The inscription was what was tested for the patina. The patina was in accord with a first century dating. Can you not read:
At some time long after the natural processes of varnish and patination in a damp cave environment had been completed, someone carved a series of letters through the natural varnish on the ossuary. Then he or she covered the freshly cut letters with an imitation patina made from water and ground chalk.
Whether the patina is fake or not, you still have to address the 3 points I noted to prove that this James is who you think he is, i.e. the natural born son of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.
I can read just fine - and I did read your selective appraisal of the authenticity of the ossuary.
It is very obvious you have to hang your hat (and your doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary) on any hook that may further this doctrine which is contradicted by scripture. Therefore, it is necessary to take the side of the Israel Antiquities Authority in order to discredit the ossuary. It is notable that both the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Catholic Church has much to lose if the historicity of this ossuary is confirmed.
The inscription and the ossuary were examined in the laboratory of the Geological Survey of Israel. Both were studied with a binocular microscope to identify the stone and to observe the patina. Six samples of the chalk (soft limestone), six samples of the patina and two samples of the attached soil were studied with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) equipped with
EDS (Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy). The scientists concluded: “[T]he patina does not contain any modern elements (such as modern pigments) and it adheres firmly to the stone. No signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument was [sic] found. No evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the patina and the inscription was found.