Who doesn't love ancient manuscripts? And an Indiana-Jones like story following the discovery of one makes it all the better. "Authorities in northern Cyprus believe they have found an ancient version of the Bible written in Syriac, a dialect of the native language of Jesus" (Ktisti and Bahceli Reuters’ article). This manuscript was apparently found in a Turkish Cypriot police raid on suspected antiquity smugglers—not quite Indiana Jones, but SWAT-like stories are almost as good.

As a bit of background: I use to work with ancient manuscripts and I know Syriac, so I was immediately interested in this discovery. But, a few things Ktisti and Bahceli said in their Reuters’ article about the discovery struck me as quite odd:

"The manuscript carries excerpts of the Bible written in gold lettering on vellum and loosely strung together." First of all, Gold lettering, to my knowledge, was not used in manuscripts until the sixth century (e.g., Codex Sinopensis, a sixth century AD manuscript held in Paris; Codex Zuricensis, a seventh century AD manuscript held in Zurich). Even the fact that the manuscript is strung together (unless this was done later) shows that it cannot be older than the fourth century AD when manuscripts transitioned from being written on scrolls to books.

"One page carries a drawing of a tree, and another eight lines of Syriac script." Biblical illumination (i.e., drawings in Bibles) did not emerge until the fifth century (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus, a fifth century manuscript held in London).

"Experts said the use of gold lettering on the manuscript was likely to date it later than 2,000 years." I don't know who these experts are, but based on statements like that, I certainly don't want them working on any manuscript project I am a part of—maybe the experts are the police in this instance. I don’t know about you, but my local law enforcement knows a great deal about antiquities, and are always sure to date any discovery they find; there is no need for good scholarship when they come across an ancient manuscript.

Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House at the University of Cambridge, hit the nail on the head when he said, "I'd suspect that it is most likely to be less than 1,000 years old." At least the article from Reuters included this quote. Based purely on the photo, I can say right now that this manuscript cannot be more than 1,400 years old (and I would tend to lean towards the direction of Peter Williams and say it is likely only 1,000 years old). Of course, if we want to radically re-define everything we know about ancient manuscripts, and trust the local law enforcement that it dates to the time of Jesus, that will work as well.

So, does this manuscript show us something about Jesus? Not anymore than what I know about the founding fathers of America. Actually it probably tells us even less than that, since the earliest it could have been copied was 600 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Plus, it was copied in a different language than Jesus spoke—he spoke Aramaic, not Syriac  (Matt 27:45). Not to mention that the New Testament is written in Greek—meaning that Jesus’ words have already been translated once by the time we receive them. To try and back translate them into Syriac and then compare them with a Syriac manuscript (if it includes the New Testament) will show us very little. Plus, if the manuscript only contains the Old Testament it will likely not show us anymore than we already know—Jesus (as quoted in the Greek New Testament) didn’t quote from Syriac translations, and rarely (if ever) quoted from Aramaic translations.

Maybe the Turkish police officers quoted in this story should focus more on tracking down other crooked antiquity dealers, and less on publicity hypes. And maybe certain news reporters should be more careful about how they construct their hooks and ledes, before they go making crazy claims about a newly discovered Bible being tied to Jesus. Nice try Reuters, but we aren’t convinced.