Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Angrboda]

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.

---

The Greek language even contained a specific name for a garment that was purple. The word is "porphýra" – purple, symbolic of "royal status" (L & N, 1, 79.38). There were three familiar shades of purple in the ancient world: deep violet, deep scarlet (or crimson), and deep blue (WP, 2, 220).

So to recap, Matthew describes Jesus' robe as a "scarlet" robe and only speaks of the robe specifically using this term one time in his gospel while both Mark and John use the word "purple" a total of four times. Also, do not forget, the author of the Book of Revelation uses both words in conjunction two times to denote power and honor. Also bear in mind that in the ancient world, there were several shades of purple. A deep violet which would be considered the purest and most valuable dye used in the process of coloring clothing and would be reserved for those elite of Roman society, you then had a deep scarlet shade of purple which was usually reserved for Military commanders and officers. The robe in question was no doubt one such robe and had probably been worn and faded due to exposure to the sun. Hence the Romans did not mind wrapping it around the body of a bloody Jewish man. This robe when new would rightly have been referred to as a "scarlet" robe even though after use and exposure to the sun the robe would fade and appear purplish in color especially when under certain lighting conditions not unlike clothes we see today that were once a very rich and vibrant color appearing after much use to be faded and "lighter".

This is so ad hoc as to not be worth taking seriously. It's one of those "it could have happened" stories that apologists are so fond of. And Jesus "could have been" a man eating dinosaur. Out of nothing you dredge up that the color of soldiers robes, under certain conditions which are nowhere specified in the text, might have looked such that it could equally well be described as two different colors. And nowhere do you justify that all three ancient shades were used in royal or imperial cloaks. While we're at it, why don't we just "insert into the text" that Noah was the owner of a galactic hyper-ship building company he won in a poker game from a space-faring alien. It coulda happened.