Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the linguistic differences between the Ge'ez language and the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament?
Executive summary
The Geʽez Old Testament (the Orit) is an ancient Ethiopic translation that scholars say was produced largely from Greek (the Septuagint) though some passages may reflect Hebrew Vorlage or Beta Israel Hebrew traditions; Geʽez translation activity dates back to at least the 6th century and produced an Ethiopic Bible with many books not identical in scope to the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint canons [1] [2] [3]. Major linguistic differences therefore reflect: (a) Geʽez is an Ethio‑Semitic language sharing some grammatical features with Hebrew (e.g., proclitic/inseparable prepositions), (b) many Geʽez biblical texts appear to come through Greek (Septuagint) wording and arrangement, and (c) there is scholarly debate and some claims that parts of the Orit derive directly from Hebrew rather than from Greek [1] [3] [4].
1. Why the question matters: different source‑languages change meaning
Comparing Geʽez with “original” Hebrew and Greek matters because translation lineage affects wording, order, and theological inflection: translations based on the Greek Septuagint often preserve Greek sentence structure and interpretive choices, while translations from Hebrew follow Semitic idiom and a different textual tradition — and the Ethiopic tradition has historically drawn on the Septuagint for many books [5] [1] [3].
2. Geʽez’s linguistic family and shared Semitic traits
Geʽez is an Ethio‑Semitic language (related but not identical to Northwest Semitic languages like Hebrew), so it shares grammatical features with Hebrew such as similar prepositional patterns (proclitic/inseparable prepositions) and Semitic morphology; this makes some Hebraic concepts translatable more naturally into Geʽez than into Greek, but Geʽez still differs in phonology, morphology, and syntactic norms from Biblical Hebrew [1].
3. The Septuagint pathway: many Geʽez biblical texts are Greek-mediated
Scholars and reference works note that much of the early Aksumite translation enterprise translated Christian literature from Greek into Geʽez; Wikipedia and other overviews report that almost all transmitted Aksumite religious texts were translated from Greek, and that the Ethiopic Bible’s corpus grew from that activity — implying Greek influence on vocabulary, book order, and textual variants in the Geʽez Orit [1] [5].
4. Evidence for Hebrew influence or direct Hebrew Vorlage
Not all scholars or traditions agree that the Geʽez Orit is exclusively Greek‑derived. Some studies and community traditions (notably within Beta Israel scholarship) argue that parts of the Orit show linguistic features best explained by a Hebrew source or an independent Hebraic transmission, and one analysis explicitly asserts that “parts of the Orit may have been translated directly from Hebrew rather than Greek” [4]. Available sources do not mention exhaustive linguistic proofs here, only that the question is debated [4].
5. Textual scope and canon differences that affect comparison
The Ethiopic Bible resulting from Geʽez translations includes a different set of books (Wikipedia notes an Ethiopic canon of 81 books: 46 Old Testament and 35 New Testament) — this canonical difference changes which texts are compared and how translation choices were made, since some books circulated in Geʽez that do not match the Hebrew Masoretic Canon [1] [2].
6. Practical linguistic consequences: vocabulary, syntax, and interpretive shifts
Because many Geʽez translations trace to Greek, you should expect Greek loan‑structure or Hellenistic syntactic calques in Geʽez renderings of the Old Testament where the Septuagint diverges from the Hebrew. Where Geʽez reflects Hebrew directly, Semitic idioms and morphological parallels (e.g., prepositional behavior) will be stronger. Interpreters therefore find passages where English translations that follow the Septuagint agree more with Geʽez renderings than those following the Hebrew Masoretic Text [5] [1] [3].
7. Scholarly tools and openness of the question
Textual criticism relies on comparing Hebrew (Masoretic), Greek (Septuagint), and ancient translations; resources exist (interlinears, concordances) for Hebrew/Greek study and similar critical editions for Geʽez have been produced, but the literature shows ongoing debate about exact source relations for particular books and verses [6] [2] [3]. Claims that the Ethiopic Orit is wholly Hebrew‑derived are put forward in some community or non‑peer literature, but mainstream summaries emphasize strong Greek influence with some contested Hebrew traces [4] [1] [5].
8. What these sources do not settle
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, verse‑by‑verse linguistic comparison here; they report the overarching facts that Geʽez is Ethio‑Semitic, much of the corpus was translated from Greek (Septuagint), and there are claims and some evidence that portions of the Orit may reflect Hebrew antecedents [1] [3] [4]. For detailed lexical, morphological, or syntactic contrasts you will need specific critical editions and comparative studies cited above [6] [2].
If you want, I can pull together a short list of specific passages where Geʽez aligns more with the Septuagint or with Hebrew (e.g., known Septuagint/Masoretic divergences) using these sources and available critical editions.