Abnormal Interests

The whole box is pictured below.

This is a closeup of the inscription.

The only thing that matters when it comes to determining the authenticity of the inscription is the chemistry of the patina in and, to a lesser extent, around the inscription. Nothing else is of importance. And because the current Israeli Government's position as stated in the forgery indictment is that only the words "brother of Jesus" are forged, the patina, if any, in that part of the inscription is what's important. Is this patina old and the result of aging or recent. If the patina is the old and the result of aging, the inscription is old (it may be an ancient forgery, but that is another question). If the patina is recent, it is a modern forgery; case closed. The problem is that the inscription area around it was treated in recent times. The Israeli geologists Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon who studied it most recently say (here I rely on Hershel Shanks, the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review who is not without his own prejudices),

...the inscription coating ... is the result of an effort to conceal a modern forgery or from a modern cleaning of the inscription. [Vol. 31, No.2 , p. 61].

Goren and Avaner maintain that the inscription or at least the last part of it is a fake. Their detailed analysis has not been published.

The ossuary was first on public display at the Royal Ontario Museum and here is what they say in support of the authenticity of the ossuary,

There is evidence to support that the James ossuary is authentic. Biblical scholars and scientists have spent several months studying the ossuary. Testing by the Geological Survey of Israel confirms that the limestone is from the Jerusalem area, quarried in the first and second century CE. Microscopic analysis matched the surface patina (a film of chemicals which forms on stone over time) to the patina in the grooves of the inscription. This indicates that the ossuary and the inscription are the same age. The patina did not contain any modern elements and is consistent with cave burial. There were no signs of modern tool marks.

Now, who are the scientists referred to by the Royal Ontario Museum? They are, again according to Shanks, Geological Survey of Israel geologists, Ammon Rosenfeld and Shimon Hani and Royal Ontario Museum curator Edward Keall. They still maintain that the inscription is authentic and that Goren and Avaner's work is flawed. The legal process involving Oden Golan and others who are accused of forgery and a few other crimes further complicates all this.

Is all or part of the inscription a forgery? I don't know. If I had to guess on penalty of death, I would guess that it is a forgery. The truth of the matter may never be known. Hershel Shanks is calling for a new independent analysis. One can read more of the controversy at the Biblical Archaeology Review web site.

Does it matter?

In one way, it matters. In another, it does not! It certainly matters to the Israeli prosecutors and even more to the accused. It matters to those, such as Eric Myers and others, who want to stop the publication and use of unprovenanced antiquities. It matters to the antiquity market. They require some level of public trust. It matters to private collectors who have spent their money buying antiquities. It matters to Hershel Shanks who wants to continue to fund his magazine partially from antiquity dealer's ads. And because it matters to some of these people, it should matter to us.

On the other hand, if one is looking to prove something about Jesus or the Bible, it doesn't matter at all. Only the most doctrinaire negativists deny the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in the first century CE; who was an apoplectic preacher and exorcist and who was executed by the Romans. None of this is in serious doubt. If the inscription is authentic, it contributes very little, if anything, to this assessment of Jesus. It contributes absolutely nothing to the real question. Was there something special about Jesus or was just one of many first century preachers and exorcists? In Christian theological terms, was he the Christ or the Messiah? No artifact can address that question and therefore, the James ossuary, authentic or not, does not address that question.