Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[discipulus]

These are different colors which is what Jake said. Frankly, considering some of the other blatant fuck-ups in your silly-assed bible I consider this one minimal but it exists, just as he said it did.

P.S. - purple, as noted somewhere, was very expensive dye and was reserved for the emperor. Do you really think a common soldier would risk insulting the emperor for some insignificant jew who was about to be dead? Get your head out of your ass, huh.

I do not think you read what I wrote.

Matthew uses the Greek word for scarlet. It does not say light scarlet or dark scarlet. Mark and John use the Greek word for purple. They do not say light purple or dark purple.

If one had said the robe was white and the other had said it was black, then we would have a problem no doubt.

But it is a simple fact that certain shades of scarlet and certain shades of purple look the same. So calling an item that was more than likely worn and faded purple and calling the same article scarlet when no doubt the robe when new would have been more of a darker red color is not the same as calling the article black and then calling them same article white.

If you and I were asked to give our view of what a certain article of clothing was and it fell into this particular range of colors, we probably would not agree.

So why are you all excited about any of this?

---

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.

Certain shades of certain colors look similar to if not identical to other shades of other colors, and this is irrespective of varying lighting conditions.

You act like this is something I am making up lol!