Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Lek]

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.

Mark's account could have been from a witness who described the cloak as scarlett when it was really purple or vice versa. Or maybe the writers weren't really concerned about the difference between scarlett and purple. It doesn't have any effect on the inspiration of the bible. To me it's a "so what?".

[discipulus]

---

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.

---

Yeah, they're the arguments I've heard before. I think you managed to include all the ones I mentioned plus a new one.

But I'm afraid that they entirely miss the point and the difficulty I have.

When I read red, I think red.

When I read purple, I think purple.

They are different.

If we can stretch allegory to the extent that a simple report of color becomes possibly a colour, possibly a shade, possibly a symbol of kingship and possibly of both, what CAN'T we achieve with sufficient mental gymnastics, hermeneutics, etymological deconstruction, contextual historical interpretation etc? The whole book becomes nothing more than a typeface from which we select the themes and contents we want.

Without snarkyness, I'm impressed with your depth of research, I really am. And I believe that this solves the problem for you. I suspect that the symmetry of your solution even gave you the warm glow of discovery. But I'm afraid it leaves me cold. In fact, it undermines my confidence in the bible even more because it demonstrates just how far a bald, naked descriptive statement can be stretched. And the answer is, a long fucking way!

Where does that leave us for the rest of the bible? What statements are we taking at face value that we should be unwrapping as you did this one? What are we unwrapping and interpreting that we should be taking at face value?

I know that the colour of the robe is a theological irrelevancy compared to the big moral or other conundra, but it is the biggest, simplest, most balls out example of how one has to turn mental somersaults to make the bible fit ITSELF. And that's even before we start testing it against historical record, or scientific likelihood.

Ok, lets try another one. Why do the reports of Jesus last words differ? What, in fact, were Jesus last words.

I think you fail to take into account the historical and cultural context of the gospels as well as what they were written for.

These events happened some time ago. The gospel writers were not writing with the intent to talk about the color of clothes. They were writing to tell about Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God who died for the sins of mankind.

If one had said the robe was black and another had said it was white, you could take it as a contradiction.

But scarlet and purple??????

The people reading these gospels when they were written would have clearly understood what the author was intending to say.

You must put yourself into the sandals of a first century Jew when approaching these gospels. They were not written yesterday. They were not even written in English but Greek and in a completely different time and culture.

No Jew or Greek or Roman when reading these accounts would have said: "Aha!!!!! We got em now boys! Look at these nuts, talking about scarlet and purple! Why who do they think we are? Idiots???"

Of course not lol. They would have immediately imagined in their minds the many robes they had seen people wearing and would relate these accounts with the things they had seen with their own eyes.

Matthew and John and Mark did not spend their time writing these gospels so we would have precise accounts of the robes Roman soldiers wore or what color they wore. These works were not references for robe makers or cloth dyers. They were written to give an account about a man's life, what He did, the things He said, how He died, just like any other biography is.



With regards to the differing reports, they differ because different men wrote the reports!

If they were all going to be the same word for word, only one needed to be written.

If you were to write a biography about your mother, and your brother decided to write one as well and the two of you were at her bedside when she died and she was saying her last good byes, she might say something that resonated with you more than it did with your brother. If this was the case you would include it in your biography of her while your brother omits it. He might have something in his account of her last words that you omit. The accounts do not contradict each other, but rather compliment one another and gives the reader of the biography insight into you as an author and what touched you the most.

It is no different with the gospels.

[Angrboda]

I guess it all depends on how you view reality. I am not a naturalist. I do not think reality can be explained by appealing only to natural processes acting on matter over time.

I believe God exists and that He made the world and the people in it. I also believe people have messed up and done evil with what God has given them. I in a sense, expect to read about divine miracles and stuff like that because I expect God to act within the world He has made.

I do not start out a priori with the view that miracles are impossible or that supernatural events cannot happen.

That and $6 will get you an espresso at Starbuck's.

[discipulus]

I guess it all depends on how you view reality. I am not a naturalist. I do not think reality can be explained by appealing only to natural processes acting on matter over time.

I believe God exists and that He made the world and the people in it. I also believe people have messed up and done evil with what God has given them. I in a sense, expect to read about divine miracles and stuff like that because I expect God to act within the world He has made.

I do not start out a priori with the view that miracles are impossible or that supernatural events cannot happen.

That and $6 will get you an espresso at Starbuck's.

I do not frequent them. I refuse to pay that much for espresso. Six dollars could feed a child for several days in some third world countries.

One reason why America is a land full of obese people is because a great many love to sit on their laurels sipping fattening drinks after forking over nearly ten dollars for them.

Utter rubbish!!!!

lol hock:

[Bad Writer]

That and $6 will get you an espresso at Starbuck's.

I do not frequent them. I refuse to pay that much for espresso. Six dollars could feed a child for several days in some third world countries.

One reason why America is a land full of obese people is because a great many love to sit on their laurels sipping fattening drinks after forking over nearly ten dollars for them.

Utter rubbish!!!!

lol hock:

You asshat. The obese demographic is predominantly the lower class; they cannot afford even a $4 latte, much less the $10 fantasy drink of rainbows and skittles that you seem to be proposing. Obesity is a pandemic that is not due to the lazy nature of an individual, but a problem inherent in the food industry itself. Just stick to one delusion please; swatting multiples of your anti-fact brain farts is disheartening.

[professor]

To Deidre, when Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you, He was responding to an idea that an external kingdom was proposed at that time.
Looking within oneself will never find God unless He is invited in to begin with.

The New Age leaders like Oprah think there is a landscape of wonder within.
They flatter themselves. The history of mankind testifies against them.

[Minimalist]

You are not very creative in your use of slurs and curse words.

I don't want to confuse you. You seem fairly dense.

[*Deidre*]

To Deidre, when Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you, He was responding to an idea that an external kingdom was proposed at that time.
Looking within oneself will never find God unless He is invited in to begin with.

The New Age leaders like Oprah think there is a landscape of wonder within.
They flatter themselves. The history of mankind testifies against them.

Hello. :-)

In part you're right, but what he meant was that ultimate truth can be found, within. (if we believe the story, one can assume Jesus meant that a life without God, will create an inner turmoil)

But...We don't need to believe in a Deity to live with peace, joy hope and love. Those things are the "truths" of a content life. With or without a belief in a Deity.

Yes?

[discipulus]

You are not very creative in your use of slurs and curse words.

I don't want to confuse you. You seem fairly dense.

Ehh.....

I give that one a hmmm.....

5 out of 10???

It was how shall I say......

Not so bad ??

---

I do not frequent them. I refuse to pay that much for espresso. Six dollars could feed a child for several days in some third world countries.

One reason why America is a land full of obese people is because a great many love to sit on their laurels sipping fattening drinks after forking over nearly ten dollars for them.

Utter rubbish!!!!

lol hock:

You asshat. The obese demographic is predominantly the lower class; they cannot afford even a $4 latte, much less the $10 fantasy drink of rainbows and skittles that you seem to be proposing. Obesity is a pandemic that is not due to the lazy nature of an individual, but a problem inherent in the food industry itself. Just stick to one delusion please; swatting multiples of your anti-fact brain farts is disheartening.

In case you were unawares, I was not being so utterly serious as you seem to have thought I was....

Tell me now....and be honest....do you frequent Starbucks????

LOL

[Lek]

To Deidre, when Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you, He was responding to an idea that an external kingdom was proposed at that time.
Looking within oneself will never find God unless He is invited in to begin with.

The New Age leaders like Oprah think there is a landscape of wonder within.
They flatter themselves. The history of mankind testifies against them.

Hello. :-)

In part you're right, but what he meant was that ultimate truth can be found, within. (if we believe the story, one can assume Jesus meant that a life without God, will create an inner turmoil)

But...We don't need to believe in a Deity to live with peace, joy hope and love. Those things are the "truths" of a content life. With or without a belief in a Deity.

Yes?

I don't know a single person, theist or atheist, who is truly content.