Scholars, Journalists and the Ossuary

This summer saw a sad chapter unfold in the story of “the Ossuary of James.” Events disappointed not only those who had hoped this artifact might be authenticated, but everyone who wants to see public scholarship in the field of religion pursued at an appropriate standard (...) The story of this piece as told by its owner and its apologists has been baroque since the first day. Now it has become sordid. There is no more reason to pre-judge a legal matter than there was to pre-judge the question of authenticity before the necessary data were in. But for the time being, “the Ossuary of James” can no more feature in discussion of the New Testament than the skull of “Piltdown Man” can be cited in a course on human evolution (...) Major organizations for reporting news have left a huge misimpression in the minds of the majority of their readers and viewers. Would they do the same if a politician they had backed was shown to have lied about his qualifications? Why is it acceptable to let suspect information stand in regard to religion, but not politics? This is where I am especially disappointed: the fourth estate still tends to treat religion as a matter of whatever people feel like believing (...) I am disappointed most of all by the silence of religions organizations - and of professional societies dedicated to the study of the New Testament. Could they find no words to protest the ethical and scholarly and journalistic sloppiness involved in this fiasco? The Society of Biblical Literature sponsored discussions about the ossuary that claimed its authenticity, but never took a stand. The Royal Ontario Museum has prevaricated over the findings of the Israel Antiquities Authority, evidently embarrassed by its own haste in the embracing the genuineness of the piece. Only the Antiquities Authority seems to have done its job.

By Bruce Chilton, Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion Bard College 

Bible and Interpretation - September 2003

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_Scholars.htm

Ossuary Update: Israel Antiquities Authority’s Report Deeply Flawed

The israel antiquities authority (IAA) recently formed a committee to decide whether the James ossuary inscription and the Yehoash (or Jehoash) inscription are authentic or forgeries. I readily acknowledge the difficulty of the committee’s task. I also acknowledge the quality of the research and publications by my colleagues, some of whom I have known for decades. I therefore hesitate to comment on the work of the IAA committee, but its conclusions, announced at a widely publicized press conference, are at variance with my own conclusions regarding the inscription on the James ossuary. (I shall not address the question of the Yehoash inscription.) If I kept silent, people would think that I am convinced by the IAA committee or that I simply do not want to take into account their position—which is not the case. Therefore I have no choice but to critically assess the committee’s work. After all, that is what the committee members presumably did with my own research into the ossuary inscription—although there is not a single mention of my findings by any of the committee members.

André Lemaire termina assim o seu artigo: For all these reasons, I’m afraid little confidence can be placed in the IAA’s conclusion on the ossuary.

By André Lemaire - Biblical Archaeology Review - November/December 2003

The Debate Continues

The two purported ancient inscriptions that have made headlines over the past year will be the focus of a scholarly panel discussion at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), to be held this year in Atlanta. The session is organized by the Biblical Archaeology Society, the publisher of BAR. The details:

Inscriptions from the Antiquities Market: The James Ossuary Inscription and the Jehoash Inscription—Where Matters Stand
Sunday, November 23, 2003
9:00 am-11:30 am
Hilton Atlanta Hotel, Salon D
Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Society, presiding

I. Introduction Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Society (10 min)

II: Is the Jehoash Inscription a Forgery? (30 min)
Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
“Not Proven Philologically”

Edward L. Greenstein, Tel Aviv University:
“It’s a Forgery”

III. The James Ossuary Inscription (40 min)
André Lemaire, Sorbonne:
“Assessing the IAA Report on the Ossuary Inscription”

P. Kyle McCarter, The Johns Hopkins University:
“The James Ossuary Inscription and the Limits of Paleographic Science”

IV. Looking at the Scientific Evidence (30 min)
Richard Newman, Boston Museum of Fine Arts; and James Harrell, Secretary/Treasurer of ASMOSIA (Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity) and Professor of Geology, University of Toledo:
“Isotopes and All That”

V. Looking at the Alleged Forger (10 min)
Oded Golan, antiquities collector and alleged forger:
“How I Acquired the James Ossuary and Gained Possession of the Jehoash Inscription”

VI. Discussion (30 min)
Hershel Shanks will also give a talk on “The James Ossuary—Where Matters Stand” at the annual meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at the Atlanta Hilton Hotel.

Biblical Archaeology Review - November/December 2003

Indications that the "Brother of Jesus" Inscription is a Forgery

(...) In order to explore the epigraphic indications that the "brother of Jesus" portion of the inscription is a modern forgery added on to an authentic ancient inscription, it is necessary to engage in a far more detailed discussion of the actual shapes of all twenty letters of the inscription than has previously occurred (...) In the case of the ossuary in question, differences are stark between letter shapes of the original eleven letter inscription and the letter shapes of the nine letter addition. Upon careful comparison it becomes obvious that the person who formed the letters of the original Yakov bar Yosef portion of the inscription was not the same person who created the letters identified by Lemaire as ahui d'Yeshua or "brother of Jesus."

N.B.: Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick's essay, "Indications that the "Brother of Jesus" Inscription is a Forgery," was an early scholarly analysis of the so-called James ossuary inscription, written within a few months of the Ossuary's announcement to the world. Dr. Chadwick first submitted the essay for publication to Hershel Shanks' magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review. Although the magazine turned down the essay, Mr. Shanks argued against it in his book The Brother of Jesus, which he co-wrote with Dr. Ben Witherington III. Dr. Chadwick's essay has never been released to the public, so Bible and Interpretation offers it to the world here for the first time.

By Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Ph.D. - Associate Professor of Church History - 
Brigham Young University 
Bible and Interpretation - November 2003

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm

Well-known Israeli Archeologist Casts More Doubt on Authenticity of James Ossuary

Ossuary spotted in dealer's shop lacking the “brother of Jesus” element of the inscription.

In an interview with me in Atlanta at the ASOR/SBL meetings and in subsequent communications, a prominent Israeli archaeologist admitted seeing the so-called James Ossuary in an Antiquities shop on the Via Dolorosa in the mid-1990s. At first blush, this might not seem to be too earthshaking a revelation except for two things. Firstly, Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary and dealer of antiquities who has been implicated in an alleged forgery scheme involving the ossuary and other artifacts including the Jehoash inscription, has maintained that he had possession of the ossuary since he was a youngster, ca. 1977-78, and was therefore in compliance with Israeli antiquities law, which changed subsequent to that time. Secondly, this well-known archaeologist who insists on anonymity has told me that at the time he saw the ossuary it lacked the “brother of Jesus” element of the inscription. This individual also informed me that he made a sworn deposition with this information with the Israeli police in August 2003 and has been surprised that it has not yet become public in the ongoing investigation of the matter (...) The archaeologist is certain that the ossuary is one and the same as the one whose authenticity is being debated in the press today. Moreover, in talking this over with a noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher in Jerusalem, that person admitted to seeing the very same ossuary in the same dealer’s shop without the element “brother of Jesus.” His visit to the shop was around the same time, the mid-1990s. As an interesting postscript to this story, the dealer’s shop has recently closed and the one-time owner of the ossuary has since moved to Europe.

By Eric Meyers, Professor of Judaic Studies Duke University, Department of Religion
Bible and Interpretation - January 2004

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Meyers_More Doubt.htm

THE STORY THUS FAR…

A Review Essay of The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family, Hershel Shanks & Ben Witherington III, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 2003.

Published [by Bible and Interpretation] with the permission of The Polish Journal of Biblical Research (vol. 2, no. 2). 2003

(...) The Brother of Jesus is not a scholarly analysis for experts but a popularized account for the general public. The book focuses on two questions, dealt with in two sections, each written by a different author. In his section, Mr. Shanks describes the ossuary and its inscription, as well as its discovery, identification and early publicization, and addresses the question of whether it is real or fake. In his part of the book, Professor Witherington discusses who James was, asking regularly what the ossuary adds to our knowledge of him. Indeed, this work appears to be two books in one, with the two sections having been composed without reference to each other. I will therefore review them separately (...) The story’s drama begins with the revelation of the damage incurred by the ossuary during its shipment to the Royal Ontario Museum (known as the ROM). It then jumps back to the inscription’s discovery, decipherment, and initial publication by Professor André Lemaire of the Sorbonne in Paris, and to Shanks’ checking of the geological characteristics of the stone box. This is followed by the press announcement, its international coverage, and the arrangements for the Discovery Channel documentary. After this, Shanks returns to the events at the Royal Ontario Museum, the ossuary’s presentation to the scholarly world, and its early examination by selected experts in the field. Shanks’ section concludes by introducing the ossuary’s owner, Oded Golan, and discussing various rumors that had surfaced in the first few months after the announcement of the ossuary. Interspersed within this story are discussions of the possible relationships between James and Jesus (accompanied by helpful genealogical charts), debates with scholars critical of the ossuary’s identification, statistical analyses of names in ancient Israel, and helpful introductions to paleography and ossilegium (the practice of burial in stone ossuaries). Unfortunately, little new information appears here that would help the reader judge the key question of whether the ossuary is real or not. There is no advance beyond Lemaire’s essay, published six months earlier, which announced the ossuary and its inscription to the world. No doubt about it, Hershel Shanks tells a great story. But do his story, evidence, and arguments demonstrate that this ossuary and its inscription were those of James the brother of Jesus Christ? Even setting aside, for the moment, the IAA’s determination, I think not. To understand why, we must resist the temptation to reduce this question to the binary opposition of, is this the ossuary of James Jesus’ brother or is it a forgery? Instead, there are four general possibilities for the ossuary’s identification. First, it could be what Shanks and Lemaire claim it is, namely, the ossuary was created for James the brother of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial. Second, it could be real—i.e., both box and inscription were created in antiquity for someone named James—but that person was not James the brother of Jesus Christ. Third, it could be an ancient forgery; someone—perhaps a pious monk who wished to attract pilgrims to his shrine—created a fake in antiquity by adding the inscription (in whole or in part), most likely in the fourth or fifth century when increasing numbers of pilgrims were traveling to the Holy Land. Fourth, it could be a modern forgery (...) We come now to the second section of the book, that composed by Ben Witherington. The contrast with the first section is quite striking. Witherington is a New Testament scholar with an international reputation as a solid and careful worker. He has published over a dozen books on aspects of the New Testament, including the gospels, Paul’s letters, and Acts. Whereas Hershel Shanks is a master of excited and breathless rhetoric, Professor Witherington creates prose that is smooth and elegant. Witherington’s section of the book consists of an introduction and eight chapters, taking up slightly more than half the volume. Each chapter is well-organized and well-written. In tone and content, he has taken great care to write for the book’s intended audience, which is seen as the interested lay person. The main question Witherington addresses is: Who was James, the brother of Jesus? (...) Witherington is clearly an excellent writer. He adheres consistently to the level of discussion he has decided upon. He writes interestingly and confidently, bringing his audience along through enticing prose and engaging rhetoric. His discussion by and large sticks to the scholarly mainstream. He is familiar with the scholarly work on James and readily acknowledges his dependence on it through footnotes and appreciations. One must be careful to realize, however, that Witherington speaks with more certitude than other scholars. As part of the way he addresses his audience, Witherington often leaves out scholarly debates about various points and just states a position. This is most evident in dating. Witherington, for instance, assigns the Letter of James to the year 52 CE, without any discussion of why that date and not some other. Witherington’s main innovation is to incorporate the ossuary as evidence into the analysis of James’ life. Taking as a given that the ossuary contained the remains of James the brother of Jesus--without even an argument for that assumption--Witherington brings it into the discussion of several issues, including burial practices, James’ relationship to his family vs. the Christian movement, and so on. Unfortunately, given the inability of the ossuary to bear the weight of the claims placed upon it shown above, this one contribution has been rendered essentially worthless (...) The claim about the ossuary touches on people’s faith, it can change their beliefs, it is evidence that demands a verdict from the Christian church. The sensationalism surrounding the James ossuary may have served its promoters well, but it has done a disservice to the believing community. The fanfare that greeted its announcement has not been repeated for the events that seem to have discredited the find, namely, the IAA report and Golan’s arrest (...) The ossuary’s announcement was news because it impacted the faith of members of the world’s largest religion, Christianity. The media’s failure to continue its coverage will impact it none the less. Scholars will be answering for the false leads of the “James” ossuary for generations to come, since because of scholarly incaution it will probably become part of the discourse for sincere but ill-informed believers. Perhaps, finally, the question of the authenticity of the ossuary and its inscription will be addressed by the forum to which it should have come first, that of scholarly knowledge and analysis. Only there can the competing judgments of the ossuary’s proponents and its critiques receive a proper evaluation. And that, finally, seems likely.

By Paul V. M. Flesher, University of Wyoming

Bible and Interpretation - January 2004

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Flesher_review.htm

The Jerusalem Syndrome in Archaeology: Jehoash to James

Is it possible that over a century after Sir William Mathew Flinders-Petrie established the scientific methodology of biblical archaeology, the discipline is still controlled by dilatants and charlatans?

The Jerusalem Syndrome is a clinical psychiatric diagnosis first identified in the 1930s by Dr. Heinz Herman, one of the founders of modern psychiatric research in Israel. Subsequent research was made by Dr.Yair Bar El, former director of the Kfar Shaul Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem, involving 470 tourists who had been declared temporarily insane.[1] The Jerusalem Syndrome is a temporary state of sudden and intense religious delusions brought on while visiting or living in Jerusalem. Most of the hospitalized visitors were Jews, but many others were Christians. The clinical symptoms usually begin with a vague and extremely intense excitement. The patients often adopt "biblical" or otherwise eccentric clothing, sometimes merging their identity with that of a character from the Bible or having a strong feeling of mission. They typically adopt a lifestyle of religious observance and attach unusual significance to religious relics. The most interesting feature, considering the extreme behaviors associated with the Jerusalem Syndrome, is that the subjects sometimes have no prior history of psychiatric difficulty and exhibit none afterward. These patients, if they recover, are typically embarrassed by behavior they cannot explain. During the last decade and especially towards the end of the second millennium AD, a number of archaeological artifacts of unknown origin have surfaced on the local antiquities market. A common feature of these artifacts is their reference to Jerusalem through attributions to major biblical landmarks or personalities such as the Jerusalem Temple, Judahite kings and other officials, or Jesus Christ. This attribution is made both on the item, through a dedication text, and about it, through opinions by persons who are sources of authority in various scholarly fields. Methodologically, it seems that their peculiar treatment by the scientific community may be interpreted as a milder symptom of the Jerusalem Syndrome. In what follows, I would like to present in short the narratives of some of these items as they relate to the hazardous role of the Jerusalem Syndrome in biblical archaeology.

By Yuval Goren - Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures Tel-Aviv University, Israel 

 Bible and Interpretation - January 2004

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Goren_Jerusalem_Syndrome.htm

Television Report Says 'Jesus Ossuary' Owner Ran Fraud Ring

Oded Golan, who is suspected of forging the inscription "James the brother of Jesus," on a first century ossuary, worked with a ring of counterfeiters who sold dozens of forged articles to antiquities dealers and collectors, Channel 2's "Fact" program reports. "Fact" broadcast a film by Gilad Tokatly, who investigated the subject, showing a letter from Golan to his lawyer, authorizing him to sell an additional "ancient" tablet, with an inscription attributed to the Biblical King Joash. Golan denies he ever owned the artifact.The report says Golan asked antique collector Shlomo Moussaieff for a fee to negotiate the sale of the ostracon, "The Seal of Menashe King of Judah." Golan is also alleged to have hired a Palestinian contractor to represent himself as the owner of the tablet. The Channel 2 television report says that Golan sold the ostracon to Moussaieff for $150,000 and took a $15,000 broker's commission fee. Golan also reportedly tried to sell a stone candle, attributed to the First Temple, to the collector George Weill, after it had been proved a fake. Police say they have found tools in Golan's possession that could have been used to put "inscriptions" on genuinely ancient tablets. They believe an expert scribe was brought from Egypt for the purpose. Police are currently preparing an indictment against Golan. 

By Yuval Dror - Ha'aretz - Thursday, February 19, 2004 Shvat 27, 5764

*

Fake Ossuary Leads Israel to Look Into Sellers of Antiquities

An Israeli documentary Wednesday claimed the James ossuary, the ancient burial box bearing a discredited inscription mentioning Jesus, is just the tip of a long-running forgery ring that has duped antiquities collectors worldwide for the last 15 years (...) Produced with the help of Israeli Antiquity Authority (IAA) officials, the Israeli investigative news show Ouvda ("fact" in Hebrew), says ossuary owner Oded Golan participated in dozens of forgery sales. Golan denied the charges on the show, calling them "unbelievable." However the documentary claims an Egyptian craftsman created the forgeries for Golan. Golan would provide inscription designs for the forger, and then sell objects to collectors — like a faked Bible-era lamp for $100,000 (...) "This 'machine' was supported by publication-hungry or perhaps even corrupt academics, 'scientific laboratories,' a well-oiled publishing machine and some suckers who were led to believe (and to lead others to believe) in the authenticity of these items due to religious, political, national, and personal motives," says archaeologist Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University in an e-mail sent to USA TODAY. He assisted the IAA investigation. And the Egyptologist Ian Ransom suggests in the recently released book Mary and the Ossuary that the forgery ring may have catered to evangelical Christian interest in the Holy Land. 

By Dan Vergano - USA TODAY - Wednesday, February 18, 2004 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-02-18-israel-antiques-usat_x.htm

The History Merchants

By the time the documentary ends, the viewer is convinced that for at least 15 years Oded Golan (and some others) has flooded the antiquities market with forgeries.

February 18, 2004
Channel 2 (Israel)
Oded Golan: Another Type of Trustworthy (na'aman ocher)
Uvda Documentary Special,
Moderator, Ilana Dayan 

Reviewed By Rochelle Altman

This documentary is both factual and worth viewing, yet all the same, it is disappointing. The fuller story is buried in snippets lasting for one or two seconds each. As presented, the film turns a monster "forgery machine" involving media "gods," historians, biblical scholars, archaeologists, epigraphers, stupid or even corrupt laboratory scientists, and others who helped to make this monster into the dull story of just another "forger." Make no mistake: the documentary succeeds in one very important respect. Viewers are left with no doubt that what the "star" of the show can be trusted to do is to deliver forgeries. The insincerity that Mr. Golan himself displays in his many extended "sound-bites" reinforces the hard evidence displayed for us to see (...) By the time the documentary ends, the viewer is convinced that for at least 15 years Oded Golan (and some others) has flooded the antiquities market with forgeries. These are not just any forgeries, mind you, but primarily Iron Age through Roman Period inscriptions in Hebrew – preferably inscribed in Paleo-Hebraic. And these forgeries are designer items. Each fake is carefully thought out and aimed at a precise target before being manufactured. Each item is designated for a specific "audience," for an audience he has (...) Golan, of course, did not do it all alone; he had help. A forgery ring needs a manufacturer, an authenticator, and a publicity machine. The viewer is treated to a revealing display of how the forgery machine worked. We are taken from when the items were invented and planned through the final production by an artist. One artist in particular is heard on tape discussing the manufacture of bullae with our "star," Oded Golan. The artist learned his trade in Egypt and knows no other. He is an artist who produced some of the bullae for Golan. He might be the "mysterious" Egyptian that Golan claimed made use of the roof above his luxurious apartment in a private apartment building located in an affluent, yet crowded, city neighborhood (...) "Nobody has made any money on this James Box," to quote Ben Witherington III's statement in the Lexington Herald-Leader of Friday, June 27, 2003. "Nobody has made money on it," to quote Mr. Hershel Shanks in his part of the book co-authored with Witherington -- which book sold 76,000 copies in hardcover. "I have not made any money on it," to quote Oded Golan himself in this documentary. "No, he hasn't made any money on it; just millions of dollars," said Major Jonathan Pagis in charge of this investigation. Now we have a flashback to Andre Lemaire early in November 2002. Lemaire, who as a seminary student, completed the equivalent of a Ph.D. in the history of the church ministry in the late 1960's -- a specialist in James-era Christianity. Lemaire, who overnight became an "expert" epigrapher by virtue of his find of the fake pomegranate in 1979, the first of the fakes heavily promoted in the Biblical Archaeological Review -- the BAR. Lemaire whose claim in 1979 to being an expert with many years of experience as an epigrapher was based on the publication of his thesis, a small volume published in 1977 (Hebraic inscriptions, introduction, traduction, commentary) in a field he conceived a sudden "passion" for in 1972. (A field your reviewer entered in 1954.) Here we see and hear Andre Lemaire babbling on about how he suddenly made the connection between the forged names on the bone box and James of the church. As if he would not know all about his own seminarist specialty (...) Will this documentary stop the frauds? Perhaps from this other "type of trustworthy" who can be trusted to deliver fakes; but if the pattern typical of announcing new "sensational" finds in the BAR is any indication, we are in for another media frenzy.

By Rochelle Altman - Bible and Interpretation - February 2004

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Altman_Uvda_review.htm

Update - Finds or Fakes? 

A committee appointed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has declared the inscription on an ancient bone box that refers to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" to be a modern forgery. Case closed? Far from it! Follow the twists and turns of this fast-changing story here and in the pages of Biblical Archaeology Review: The James Ossuary Debate—Lectures at Cornerstone University; Commentary; Statements and Reports; Biblical Archaeology Society Coverage; World News Media Coverage.

Biblical Archaeology Review - November 2004

Five Indicted for Massive Antiquities Forgery Ring Scam 

Five people were charged in Jerusalem District Court yesterday [December 29, 2004] with running a sophisticated antiquities forgery ring that created hundreds of fake biblical artifacts, including some that were hailed as among the most important archaeological objects ever uncovered in the region. The forged treasures include an ivory pomegranate touted by scholars as the only relic from Solomon's Temple, an ossuary that reputedly held the bones of James, Jesus' brother, and the "Yehoash inscription." "During the last 20 years many archaeological items were sold, or an attempt was made to sell them, in Israel and in the world, that were not actually antiques," the indictment said. "These items, many of them of great scientific, religious, sentimental, political and economic value, were created specifically with intent to defraud." The forgers not only defrauded buyers of millions of dollars, said Israel Antiquities Authority officials, but also damaged the science of archaeology, casting doubt on the authenticity of every artifact not uncovered in an authorized dig. The 27-page indictment, based on a two-year investigation, charged five people - Oded Golan, Robert Deutsch, Shlomo Cohen, a fourth Israeli whose name cannot be published, since he has not yet received a copy of the indictment, and Faiz al-Amaleh, a Palestinian - with 18 counts including forgery, receiving fraudulent goods and damaging antiquities. Deutsch, who owns an antiquities store in Jaffa, is an inscriptions expert who also teaches at Haifa University. Golan, an Israeli collector whom the indictment termed the ringleader of the group, denied the accusations as a campaign of lies and rumors spread by Israel's archaeological authorities to destroy the local antiquities trade. "There is not one grain of truth in the fantastic allegations related to me," he said in a statement. According to the indictment, the ring took genuine artifacts and added inscriptions to them, falsely increasing their importance and greatly inflating their value. After forging the inscriptions, they would paint the items with a coating designed to emulate the patina that would accumulate on the object over thousands of years. The work was so sophisticated that it fooled top antiquities experts, and some of the fake artifacts sold for huge sums. "We only discovered the tip of the iceberg," said Antiquities Authority head Shuka Dorfman. "This spans the globe. It generated millions of dollars." Shaul Naim, the top police investigator on the case, said, "We have reason to believe that many more forged antiquities which we haven't uncovered yet are being held by private collectors in Israel and abroad, and in museums in Israel and abroad." (...) Among the other objects that police tagged as forgeries were two of Golan's possessions, the James ossuary and the "Yehoash inscription," a shoebox-sized tablet from about the ninth century B.C.E. inscribed with 15 lines of ancient Hebrew that echo the Biblical account of King Yehoash's repairs to the Temple in Jerusalem. The ossuary, with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," had been touted as a major archaeological discovery - the oldest physical link to Jesus. Antiquities Authority experts said last year that while the ossuary, a 2,000-year-old limestone box, was indeed ancient, parts of the inscription were added recently. Other experts, however, have disputed this finding. The forgeries also include clay tablets with descriptions of biblical events, a stone menorah said to belong to the priests in the Second Temple, and a stone seal said to belong to Menashe, king of Judah. "This was an attempt to change the history of the Jewish and Christian people," said police spokesman Gil Kleiman. 

By Amiram Barkat - Ha'aretz - Thursday, December 30, 2004 Tevet 18, 5765

The James Ossuary
Online Features: January 2003-March 2005 

From the beginning, ARCHAEOLOGY sounded a cautionary note regarding the authenticity of the so-called James Ossuary. Now, five individuals have been indicted in Israel for forging biblical artifacts including the ossuary. Follow the unraveling of this alleged forgery ring as covered - blow-by-blow - in ARCHAEOLOGY.

Ossuary Tales
January/February 2003
On October 21, 2002, the discovery of an inscription on the side of a light brown, chalky limestone box was announced at a Washington press conference.

Gold Dust and James Bond
June 18, 2003
Israel Antiquities Authority declares the James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription fake.

Caveat Viewer
April 17, 2003
Review of Discovery Channel's James: Brother of Jesus

Geologists: Ossuary Patina Faked
June 23, 2003
The Geological Survey of Israel today publicly clarified its position regarding the authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Inscription.

James Ossuary Owner Under Arrest
July 22, 2003
The Associated Press reports that James Ossuary owner Oded Golan was arrested Monday on suspicion of forgery and dealing in fake antiquities.

Ossuary Dethroned
July 24, 2003
The once-celebrated James Ossuary was found Monday, July 21, in a filthy rooftop bathroom during a police raid on the owner's home.

Faking Biblical History
September/October 2003
How wishful thinking and technology fooled some scholars--and made fools out of others.

The Buzz: Trial of the Century
March/April 2005
Biblical antiquity dealers on trial in Israel

Conversations: Forgery Fallout
March/April 2005
Why the recent rash of biblical fakery is about so much more than money

Archaeology - Archaeological Institute of America

http://www.archaeology.org/ossuary/