THE "JESUS OSSUARY," NOT THE "JAMES OSSUARY"?

I've run across this detail in a couple of places this morning and I can't remember seeing it before (From the Charleston Post and Courier, but evident originating in the Washington Post):

[Authority Deputy Director Uzi] Dahari said "there is some doubt" about whether the word Yeshua (Jesus) is a forgery, "but the rest for sure is fake," and Yeshua "was a very common name."

"If all you have is the name Jesus, that proves nothing," he said.

This would complicate the whole patina issue, wouldn't it? Is some of the patina genuine after all?

Also, Archaeology Magazine reports that the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) has now come out in support of the conclusion of the Israel Antiquities Authority that the patina is a fake and "could not have formed under natural climactic conditions...that prevailed in the Judea Mountains during the last 2000 years."