What Color was Jesus' Robe?

[HankD]

The current topic suffices: Varying accounts of the color of Jesus' robe. They factually disagree, but they do not detract from the truth contained therein. The facts regarding the documented colors of his robes is inconsequential to the truth that is being presented in the context: Jesus was dressed in robes whose colors were intended to mock his claim of royalty. The actual color of his robe is inconsequential

This will not suffice, there are several credible reasons as to how the two accounts can give different colors but both be true depending on the time slice (for instance) the one writer saw him versus the other writer after they had changed the robe as the Scripture indicates.

Therefore there is no factual error.

Give us another one.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HankD:
This will not suffice, there are several credible reasons as to how the two accounts can give different colors but both be true depending on the time slice (for instance) the one writer saw him versus the other writer after they had changed the robe as the Scripture indicates.

Where does scripture indicate that one royal-colored robe was changed out for another one?

Therefore there is no factual error. Give us another one.

Kindly explain the differing accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb. They contradict.

 

[HankD]

Kindly explain the differing accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb. They contradict.

This is not the main issue, the main issue is that if these "differing" accounts of the FACTS of the discovery of the empty tomb are actually in error, how then can we trust the "FACT" that the tomb was indeed empty.

After all you are the one who said “the scriptural facts need not be 100% error free in order for the truth to be 100% error free.” The resurrection is a Truth of the Scriptures, if the ”facts” leading up to this Truth are wrong how can we trust the FACT of the resurrection?

I contend that there are no errors of fact in the Bible. There may be differences in the account of an historical event which may look like a contradiction but can be explained (as with the robe) had we ALL the facts.

Where does scripture indicate that one royal-colored robe was changed out for another one?

You added the words “royal-colored” I never used those words.

Matthew 27:26-31
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band [of soldiers].
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put [it] upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify [him].

One scenario might be that after profuse bleeding from the scourging, the purple robe turned scarlet and that's what the Spirit of God impressed upon the mind of Matthew.

HankD

 

[aefting]

Copied from my response on another thread:


I think a better explaination is that "scarlet" in Matthew and "purple" in John and Mark refer to the color of the same robe, only Matthew is more precise in his wording. The greek word for purple can evidently stand for a range of colors, including the scarlet of the robes readily available to the Roman soldiers (so Gundry and Hiebert). The word "purple" could be used (legitimately and without introducing an error) to emphasize the meaning of the symbol that the robe mockingly represented.

Andy

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HankD:
This is not the main issue, the main issue is that if these "differing" accounts of the FACTS of the discovery of the empty tomb are actually in error, how then can we trust the "FACT" that the tomb was indeed empty.

You're sidestepping the issue. Again kindly explain the differing accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb. They contradict.

You have contradictory accounts of the number of women at the tomb, contradicting accounts of the number of angels at the tomb, contradicting accounts of whether the tomb was found opened or whether it was opened after the arrival of the women, and contradictory accounts of whether the angel(s) were inside the tomb or outside the tomb.

Again, these differences in accounts do not compromise the scriptural truth: that Jesus died, and rose from the dead. But to say that these items don't contradict each other is incorrect.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by aefting:
The word "purple" could be used (legitimately and without introducing an error) to emphasize the meaning of the symbol that the robe mockingly represented.

You hit the nail on the head. The point of the account is the mocking nature of the robe. The accounts of color themselves factually disagree, but they do not detract from the truth contained therein. The facts regarding the documented colors of his robes is inconsequential to the truth that is being presented in the context: Jesus was dressed in robes whose colors were intended to mock his claim of royalty. The actual color of his robe is inconsequential.

 

[LadyEagle]

What Color was Jesus' Robe?

Who cares?

Agreed!

 

[LadyEagle]

Dr. Bob, I disagree about indigo.

The three primary colors are:
Red
Blue
Yellow

Combinations of these comprise the three secondary colors:

Red + Yellow = Orange
Blue + Red = Purple
Yellow + Blue = Green

I learned this in grade school in art class, in which I got "Excellent" on my report card.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think it was reddish purple

 

[HankD]

Again, these differences in accounts do not compromise the scriptural truth: that Jesus died, and rose from the dead. But to say that these items don't contradict each other is incorrect.

I disagree strongly, the only other way that I can say this is to say that these "differences" are not "differences" but 1) the so-called "differences" are due to the use of synonyms (scarlet, crimson) because of the preference or cultural background of the inspired writer or 2) there are other facts which we do not know that would explain the "differences".

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally by LadyEagle:
Dr. Bob, I disagree about indigo.

The three primary colors are:
Red
Blue
Yellow

Combinations of these comprise the three secondary colors:

Red + Yellow = Orange
Blue + Red = Purple
Yellow + Blue = Green

I learned this in grade school in art class, in which I got "Excellent" on my report card

You missed something in Junior High called the color spectrum
Red
Orange (combined red/yellow)
Yellow
Green (combined yellow/blue)
Blue
Indigo/Violet (combined blue/red)

Purple isn't in the mix, even if it's in the box of crayolas.

 

[LadyEagle]

Oh, yeh, Dr. Bob, well take this:

The Primary colors are blue, red, and yellow and cannot be made by mixing other colors together.

Secondary colors are orange, purple and green and are made by mixing two primary colors from either side of the color wheel.

Source

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[QB] If you think about it the slight differences lend more credibility to the accounts. They were written years after the fact.

This is conjecture. The intimate details and extreme cohesion of the gospel accounts (and Acts) show that these books was written from eyewitness accounts and likely not long after the actual events. Incidentally, if one of them was written after 70 A.D., it surely would have mentioned Jerusalem being overthrown by the Romans and the Jews being slaughtered and scattered.

Jesus robe was a deep scarlet... Wait, I kinda remember it being more purple.

This sounds pathetic and if this were really the level of the gospel writers' integrity, then the gospels wouldn't be trustworthy. At any rate, there were likely two different robes. The scriptures allow for this possibility and in fact, they say this quite plainly. One robe was applied before the crown of thorns and was removed, then the other robe was applied after the crown of thorns. I think this was discussed in the first couple of pages at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/4140.html? .

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

Was it vinegar or wine with myrrh?

At what hour of the day was Jesus crucified?

EXACTLY what did the inscription on the cross say?

These are all little inconsistencies in the accounts. They are there, like it or not.

As I said I think this lends credence to the case of four separate eye-witness accounts.

I'm sure you have some sort of answer for them all - but are the answers REALLY the most likely explanations or are you forcing the round peg in the square hole?

 

[HankD]

I'm sure you have some sort of answer for them all - but are the answers REALLY the most likely explanations or are you forcing the round peg in the square hole?

Yes there are credible answers for each of these questions and each of these questions has been dealt with before (some several times) here on the BB. The truth of the matter is that everyone here has probably made up their minds and formed a conviction concerning the explanation of these "differences" in the gospel accounts.

Why then do we continue to debate these and other pet issues with the debates sometimes ending badly?

How often I have thought of the following joke when I see these debates:

Man goes to prison, has a cell-mate.

During the evening hours someone on the cell block yells out "42!".
Everyone laughs uncontrollably.

Some one else yells out "26!" Again everyone laughs.

The new guy asks his cell mate "why does everyone laugh when someone shouts out a number"?

His cellmate answers "this is how we tell jokes, cuz we've told the jokes so many time we have them memorized and so we numbered them and when we want to tell the jokes we just shout out the numbers".

"Oh", the newbies says, "can I try it"?. "Sure, go ahead" his cellmate answers.

the newbie shouts out "14!". No one laughs.
"What happened" he askes his cell mate, "no one laughed at my joke"?

"well", he answers "some can tell 'em and some can't".

Maybe we should number the subjects and answers, post the numbers and save some bandwidth.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HankD:
Yes there are credible answers for each of these questions and each of these questions has been dealt with before (some several times) here on the BB.

I've been on this board a few years, and actually, this issue hasn't discussed much. Feel free to give links to other threads where the specific issues have been discussed.

The truth of the matter is that everyone here has probably made up their minds and formed a conviction concerning the explanation of these "differences" in the gospel accounts.

No, the truth is that there are factual inconsistencies in scripture, and, with the exception of some worthwhile conjecture and discussion the robe color issue, no one to date has addressed them point by point.

Why then do we continue to debate these and other pet issues with the debates sometimes ending badly?

Because the issues have not been addressed. They have been glossed over who disagree with them. Those points so far are:

If the Bible contains no factual error, what color was Jesus' robe?

Why are there contradictory accounts of the details surrounding the discovery of the tomb?

At the crucifixion, was Jesus given vinegar, or wine with myrrh?

At what hour of the day was Jesus crucified?

EXACTLY what did the inscription on the cross say?

 

[HankD]

I partcipated in some of these questions johnv and no, I will not do the work for you to find them.

And yes you have made up your mind just as I have concerning our individual views concerning factual "errors" in the Bible.

I believe thay have been sufficiently addressed, you do not.

I am not questioning your spirituality.

I believe it was Skan who put together the composite of what was written above the cross in 3 languages. What the writters of the Scripture gave was what they could read in the language(s) they understood and the distance from the cross versus their visual acuity. There may have been other factors.

To me this suffices that there were/are no errors of fact in the Bible. I personally don't need every year or so to rehash these things.

I respect your opinions and value your friendship. I consider you my brother in Christ and I don't want to be the cause or a contributor of any animosity between us.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

HankD,

I appreciate your comments, and there is no animosity here, intended or implied. The questions posed here are certainly healthy in regard to discussion, and can be discussed without inferring that those who partake in the discussion are having their spirituality or commitment to the Lord or scripture challenged. I value the fact that you are not doing this. Thank you.

 

[Marcia]

I think that the way colors are perceived can be partly cultural and maybe not consistent over time. I recall a teacher once telling us that in the U.S. blue is often used with white by artists to make it really white, as in portraying snow. But in another culture (I forgot which one), another color -- I think red -- was added to make the snow look "really" white in that culture.

Isn't is possible that Jesus' robe was a mixture of crimson and purple, or that a deep red was very similar to a purple? I have seen colors called indigo that are very blue and others that are purplish. The point was that these colors were royal colors and were rare. One writer may have seen it as crimson and another as purple, or maybe purple then was more a crimson color. These are guesses on my part, I admit.

 

[HankD]

The point was that these colors were royal colors and were rare. One writer may have seen it as crimson and another as purple, or maybe purple then was more a crimson color. These are guesses on my part, I admit.

It may have a lot to do with (as one poster has suggested) the koine meaning of these words. They may have been synonymous as with the English words "crimson" and "scarlet" and the choices based upon the local cultures of the different writers. Johnv may be right but I guess I'll have to wait until I'm perfected and then it won't matter anyway. Until then my preference is that there is a always an explanation (although all may not agree as to the credibility) as to a seeming contradiction in the Scripture.


HankD