Ossuary (Burial Box) Discovered in 2002

1. Ossuary (Burial Box) Discovered in 2002

2. Close-up photo of inscription Light and black background with transliteration underneath (Aramaic, like Hebrew is read right-to-left)

3. James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus

4. TIME magazine, Nov. 4, 2004 “Geological Survey of Israel … scientists determined that it was made of a limestone quarried intensively from the Mount Scopus ridge (which includes the Bible's Mount of Olives) in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. and that the cauliflower-shaped structure of its patina--a mineral sheen that develops with age--indicated that it had spent centuries in a cave. Citing the absence of any modern chemicals or telltale disruptions in the patina and any marks in the stone by modern tools, they confirmed its antiquity and ruled out forgery. Independent scholars have almost unanimously accepted their judgment …

5. TIME magazine, Nov. 4, 2004 “Jews in Jerusalem … used ossuaries only from roughly 20 B.C. to A.D. 70. The style of the inscription conforms to the same period. Moreover, Lemaire, one of whose specialties is Aramaic writing, contends that three characters written in cursive, a script developed only around A.D. 25, date the box to within 40 years of James' death in A.D. 62. With the exception of his countryman Emile Puech … other epigraphers, working from photographs, have agreed … he points out that any mention of a brother on an ossuary was extremely rare and speculates that when it occurred it may have been because that brother was "known" in his own right …

6. Update from just last month (4-1-2009) Since 2003, prosecutors in Israel have been trying to argue in court that the inscription is a modern forgery (thus far unsuccessfully). Robert Deutch, one of the world’s leading experts on Semitic inscriptions, while on trial “produced evidence that refuted several of the prosecution’s charges against him, as well as evidence that the artifacts in question are indeed genuine. The case against Deutch and Golan has been steadily unraveling since last October [2008], when the presiding judge advised the prosecution to consider dropping the case, pointing out that they have thus far failed to prove that the artifacts in question are fakes. Matthew Kalman reports on the latest development in the forgery trial for the Jerusalem Post.” – Ben Witherington

7. Update from just last month (4-1-2009) Wikipedia article: “a proof of forgery is not given by the experts nominated by the IAA … The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, saying “the ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several paleographic experts argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel.”