Not sure what is new about this story. The tomb of James was found a decade ago and made headlines, but there's still no reason to believe Jesus is in there. We're not even certain that James is in there, but in any case all this article offers is baseless speculation. The article's author isn't terribly learned to begin with. For example, dating Jesus to before 4 BCE is done solely on account of that being the death date of Herod the Great, who is supposed to have perpetrated the slaughter of newborns in the year Jesus was born—something that didn't actually happen in the first place, making it a ****-poor criterion for dating. The fact is that the Gospel authors clearly had not idea in what year Jesus was born, as they only have wild guesses to offer.
It's also not clear that Joseph should be regarded as a historical character, as he appears in the tradition pretty late and seems intended to cover the fact that Jesus was traditionally referred to as the son of his mother, which suggests he was thought to have had no legitimate father. Nor ought we to put too much stock in the name "Mary" for his mother. She's mentioned in vague terms early in the tradition, but that name only appears near the end of the 1st century and may well be a fabrication. The only family member for whom we have good corroborating evidence is James, who is mentioned by Paul (who met him) and Josephus (who had no reason to lie). The Gospel of Mark suggests that he had multiple brothers, but no names are given for any of his family members.
The way I see it, the tomb of James is probably a fake to begin with—whether a modern fake or an ancient fake from as far back as the 2nd century or so. Even if it were genuine, it probably wouldn't contain Jesus's remains. As a victim of a Roman crucifixion, Jesus is not likely to have been entombed at all. There's one historic example of crucified Jews' being given proper burial, and it involved the locals' taking matters into their own hands on the eve of the Jewish War. The business about the empty tomb, which apologists tend to think is such a big deal, is almost certainly an expression of the abstract theological concept of resurrection in concrete narrative terms, not historical fact to be taken literally. It's also another example of Jesus' being given the royal treatment, which is a feature of the later Gospels in particular, as they riff on the Hellenistic idea of kingship while also turning it on its head to suggest Jesus was a different sort of king altogether.
