# ***Jesus' Resurrection

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 12, 1999 at 17:26:08 {CkRQXOxAaIMRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: **Jesus' Resurrection posted by felix a on November 12, 1999 at 12:14:47:

You are entirely wrong. The fact that you have an implied "contradiction" which is resolved completely by recognizing this was the common name of at least three of those in Jesus' immediate support system is all you need to support this.

It is in the context. But my argument is your argument. You're presuming we can't presume anything unless it is plainly stated. I'm stating that when you're dealing with ancient texts you must be aggressive about trying to understand the culture and writing style as an assist in understanding the text.

So the unwritten rule is, is to first give the writers every benefit of the doubt that they are not total morons when you see a seeming contradiction and then try to look past the words and into the cultural background or language style to understand whether or not you're superimposing your own cultural bias to the situation and thus misinterpreting what is being related.

Here's a PRIME example! The custom of co-rulerships in Israel. For the stability of the monarchy, many times the sons were made kings early on. This gave them experience and gave the country a chance to get used to their new king. Then when the father died, there was stability. Oftentimes the oldest sons were only 15 or 20 years younger than the father so even if the father died at 70 or 80, the sons were right behind them. So it worked out that the fathers would step back from the day-to-day management of the country, perhaps retire, and let the sons do most of the hard management of the country they were going to inherit anyway. These retired kings sometomes went visiting other courts, etc. That was the RULE!

But because we are so Euro-monarch oriented, and a "king" is the king and the "prince" is only the prince until he becomes king, we don't tend to think that in that culture the heir was also called "king." These kings thus had two important "kingship" dates in their careers instead of one. They actually became king "twice" sometimes. That is, they became king when they were appointed as the official heir, and they became "king" again when their father died. And both dates are often given.

For instance Jehoram the king of Israel is said to have become king once in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat and again in the 2nd year of Joram. But, Joram became king in the 5th year of Jehoram.
That means that Jehoram became king i the second year of Joram, which was his sixth year! Explanation?

It simply means that his father, Ahab died in his six year and he ruled as co-ruler with his father for six years.

Do you think secular chronologists looking at this would pick up on it? No. Thiele did though and the result was an approximately 49-50 year reduction in the entire "Divided Kingdom" period.
But the Jews themselves have always had a reduced chronology for this period of that approximate time, meaning they understood the co-rulership references were to be coordinated.

Because of this lack of concern to coordinate the scriptures, however, superficial chronologists such as even the Witnesses, simply add the years up end-to-end for the Judean kingship and where the huge gaps are in the Israelite kingships, they just presume there must have been in interregnum there. But a study of ancient culture during the period would show you this was their custom to make the young sons "kings" and to have co-rulerships.

You're doing the same thing here. Just because nobody in the gospels explained to you that there were many Marys or many Mary Magdalenes and they gave specific details of when each came to the tomb, it's easier for you to think there is a Biblical contradiction rather than try to understand the culture. It's confusing for us because Mary Magdalene appears to be a specific name of one individual but in that culture it simply wasn't.

Bottom line is that you can apply an overly simplistic and culturally biased view of this, or you can try to look into cultural and linguistic alternatives to try to resolve what looks like a contradiction but which really is not. Thus NOT presuming there were three Mary Magdalenes becomes the irresponsible treatment of the ancient text since it is the lazy alternative and shows some disdain for the competence of the writers.

In my research, I prefer to try to remove as much cultural bias as possible and to look closely at the language to determine if I'M missing something in the background, rather than thinking on superficial analysis when something isn't clear that it's just a mistake. Translation is an art, not a science.

However, since I know people think they are smart and always presume others are so dumb, including the gospel writers, it is just sufficient for me to tell you that this problem with the different accounts which seem to be confusing to YOU, is totally resolved when you increase the number of Mary Magdalenes and thus the problem totally disappears.

Therefore, whether there is a contradiction or not totally depends upon cultural bias, one way or the other.

Increase the number of Mary Magdalenes, and the problem disappears.

So it's a draw.

You PRESUME there is a contradiction because you believe there was only one Mary Magdalene, a culturally biased position.

I PRESUME there is no contradiction because I recognize there were at least three based upon the cultural context, a culturally sensitive position.

Sorry, but there is no contradiction.

Know this.

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

- ****Jesus' Resurrection felix a 09:30:24 11/13/99 (1)
  - *****Jesus' Resurrection Bibleman 11:17:06 11/13/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ****Jesus' Resurrection

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]