THE GOSPEL TRUTH?

"It doesn't matter who Jesus of Nazareth was or what he was. What's most important is the lessons he taught." PAUL MUSSELMAN St. Petersburg, Florida

There will never be any way to prove beyond a doubt that Jesus existed and that the events in the Bible actually took place, and no way to prove that they didn't either [RELIGION, April 8]. If it weren't so frustrating, I'd find it amusing that the members of the Jesus Seminar, who call themselves scholars and experts, are arguing about events that took place 2,000 years ago. Christianity and all other religions are in the realm of faith alone, and the best we can do is exercise the freedom to decide for ourselves what is right and believable. MELISSA R. WEBER Atlanta

I am the co-executive producer and director of the TV movie The Gospel According to Jesus mentioned in your report. Neither history nor science has ever proved the existence of ghosts, much less Holy Ones. The Gospels as we know them were written by ordinary people from generations of oral accounts of a very special prophet's teachings. Because they were written by humans, they may indeed contain factual errors and embellishments. Nonetheless, Jesus taught us that ordinary people are valuable teachers and that we should accept and forgive. The precise points of what Jesus said or didn't say, did or didn't do, are irrelevant to me. What I get from his teachings is that God exists and that I don't need to worry if I "love God with all my heart and mind and love my neighbor as myself." NORRIS JEWETT CHUMLEY New York City

Your article contained far more about the reaction of Christian believers to the Jesus Seminar than about the Seminar. The report abounds with condescension and sarcasm about this important quest for historical accuracy. Beginning with "Judas didn't do it. Or at least the charges wouldn't stick," and "Well, the Jesus Seminar is at it again," you poke fun at the event and the scholars exploring the origins of Christianity. Jesus Seminar critics, on the other hand, are quoted with more respect. This subject deserved a more serious treatment. What were you afraid of? Angering the Christian political establishment, scaring the faithful--or the truth? MARY FONTAINE HOUSE Cairo Via E-mail

The Jesus Seminar said in its Santa Rosa, California, meeting, "Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus does not depend upon what may or may not have happened to his corpse." But your report noted that in the eyes of a Lutheran layman, the group "said the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not essential to the faith; and that, in fact, the Resurrection may not have occurred at all." In my view, your readership is ill served by the inability to understand the difference between these statements. I find that most readers do grasp this distinction quite easily, and many appreciate and welcome the insight, believers and non-believers alike. (THE REV.) EDWARD F. BEUTNER Fellow, Jesus Seminar Livermore, California Via E-mail

Let's see if I got it straight. fifty panelists, one of whom directed Showgirls, have determined that 1.5 billion misguided Christians have an erroneous impression of who Jesus was. A more accurate version of the life of Christ was created by a vote that involved dropping plastic beads into a bucket. Did I miss something? O ye of little faith! ELEANOR MCKEE Honolulu

Criticism of the Jesus Seminar's open and offensive debunking of Christianity is clearly justified. However, credit should be given to those who would, in an honest and inoffensive manner, examine the historical events surrounding the origins of this religion. The legacy of Jesus, whether he existed or not, has had a tremendous influence on the social and political histories of the past two millenniums. Only a fool of a historian would base his knowledge of this critical period on a single, possibly inaccurate source. More research must be done into the events of the early New Testament. One thing common to all religions is the search for truth. DAVE FRIED Cambridge, Massachusetts Via E-mail

The historical revisionists are at it again. They tell us Jesus was never betrayed by Judas and wasn't resurrected on Easter. Next they'll be telling us that Christmas is the birthday of Santa Claus. Any thinking person must question the objectivity of a panel of self-appointed "experts" who have their own agenda for rewriting history. GARY YAGEL, Pastor Shady Grove Presbyterian Church Germantown, Maryland

NEW TESTAMENT FRAGMENTS

"The Search for Jesus" included a page on the book I wrote with Matthew d'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, about papyrus fragments that are the oldest bits of St. Matthew's Gospel. While it is encouraging that you gave our research such prominence, your article could mislead readers. It is not my opinion that a papyrus of St. Luke's Gospel in a Paris library "was written between A.D. 63 and A.D. 67." That papyrus, certainly the oldest of this Gospel, belongs to the late 1st or early 2nd century. The approximate dates of the four oldest Gospel papyri are as follows: the Qumran scroll fragment 7Q5 of St. Mark's Gospel was written sometime before A.D. 68, the Magdalen papyrus of St. Matthew's Gospel was written around A.D. 66, the fragment in Paris of St. Luke's Gospel is late 1st or early 2nd century, and the famous St. John's papyrus P52 of Manchester has a date of A.D. 120 or slightly earlier. This last Gospel fragment was previously thought to be our earliest evidence of the New Testament, but now is judged to be the most recent of these four Gospel fragments in terms of age.

You ask the obvious question, "Since some, although not all, scholars believe Matthew may have been written around A.D. 80, what real difference does a marginally earlier date make?" In antiquity, some 20 to 25 years was not marginal; that was the working life-span of a whole generation. And with a date prior to A.D. 70, when the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred, we gain new insights into the historical Jesus, who prophesied both events. Records from eyewitnesses remain fundamental, and they are a challenge to scholars as much as to skeptics and believers. CARSTEN PETER THIEDE Paderborn, Germany

A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES

The self-styled Montana Freemen, with the small compound that is their "sovereign territory" [NATION, April 8], should be allowed their little "state." If the Freemen and similar groups that believe they are a law unto themselves really want a place they can control--without the burden of taxes, mortgages, licenses or laws except of their own making--give them a desert island and a one-way ticket to get there. Here in the U.S., folks who abide by the laws of our land won't have to worry about being in the way if gunfire breaks out. People such as the Freemen won't pay taxes, but they will hold out their hand for any government giveaways. PAM SOULIER Unicoi, Tennessee

The Freemen don't recognize the authority of the U.S. No problem! Let them form their own country. Treat them like Cuba. Don't accept their visas. Don't allow trade with them. If they have a problem with that, let them work it out through the U.N. AL STEENWYK Holland, Michigan Via E-mail

THE NRC'S MISSION

I found it troubling that TIME would devote a cover story to evaluating the safety of nuclear-power plants and the performance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [BUSINESS, March 4] without providing a more balanced and objective account. I am concerned that some Americans might conclude that the nation's 110 nuclear-power plants are somehow unsafe or that the NRC is not meeting its statutory mission of protecting public health and safety. That is clearly not the case. In fact, the overall safety performance of nuclear-power plants as reflected by NRC performance indicators has improved over the past 10 years.

Although there have certainly been problems at the Millstone nuclear-power plants in Waterford, Connecticut, over the years, any suggestion that the Millstone situation borders on an impending Chernobyl-type disaster does a disservice to our agency and the public. However, there are lessons to be learned and improvements to be made as a result of the attention focused on Millstone. Since the issues were brought to my attention last fall, I have called for a number of rigorous investigations and evaluations of the performance of the plant operator and the NRC staff. The insights gained from these moves will be used to improve our regulatory program, and we at the NRC will move forward to become even more effective in performing our safety mission. SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington

Since TIME's article appeared, the NRC has shut down all three nuclear power plants at Millstone Station. They remain off-line.

PROTESTS ABOUT PORK

I know one person's pork is another's pet project. However, I must protest Citizens Against Government Waste's selecting and TIME's highlighting [NOTEBOOK, April 8] Senators Conrad Burns and Bob Dole for presumably steering federal dollars to their respective states in the form of upgrades to military installations. In many cases our service members are forced to live and work in pre-World War II facilities that are hot in summer and cold in winter. Yet we ask our armed-forces volunteers to live under these conditions. And how do we know that it wasn't the installation commanders who led the fight for improvements for their troops? ED KERTIS, Major, U.S.A. U.S. Embassy Tegucigalpa Via E-mail

Before branding the funding for the propeller shop and foundry at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard as an example of poor government spending, the Citizens Against Government Waste should have checked the facts. While the Navy yard was ordered closed by the Base Closure Commission, the propeller shop and foundry were never part of that decision. This facility is the only government shop with the capacity to produce large propeller castings for all modern U.S. Navy ships and submarines, and it is critical to our military. THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA U.S. Representative 1st District, Pennsylvania Washington

REMEMBERING THE HOLOCAUST

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners [BOOKS, April 1] asks a question that Germans of the younger generation have long wanted to pose to their parents and grandparents: What did they know, and what did they do? One thing is certain: there are no simple answers. The Holocaust plot involved fanaticized henchmen as well as sadistic executioners, opportunistic collaborators and people who heard rumors they would or would not believe in the context of raging war and burning cities. After all, the regime went to extraordinary lengths to disguise what was going on, apparently afraid of what the popular reaction would be. To me, Goldhagen is guilty of a gross generalization no historian should indulge in. HENNING BISCHOF Mannheim, Germany Via E-mail

Born in 1924 and raised in Berlin, I can assure you that the vast majority of Germans did not know what the Nazis did to our Jewish friends. We grew up with them, saw them deported and were made to believe they were "resettled" in the East. The anti-Semitic program of the Nazis was certainly not taken seriously enough when it first started in 1933. Even Kristallnacht in 1938 was regarded by many Germans as an unfortunate excess. The truth, for most of us and most of the world, became evident after the Nazi nightmare was over. SIEGFRIED KRAMER Bonn

TREATING THE MAN'S CANCER

While your article on prostate cancer [MEDICINE, April 1] successfully educates the public about the need for diagnosis and treatment, it does a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of men treated with radiation therapy by failing to include remarks from specialists in the field. Radiation is a standard therapy for this disease and is performed as often as surgery. Results from several major institutions show that 40% to 60% of all patients treated with radiation for all stages of prostate cancer have a favorable prostate-specific antigen test five years after treatment. Results for patients who are comparable to surgical candidates are even better. The American Urological Association analyzed all the available data on radiation and surgery and concluded "there was no clear-cut evidence for the superiority of any one treatment." Please set the record straight on the success of radiation as an important treatment option for prostate-cancer patients. STEVEN A. LEIBEL, M.D., President WILLIAM U. SHIPLEY, M.D, Member of the Board American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Reston, Virginia

HISTORIANS LIKE STANDARDS

Your report on the debate over national education standards [EDUCATION, April 8] referred to the "professional historians" who you said "denounced" the original edition of the national history standards. In fact, the overwhelming majority of historians had only praise for the standards, as did the leadership of the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians and the Organization of American History Teachers. Journalists have repeatedly said the standards--voluntary guides for teachers of history--have been widely denounced. In fact, they have been narrowly denounced by a small group of self-appointed critics whose remarks got wide media coverage. The newly revised edition of history standards will serve as an even more effective method to improve historical literacy. JOYCE APPLEBY, President-elect American Historical Association Los Angeles

THE REAL MARILYN MONROE

Actress Mira Sorvino was very perceptive to observe that Marilyn Monroe's dumb-blond persona was just a facade [PEOPLE, April 8]. When I was a young resident physician, I had the pleasure of meeting Marilyn and playing a role in her medical care. Not only was she a kind and compassionate woman, but she was also highly intelligent and interested in a wide variety of subjects. One example: she asked about a book I was reading by Albert Einstein, describing his philosophy of life. She borrowed it, read it and thoughtfully discussed it with me. I always liked the real Marilyn Monroe much better than the Hollywood image. SHELDON WOLF Los Angeles