sports (1618)
Each reinforced divine monarchy, crushed dissent, and shaped religious behavior (Sommerville, 1994).
What Was the KJV Bible Translated From?
Masoretic Text (7th–10th century A.D.)
The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew version of the Old Testament, finalized by Jewish scribes called the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. It standardized pronunciation, vowel markings, and marginal notes. While highly respected in Jewish tradition, it was not the oldest source—it came centuries after earlier Hebrew scrolls and differs significantly from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint (Metzger, 1981). The KJV translators relied on this version for the Old Testament, limiting access to more ancient interpretations preserved in Ethiopian or Greek texts.
2. Textus Receptus (1516)
Compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Catholic scholar during the Renaissance, the Textus Receptus was a printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Because he had only a few late Greek manuscripts, Erasmus back-translated missing sections from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, introducing textual distortions. The KJV’s New Testament was largely based on this version, despite its flaws. This means parts of the “original” KJV were not direct Greek-to-English translations—they were Latin interpretations reworded into Greek, then translated again into English (Metzger, 1981).
Latin Vulgate (382 A.D.)
The Vulgate was commissioned by Pope Damasus I and translated by Jerome, who aimed to unify scripture in the Latin-speaking Roman Empire. Though central to Catholic tradition, the Vulgate often interpreted Hebrew and Greek texts through a Roman lens, emphasizing order, sin, and Church hierarchy. Many of its choices reflect the theological views of Rome rather than the mysticism and oral traditions of earlier Hebrew texts. KJV translators occasionally compared Vulgate renderings when their Greek or Hebrew sources were weak.
Bishop’s Bible (1568)
The Bishop’s Bible was an English translation produced under the Church of England. It was designed to replace the Geneva Bible and align scripture with royal authority and Anglican doctrine. It was officially approved for use in churches, but it was clumsy in translation and inconsistent in tone. King James ordered KJV translators to use it as the base, but allowed them to revise it where needed—so long as they didn’t include any political footnotes or disruptive theology (Campbell, 2010).
Geneva Bible (1560)
The Geneva Bible was translated by English and Scottish Protestant exiles in Switzerland. It was beloved by the people for its clarity, accuracy, and extensive margin notes that explained scripture and criticized monarchs, promoting ideas of resistance and reform. James I banned it for undermining the divine right of kings. Despite its superior scholarship, its radical political tone made it unacceptable for use in the KJV project.
Most readers don’t realize that the sources behind the King James Bible weren’t ancient scrolls but later manuscripts, often altered and politically curated to support church authority and royal power. These versions, like the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, reflect safe theology—not original revelation (Metzger, 1981; Campbell, 2010).
Books Removed from the KJV (But Found in the Ethiopian Bible)
Jubilees
1 Enoch
1–3 Meqabyan (Not the Maccabees)
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Manasseh
Additions to Daniel (Susanna, Bel & the Dragon)
Additions to Esther
Shepherd of Hermas
1 Clement
Acts of Paul
Didascalia
These texts were removed because they were too mystical, too prophetic, or too anti-empire (Darkwah, 2003). Books like Enoch, Jubilees, 1–3 Meqabyan, and The Wisdom of Solomon contain visions of cosmic warfare, angelic rebellion, and divine justice that challenge earthly authority. These scriptures speak of fallen powers, secret knowledge, rootwork-level wisdom, and heavenly order that transcends—and often contradicts—the political systems of men.
Their messages directly undermine monarchy, colonial rule, and church-sanctioned oppression. For example, 1 Enoch exposes how angels taught humans sorcery, metallurgy, and herbal power—knowledge that empowers the people, not the pulpit. The Book of Jubilees rewrites history through a lens of divine cycles and justice, not Roman timelines. These weren’t harmless stories—they were dangerous to empire. They preserved Afro-Asiatic cosmology and spiritual law that couldn’t be controlled by European doctrine. So the church cut them—because they couldn’t contain them (Darkwah, 2003).
Name Changes in the KJV
Original Name KJV Changed To
Yeshua Jesus
Yohanan John
Kefa Peter
Ya'aqov James
Sha'ul Paul
Moshe Moses
Yesha'yahu Isaiah
Restoring the Name Is Restoring the Power: Why Anglicization Is Spiritual Theft
Changing names erases identity, lineage, and spiritual context (Gordon, 2005). When names like Yeshua become “Jesus,” or Moshe becomes “Moses,” the connection to the Afro-Asiatic world, Hebrew culture, and ancestral memory is severed. These were not just linguistic shifts—they were spiritual erasures designed to reframe sacred history through a European lens. Names carry frequency, authority, and meaning. In the Hebrew tradition, a name speaks to one's divine purpose and lineage.
When that is replaced with an Anglicized version, the power encoded in the original tongue is diluted or lost. This systematic renaming allowed Western translators to detach scripture from its original cultural roots, making it easier to whitewash Biblical narratives and present them as Western creations (Gordon, 2005). The result is a sanitized, empire-friendly version of sacred text that prioritizes colonial palatability over ancestral accuracy. Restoring original names is not cosmetic—it’s reparative spiritual justice.
Final Word on the KJV
The King James Bible is not a holy book of liberation. It is a crown-authorized remix of already-altered texts, filtered through colonizer theology, whitewashed names, and imperial goals.
The Ethiopian Bible: Where the Truth Was Preserved
Compiled: 4th Century A.D.
Language: Ge'ez
Books: 81–88
Church: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (never under Roman control)
Preservation Site: Abba Garima Monastery (Garima Gospels, c. 330–500 A.D.) (British Library, 2020)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is one of the oldest Christian institutions in the world, with roots that predate both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation. Its origins trace back to the 4th century A.D., when King Ezana of Aksum converted to Christianity after being taught by Frumentius, a Syrian Christian who was later appointed as the first bishop of Ethiopia by the Patriarch of Alexandria (Binns, 2016).
This placed the Ethiopian Church in early communion with the Coptic Church of Egypt, but never under Roman authority. Unlike Western Christianity, the Ethiopian Church developed independently, maintaining its own canon, liturgy, and spiritual worldview rooted in African tradition and Semitic culture. Its unique position—geographically and theologically—allowed it to preserve sacred texts, rituals, and cosmology untouched by the Roman Empire or later European colonial Christianity (Kaplan, 2007). It remains a Black-rooted, sovereign spiritual system.
Origins of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt
The Coptic Orthodox Church predates most European churches by at least 200 to 500 years. While the Coptic Church was founded between 42–62 A.D. through the evangelism of Apostle Mark in Alexandria (Meinardus, 2002), most major European Christian institutions—such as the Roman Catholic Church's formal papal structure or the Church of England—did not solidify until the 4th to 6th centuries A.D., following Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. and later political-religious reforms (González, 2010; Chadwick, 1993)
The church quickly became a major center of theological development, producing influential early Christian thinkers such as Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
It played a central role in the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and later broke away from Roman theological authority after the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), due to disputes over Christological doctrine (Wilkinson, 2015). This schism led to the Coptic Church developing its own independent tradition, liturgy, and leadership under the Patriarch of Alexandria, separate from both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox authorities.
Who was The Council of Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea, held in 325 A.D., was the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I to address rising theological disputes, especially the controversy around Arianism, which questioned the divinity of Jesus (González, 2010). The council brought together over 300 bishops, primarily from the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, including influential figures from Alexandria, such as Athanasius, who would later become central to the Coptic Orthodox tradition.
The goal was to establish doctrinal unity within the empire and solidify Christianity as a state-supported religion. This council produced the Nicene Creed, affirming that Christ was "of the same substance" (homoousios) as the Father—a direct rejection of Arian theology (Pelikan, 1971). The Coptic Church, through its Alexandrian delegation, played a vital theological and political role in this council, helping shape foundational Christian doctrine long before the rise of Roman Catholic authority.
They Classified and Defined Jesus
The Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) was primarily convened to define and classify who Jesus was in relation to God the Father, and in doing so, it set the theological foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity used by most Western churches today. This council didn't "name" Jesus in the personal sense—his name, Yeshua in Hebrew, had already been transliterated into Iesous in Greek—but it redefined his divine identity and nature through Greek philosophical language (González, 2010).
The core issue was Arianism, a doctrine taught by Arius, which claimed that Jesus was created by God and therefore not equal to Him. In response, the council declared that Jesus (the Son) was "homoousios"—of the same substance as the Father, not a lesser being (Pelikan, 1971). This was not a name change but a cosmic classification, elevating Jesus from prophet or messiah to divine co-equal, aligning with imperial theology and suppressing alternate views rooted in earlier Semitic traditions.
Roots in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
They adopted the "homoousios" doctrine (Homoousios is a Greek term meaning “of the same substance” or “same essence.” It was declared at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. to affirm that Jesus (the Son) is fully divine and of the same divine nature as God the Father, rejecting the idea that He was a created being (Arianism). This term became central to Trinitarian doctrine and solidified the imperial Church’s theological authority (González, 2010). ) Again, they declared Jesus as of the same substance as God the Father—because it served imperial unity, theological control, and political consolidation more than purely spiritual truth.
When Empire Wrote the Creed: How Constantine Used Doctrine to Rule Minds and Kingdoms
Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea, wasn’t primarily concerned with doctrine—he was concerned with stability. The Roman Empire was fragmenting, and religious division—particularly over Arianism vs. Trinitarianism—was threatening unity (González, 2010). By adopting the Trinitarian view, the council positioned Jesus as divine, eternal, and equal to the Father, which centralized religious authority and made imperial Christianity more absolute. It tied obedience to the state with obedience to a divine Christ figure. This alignment allowed Constantine to merge church and empire, using Christian doctrine as a political tool (Pelikan, 1971).
Additionally, adopting Greek philosophical terms like “homoousios” (which doesn’t exist in Hebrew texts) allowed theologians to frame Christianity in Hellenistic categories—making it more acceptable to Greco-Roman elites while severing it from its Semitic and Eastern origins.
So the adoption wasn’t just theological—it was strategic, imperial, and revisionist.
From Rome to England: How Constantine’s Empire Became King James’s Crown
Yes, King James was ideologically influenced by Constantine—though not directly, but through the enduring system Constantine created. Constantine laid the foundation for imperial Christianity by legalizing the faith, convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., and tying state power to divine authority, positioning the emperor as both political ruler and religious protector (Pelikan, 1971; González, 2010). King James inherited this model. As head of the Church of England, he asserted the divine right of kings in his own writings, declaring that resistance to monarchs was equal to resisting God (James VI, 1598). When he commissioned the King James Bible in 1604, he followed Constantine’s blueprint—removing politically disruptive commentary, mandating translation from church-approved texts like the Bishop’s Bible, and shaping scripture to reinforce monarchy (Campbell, 2010). Though separated by over a millennium, both men used Christianity as a political tool: to silence dissent, consolidate power, and spiritualize obedience to empire. Constantine built the first church-state fusion—James ruled within it.
Ge'ez Canon & Black Scribes
Ethiopian monks translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Ge'ez. They preserved books removed by Rome and hand-copied them in mountaintop monasteries.
These monks were:
Mystics
Calligraphers
Spiritual law keepers
They weren’t just scribes—they were guardians of ancestral truth.
The Monks Who Held the Line: Ethiopia’s Sacred Scribes of the Unaltered Word
The Ethiopian monks who translated scripture into Ge’ez were not biologically of Jesus’s bloodline, but they were unmistakably part of His spiritual house—linked to the Solomonic and Davidic lineage through sacred duty, preservation, and prophetic calling. According to the Kebra Nagast, Ethiopia’s royal chronicle, the Queen of Sheba bore Solomon a son, Menelik I, who carried the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia and established a royal line descending from King David—the same lineage into which Jesus was born (Budge, 1932).
The monks, often cloistered in mountaintop monasteries, preserved sacred texts outlawed by Rome—books like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Book of the Covenant—translating them from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the ancient liturgical language of Ge’ez. They were more than scribes. They were mystics, spiritual lawkeepers, and guardians of ancestral memory, living lives of fasting, prayer, and ritual transcription (Meinardus, 2002).
These men protected spiritual truths that Western empires erased, retaining unaltered lineages, original names, and Afro-Asiatic worldviews embedded in the sacred texts. In this way, they upheld the divine bloodline—not by DNA, but by duty—safeguarding the authority and authenticity of Jesus’s Hebraic ancestry through sacred stewardship (González, 2010).
How Did These Texts Get Added Into the Ge’ez Canon?
Direct Transmission from Early Judeo-Christian Sources
Ethiopia had direct ties to ancient Israel and Egypt—not through Rome, but through:
Trade routes
Jewish diasporas (Beta Israel)
The influence of the Coptic Church of Alexandria
This gave Ethiopian scribes access to:
Hebrew texts
Greek Christian writings
Early Christian oral traditions before they were edited or discarded by Rome (Kaplan, 2007; Binns, 2016).
Ethiopia maintained direct spiritual and cultural ties to ancient Israel and Egypt—not through Roman conquest, but through longstanding trade routes, shared religious heritage, and the enduring influence of the Coptic Church of Alexandria. These connections were further deepened by the presence of Jewish diasporas, particularly the Beta Israel community, which preserved Hebraic customs and scripture across centuries (Kaplan, 2007).
As a result, Ethiopian scribes had unique access to original Hebrew texts, Greek Christian writings, and early oral traditions of the Christian faith—long before these sources were edited, suppressed, or reinterpreted by the Roman Church (Binns, 2016). This geographic and cultural alignment rooted Ethiopia’s scriptural tradition in an Afro-Asiatic lineage, bypassing the European filter and preserving elements of Christianity in their most authentic and ancestral form.
Translated by Black Monks into Ge’ez (4th–6th century A.D.)
Once Christianity was adopted in the Kingdom of Aksum (modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea), Black monastic communities began translating sacred texts into Ge’ez, their liturgical language.
These scribes:
Worked from older scrolls coming through Alexandria and Jerusalem
Included texts rejected by the Roman councils, such as Enoch, Jubilees, Meqabyan, and Shepherd of Hermas
Preserved oral traditions that had roots in Afro-Asiatic cosmology and angelology
They were not under Roman authority, so they kept what was spiritually powerful, not politically convenient (Meinardus, 2002; Binns, 2016).
The Uncolonized Canon: How Black Monastics Preserved the Unfiltered Word
Once Christianity was adopted in the Kingdom of Aksum—in the region now known as Ethiopia and Eritrea—Black monastic communities began translating sacred texts into Ge’ez, their ancient liturgical language. These monks were not under Roman ecclesiastical control, which meant they preserved what was spiritually potent rather than politically approved. Working from older scrolls arriving through Alexandria and Jerusalem, these scribes included scriptures that Roman councils later rejected—such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Books of Meqabyan (not Maccabees), and the Shepherd of Hermas—texts rich with Afro-Asiatic cosmology, ancestral law, and angelology rooted in Eastern thought (Meinardus, 2002; Binns, 2016). These texts were not only handwritten but passed down through oral tradition
The Canon Was Built Through Liturgical (structured worship—like how a church or temple conducts its sacred rituals) Use, Not Political Councils
While Rome decided its canon in formal church councils, the Ethiopian canon grew organically—based on what was read in liturgy, used in prayers, and kept in monasteries.
If a text:
Reflected divine revelation
Matched the teachings of the apostles
Was spiritually effective in ritual, law, and prophecy
...then it stayed.
Books like 1 Enoch and Jubilees remained canon because they worked—they carried power, truth, and ancestral memory.
Guarded in Mountain Monasteries
From the highlands of Lalibela to the deserts of Axum, Ethiopian scribes:
Copied scripture by hand for over 1,500 years
Kept scrolls in stone churches and sacred caves
Created illuminated manuscripts with vibrant African iconography
This isolation protected the canon from:
Catholic erasure
Islamic conquest
Protestant editing
Even when Europe forgot these books, Ethiopia never did.
The Conjured Truth:
The Ge’ez Canon didn’t trickle down from Rome. It rose from the hands of Black scribes, rooted in a spiritual system that rejected empire and kept the power texts the world tried to erase.
They didn’t ask permission to keep Enoch or Jubilees.
They didn’t bow to church councils.
They preserved what Spirit said was sacred, not what kings said was safe.
Why I Use the Ethiopian Bible
Because it’s:
Older by over 1,200 years (compiled ~340 A.D. vs. KJV in 1611)
Complete and untouched by Rome or the British Crown
Rooted in Black hands, African soil, and spiritual fire
Filled with prophecy, angelic law, cosmic vision, and truth
This isn’t just about preference. This is about power, protection, and precision in rootwork. If you’re going to call spirits, you better not be using a book approved by the same empire that hunted them.
Key “Lost” Books of the Bible (117 Titles)
1. Deuterocanonical / Apocrypha (13–15 titles)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (4 Ezra)
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
2. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (~50 titles)
1 Enoch (The Book of Enoch)
2 Enoch (The Secrets of Enoch)
3 Enoch (Hebrew Enoch)
Jubilees
The Book of Giants
Animal Apocalypse
Epistle of Enoch (Apocalypse of Weeks)
Apocalypse of Abraham
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Jacob
Testament of Joseph
Testament of Judah
Testament of Reuben
Testament of Levi
Testament of Issachar
Testament of Zebulun
Testament of Dan
Testament of Naphtali
Testament of Gad
Testament of Asher
Testament of Benjamin
Apocryphon of Abraham
Sefer Yetzirah
Pseudo-Philo
4 Baruch (Paralipomena of Jeremiah)
Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
Book of Moses (Jewish apocalypse)
Letter of Aristeas
Psalm of Solomon
A Book of Jubilees
4 Ezra (distinct)
5–6 Ezra (Late Slavonic Ezra expansions)
Book of Noah
Ascension of Isaiah
Testaments of Moses & Aaron
... (and others)
3. New Testament Apocrypha / Pseudepigrapha (~40 titles)
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Mary Magdalene
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Judas
Secret Gospel of Mark
Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelion)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of the Birth of Mary
Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of the Savior
Gospel of Eve
Gospel of Matthias
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul & Thecla
Acts of Thomas
Acts of John
Acts of Andrew & Bartholomew
Acts of Peter & Paul
Acts of the Apostles (lost chapter)
Apocalypse of Peter
Apocalypse of Paul
Apocalypse of Thomas
Apocalypse of James (1 & 2)
Apocalypse of John Chrysostom
Shepherd of Hermas
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement (1 & 2)
Epistles of Ignatius (to Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans)
Martyrdom of Polycarp
Martyrdom of Ignatius
Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
Letter of Pilate to Herod
Letter of Herod to Pilate
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Paul)
Epistles of Seneca to Paul & vice versa
... (among many others)
4. Nag Hammadi Library & Gnostic Texts
Apocryphon of John
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of the Egyptians (Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit)
Gospel of Thomas (Nah Hammadi version)
Book of Thomas the Contender
Thunder, Perfect Mind
Apocryphon of James
First Apocalypse of James
Second Apocalypse of James
Apocryphon of John (short & long versions)
Eugnostos the Blessed
Sophia of Jesus Christ
Treatise on the Resurrection
Trimorphic Protennoia
Gospel of Mary
Dialogue of the Savior
Thought of Norea
Apocryphon of John (additional copy)
Melchizedek tractate
Paraphrase of Shem
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocalypse of Peter (Gnostic)
Book of Zostrianos
Teachings of Silvanus
Three Steles of Seth
Concept of Our Great Power
More information:
1. Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha (Approx. 13–15 books)
Who removed them?
Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, King James translators), followed by the British & Foreign Bible Society (early 19th century), removed these books—labeling them “useful but not authoritative” and dropping them entirely from most Protestant Bibles
They include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch (and Letter of Jeremiah), 1–2 Maccabees, 1–3 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Additions to Esther & Daniel, and Psalm 151.
2. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (~50 books, e.g., 1–3 Enoch, Jubilees, Testaments of Patriarchs)
Who removed them?
Rabbinic Judaism (1st–3rd century CE) excluded them because they contained angelic visions, cosmic lore, and Messianic prophecies seen as incompatible with Rabbinic control
Early Church Fathers and councils—such as at Gelasian Decree (495 CE)—formally produced lists of prohibited writings, including many pseudepigrapha
3. New Testament Apocrypha (~40 books, e.g., Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter; Acts of various apostles)
Who removed them?
Early Church Councils (e.g., Nicaea 325 CE, Carthage 397–419 CE) declared them heretical and “not to be received,” removing these apocryphal gospels and Acts from Christian canon .
Figures like Jerome and Augustine also rejected such works, guiding subsequent Protestant and Catholic canon closures.
4. Nag Hammadi Library / Gnostic Texts (~20+ books, e.g., Gospel of Truth, Thunder, Perfect Mind)
Who removed them?
Removed even earlier—Gnostic works were condemned by Church leaders such as Irenaeus and excluded as heresy by decisions like the Gelasian Decree, which explicitly banned Gnostic apocrypha
How It All Happened — Institutional Timeline
Era Authority Action
1st–3rd c. CE Rabbinic Judaism Excluded patriarchal/astral works (e.g., Enoch, Jubilees)
4th–5th c. CE Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea, Carthage) Defined New Testament canon, banned apocrypha/pseudepigrapha
495 CE Gelasian Decree Claimed Gnostic/apocryphal texts as “not to be received”
16th c. Protestant Reformers Removed Deuterocanonical books from the biblical canon
1820s Bible Societies Finally dropped Apocrypha from printed Protestant Bibles
Rabbinic Judaism removed most Old Testament pseudepigrapha in the early centuries.
Early Church Councils and Fathers eliminated NT apocrypha and Gnostic writings by the 5th century.
Protestant Reformers (16th century) officially dropped the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books.
Bible Societies in the 19th century completed the purge by ceasing to print them.
Why I Chose the Ethiopian Bible: A Return to the Unbroken Word
In conclusion, the reason why I use the Ethiopian Bible because it is uncolonized, uncut, and unfiltered. It was not shaped by Roman politics, whitewashed by imperial councils, or manipulated to serve kings and conquerors. The Ethiopian canon holds onto the books that Western Christianity threw away—books that speak of angels, lineages, cosmic law, divine rebellion, ancestral memory, and prophetic truth. This Bible was preserved by Black hands on African soil, passed down by monks who lived in silence, prayer, and spiritual guardianship—not for power, but for preservation. It includes voices that Rome silenced, cosmologies that Greece reworded, and revelations that empire feared. By returning to this source, I’m not just reading scripture—I’m reclaiming my ancestral authority, tapping into a spiritual current older than cathedrals and deeper than doctrine. I read the Ethiopian Bible because it speaks to me in my name, in my tongue, and in my power—not through chains, but through covenant.
Works Cited
Anderson, J. (2005). Conjure in African American society. Louisiana State University Press.
Barstow, A. L. (1994). Witchcraze: A new history of the European witch hunts. HarperOne.
Bergeron, D. M. (1999). King James and letters of homoerotic desire. University of Iowa Press.
Binns, J. (2016). The Orthodox Church of Ethiopia: A history. I.B. Tauris.
Budge, E. A. W. (1932). The Kebra Nagast: The Queen of Sheba and her only son Menyelek. Oxford University Press.
Campbell, G. (2010). Bible: The story of the King James Version 1611–2011. Oxford University Press.
Chadwick, H. (1993). The early church (Rev. ed.). Penguin Books.
Chireau, Y. P. (2003). Black magic: Religion and the African American conjuring tradition. University of California Press.
Cogswell, T. (1989). The blessed revolution: English politics and the coming of war, 1621–1624. Cambridge University Press.
Crompton, L. (2003). Homosexuality and civilization. Harvard University Press.
Darkwah, R. (2003). The missing books of the Bible: Why they were removed and where they are now. Goldleaf Press.
Deloria, V. (2006). The world we used to live in: Remembering the powers of the medicine men. Fulcrum Publishing.
Fraser, A. (1975). King James VI of Scotland, I of England. Knopf.
González, J. L. (2010). The story of Christianity: Volume 1 – The early church to the dawn of the Reformation (2nd ed.). HarperOne.
Gordon, C. (2005). Naming and power in sacred texts. African Diaspora Press.
Harper, D. (2023). Witch. In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/witch
Heiser, M. S. (2015). The unseen realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible. Lexham Press.
Hill, C. (2003). The English Bible and the seventeenth-century revolution. Penguin Books.
Hutton, R. (1999). The triumph of the moon: A history of modern pagan witchcraft. Oxford University Press.
Jackson, Y. (2021). Rootwork: Rituals, recipes, and remedies. Hay House.
Kaplan, S. (2007). Dominance and dialogue: Interactions in the Aksumite Empire. Lit Verlag.
Karlsen, C. F. (1987). The devil in the shape of a woman: Witchcraft in colonial New England. Vintage Books.
Keener, C. S. (2014). The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament. InterVarsity Press.
Levack, B. P. (2016). The witch-hunt in early modern Europe (4th ed.). Routledge.
McCloud, S. A. (2007). African American religion: Interpretive essays in history and culture. Routledge.
McGrath, A. (2002). In the beginning: The story of the King James Bible and how it changed a nation, a language, and a culture. Anchor Books.
Meinardus, O. F. A. (2002). Two thousand years of Coptic Christianity. American University in Cairo Press.
Metzger, B. M. (1981). The early versions of the New Testament: Their origin, transmission, and limitations. Oxford University Press.
Metzger, B. M. (1987). The canon of the New Testament: Its origin, development, and significance. Clarendon Press.
Nicolson, A. (2003). God’s secretaries: The making of the King James Bible. HarperCollins.
Noll, M. A. (2002). America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford University Press.
Norton, D. (2005). A textual history of the King James Bible. Cambridge University Press.
Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian tradition: A history of the development of doctrine (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
Pollington, S. (2003). Leechcraft: Early English charms, plantlore and healing. Anglo-Saxon Books.
Purkiss, D. (2005). The witch in history: Early modern and twentieth-century representations. Routledge.
Raboteau, A. J. (2004). Slave religion: The “invisible institution” in the antebellum South (Updated ed.). Oxford University Press.
Sommerville, J. P. (1994). King James VI and I: Political writings. Cambridge University Press.
Starhawk. (1979). The spiral dance: A rebirth of the ancient religion of the Great Goddess. HarperOne.
Wilkinson, J. (2015). The Bible and the holy places. Oxford University Press.
Willson, D. H. (1956). King James VI and I. Jonathan Cape.
Young, M. B. (2000). King James and the history of homosexuality. Haworth Press.