How do the Garima Gospels compare textually to Greek and Syriac Gospel manuscripts?

1. Dating and physical provenance set the stage

Controlled radiocarbon samples taken from Garima 2 and Garima 1 at Oxford produced calibrated ranges placing Garima 2 roughly 390–570 CE and Garima 1 roughly 530–660 CE, making them contemporaneous with late‑antique Aksum and older than some famous Syriac manuscripts such as the illustrated Rabbula Gospels (dated to 586), which elevates their importance for reconstructing early Gospel transmission into Ethiopia ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Language: Geʽez as a translation, not an original text

Every major summary and exhibition of the manuscripts treats the Garima volumes as Geʽez translations of the four canonical Gospels rather than independent autographs, with the Ethiopic version long understood to have been rendered from Greek exemplars—even for the Old Testament—and thus to function as a versional witness rather than an original Greek witness ^{[2] [6] [4]}.

3. Textual character: an early Byzantine (Greek) flavour

Textual analysis by specialists such as Rochus Zuurmond finds that, when later 13th‑century corrections are stripped away, the Garima texts display readings characteristic of an early Byzantine text‑type; in the Gospel of John many Garima readings diverge from the later Majority Text and in roughly half sampled cases oppose the Majority reading, indicating a Byzantine family variant that is not simply identical to the medieval Majority Text ^[1].

4. The Syriac‑influence debate: intermediary or collaborator?

Popular and older accounts posited a Syriac route for the Ethiopic Gospels, and some art and liturgical affinities point to Syriac Christian culture, but recent scholarship cited in the sources argues the translation base is Greek rather than Syriac and that supposed Syrian origins of the Nine Saints are now largely questioned; alternative positions still exist in secondary literature that posit Syriac intermediaries or mixed pathways, so the Syriac influence cannot be entirely dismissed but is no longer the dominant interpretive baseline ^{[1] [5] [7]}.

5. Palaeography and iconography point east and south as well as west

Art‑historical work—compiled in the McKenzie/Watson volume and noted by Mercier—links the Garima illuminations and canon table designs to a broad late‑antique Eastern Mediterranean visual world including Coptic/Egyptian, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian models, while some scholars emphasize Egyptian/Coptic affinities more strongly than a simple Syrian derivation, implying cultural transmission networks rather than a single textual source ^{[8] [1] [9]}.

6. What the Garima witness contributes to New Testament textual criticism

Because they are both early and complete, the Garima Gospels provide a rare early non‑Greek text that reflects Greek textual traditions (notably an early Byzantine form) and thereby enriches the comparative apparatus for variants—examples include their testimony on endings and readings in John and Mark—and they help reconstruct the Axumite archetype of Ethiopic Gospels that underlies later Ethiopian manuscript families ^{[4] [10] [11]}.

7. Limits, revisions and open questions

Caveats are central: later editorial layers—especially a substantial 13th‑century revision that regularized Greek word order and terminology—complicate efforts to retrovert an exact Greek Vorlage from the Garima A‑text, and some claims (for instance, the precise role of Syriac intermediates or the exact Greek manuscripts used as Vorlage) remain debated or under‑documented in the cited sources, meaning definitive statements beyond “Greek-based with complex regional influences” exceed current published consensus ^{[1] [4] [5]}.