Is the bonebox called the "James Ossuary" authentic? Is it truly the bonebox of James, the brother of Jesus Christ? An ossuary is a bone box.  The James Ossuary is allegedly the bone box of James the brother of our Lord Jesus.  On its side is written, in aramaic, &quot;James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus&quot;.
In first century AD in Israel when someone died they were laid in a place of burial, such as a cave, and a heavy stone rolled across the entrance, just as in the case of Jesus.  Then about one or two years later the stone was rolled back: at that stage all that remained of the dead body was bones.  These bones were then collected up and placed in an &quot;ossuary&quot;.  The largest bone in the human body is the femur, the thighbone.  So ossuaries are not especially large: in length they are just slightly longer than the thighbone.  Thousands of ossuaries from the first century AD and the first century BC have been found in Israel.
In October 2002 it was announced that the Ossuary of James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, had been found.  It is pretty important archaeologically speaking because if it is genuine then it is the first, and so far the only, direct archaeological evidence that Jesus even existed.
My question is simply: what is the evidence, for and against, that this ossuary was truly the ossuary of James, Jesus's brother?
Paleographic and epigraphic examination of the ossuary by the Israeli Division of Identification and Forensic Science clearly indicate this is a forgery.

First, the inscription of James (above) is dissimilar to the inscription of the sentence &quot;brother of Jesus&quot;:

The second is visibly shallower than 'James son of Josef'. The difference in depth is almost double. Character depth in the first part of the inscription is uniform, but in the second half the engraving depth varies. An extreme example of this is the Aramic letter “Khet” in akhui (brother) in which the upper portion is deeply engraved and the lower portion is shallow.
When examining the letter forms in each portion of the inscription, two script systems were identified. The letters forming 'James son of Josef' are more stylized, uniform depth of stamping and ornate than those in the second portion. For example, the Aramic letter “Ayin” in Yeshua and in Yakov (James) are superficially similar; however, a microscopic examination of the letter “Ayin” in James revealed a circular embellishment engraved at the top edge of the letter and a lower line that is finer and shallower than the upper lines forming the letter. The letter “Ayin” in Yeshua lacks all these elements, which were common during the Second Temple period.
Further examination by microscope showed other significant differences in the way the letters were engraved. In the first half of the 'James son of Josef' inscription, the craftsman used circular motions in carving the stone and created letters with circular edge-points, but the engraving strokes in the 'brother of Jesus' portion are visibly linear and lack the circular edge-points. This significant difference in engraving method between the two parts of the inscription seems to indicate the existence of two artisans, i.e. the text 'brother of Jesus' was inscribed by a different person.
Abstracts of Findings: Writing Committee – The Yehoash Inscription
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv

The inscription was written by a speaker of modern Hebrew who borrowed
segments from the original sources, composed a text that seemed
biblical to him/her but failed. Therefore, the text is a forgery.

Prof. Avigdor Horowitz

The Yehoash inscription appears to be a combination of elements
collected from various sources and pasted together … each element
attests to a lack of understanding of ninth century BCE Hebrew. All
the elements together clearly prove that the text is a forgery.

Dr. Hagai Misgav

From the paleographic aspect, it appears that the inscription was
written by someone not living in the First Temple times, but who wrote
according to samples from that period. In other words, the inscription
does not appear authentic.

Prof. Roni Reich

It appeared to me at first that the inscription was authentic, as I
wrote in my report. For one reason, it was difficult for me to believe
that a forger (or group of forgers) could be found that would be
expert in all aspects of the inscription… and could produce such an
object. But I was convinced, in the end, that it is a forgery after
being shown the committee’s data and material.

The Ossuary Inscription Committee
Prof. Amos Kloner

It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different
period than its original installation. The inscription appears new.
The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using
samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.

Dr. Tal Ilan

Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that
the deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the
opinion that the inscription is a forgery.

Prof. Roni Reich

The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or
substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that
the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the
Materials Committee.

Dr. Esther Eshel

From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it
appears to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and
was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).

The Materials Committee
Jacques Neguer

The ossuary is authentic. Its inscription is a forgery. All the
various scratches on the ossuary are coated in the original patina and
only the inscription and its immediate surroundings are coated with an
artificial “patina’-like material of round crystalline granules. The
inscription cuts through the original patina and appears to have been
written by two different writers using different tools.

Orna Cohen

Ossuary:  The first part of the inscription is new, cuts through the
original patina and is coated with a granular patina that appears to
have been produced from chalk dust mixed with water and spread on the
inscription. The end of the inscription “brother of Jesus” appears
authentic, in some places there seems to be remains of old patina, but
in order to produce a uniform effect, this too was spread with the
same granular substance.
Inscription: The “patina” on the inscription side was dissolved in
water and therefore looks like earth rather than patina. When the
letters were cleaned, the manner of inscription was exposed. The
technique appears new and does not match the original wear on the
stone. The manner in which the letters were scratched does not
resemble any form of ancient stone inscription.
In summary, both inscriptions are false.

Prof. Yoval Goren

Ossuary: The ossuary itself is authentic based on the accumulation of
patina and varnish (varnish = patina from a biological source).
The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period. Its
coating is not a result of nature, and was probably accomplished by
crumbling and dissolving chalk (or perhaps the powder falling from the
engraving process) in hot water and spilling the suspension on the
inscription and surrounding area in order to blur the freshly carved
inscription.
Inscription: The stone is greywake, an exotic stone for Israel,
originating in north Syria or western Cyprus.
The original silicate patina exists on the reverse side of the tablet.
hard and firmly attached to the stone. The engraved letters did not
appear to have undergone any corrosive process as would be expected
from an ancient inscription.
The inscription coating has a different composition than that of the
patina on the back of the stone, and appears to be an artificial
mixture of clay, crumbled chalk, carbon, and microscopic granules of
inert metal. It appears that this mixture was dissolved in hot water
before being spread on the inscribed side, after which the stone was
heated to a temperature of no higher than 4000C in order to harden the
new coating and give it the appearance of patina.
Method: The “patinization” is similar in both cases but on the
ossuary, chalk powder only was used, and on the Yehoash inscription a
mixture of clay or red soil, chalk powder, carbon and metal granules.