Isn't it possible that there were those Judeo-Christian followers of Christ that after is death and resurrection they took his family's names as an act of faith? In the Catholic Church today, children take a Saints name at their Communion. Isn't it possible that in the early years after Christ died that some may have taken his and his family member and disciples names? Unless we can pinpoint the date with perfect accuracy, we cant say this isn't possible, right? I mean, a whole generation could be born and died in 50-75 years after his death. Surely 50-75 years is nothing compared to the 2000 years since....

Also, dont you really need to compare names on ALL Ossuraries (or at least a statistically signficant number) of the period to be able to refute this theory?

In the Documentary they kept making the assertion that the grouping of these names made the probability that is was the family of Jesus greater; UNLESS there was a custom of taking on a new name in deference and faith?

Just as Jews stopped taking the names of Jesus, his family and diciples, isn't it possible that others (starting very early) took these names?

You pose many good questions. Unfortunately, the "investigative journalist" approaches this topic with the same background and efforts of Geraldo Rivera. My first question would be: Can we be certain that the inscriptions were made on the bone boxes at the time they were interred? If there is a question about the authenticity of the etching on the tenth box, the James box, what about the other ones? Finally, just because the DNA of one of the members does not match another, who is to say which other person they may have been married to? Matthew? Jose? James? Too many questions, not enough inquiry by the "investigative journalist."