All parties agree that the limestone box itself is an authentic first-century ossuary; the dispute is entirely about the inscription, and specifically its second clause. Andre Lemaire and other palaeographers judged the whole inscription consistent with first-century writing, and some scientific analyses of the patina argued for its antiquity.
The Israel Antiquities Authority committees of 2003 reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the words "brother of Jesus" were incised later and the surface artificially aged, and the authority maintained that position even after the trial. The 2012 acquittal turned on the criminal standard of proof: the court found the prosecution had not proved forgery beyond reasonable doubt, and it criticized the handling of the evidence, but it pointedly declined to declare the inscription ancient. The result is a genuine object with a bitterly contested inscription and no scholarly consensus. The James Ossuary is therefore classed as debated, with the forgery finding and the trial's inconclusive outcome both on the record.