Introduction: Georgia and the Bible—A Unique Linguistic and Textual Heritage

The Georgian version of the New Testament holds a significant, though often underappreciated, place in the field of New Testament textual criticism. Georgia, known in antiquity as Iberia, is geographically situated between the Black and Caspian Seas, north of Armenia. Its language, Georgian, belongs to the Kartvelian family, bearing no linguistic ties to Semitic, Indo-European, or Ural-Altaic languages. Yet, despite this linguistic isolation, the Georgian Church developed a rich biblical manuscript tradition, aided by early Christian evangelization efforts and close textual relationships with other Christian traditions—particularly Syriac, Armenian, and Greek.

Christianity likely entered Georgia in the mid-fourth century C.E., possibly through the ministry of a woman named Nino, traditionally believed to have converted the royal family. This early introduction to the faith led to a robust Christian culture, and by the fifth century, the need for a Bible in the native language led to translation work. The creation of a Georgian alphabet—attributed to the Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots or his followers—facilitated this process. From these beginnings arose a textual tradition that would span over 1,500 years and leave an indelible mark on the history of the New Testament’s transmission.

The Origins and Development of the Georgian Biblical Text

Although the precise origins of the Georgian version are debated, it is generally accepted that at least portions of the New Testament—particularly the Gospels—were available in Georgian by the mid-fifth century C.E. The earliest extant manuscripts date to the ninth and tenth centuries, but palimpsests and inscriptions confirm that a written translation was in circulation much earlier. Georgian paleography divides the scriptural tradition into three major scripts: ecclesiastical majuscule (asomtavruli), ecclesiastical minuscule (nuskhuri), and a cursive script known as mkhedruli, which forms the basis for modern Georgian.

One of the earliest and most important witnesses to the Georgian New Testament is the Adish manuscript (897 C.E.), containing the Gospels. This codex represents the earliest continuous-text Gospel manuscript in the Georgian tradition and was used as the base for Robert P. Blake’s critical editions of the Gospels. Subsequent work by Akaki Shanidze, Ivane Džavaxishvili, and others has shown that the Adish text is but one of several ancient recensions. In fact, by the fifth century, two distinct Gospel text types were already in circulation in Georgian, revealing a complex early history of textual development.

Source Traditions: Armenian, Syriac, and Greek Influences

A significant issue in Georgian textual studies is the identification of source texts. The Georgian version’s linguistic features, translation patterns, and textual variants suggest influence from Armenian and Syriac sources. Indeed, some early Gospel readings in Georgian are demonstrably mistranslations of Armenian constructions, indicating that the initial translation may have been made from Armenian rather than directly from Greek.

However, this Armenian version itself was not linguistically independent. The Armenian New Testament bears marks of Syriac influence, particularly in its early layers. Therefore, it is likely that the Georgian version inherited elements from both the Armenian and Syriac traditions. This does not mean, however, that Greek played no role. Greek influence is evident in later revisions and particularly in the version of Revelation, which derives directly from the Greek commentary tradition of Andreas of Caesarea. In short, the Georgian version reflects a layered textual history: initial translation likely from Armenian (itself influenced by Syriac), followed by later corrections and revisions to align with Greek exemplars.

Manuscript Traditions and Critical Editions

Textual work on the Georgian version has been carried out primarily by Georgian scholars and Western textual critics like Robert Blake, Maurice Brière, J. Neville Birdsall, and others. Blake’s early 20th-century editions of the Gospels were based on the Adish MS and two additional manuscripts—those of Opiza and Tbetʾ. These were followed by Brière’s critical work, especially on the Gospel of Luke, and Molitor’s extensive Latin calques and glossaries.

The Acts of the Apostles has been critically edited twice: once by Ilia Abuladze (based on Georgian MSS), and once by Gérard Garitte (based on Sinai MSS). These two editions reveal different textual traditions, with the Sinai MSS preserving a unique recension not present in Georgia itself. Similarly, the Catholic epistles, edited by K’etevan Lortkipanidze, show distinct textual features between Georgian and Sinai manuscripts.

The Book of Revelation was translated into Georgian later than the rest of the New Testament. The translator was Euthymius the Athonite, working from Andreas’s sixth-century Greek commentary. This version is notable for its textual fidelity to the Greek text family known as “f” (including MSS 051, 2023, and others). Some Georgian MSS of Revelation date to the tenth century, making them critical witnesses to the Andreas commentary tradition.

The Pauline epistles were edited by K’orneli Danelia following the death of K. Dzocenidze, who began the project. This edition used 13 MSS, including texts from Georgia, Sinai, and Mount Athos. The edition revealed the use of the Euthalian apparatus in the oldest Georgian Pauline texts, a feature aligned with Greek manuscript 015 and other Byzantine sources. Interestingly, interpolations from the Euthalian marginalia entered the biblical text itself in Hebrews 11:33–38.

Textual Value and Theological Significance

The Georgian New Testament, while often labeled a “secondary version,” holds considerable value for textual criticism. The early Georgian Gospels display harmonistic tendencies similar to the Diatessaron, but scholars have shown that many of these readings align more closely with known Greek variants—especially from the Western and Caesarean text types—than with Tatian’s harmony. For instance, the Adish MS and related witnesses often share readings with Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, the Koridethi Gospels, and even Armenian texts.

The Pauline epistles also demonstrate textual affiliations with early Greek witnesses such as 𝔓46 and the Western bilinguals. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the Georgian version avoids the problematic term “the god of this world,” substituting a more theologically palatable reading, reminiscent of interpretive traditions found in Irenaeus and Tertullian. These interpretive renderings suggest that the Georgian translators were not mechanical copyists but active theologians seeking clarity and orthodoxy.

The Acts and Catholic epistles show textual relationships with the Syriac and Armenian traditions, especially through connections to authors like Ephrem and Eznik. Geographic names and translation patterns confirm that these traditions developed in parallel rather than sequentially.

Lectionary Texts and Homiletic Usage

Although continuous-text manuscripts have been the primary focus of scholarly editions, the lectionary tradition in Georgian remains underexplored. A lectionary pericope in the Adish MS (Mark 14:33–37a) shows harmonization with Matthew, indicative of an independent lectionary textual tradition. Lectionaries from Sinai and Paris suggest that unique lectionary forms of the Georgian Gospel text may yet be discovered, much as distinct lectionary texts exist in Greek, Latin, and Syriac traditions.

Quotations in Georgian homilies, such as those found in the Sinai mravalt’avi, show shifting textual affiliations from one homily to another. These reflect multiple textual strata and indicate that quotations preserve older forms of the text—sometimes older than the continuous MSS.

The Future of Georgian Textual Studies

The Georgian New Testament has been edited in its entirety. Continuous-text manuscripts have been published, and many MSS cataloged. However, work remains to be done. The lectionary texts are largely unedited and may yield distinctive readings. Quotations in Georgian patristic and liturgical literature are also ripe for analysis. These could provide further insight into the textual history and interpretive practices of Georgian Christianity.

A future project of great value would be the collation of all homiletic quotations and lectionary pericopes to establish whether they preserve older textual forms or reflect harmonistic tendencies unique to the Georgian Church. The use of the Euthalian apparatus, the presence of marginal commentary, and the alternation of early recensions within single manuscripts suggest a vibrant and theologically engaged community of scribes and scholars.

Conclusion: A Surrogate Witness to Lost Textual Traditions

The Georgian version of the New Testament is a treasure of immense significance. Though often classified as secondary due to its translation from Armenian or Syriac, it nevertheless offers a unique textual witness to forms of the Greek text now lost. It preserves readings found in Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, Armenian, and Syriac traditions, yet also aligns at times with Alexandrian and Byzantine Greek witnesses. Its complex transmission history, theological refinement, and literary sophistication make it indispensable in reconstructing the earliest attainable text of the New Testament.

The Georgian New Testament should not be dismissed as a mere derivative of other traditions. Instead, it must be regarded as a composite witness—at times independent, at times harmonistic, but always anchored in the Christian communities that cherished, copied, and preserved the Scriptures for over fifteen centuries.

You May Also Enjoy

Does the Abundance of Manuscript Variants Undermine the Reliability of the New Testament Text?

About the Author