JAMES TABOR responds to the Toronto Star article on his book:

Thanks for the mention of the Toronto Star article on my book, The Jesus Dynasty in your blog recently. As reporters go I felt that Mr. Laidlaw did a fair job but he really got some things wrong, especially about the DNA business. I surely did not say I hope to live to see the bones of Jesus or the tomb of Jesus found--that to me would be an exceptionally foolish and silly thing to say. What I did say is that Gibson and I had formally asked that DNA tests be done on the James ossuary remains to compare them with the extensive DNA profile we already have of the 17 individuals in the "Tomb of the Shroud," and we were turned down. As far as I know the remains from the 1980 Talpiot tomb were long ago lost or buried, though the names remain interesting and might be statistically studied. I do indeed think that the entire James ossuary inscription is likely authentic based on evidence that the owner has presented to others which I am not at liberty to disclose. In addition I have not found the IAA report given the subsequent discussion thereof by critics, as catalogued at the BAS Web site, for example, convincing on several points. The matter is complex of course, but I hope in due course will come out. In the meantime I continue to think there is strong circumstantial evidence the James ossuary, even with "James son of Joseph," alone, came from the Shroud tomb.

On the last point, Shimon Gibson, the tomb's excavator, agrees. As for the disputed part of the James Ossuary inscription (the "brother of Jesus" phrase), I haven't done any serious work on it, but from what I've seen, the epigraphic and philological evidence point away from its being genuine, but not decisively so. But the clinching argument seems to be the modern origin of the patina, and I am not qualified to evaluate that. My starting position is to be skeptical, but I'll keep watching the discussion with interest.