How does the Book of Enoch in Ge'ez differ from the pseudepigrapha known in Western scholarship?

1. What advocates claimed about differences — direct claims pulled from the record that matter to readers

Scholarly summaries assert several key claims: the Ge'ez Book of Enoch reflects both Aramaic Dead Sea fragments and Greek traditions, so it is not a lone, isolated witness; Ethiopic manuscripts are not uniform and have been over-divided into groups whose relative value has been misjudged; and the Parables section’s original language remains uncertain, complicating attempts to trace origins solely to Aramaic or Greek ^{[1] [4] [2]}. These claims imply that the Ge'ez corpus must be treated as a textual tradition formed by editors and translators rather than a single faithful copy of a lost original. The record also claims that some long-standing reconstructions, such as reliance on Syncellus’ text, need revision because of evidence from new editions and manuscript comparisons ^{[4] [2]}. This cluster of claims reframes Enoch studies away from a simple West-to-East transmission narrative.

2. The language and transmission story that shifts how we compare East and West

Recent analyses emphasize that the Book of Enoch likely had an Aramaic compositional phase, confirmed by Qumran fragments that align with Ethiopic and Greek readings in most sections except astronomical material, which diverges ^{[2] [4]}. Editors argue translators who produced Ge'ez Enoch likely worked from both Greek and Aramaic exemplars, producing a composite Ethiopic tradition rather than a direct, literal rendering from one source ^{[2] [1]}. This matters because Western reconstructions that privilege Aramaic fragments as direct ancestors of all later versions risk oversimplifying a complex multi-stage transmission. The Ge'ez text therefore embodies editorial choices and variant harmonizations, and its form must be read as the product of layered transmission, translation technique, and local canonical use.

3. Manuscript evidence and reliability: why Ethiopic cannot be treated monolithically

Detailed manuscript comparisons show Ethiopic witnesses come in multiple groups and show substantial internal variation, meaning a single “Ge'ez Enoch” does not exist in practice ^{[5] [4]}. Some authoritative editions—most notably Michael A. Knibb’s 1978 work and later new editions that incorporate Rylands Ethiopic MS 23 and Qumran data—provide critical apparatuses and point out that emphasis on certain Ethiopic witnesses (Eth I) was exaggerated ^[1]. Digital collation efforts underline that differences affect both wording and larger structural elements across chapters 1–108. Consequently, claims that the Ge'ez text is inherently more “reliable” than Aramaic or Greek witnesses must be tempered: Ethiopic is often better preserved in places, but also subject to later editorial layering and translation mediation ^{[6] [4]}.

4. Canonical use in Ethiopia versus Western scholarly status — divergent receptions that shape interpretation

A critical difference is reception: the Ge'ez Book of Enoch is integrated into Ethiopian Orthodox tradition and read within a canonical horizon, whereas Western scholarship treats Enoch as pseudepigraphal and noncanonical, relying on fragmentary finds and comparative reconstruction ^{[3] [6]}. This divergent reception shapes textual decisions: liturgical or doctrinal usage in Ethiopia favors transmission continuity and local interpretive stability, while Western reconstruction prioritizes earliest recoverable readings and historical-critical risk assessment. The interplay of religious authority and scholarly reconstruction explains why translations and commentaries produced in different contexts can emphasize different readings and why quotation evidence, such as Jude’s dependence on Enoch, is interpreted variably across scholarly traditions ^[3].

5. Editions, corrections, and why recent scholarship changes the scoreboard

New critical editions that collate Rylands Ethiopic MS 23, Qumran Aramaic fragments, and Greek variants have shifted judgments about textual primacy and error correction; editors now correct previous assumptions about Syncellus and re-evaluate the value of manuscript groupings ^{[1] [2]}. The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha project treats the Ethiopic text as comparatively stable in specific books like the Book of the Watchers and Parables, while noting that Aramaic and Greek fragments need careful proofreading and correction ^[6]. These editorial efforts demonstrate that textual authority is dynamic—as new collations appear, scholarly confidence in particular witnesses rises or falls, and the narrative that Western pseudepigrapha are uniformly superior to Ge'ez evidence is undermined.

6. Open problems, contested judgments, and what scholars still need to settle

Despite progress, central uncertainties remain: the original language of the Parables, the precise editorial steps that produced the Ethiopic composite, and the degree to which liturgical reception shaped textual stabilization are still debated ^{[4] [2]}. Different projects prioritize different aims—some aim for reconstructing an archetype, others for documenting the living Ethiopic tradition—and these institutional choices produce divergent conclusions about what “differences” matter most ^{[1] [6]}. For readers and scholars, the takeaway is that comparing Ge'ez Enoch to Western pseudepigrapha requires simultaneous attention to textual variants, transmission pathways, and reception histories rather than a single linear genealogy ^{[5] [3]}.