Unfortunately, Eisenman is not the only critic. In fact, I think the others make the stronger case, which you have not refuted either:
Dr. Rochelle Altman is another critic of the recent findings. An historian of writing systems and an expert on scripts, Altman writes that while the ossuary itself is genuine, the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus" -- is a poor imitation of the first half of the inscription, one that must have been added later. [i.e., a hoax]Her reasons sound pretty convincing (though I claim no expertise in that area).
According to Altman, inscriptions on ossuaries were covenants made by the dead person's family members, pledging that they would continue to revere their deceased loved one. As was the case with all such solemn vows, the covenant had to be written in the hand of the person making it. Thus, while professional masons might have "touched up" the inscription later, the original inscription had to be made by the family member.
Obviously, not all family members were literate, so their inscriptions might have been a little shaky. Either way, it would have all been done in the same hand. However, Altman argues that the inscription on this particular ossuary was written by two different people. [i.e., a hoax]
How does she know? Well, the first group of words -- "Jacob son of Joseph" -- was written by someone who was fully literate (she could tell by the consistency of the lettering and the formal script).
After the author carved the initial lettering, a professional excised the text (meaning that the stone around it was carved out to make the letters raised) and enclosed the words in a kind of frame -- a common practice when excising an inscription.
All of this appears legitimate to Altman. But, she says, that's not true of the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus." Apparently, there are a few strange misspellings in this second part, as if the person writing it had little grasp of either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was trying to copy a script and language unfamiliar to him. [i.e., a hoax] Altman also points out that the script is informal, as compared with the formal lettering of the first section.
But that's not all. She additionally notes that there's no excised frame around the words. Since it was a normal practice to excise both the words and a frame, she concluded that the second writer removed the original frame so he could add his own words. [i.e., a hoax]
Her final verdict? The box is real; the inscription is not. [i.e., a hoax] "If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine," she says, "then somebody has to explain why there are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts. They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write 'brother of' in Aramaic or even spell 'Joshua' [the Hebrew form of Jesus]. Further, they had better explain where the frame has gone."
i.e., ITS A HOAX.
As I said before, ALL archaeological finds get "challenged". It's part of the process.
I asked you to summarize the strongest points of objection against the veracity of the ossuary so we could discuss them.
If you are saying that the strongest argument is that the inscription "Brother of Jesus" was written in a different hand, one that was "illiterate", that doesn't prove it's a hoax.
The vast majority of ossuaries simply have "So and so, son of so and so". It's rare to add "Brother of _______" It only happens when the Brother is noteworthy or famous.
How is it IMPOSSIBLE for someone in 62 AD to have said, "We really should add that this man was the brother of Jesus Christ" and add that to the inscription? How is that mind-bogglingly impossible?
Do you really think this escaped the eyes of the B.A.S.? If so, do you challenge all the other Bible Archaeology they've done?
It's nice to see you side with Islamic apologists like Eisenman in your fight against Christianity.