Incorrect on both accounts, see: http://ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary
1) It does say Jesus, son of Joseph, BROTHER of James
2) The trial came back with a verdict in 2012 of not guilty of forgery.
1) No. Jesus was assumed into Heaven, bodily. No-one alleges the bones to be Jesus’. However, I did misunderstand the criticism of the translation, but the original criticism is still valid. The ossuary says, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article leads people to suppose what is meant is “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [and who also is] brother of Jesus.” However, what would have been understood in the original would be “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [who in turn is the] brother of Jesus.” If the former was meant, it would have read, “James, brother of Jesus *and* son of Joseph.”
2) The trial in no way vindicated the assertion that the scratchings were authentic. The jury couldn’t possibly know whether the scratchings were made by Golan or some previous con man. The judge explicitly asserted that this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago.” Since the article is written, the finding that the ossuary is a forgery has been challenged by some non-crackpots, such as Dr. Wolfgang Krumbein, but the weight of scholarly opinion remains that it is a forgery. However, again, even if it is not a forgery, it is hardly proof that James is the brother of Jesus, as pointed out in objection #1. Even if it did, you should be aware that Eastern Christianity holds that Mary was perpetually virgin, but that Joseph had other sons by a previous wife (in which case, one could plausibly read it to guess that Joseph was the brother of Jesus, and James was thus the nephew of Jesus; among Jesus’ “brothers” in the bible is a “Joses.”)
1) No. Jesus was assumed into Heaven, bodily. No-one alleges the bones to be Jesus’. However, I did misunderstand the criticism of the translation, but the original criticism is still valid. The ossuary says, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article leads people to suppose what is meant is “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [and who also is] brother of Jesus.” However, what would have been understood in the original would be “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [who in turn is the] brother of Jesus.” If the former was meant, it would have read, “James, brother of Jesus *and* son of Joseph.”
2) The trial in no way vindicated the assertion that the scratchings were authentic. The jury couldn’t possibly know whether the scratchings were made by Golan or some previous con man. The judge explicitly asserted that this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago.” Since the article is written, the finding that the ossuary is a forgery has been challenged by some non-crackpots, such as Dr. Wolfgang Krumbein, but the weight of scholarly opinion remains that it is a forgery. However, again, even if it is not a forgery, it is hardly proof that James is the brother of Jesus, as pointed out in objection #1. Even if it did, you should be aware that Eastern Christianity holds that Mary was perpetually virgin, but that Joseph had other sons by a previous wife (in which case, one could plausibly read it to guess that Joseph was the brother of Jesus, and James was thus the nephew of Jesus; among Jesus’ “brothers” in the bible is a “Joses.”)
Not guilty of forgery means that they could not ascertain that the accused was the forger:
Authenticity of the inscription has been challenged. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) determined in 2003 that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date.[5][6] In December 2004, Oded Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription.[7]
The trial lasted seven years before Judge Aharon Farkash came to a verdict. On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities.[8] The judge said this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago”.[9]