c. 2003 Religion News Service

JERUSALEM _ When the so-called “James Ossuary,” was first unveiled last October, a number of prominent archaeologists, geologists and paleographers had already authenticated the artifact’s remarkable inscription of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” to the first century A.D.

Scholars said the ossuary _ a ritual burial box in which the bones of deceased first century Jews were typically stored _ was likely the first physical link to the figure of Jesus, who Christians believe was the Messiah.

But two weeks ago, sensation turned to scandal when a seven-member panel of experts appointed by the Israel Antiquities Authority ruled the inscription on the ossuary a probable forgery.

The panel concluded that the patina, or crust of chalk, covering most of the inscription was a recent addition, not a natural result of aging over time. Handwriting experts also contended that most of the inscription is probably a new addition, not from the first century period.

But the previously anonymous owner, Oded Golan, has vigorously contested the Antiquities Authority’s findings. In an interview with Religion News Service, Golan argued the scientific and archaeological conclusions reached by the panel of Israeli geologists and paleographers were not as conclusive as the final report seemed to indicate.

He said that he was now in touch with a number of prominent international experts who would proceed to re-examine the panel’s findings, in order to assess their validity.

“I have almost no doubt that we are talking about an authentic inscription,” Golan said. “But I am not the expert, this is something that requires scientific review. In the aftermath of the Antiquities Authority’s announcement, I have received a number of inquiries from geologists and other experts who dispute the conclusions drawn by the panel, or see different interpretations to their scientific findings. These experts will have to review the findings, perhaps even conduct a second round of (geological) tests, and then publish their conclusions. This will require a number of weeks or even months.”

Golan says he acquired the ossuary for a nominal price from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer sometime in the early 1970s. He thought little about the inscription that contains names common to Jews in the first century.

For years the item languished in his basement, before being examined by a prominent paleograph, Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne, in March of 2002. Following publication of a wide-ranging report on the artifact in the Biblical Archaeological Review, the ossuary gained worldwide attention, and was displayed abroad at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.

The Antiquities Authority’s decision that the inscription is a fake is based in large part on tests that were conducted by Tel Aviv University professor Yuval Goren, and Avner Ayalon of the Israel Geological Survey Institute.

Goren and Ayalon’s tests would seem to contradict those of another team of scientists from the Israel Geological Survey, led by Amnon Rosenfeld and Shimon Ilani, which validated Golan’s claims.

Goren found the patina covering the inscription to be of a different geological nature than the patina on the rest of the ossuary. Most notably, he says, the patina covering the inscription contained micro-fossils of plankton and marine micro-organisms _ the kind that are naturally found in chalk or limestone _ from rock formed tens of millions of years ago in ancient seas.

But such fossils wouldn’t be part of the geological footprint of a chalk patina, Goren contends, since that natural patina is made of calcium carbonate that re-crystallizes after exposure to ground water.

“True patina is like the stone crust that accumulates on the bottom of a tea kettle,” Goren said. “The calcium carbonate, a common mineral in an area rich in limestone, dissolves in the ground water, and with the loss of carbon dioxide, it re-crystallizes. The process may be accelerated by heat. But in land conditions, like a burial cave, you can’t expect a patina to contain any fossils in it.”

Goren believes that the patina covering the inscription was applied recently by someone who ground limestone into powder, and then mixed it with water to form a paste.

“This type of patina does not appear on any other part of the ossuary, it only covers the inscription,” he added, which is, by and of itself, very bizarre.

The paleographers, or ancient handwriting experts, in the Antiquities Authority panel were more divided on whether the entire inscription was a modern fake, or whether the first part, which makes reference to James and Joseph, was a forgery, while the inscription of the name Jesus might indeed be ancient.

However, the name Jesus was such a common one in the first century era that it loses its significance if it is found outside of the rest of the biblical family’s genealogy.

Golan, the ossuary’s owner, contends that many members of the committee had already made up their minds about the authenticity of the ossuary inscription.

“What is surprising is the fact that the conclusions of the committee are much more definitive than the findings themselves,” Golan said. “There are many interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.

“We don’t know what environmental conditions the ossuary was subjected to over the past hundreds of years, where it may have been stored, or even hidden. The inscription might be ancient and someone tried to clean the patina. I think we have to read the full report of the scientific results and then after that see how those results can be explained.”

But the scientists may not have the final word in the still-unfolding drama. The Israeli police have been conducting a lengthy inquiry into the saga, and there are indications that they may soon wrap up their investigation.

“If someone took a genuinely ancient ossuary, and applied to it a new inscription, then this is a matter of forgery and tampering with antiquities,” said Uzi Dahari, deputy director general of the Antiquities Authority. “But the police are dealing with this question, not us.”

Goren says that if the James inscription proves to be a fake, it would become one of the most “outrageous” archaeological forgeries in modern times.

“This would be a greater scandal than previous cases,” he said. “It has to do with much more than the case of one individual.”

KRE END FLETCHER