THE ISRAEL FORGERY TRIAL is the subject of an LA Times opinion piece by Nina Burleigh:

Hoaxes from the Holy Land
The faltering prosecution of an antiquities dealer in the James ossuary case underscores problems in authenticating biblical artifacts.

By Nina Burleigh
November 29, 2008

Israeli authorities called it "the fraud of the century": fakes passed off as archaeological finds with biblical ties. The most notorious object was the James ossuary, a limestone box inscribed in Aramaic with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Five men were charged, and the trial has been dragging on for three years.

But it may all be crashing to a halt. A few weeks ago, the judge -- who is hearing the case without a jury -- told the government lawyers he's not convinced the objects are forgeries and suggested they consider dropping the matter. If the authorities can't make their case, experts warn that the antiquities market -- and a proof-hungry religious public -- inevitably will be fed groundbreaking biblical "discoveries" as far-fetched as Solomon's crown and Abraham's sandals.

Let's hope not.

She summarizes the story behind the trial and concludes:

The trial will resume in six months, so prosecutors have a chance to pull together better evidence. But the potential collapse of the James ossuary case confirms two things. First, the underfunded and understaffed Israeli Antiquities Authority -- charged with policing the antiquities trade and protecting dig sites -- is not up to the task of rooting out and exposing world-famous fakes. Second, the Israeli legal system can't be the last word on the authenticity of objects that have the potential to excite millions of faithful.

So while policing the private trade in objects is a matter for the Israeli authorities, sober and serious biblical scholars need to take steps to shield the public from their more ruthless colleagues. All future finds with remarkable biblical connections emerging from the private market ought to be inspected by a team of disinterested experts from around the world before anyone calls a news conference.

The only trouble is, in this field, disinterested individuals are the rarest finds of all.

This is a field in which it is hard to establish complete "disinterest." For example, anyone's religious commitment or lack thereof can be used to argue that they are biased in some way. And many, perhaps most scholars who work in these areas just want to get on with their research and don't want to get caught up in these controversies.

More on Nina Burleigh here.