The Historical Context of Christianity and Bible Translation in Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s connection with the Christian faith reaches back to early centuries of the Common Era, illuminating the backdrop for the Ethiopic versions of the New Testament. Acts 8:26–39 relates the account of an Ethiopian official who encountered Philip and accepted Christ, leading many to surmise that this conversion facilitated the first sparks of Christian faith in the Horn of Africa. The scriptural narrative, though succinct, leaves open the broader question of how Christianity advanced throughout the region’s interior.

Later historical sources, such as Rufinus’s “Ecclesiastical History” (1.9), refer to two young men, Frumentius and Ædesius, who preached the message of Jesus in Aksum, the Ethiopian capital, around 330 C.E. This date coincides with the reign of Constantine the Great. Allegedly, the royal family embraced the faith and supported broader evangelization efforts. Subsequent archaeological and numismatic data confirm that Christianity took root in Aksum around the fourth century, but the precise details remain only partially documented.

By the end of the sixth century, visitors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes could describe Ethiopia as a thoroughly Christian land. This development was propelled by Christian rulers willing to protect believers. Ethiopia’s relative geographic isolation, combined with pressures on persecuted believers in other parts of the world, allowed many refugees, including Monophysites from Syria and Egypt, to migrate there. These faithful immigrants, among them monks and hermits, contributed to the spread of Christianity in Ethiopia’s northern territory by founding monasteries, refining the liturgy, and producing revered translations of sacred writings.

Such circumstances help explain the impetus for rendering the Scriptures into Geʿez, the classical language of Ethiopia. As in other regions where Greek had a foothold through commerce or diplomacy, not all inhabitants had sufficient fluency to rely solely on Greek manuscripts. Teachers wishing to disciple local believers recognized the need for them to hear the Word of God in a language they understood. Early missionaries and monastic figures hence channeled significant effort into producing an Ethiopic version of biblical writings. The timeline for this venture falls between the fifth and sixth centuries, overlapping with the era when numerous monastic communities thrived. Although local traditions link the project to the so-called Nine Saints—pious monks from abroad—substantial textual evidence for that direct connection is tenuous. Still, the fruit of missionary fervor was tangible: a complete Ethiopic Bible, which contained an Old Testament based on the Greek Septuagint and a New Testament that likewise drew from a Greek Vorlage.

This impetus to produce a Coptic or Syriac version of Scripture mirrors the desire to provide the Bible for everyday believers. However, the history in Ethiopia stands out due to the kingdom’s isolation from many controversies roiling in the Roman world. Ethiopia did not follow every new doctrinal or liturgical trend emerging in the Greek-speaking churches. Over the years, local scribes conformed many foreign words to fit Geʿez, employing Semitic loanwords for some religious terms and adopting biblical names in ways reminiscent of older Aramaic traditions. These scribes were keen to maintain clarity, ensuring that the text made sense to people with a predominantly Semitic speech pattern.

Political connections to Alexandria also shaped Ethiopia’s ecclesiastical leadership: the Ethiopian Church for centuries relied on the Egyptian patriarch for episcopal appointments. That relationship seems to have supported a mostly Greek textual influence on Ethiopian translations, in contrast with other African versions such as the Old Latin or the lesser-known Nubian versions. Even so, evidence suggests that some translators or scribes had partial exposure to Syriac or Arabic Bibles. These secondary sources occasionally introduced variants or expansions into the Ethiopic manuscripts, which then circulated widely within monastic libraries or traveled with itinerant missionaries. Over generations, scribal endeavors accumulated layers of revision, producing an intriguing textual mosaic in Geʿez.

Textual Characteristics and Varied Revisions in the Ethiopic New Testament

The Ethiopic versions are not the product of a single unified translation effort. Rather, they reflect a centuries-long process, starting in the fifth or perhaps the late fourth century, and continuing until well after the medieval era. While some partial translations of certain Gospels or Pauline Epistles might have existed in an earlier form, the fullest canon emerged when Ethiopian Christianity was firmly established. The scribes who undertook this project had to handle Greek manuscripts, and they likely had to innovate in Geʿez’s grammatical structures to render the Greek ideas.

One might think that the best measure of the Ethiopic text’s original quality is found in the earliest surviving Ethiopic manuscripts; however, a gap often exists between the time of translation and the date of the oldest extant copies. In the Ethiopian tradition, the earliest physical witnesses to the New Testament date mainly from around the fourteenth century. For the Gospels, a few manuscripts from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries exist, such as a handful in the Abbâ Garimâ collection. Researchers identify them with labels like ms. 1 and ms. 2, or ms. 12 if stored in the Vatican. Yet the version’s actual roots reach back several centuries before these codices were penned. If scribes had already introduced conflations or doublets in the interim, the original translation’s distinctives may be partially blurred.

From the vantage of textual history, scholars have often spoken of multiple “layers” or “types” in the Ethiopic New Testament. The earliest stratum is sometimes labeled the Versio Antiqua or “A text,” believed to reflect the base translation from Greek. Later scribes, desiring to refine or correct perceived mistakes in the A text, generated a “B text,” frequently aligning the text more literally with Greek forms or adding clarifications reminiscent of Arabic or Aramaic usage. A third “C text” emerges in the fifteenth century or later, characterized by conflation of the A text and B text, plus expansions drawn from parallel passages or from local exegetical traditions. Additional layers of revision appear in still later centuries, particularly from the seventeenth onward, when more extensive reliance on Arabic biblical sources is evident.

The Gospel of Matthew offers a detailed example of how these textual strands interact. Early manuscripts containing the “A text” might read certain verses with paraphrastic freedom, aiming to be idiomatic in Geʿez. Another set, the “B text,” reads the same verses in a more literal manner, clearly indicating a translator with a closer eye on the Greek syntax or word order. Where the “C text” emerges, scribes conflate these older variants, producing repetitious phrases such as “and he said … while saying,” or else duplicating a single Greek phrase in two different Ethiopic synonyms. Over time, individual codices might adopt still further expansions from Arabic sources, especially if a local scribe believed that the Arabic reading was more “accurate” or theologically sound.

A hallmark of these Ethiopic versions is their tendency toward harmonization. Whenever the translator or a later reviser saw a potential discrepancy, they might smooth it out by borrowing the vocabulary of a similar passage. The phenomenon appears in parallel accounts within the Synoptic Gospels and in quotations from the Old Testament. For instance, if Matthew’s rendering of a scriptural quotation differs from a known version in Mark or Luke, the Ethiopic copyist may rework Matthew’s text to align with Mark’s or Luke’s phrasing. Alternatively, a scribe might unify the introduction to a saying of Jesus across all Gospels, using one standard formula. The net effect is that the resulting text fails to discriminate carefully among subtle differences that might have existed in the Greek original.

Another Ethiopic peculiarity arises from the language’s tendency to insert object pronouns or subject clarifications. For example, if the Greek text states, “He spoke,” an Ethiopic translator might specify the subject or object: “He said to them,” even if no pronoun appears in the Greek. Conversely, a literal Greek phrase might be recast in a more fluid Geʿez idiom, eliminating the opportunity to confirm a minor textual variation. John’s Gospel, for instance, features elliptical sentences in Greek, but the Ethiopic text frequently rewrites these to clarify meaning, overshadowing differences like word order or the presence of small linking particles.

The question arises whether the earliest Ethiopic scribes might have consulted sources other than Greek—such as Syriac or Coptic. While pockets of scholars once favored a Syriac hypothesis, the textual pattern in extant Ethiopic manuscripts strongly indicates a Greek base. Occasional parallels with Western or Alexandrian textual variants do not necessarily prove a route via Syriac or Coptic, since Greek manuscripts in Egypt could themselves exhibit those readings. Moreover, the transliterations of proper names reflect direct assimilation from Greek forms rather than from a Coptic or Syriac bridge. Over time, the textual fluidity in Ethiopia allowed for scattered infiltration from Arabic, especially in subsequent centuries, but not for a fundamental non-Greek origin.

Significance for Reconstructing the Early Greek Text and Future Directions

Although the Ethiopic versions present complexities, they offer textual critics an indirect window into forms of the Greek text that circulated between the fourth and sixth centuries. Ethiopia’s Christian community originated around 330 C.E. (the date linked to Frumentius) and grew vigorously for the next two centuries. If scribes in Aksum or other centers had Greek manuscripts from Alexandria or from traveling missionaries, the Ethiopic translation can mirror variants that were live in that era, variants that might not have survived in Greek manuscripts now extant. Over the past century, papyrological discoveries have redrawn the textual map, revealing that the early Greek tradition was far less monolithic than once presumed. Versions like the Ethiopic might confirm or challenge certain readings that also appear in a handful of Greek papyri. When the Ethiopic text sides with older Egyptian witnesses (such as Codex Vaticanus, P66, or P75) against the mainstream Byzantine tradition, textual critics might discern a continuous thread passing from Greek exemplars in Alexandria through Ethiopia.

For instance, in John 1:18, the Ethiopic “A text” tradition supports the reading “only God,” matching important Alexandrian witnesses. In John 7:53–8:11, the earliest Ethiopic tradition omits the pericope of the adulteress, again aligning with older Alexandrian or “strict” text manuscripts. The later Ethiopic manuscripts frequently incorporate the story from Arabic sources or from a conflated copying process, illustrating the organic growth of the textual tradition. One sees a similar phenomenon in Mark’s shorter ending (16:8) or the expansions in Mark 16:9–20. In older Ethiopic manuscripts, the so-called shorter ending might be absent or unmarked, whereas in later ones, expansions pop up.

Because the earliest Ethiopic texts date centuries after the initial translation, caution is essential. Even if the original translator in the fifth century had a Greek text resembling Codex B or P66, repeated copying through centuries might incorporate local expansions, rendering the text less purely Alexandrian. Some short segments in the best Ethiopic witnesses reflect “Western” expansions or Byzantine forms. For example, Mark 6:38 has a well-known Western reading that surfaces in certain Ethiopic manuscripts. Determining whether this reading was part of the earliest Ethiopic translation or introduced in a later revision calls for meticulous collation of all available manuscripts.

In the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles, the textual affiliation can differ from that in the Gospels. As scribes confronted the complexities of Pauline theology, they might have gravitated toward literal forms that mirror one branch of Greek manuscripts more than others. The Book of Revelation adds a further layer of complexity. Since Revelation was read less often liturgically, it might have undergone fewer expansions or conflations but might have had an idiosyncratic route of transmission in Ethiopia.

A second reason the Ethiopic versions matter is their link to monastic exegesis. Many Ethiopian monks annotated their codices with short glosses or clarifications. Although these margin notes can hamper purely textual analysis, they provide glimpses into how local exegetical traditions understood ambiguous lines. A Greek textual variant might have been explained in a certain way, influencing scribes to incorporate a clarifying phrase into the main text. Over centuries, these clarifications can become part of the official reading. For textual critics, separating such expansions from genuine original readings becomes a fine art, requiring cross-checking with early manuscripts in all dialect families.

While historically overshadowed by the Syriac and Latin versions, the Ethiopic corpus is undergoing renewed scholarly attention, made possible by microfilm collections at institutions like the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library (HMML) in Minnesota. These vast resources contain numerous early Ethiopian biblical manuscripts, some from the fourteenth century or older. Digital imaging and careful cataloging are spurring fresh critical editions, as exemplified by recent efforts on the Catholic Epistles, Revelation, and the Synoptic Gospels. The analysis shows that one cannot treat “Ethiopic” as a single homogeneous version. Instead, “A,” “B,” “C,” and subsequent layers reflect various revisions, each with its own distinctive approach to paraphrase, literalness, or conflation.

Such progress on the Ethiopic side intersects with research on Arabic translations that circulated in Ethiopia. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some monasteries had bilingual or trilingual environments, where Arabic sources exerted influence on local scribes. Distinguishing Arabic-based corrections from purely Greek-based ones allows textual critics to chart how much the Ethiopic tradition owes to near-eastern Arabic expansions. This meticulous process can highlight the earliest recoverable Greek reading behind the “A text,” the probable “first layer” of the Ethiopic tradition.

Critics who use the Ethiopic for direct textual reconstruction of the Greek must remain vigilant about certain characteristic pitfalls. The Ethiopic language demands frequent insertion of pronouns, making it risky to claim that the presence or absence of a pronoun in the Geʿez text automatically equates to the same in Greek. Word order shifts or conjunction additions often reflect nothing more than Ethiopian stylistic preferences. Harmonizing expansions, especially within the Gospels, can obscure small distinctions present in the Greek. A single Ethiopic phrase might correspond to two or more potential Greek expressions. Any final argument for a particular reading must consider these linguistic tendencies.

Nonetheless, once these caveats are internalized, the Ethiopic versions hold real promise. They form part of the puzzle that includes the Coptic, Old Latin, and Syriac versions in illuminating the textual circulation of the Greek New Testament during pivotal centuries. Where Ethiopic readings align with strong Alexandrian witnesses against the tide of the Byzantine tradition, they can help confirm an early existence for certain variants, supporting the notion that these variants are not later scribal inventions. Conversely, when the Ethiopic strongly supports a reading also known in the Greek Majority text, critics might weigh whether that reading indeed stands on older tradition or if it represents a simplification or harmonization introduced by Ethiopic scribes.

Looking forward, the continued critical editing of Ethiopic manuscripts is indispensable. The Gospel of Mark has seen a significant modern critical edition, while Matthew, Luke, and John remain partially in progress. The Acts of the Apostles, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation also need thorough re-evaluation to unify older analyses with newly discovered manuscripts. Moreover, deeper inquiry into the textual transitions from the “A text” to the “B text” could clarify whether these transitions reflect immediate “second translations” or progressive corrections over decades. The mention of the Lalibalâ MS as an early attempt to revise the base text suggests that local scribes may have had direct contact with Greek manuscripts or with well-attested Arabic references. If textual critics succeed in mapping these processes, the Ethiopic tradition could become more systematically accessible, bridging the gap between purely Greek-based reconstructions and the vantage of a significant African Christian center.

Ethiopia’s Christian communities, shaped by their own monastic traditions and remote from the main lines of Roman-Byzantine ecclesiastical conflicts, represent a distinct environment in which the Word of God took deep root. As Isaiah 55:11 assures believers that Jehovah’s word does not return empty, the Ethiopic versions testify to how Scripture found a ready audience, crossing linguistic boundaries into a culturally and politically independent kingdom. Although the textual path grew complex over time, the abiding presence of the biblical text in Geʿez underscores the value placed on spiritual truth among Ethiopia’s faithful. By untangling these textual strands, modern scholars can piece together not only the historical course of Ethiopian Christianity but also key details about the Greek New Testament’s transmission.

You May Also Enjoy

What Can the Coptic Versions of the New Testament Reveal About the Early Greek Text?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION