Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Jacob(smooth)]

As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

[discipulus]

---

As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

---

Are you serious?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Yep. Go ahead.

[truthBtold]

Orange is the new black.

[Esquilax]

Are you serious?

... Said the man who believes in a Jewish wizard who came back from the dead.

[Fromper]

Yes, the Bible contains contradictions. I think we all knew that. Was there a specific reason you wanted to point out this particular contradiction to the rest of us?

You said "This is what clinched it for me." Clinched what for you? The realization that the Bible contradicts itself?

[truthBtold]

Yes, the Bible contains contradictions. I think we all knew that. Was there a specific reason you wanted to point out this particular contradiction to the rest of us?

You said "This is what clinched it for me." Clinched what for you? The realization that the Bible contradicts itself?

Clinched butt checks?

[Minimalist]

Purple was the imperial color in Ancient Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple

Purple was the color worn by Roman Emperors and magistrates, and later by Roman Catholic bishops. Since that time, purple has been commonly associated with royalty and piety.

This detail seems like a little gloss added to the story for the benefit of a gentile audience.

The paludamentum was a military cloak normally worn by a commander but the color was not really standardized. Julius Caesar was known for wearing a scarlet cloak in battle.

[*Deidre*]

This could be what inspired Crayola.

[pocaracas]

In portuguese, red is "vermelho" or "encarnado", purple is "roxo" (but can also be "púrpura")
In spanish, red is "rojo", puple is "púrpura".
In italian, red is "rosso", purple is "porpora".
In romanian, red is "roșu", purple is "purpuriu".
In french red is "rouge", purple is "pourpre".

Do you see where this is going?
Those damned portuguese mess up the whole thing.... or they're so far away from the center, that they kept the original word for purple and came up with a different one (or kept the pre-latin) for the well known red.

Let's check the etimology department...
It seems the portuguese "roxo" comes from the latin "russeus" which means dark red.

According to other places on the web, russeus means "reddish", or "having red as its color"...

But the original would have been written in greek, right?
According to google translator, russeus (latin) is "κόκκινος", in greek.... And that just means red.
Curiously, google translator also translates russeus to "vermelho" (portuguese), rojo (spanish), rosso (italian), roșu (romanian) and rouge (french).

So there you go... make of it what you will.