I saw the 60 Minutes report. Much of it was a replay from the original debate a few years ago. I doubt their explanation of people being for it, whether it was real or not. Some of the initial people speaking for it had no "dog in the fight". Much about it looked authentic, including tests for patina layers, which is often a good test. I saw a Canadain special on the find that went through such tests in detail. These were not religious folks, just forensic experts. There is always a vetting period with such things. We have seen it three times recently: with this ossuary, with the Jesus tomb claim and with the gospel of Judas. It takes time for the dust to settle on new announcements that are made with great initial fanfare. I wrote about this a few issues ago in Christianity Today. With these spectacular announcements it is always best to let some time pass and permit some vetting to take place before making a final call. This trial is a part of that total picture for the ossuary, so we are not quite there yet on this (but we are close).

dlb