To: E who wrote (3567 ) 11/9/2002 6:42:06 PM From: Lazarus_Long Respond to of 7689 Sailing into troubled waters........ :-) Nov. 8, 2002 / 5 p.m. ET Your views on the “Jesus inscription”: Every day is bringing more debate and disclosure about the limestone box from biblical times, bearing an inscription referring to “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” If the inscription is genuine, it could represent the earliest-known reference to the historical Jesus. But is it genuine, and does it refer to Christ or just some guy named Jesus? Those are questions for the ages. Here’s a sampling of the feedback from Cosmic Log’s mailbag: Jeffrey L. Whitledge, Jacksonville, Ark.: “Let me get this straight: Some guys have seen photos of the ossuary and say that the inscription is fake, and this is taken as definitive. The experts who have been over it with a microscope say that the inscription is genuine from the period (although they can’t be certain that it refers to the Jesus we all know). The skeptics leave me unconvinced.” Kevin Holroyd, Denver: “I think it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. I am a believing Christian. Jesus Himself said about those who doubted who He was, ‘Even if they see someone raised from the dead, they still won’t believe.’ People like scholar Eisenman [one of the aforementioned doubters] have too strong a vested interest in their own life to ever admit that something like this could possibly be true.” David A. Hughes, Dunedin, Fla.: “I knew the inscription was a fake. What disturbs me is our culture’s continued efforts to find hope, faith, and love in the past and in objects such as the Shroud of Turin and the limestone ossuary, and even the Bible. As a society we need to find a new belief system that works in these hard times. We need to look inside ourselves for new ways to love humanity. The past is gone. The past is subject to interpretation. We must put our efforts in the present to build a future if we are to survive and grow. We need to be creative in our efforts to deal with and prevent all war, to repair our damaged ecosystem, to deal with poverty, crime, health needs and our future.” Rene Loesaus, Malvern: “Due to [the fact] that Jesus, James and Joseph were all very common names in Jerusalem around the year 50 A.D., it’s not so likely that the text on the stone box actually refers to the right ‘Jesus.’ Perhaps one chance in 50 or even less. We must be realistic when we try to draw conclusions in this case.” In his initial report about the box, Sorbonne paleographer Andre Lemaire estimated that only about 20 men in first-century Jerusalem would have the James-Joseph-Jesus name relationship. He also argued that a brother wouldn’t typically be listed in a funerary inscription unless the brother held special status. But he acknowledged it would be impossible to prove that the Jesus of the inscription was truly the Jesus of the New Testament. That agnostic view squares with the prevailing opinion in our unscientific “Live Vote,” by the way. Neil Adelman, Cleveland: “The inscription is Aramaic written in Hebrew letters. This is very common for the times. The names are in Hebrew. But where everyone see the name ‘James,’ I read Yaakov or Jacob. I know because this is my Hebrew name. So, where does everyone get ‘James’ from on the inscription?” The answer is that many of the biblical names we know and love are actually Anglicized equivalents of the Hebrew originals. Thus, you have Yeshua or Yehoshua (Jesus), Shimon Kefa (Simon Peter), Yaakov ben-Yosef (James, son of Joseph), Yaakov ben-Zavdai (James, son of Zebedee), Sha’ul (Saul, or Paul) and Miryam of Migdal (Mary Magdalene). For more about the debate over the historical Jesus, check out this backgrounder from Encarta. You’ll be able to see the box for yourself at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. If you do pay a visit, tell me what you think of the exhibit.msnbc.com ‘Even if they see someone raised from the dead, they still won’t believe.’ 'sTrue. Clarke's Law applies here: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If you can tell the difference, the technology is advanced enough.