What Color was Jesus' Robe?

[Dr. Bob]

Mark and John say it was porphura. Matthew calls it kokkinus. Is this a problem?

(Mark 15:17, 20 KJV) And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head . . And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.

(John 19:2, 5 KJV) And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe . . Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

porphura (Latin root for dark red/purple from the mussel used for dying)

(Matthew 27:28 KJV) And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

kokkinos (Greek root for dark red/crimson color from the kernel-shape of the insect used for dying)

 

[Charles Meadows]

One says purple, another scarlet. Not a big deal at all to me. I think both of the greek words have been applied to the overgarment worn by a Roman soldier, although kokkinos has been more commonly used here.

 

[amixedupmom]

I'm wondering if it couldn't been the light that shown on it or just a prespective. Dark crimson and purple are almost the same depending how you personally look at them :-/ JMHO

 

[HankD]

What's the difference between red, crimson and scarlet?

The Spirit of God used the personalities of the different writers according to their cultural and semantic choices of words IMO.

HankD

 

[Pete Richert]

I think it was blue.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

teal blue.

 

[donnA]

Red/Purple or Red/Crimson?
Ok, seems either way we have a shade of red of some sort. Ever notice how many shades of red there are. What I call cherry red you may candy apple, and someone else would strawberry. Maybe the difference is all in how each believed the red to be. Just shows there were different shades of red then too. I don't think it matters what shade of red.

 

[LadyEagle]

Red and blue make purple.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Actually red and blue DON'T make purple per se.

Mixing these two primary colors makes indigo/violet.

 

[Charles Meadows]

If you think about it the slight differences lend more credibility to the accounts. They were written years after the fact.

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

The fact that there are these slight variations speak to the authenticity of the multiple accounts. The liberal charges of copying years later would be more supported by accounts that were in agreement verbatim.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, here's a "what if":

What if one of the Scripture human authors was colorblind of the color which combined with red produces purple, and he saw only red while the other writter not being colorblind saw purple?

He (the colorblind author) told the truth didn't he?

HankD

 

[Johnv]

What Color was Jesus' Robe?

Who cares? The facts regarding the documented colors of his robes is inconsequential to the truth that is being presented in the context: He was dressed in robes whose colors were intended to mock his claim of royalty.

This is the point I was attempting to make in another thread, when I was stating that the scriptural facts need not be 100% error free in order for the truth to be 100% error free.

 

[HankD]

This is the point I was attempting to make in another thread, when I was stating that the scriptural facts need not be 100% error free in order for the truth to be 100% error free.

Double-speak alert!

HankD

 

[Johnv]

That is not in any way double-speak.

 

[HankD]

That is not in any way double-speak.

Prove it by an example of an error in the Scriptures which doesn't impact the Truth.

HankD

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Obviously a woven plaid of purple and scarlet. Did they have flannel back then? Perhaps it was more like a Mexican blanket.

 

[HankD]

Obviously a woven plaid of purple and scarlet. Did they have flannel back then? Perhaps it was more like a Mexican blanket.

Or a Scotch plaid perchance?

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Johnv:
the scriptural facts need not be 100% error free in order for the truth to be 100% error free.

All truth is 100% error-free
Some facts are not 100% error-free
Therefor some facts are not true

Facts are not truth. Now THAT logic is scary.

 

[Johnv]

If scripture is 100% factally error free, them kindly explain the different accounts of the color of Jesus' robe. The differing accounts differ in fact. They do not, however, differ in truth. I fail to see why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HankD:
Prove it by an example of an error in the Scriptures which doesn't impact the Truth.

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.