Observations on the IAA’s Summary Report

On some things we can all agree: 1. If authentic, the James ossuary inscription and the Jehoash inscription are immensely important. 2. If modern forgeries, we all want to know. 3. Every effort should be made to determine whether they are forgeries or authentic.

Let us be clear: The IAA committee’s decision that both inscriptions are forgeries may be correct. Both inscriptions may be forgeries.

But we at BAR believe that, for the reasons given here, final judgment on the inscriptions’ authenticity must be suspended until (1) the full text of the IAA Committee’s report is released and (2) other experts have an opportunity to review and evaluate the committee’s report and perhaps replicate its tests.

We note at the outset that the committee is not quite as unanimous as we were led to believe by the announcement of its conclusion. It appears that each member of the committee confined himself/herself to his/her expertise. Thus one member of the James ossuary inscription subcommittee noted that he found nothing wrong with the inscription paleograhically but “was convinced that the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings of the Materials Committee.” A member of the Jehoash inscription subcommittee noted in a separate submission that he could only opine on a First Temple period inscription, not a Second Temple inscription like that on the James ossuary: “I do not see myself qualified to decide in this area of Second Temple period paleography,” he said.