Hi Joseph,
I noted that I didn't have to answer your question since I needed only one example of this style in the gospels. I just told you that it was a common Jewish style to hide these references but I didn't feel like bothering giving you any since I know you'll just argue about them.
But since you INSIST, I'll give you one Biblical example and one "secular Jewish" example:
Because of the apparent chronology revisions during ancient times, the Bible seems to purposely make their chronology confusing during the Divided Kingdom period. The reason why might be because if the chronology is confounding and confusing then it makes it more difficult to revise. Furthermore, a complex chronology that nobody understands doesn't seem to contradict the ever-going changes in other chronologies. Here's an example of what I mean.
The Jewish kings were often co-rulers. The father would retire early while retaining his title and his son would start actively ruling as "king" while his father was still alive. This was done by an official ceremony. This provided the context for a king who succeeded his father while still alive to have "become king" twice; once when he became the official king-co-ruler and once again when his father died and he was coronated as the official king.
So the Bible writers took advantage of this to weave a complex pattern of references to these kingships, contrasting the chronology between the two kingdoms.
Here's your example:
Jehorum, the son of Ahab is said to have "become king" on two separate dates. One was in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat and the other was in the second year of Joram the son of Jehoshaphat. But elsewhere, we learn that Joram became king in the 5th year of Jehoram. Is that a contradiction? No.
What this gives us are both of Jehorams "King" dates. That is, he became co-ruler in the 18th of Jehoshaphat and his father died in his sixth year since he became king again in the second of Joram who became king his Jehoram's fifth year. In other words, he became king in his sixth year as sole ruler.
But in order to align that right you also have to have the right alignment of Jehoshaphat's rule and when Joram became co-ruler with his father as well. So it's very, very complex! But if you sat down and worked it out, you'd be able to figure it all out by all the references. Most persons haven't been able to figure it out without presuming some empty gaps in the kingships, because most don't realize that the co-ruler was called the "king" and there were co-rulerships. But it should be clear that the Bible is not straightforward about this chronology and is purposely making this complex in order to confound outsiders who might want to revise or suppress these historical records.
NOW, Josephus does this many times in his works, especially since he was aware of this little play on words with respect to these kingships.
Thus in APION we find him making a vague reference to the Jews being in exile for 70 years at 1:19 and then later a reference to Cyrus beoming king after "fifty years" of desolation of Jerusalem. Now taken as it is, it seems that he contradicts himself in 1:21 when he says the city was desolated for a period of "fifty years". But this is a critical contradiction since it was just in the previous paragraph that he again asserted a 70-year desolation period.
So is Josephus, like the gospel writers, just a another dumb historian? Who can't make up his mind if the Jerusalem was desolated for 70 vs 50 years? Or is there some secret hidden meaning here?
Well....we can reflect back onto the Bible's use of the co-rulership and see if that might not solve the problem here. Well, of course, it does. How so? Because Cyrus became king of Persia twenty years before he conquered Babylon. The revised dating is 559 and 539BCE, a 20-year interval. Of course, in case you haven't noticed, there is a 20-year interval between 70 years and 50 years. Therefore, to correct the apparently contradiction, it need only be true that Jerusalem was desolated for fifty years AND seventy Years at the time Cyrus became king, either in Persia and/or Babylon. And that is exactly the case. Cyrus became king of Persia 50 years after the desolation began and again when he conquered Babylon he started counting a new kingship 20 years later.
So one way to look at this is that Josephus is not contradicing himself at all, but playing the "kingship" word game and making a reference to the two kingship dates of Cyrus, which are 20 years apart. Thus his 70 year reference and 50 year reference tell us that Cyrus became king twice, 20 years apart, 50 years and 70 years after Jerusalem's desolation began.
See.
And I have other examples of this. But I don't expect you, who have proven to be totally biased, to pay any attention to this.
But I have provided you with the example and this is enough of a basis to suggest that the Bible and Jewish writers do seem to present contradictory texts which, in fact, attempt to hide information from outsiders, and the gospels are simply doing the same thing. This is VERY JEWISH if you know and have study Jewish style in literature.
So I know what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. And that doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon.
At any rate, it's not because I don't have the examples that I didn't bother presenting them, not that I needed to to prove my point. But I wasn't just making something up, this was truly based upon many other examples and is well-founded.
I hope that satisfied your answer, when actually, I was not interested in satisfying your answer but merely showing others who might be reading this that your claim that I didn't have any examples meant I was bluffing or something like that. I don't need to bluff, I have the FACTS. You need to bluff because you have nothing.
Have a nice day Joseph. Try again harder next time.
By the way, the Bible IS TRUE and Christ IS real and you're going to have to pay for all this deception you're putting out. Don't think that on Judgment Day you can pretend ignorance. You're being far too dishonest about your arguments to claim you don't know any better. So I hope you consider that "every unprofitable word" you speak you will be held accountable for. I'm sure you've read that scripture so I don't have to quote the verse, do I?
Have a nice day.
L.G.
