Thanks for posting this. The experts on the side of the authenticity of the ossuary are some of the best in the world. It will be interesting to watch the academic swordplay and I'm glad Hershal Shanks won't let this drop. I happen to believe the most likely explanation for the ossuary inscription is that James son of Joseph was a disciple of Jesus.
I'm trying to reconcile the contradiction that Shanks points out....that if these men saw the ossuary without the inscription then why not say that instead of using other criteria to discredit it.
I'm also interested in the science that distinguished the "of Jesus" part from the remainder of the inscription. I understand there was a disconformity in the patina or something like that....the first portion was inscribed at an earlier, unspecified time.
I've wondered if it could have been because of relocating the ossuary; that it had been originally inscribed as james of joseph and a particular generation knew precisely who was meant. As time went on, and the necessity to move the ossuary became apparent, that the "of Jesus" was added to clearly identify WHICH "james of joseph" they were talking about.
My favorite theory is that Joseph had a deceased wife prior to his betrothal to Mary, and that he'd had children by her. This would explain Joseph's absence (he was older) for the remainder of the gospels; Jesus having brothers; and Jesus needing to put Mary into John's care. It also explains why James was given the lead in the early church seeing that Jesus was only in his early 30's at time of death, and that would have made his YOUNGER brother James quite young to be put in leadership over others who had followed Jesus far longer. IF, however, James was an older, half-sibling, then his elevation to a leader role would be more likely.
These are all simply opinions.....none of this would go into my "statement of faith."