Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Jacob(smooth)]

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?

Its following on from another thread.

And what in clinched for me was that the bible was at best a record of remarkable events, rather than the inerrant word of God.

---

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.

That's very nice bullshit! Grade A. And you got in there first too!

However, red remains red. And Purple still means purple.

If I order a car This colour and they deliver one This colour, no amount of semantic argument, explanation, etymology, or anything else will mollify me, because when the Brochure says [/color]red I assume it means red and if I get a car this colour it means there is a mistake in the brochure. Even if the guy in the shop swears up and down that its actually IS red.

[Fromper]

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.

Purple has traditionally been one of the most expensive clothing dye colors to acquire, which is why it's been associated with people of wealth and station throughout most of western history.

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?

Its following on from another thread.

And what in clinched for me was that the bible was at best a record of remarkable events, rather than the inerrant word of God.

I suspected that I might be missing some back story here, which is why I asked.

[Esquilax]

That's very nice bullshit! Grade A. And you got in there first too!

However, red remains red. And Purple still means purple.

If I order a car This colour and they deliver one This colour, no amount of semantic argument, explanation, etymology, or anything else will mollify me, because when the Brochure says [/color]red I assume it means red and if I get a car this colour it means there is a mistake in the brochure. Even if the guy in the shop swears up and down that its actually IS red.

Can I just say how weird it is to have a christian telling us how we can't twist the words in the bible to mean something it doesn't in order to preserve its accuracy?

[Jacob(smooth)]

That's very nice bullshit! Grade A. And you got in there first too!

However, red remains red. And Purple still means purple.

If I order a car This colour and they deliver one This colour, no amount of semantic argument, explanation, etymology, or anything else will mollify me, because when the Brochure says [/color]red I assume it means red and if I get a car this colour it means there is a mistake in the brochure. Even if the guy in the shop swears up and down that its actually IS red.

Can I just say how weird it is to have a christian telling us how we can't twist the words in the bible to mean something it doesn't in order to preserve its accuracy?

Almost kinky isn't it.

It says what it says. I'm not going to prevaricate about it to force it to fit my prejudice and bias.

[Minimalist]

An even better question to ponder is how jesus freaks made this rather remarkable transformation from an itinerant preacher who didn't have a pot to piss in and was given the vilest form of death imaginable who somehow ends up with the trappings of a "king."

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm just kind of amused that it was this one contradiction which convinced you of the non-perfect nature of the bible. For me, I had for years wondered about the two creation stories in Genesis, and how a global flood could have happened.

But what really clinched my atheism is realizing that in Matthew 24 Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass from the earth" until the end of the world and his second coming would happen.

[Crossless2.0]

It says what it says. I'm not going to prevaricate about it to force it to fit my prejudice and bias.

Apologists take note! This is what honesty sounds like coming from a Christian. Try it sometime.

[max-greece]

Jacob - not your traditional Christian nut-job - a whole new kind.

Can I just throw in that the only non-Jewish woman in Mark's gospel is from Syro-Phoenicia but when Matthew tells it she is Canaanite.

Can't both be right.

As long as we are focusing on the important differences....

Oh - and I'm not great at purple/red vision-wise but I am totally fucked on orange/yellow apparently. OK on red and blue.

[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.

I am happy my friend that you have shared with me this matter. It appears that it has caused you to have some doubts about the reliability of the gospels.

I do not think what you have told me is an insurmountable problem. If the gospels writers were indeed inspired by God to write what they did, I believe their accounts must not contradict one another.

So let us look at the passages in question.

The only time Matthew uses the world "scarlet" in his gospel is in the 28th verse of chapter 27. In fact, no other gospel writer uses the term "scarlet" when referring to Jesus' robe, which actually was not His robe, but a robe put on Him by Roman soldiers. Keep this in mind as we work through this study.

Matthew 27:28 reads: καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν χλαμύδα κοκκίνην περιέθηκαν αὐτῷ.

The bolded word is the one in question. It is in the accusative feminine singular because the word "robe" in Greek is a feminine noun. According to strong's concordance it is defined as: crimson, scarlet, dyed with Kermes (coccum), the female coccus of the Kermes oak.

The word scarlet appears five more times in the New Testament. Once in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and four times in the Book of Revelation. Out of the four instances which this word is used in the Book of Revelation, two times it is used in conjunction with the word "purple".

Keep this also in mind as we work through this.

Also bear in mind that while the two terms were used primarily to denote colors, they were also frequently used during this time period to denote "fine" linen, and were representative of royalty, power, and other similar concepts.

Moving on......

Turning to the word "purple".

Mark uses the word twice in his gospel both instances in reference to the robe the Roman soldiers put on Jesus.

Mark 15:17 reads: καὶ ἐνδιδύσκουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ πλέξαντες

The word is used again by Mark in the 20th verse.

John uses the word twice also referring to the same robe in the 2nd and 5th verses of the 19th chapter of his gospel. The same exact word is used a total of four times by Mark and John, each instance it is used is in reference to Jesus' robe put on Him by the Romans.

According to Strong's concordance the term is used to denote a purple (reddish-purple) cloth or dye. See 4209 (porphýra).

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".

Bearing in mind also that the process of dyeing clothes in the ancient world and the process of dyeing clothes today differed. The dye in clothes made today lasts much longer than the dye used in the ancient world due to the simple fact that we have at our disposal advanced technology and an assortment of various methods and means to dye clothes. Back then they used what nature supplied them with so it is in no way unreasonable to think that a reddish purplish robe would after some time fade in such a way as to be perceived by some as being purple.

In addition we must remember that Matthew was writing with a specific audience in mind. He was writing to Jews and his gospel was a biography which focused on Jesus as being the long awaited Messiah of Israel i.e the one of whom the many symbols and types and shadows found in the Old Testament was referring to. The use of the phrase "scarlet robe" which is unique to Matthew is no doubt an allusion to the symbols found in the Old Testament described by the same word. Scarlet articles were a part of various rituals that were to be undertaken by the people of God and even the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to this fact. So Matthew, when speaking of Jesus to his fellow Jews, utilizes phrases and words that his audience would have no doubt understood and portrays Him as The One in whom all of the types and shadows of the Old Testament find their fulfillment.

In light of the above Jacob(smooth) the fact that Matthew uses a different word to describe Jesus' robe than Mark and John do is no contradiction at all. It is not even what many would call a "difficulty". Matthew, rightly calling the robe a "scarlet" robe does so in order that his audience might see Jesus as the King of the Jews and The One in whom all of the types and shadows of the Old Testament find their fruition, and Mark and John also rightly call the robe a "purple" robe, no doubt because of its color, but even more so because it was symbolic of Kingship.

There is no need to go to the lengths of saying well, maybe there were two robes, or one robe made of two different colors of cloth. No no no. The robe was more than likely a robe of one color, used and worn and faded, and the soldiers who thought they were mocking Jesus, unbeknownst to them were inadvertently acknowledging His true Kingship.

So these accounts instead of discouraging you, should give you all the more reason to believe that even when evil men believe that they are mocking and spurning God, they are actually only making themselves look like fools.

[pocaracas]

That's very nice bullshit! Grade A. And you got in there first too!

Thank you!
I've been learning from the best, over this year and a half of membership!

However, red remains red. And Purple still means purple.

yes, I agree.
Could there have been an error in translation?
Could it just be that the cloth in question was simply of a particular reddish shade of purple, so as to render it very difficult for a "guy" to name the color, leading some to use red where others would use purple?