Another letter from Mr. Rolko addressed to the curator of the ROM. (Letters to the Editor).

My wife and I are members of the ROM. We recently visited the ossuary there and found it very interesting. I now have a couple of comments which I respectfully submit to you.

* The name of Jerusalem on the wall is misspelled once.

* Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome. St. Peter was the first (~33 - ~67), and was followed by Linus (~67 - ~79), then Anacletus (or Cletus) (~79- ~91). Clement was the next bishop of Rome (~92- ~101). The inscription on the wall gives the impression that Clement had been direct successor to Peter.

* I have read about the change of the term A.D. to C.E. (Common Era) in the ROM. While the effort to achieve inclusiveness by the ROM is highly commendable, I daresay that this is not enough. After all, the beginning of C.E. is still the year when Christ was believed to have been born (I realize that the exact year of His birth is uncertain). So, this is not really C.E. To make the system truly inclusive, please consider the following:

Now we live in the Christian calendar year of 2002. According to the Jewish calendar, this is year 5762, and according to the Muslim calendar this is year 1380 (0 year being the year of the Hijrah). Please add up the three figures 2002 + 5762 + 1380 = 9144; the average of this total is exactly 3048. So, the present year would be year 3048--which is truly inclusive, and should satisfy all Christian, Jewish, and Muslim brethren. And this would truly be a C.E.

In the true C.E. (as recommended by myself) the 0 year would be 1046 B.C. (or B.C.E.). This is a "neutral" year, not offensive to any of the three monotheistic religions. Still, it was a very important year because in that year, Masaherta died (Masaherta was the high priest in Egypt under Pharaoh Semendes I (1069-945), who ruled in the 21st dynasty.

Toronto, ON

Editor: See also Brigid Elson's article on the ossuary in this issue.