The latest triumphalistic article by BAR's editor, Hershel Shanks, puzzles me. "Vindicated" is a strong word, especially considering that it is used inappropriately. So, here, I'm using "verdict". A preliminary remark: on his magazine, Shanks has never given voice to dissenters. And among Bible scholars, historians and archaeologists they are the vast majority. These people have been systematically silenced and their scholarly opinions omitted. Thus, BAR has always presented just one side of the controversy: a tiny fraction of academics who wrote that the inscription could be genuine. BAR's readers, probably, are convinced that there's a consensus among scholars: the James ossuary is authentic. However, the reality is completely different. This has been a very partial and partisan way of presenting the results on the James ossuary, and it can be better understood by BAR’s silence on the ‘CBS 60 Minutes’ report.

The verdict on the James ossuary and on its inscription doesn't need either a judge nor a trial. It can easily be based on six main points:

1. 1) controlled excavation
   

2. 2) paleographic evidence
   

3. 3) inscription
   

4. 4) location and traditions on James' tomb
   

5. 5) patina
   

6. 6) Mr. Forger
   

So, let's take a closer look at these points.

1) The ossuary comes from a private collection and it was bought from an Arab dealer; it's usually very hard to evaluate an ancient artifact if it doesn't come from a controlled excavation. In my career, I've been studying and I've taken into consideration also relics whose provenance was unknown. This is surely an aspect to evaluate carefully and, under such circumstances, nobody can say for sure that a relic is genuine even if the evidence would suggest it. Moreover, it sounds a bit strange that Golan had kept the ossuary in his house for about 25 years and then, suddenly, realized that it could have been an interesting object. If your job is dealing with antiquities, it doesn't take you 25 - I say 25 - years to see that you have an inscribed and potentially interesting ossuary.

2) Shanks says that the paleography evidence is absolutely convincing. Really? The Writing Commitee appointed by the IAA was composed of excellent scholars such as Hagai Misgav, Avigdor Horowitz, Esther Eshel - and external consultants L. Rahmani and Y. Naveh. They concluded that inscription appeared to be not authentic, and it was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).

3) I've already written on this point. Many Bible scholars have been debating on the correctness of אחויד. You don't need to search for a similar expression in Second Temple texts. No, the forger simply opened Rahmani's catalogue and carved on the ossuary the only surviving

inscription with «brother of». As I wrote, I think the fraudster took from this book his holy inspiration.

4) This point has been forgotten by all debaters, but it's quite relevant. What about the Christian tradition on James' tomb and burial? As for Jesus’ tomb - the Holy Sepulchre - first Christians preserved very good oral traditions. And, beyond tradition, relics were invented and forged starting from the IV century. The place of James’ burial was venerated and remembered in early Christianity. Eusebius preserves to a grave-marker or monument to James. Jerome does it in his seemingly more precise variation on the tradition “His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian’s reign” (Vir. ill. 2). First pilgrims to Jerusalem noticed different places and relics connected to James: his house, his throne when he was bishop, his tomb, and Theodosius writes that James’ bones were venerated in the Kedron Valley tomb. No evidence or memory of an ossuary.

5) Shanks writes in his article that Yuval Goren admitted that the patina on the word Jesus was ancient. Since I had never heard anything like this, I wrote to Yuval and asked him if it was true:

1. No, I did not admit there was patina in the word "Jesus", There is patina in the lower line of the letter "Ain" in the word, which most likely results from the fact that this line existed there before the inscription was engraved and it was used by the forger to create the letter. Please compare the letter Ain in the word "Ya'akov" to the last letter of the word "Yeshua" (Jesus) and you'll be able to see that while in the first, the standing right line and the horizontal line were made as one stroke, in the word "Yeshua" they are made of two.
   

6. 6)Faking antiquities is an art. There have been hundreds of relics displayed in museums and university libraries that have been proven to be hoaxes. Even great scientists and historians can be fooled (if you haven't, you should read this). In this controversy, CBS '60 Minutes’ journalists - which Shanks and BAR shamefully missed to mention - found an Egyptian guy who admitted to have forged antiquities for Golan. As Ha'retz reported some months ago:
   

1. And yet, today, three years after the start of the trial, after more than 70 witnesses for the prosecution have taken the stand, and the defense has started to present its arguments, the state prosecutor's office and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which initiated the indictment, face a problem: Marco Samah Shoukri Ghatas, the Egyptian artist who confessed to manufacturing many items for Golan, including the Jehoash inscription, will not be coming to Israel to testify.
   

Further:

1. Ganor describes the connection between Golan and Marco Ghatas as a close and ongoing one: "This is a relationship that went on for 15 years. At certain times, Marco lived in Oded's home. Marco had an Israeli girlfriend, who testified at the trial, and described his actions. Among the items found in Golan's possession were also crates with various items, on some of which Marco's signature appeared."
   

Thus, does paleoagraphy or patina stuff really matter?