Major Development on the James Ossuary Authenticity Lawsuit
I have it from good sources in Israel that last week in court folowing the cross examination by Oded Golan’s Attorney Mr. Bringer, Prof. Yuval Goren admitted that there is genuine ancient patina in at least two letters in the name “Joshua” (Jesus) on the ossuary inscription, which would indicate that the inscription is genuine. I have not seen this in news reports or other published sources yet but I am told that Hershel Shanks, president of The Biblical Archaeology Society was present, and has also mentioned this at a gathering at the Albright in Jerusalem, so I am sure we will get a detailed report from him soon on the BAS Web site.
While no one disputes the autheticity of the ossuary itself, the full inscription, which reads: “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (Yaaqov bar Josef brother of Yeshua) has been questioned. Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary is on trial for forgery based on the findings of the Israel Antiquities Authority that the last part, “brother of Jesus” was added to the original inscription “James son of Joseph,” to increase its value. Prof. Yuval Goren has been the most outspoken in maintaining that the inscription was forged and has given detailed lectures at professional meetings suggesting the ways in which the “patina” added to the recently cut letters was “doctored” to appear old. It now appears that in court he has admitted that “original patina” is in fact in those letters making up the phrase “brother of Jesus,” which had actually been reported earlier but largely ignored.
These developments are quite important since the public has been told that the real “experts” have proven that the “James ossuary is a forgery,” and those of us who have maintained that the case for authenticity is a strong one, or at least one that should be given careful consideration in this “rush to judgment,” have been roundly criticised for “sensationalism.” If indeed the weight of evidence ends up supporting authenticity then the next obvious question as to the provenance of the ossuary becomes all the more interesting as I have indicated in my two previous posts on this Blog.
More to come…I hope.