Supposed Contradictions

If you want harder one to figure out try this one.
Mark 16: 1,2 and John 20:1 Was it dark or was the sun up when Mary got there?

Mar 16:1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
Mar 16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Joh 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

 

I am sure there is that moment of first light that if you asked 100 people if the sun had risen or was it still considered dark that you would get a variety of answers.

 

Assume that the same group of people who are trying to discredit him would follow him from one to the other when he was transferred. They ridicule him to one. Do you not think they would ridicule him to the other?

Once the soldiers got in on it, they would be at both places.

BTW, the message is not cross-referenced on my computer yet, but it may be in my handwritten notes. (The more I think about it, the more I think I made a notation.) So, if I find that, I will find the lesson.

 

Well, I think the Lord wants you to hear this message! I have been converting tapes to digital format, and have not had time to enter my handwritten notes into the documents. So, I have 11 (I thought I only had 9) pages of notes that need to be entered, and I have them in various places around my study area. I didn't have much time, but I saw the corner of one peeking out, grabbed, and there on the 5th line, I found the reference!

Right click and save the mp3. I don't have streaming set up on my web site, and if you try to stream it, some people have problems.

Three Robes

 

It was Herod and his soldiers who placed the gorgewous robe on Jesus. Luke 23.11 (I think the Luke reference in the OP was mistakenly given as Luke 19.2-5):

11 Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate.​

The soldiers in Pontius Pilate's palce were his own. Matthew 27.27-28:

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him.
28 And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him.​

So they were two entirely different groups of soldiers, one Jewish, the other Roman.

 

All the soldiers would have been Roman, either by birth or by allegience.

However, if the Jews were pleased by the soldiers' actions and urged them on...

BTW, it may or may not have been the same group of soldiers.

I personally don't think it was the same group, but that would not matter. But, they could have been the same group, as the soldiers under Pilate would have also been Herod's soldiers in all probability, just as they were all Caesar's soldiers.

For example, if Sgt Smith were under Lt Jones who was under Gen Patton, one of Sgt Smith's soldiers would have also been one of Lt Jones' soldiers and would have also been Gen Patton's soldier.

But, in transferring him from one to the other, no matter what, there had to be some crossover. They didn't simply hand him a hall pass and say, "Go see Pilate/Herod!" He was escorted by soldiers, and I suspect, that since there were several hundred soldiers who took him in the Garden, that it would have been a sizeable contingent escorting him from one place to the other as well.

 

Yes, of course you are correct - I foolishly rushed off my reply without sufficient thought. Sorry!

 

It had to be both. Some information is left out of the Scripture.

Perhaps they first used a scarlet robe at the scourging took it off Him, beat Him and then afterwards they used a purple robe to mock Him again or vice versa.

Both Mark and Matthew indicates that the scourging was first done, Jesus was then shown to the people, after which Pilate deliverd Jesus to the Romans who mocked Him, etc.

If there were two separate torturings, two different sets of circumstances can be possible such as a scalet robe in the one and a purple in the other another.


HankD
​

 

HankD, please don't be offended but I gonna disagree with your statements, and here's why:

First, it doesn't have to be both. I've looked into the perception of color side of this problem extensively (I am an artist) and have come to the conclusion that Matthew could have been describing the exact same article of clothing that Mark and John describe as being "purple" (in English) even assuming solid colored fabric.

I believe that the KJV's rendering of "scarlet" may have further exacerbated the apparent discrepancy. I truly believe that 'crimson' would be a better translation based upon the combination of the Greek, standard color definitions, ancient history, and two other Biblical witnesses.

Crimson basically is a 'red' with a slight tendency toward blue (a 'cooling' effect to it's color temperature). Scarlet is a 'red' that exibits a tendency in the opposite direction toward orange (making it an even 'hotter' red). Despite popular opinion, genuine Purple by definition is also a 'red' that has migrated towards blue (further than crimson). I think many contemporary readers mentally confuse the word "purple" with the actual color of Violet (which is distinctly a 'blue' with a tendency toward 'red' in the continuous spectrum of color). Some history sources state that reds and purples were not discriminated by some ancient cultures. Therefore, a color between crimson and purple being perceived by different viewers (especially under different lighting conditions) could be justifiably described by either word (as I am unaware of any descriptive that holds the middle ground).

Nevertheless, I actually do prefer the 'multiple robe' solution.

Also, I cringe when I read information was "left out" of the Bible; rather, it is preferable to state that every detail 'may not be included.'

 

OK perhaps I should have said "it could be both...".

And perhaps it is a little harsher to say "left out" rather than "doesn't include".

Either way in my mind doesn't impune the infallibility and/or inerrancy of the Scripture.

Think about the repentance of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles in Chapter 33.
The parallel account in 2 Kings 21 "leaves out" the repentance part.

But in order for there to be no misunderstanding as to my view of Scripture, you are right, "does not include' is not as harsh.

Also I would agree that the choice of "scarlet" vs "purple" though a subjective call on the part of the human author is a difference which does not negate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Personally I also prefer the two different robes scenario.

Blessings
HankD

 

Perhaps one of the writers was slightly color-blind.

 

I should clarify that many versions translate the Greek word kokkinos in English as "scarlet" at Matthew 27:28, not only the KJV (though the KJV has had widest impact). The word occurs 6 times in the NT, but the KJV always renders it as "scarlet". Thayer's defines kokkinos as --

1) crimson, scarlet coloured. A kernel, the grain or berry of the "ilex coccifera"; these berries are the clusters of the eggs of a female insect, the "kermes" (resembling the cochineal), and when collected and pulverised produces a red which was used in dyeing (Pliny)
2) scarlet cloth or clothing​

From article “Color” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia --

Scarlet and crimson colors were probably from the same source. tola`ath, or derivatives have been translated by both "scarlet" and "crimson" (Greek kokkinos). A Chaldaic word for purple has thrice been translated "scarlet" in the King James Version (Daniel 5:7,16,29). ​

Although some other versions have not translated this word as "scarlet" --

And they stripped him and put on him a purpyll roobe (1525 Tyndale)

and stryped him out of his clothes, and put a purple robe vpo him (1535 Coverdale)

and having unclothed him, they put around him a crimson cloak, (1898 Young)

Stripping off His garments, they put on Him a general's short crimson cloak. (Weymouth)
​

The word "crimson" does not appear in the KJV NT text (only 5 times in the OT). There is only one other Greek word in the NT that seemingly describes the color "red" (2 occurrences in Revelation, pyrros meaning having the same color as fire). Color specificity did not seem to be a priority.

Crimson and Purple are the colors of blood; see Webster's 1828 --

CRIMSON, n. [G.]

A deep red color; a red tinged with blue; also, a red color in general; as the virgin crimson of modesty.
He made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson. 2 Chronicles 3.​

CRIMSON, adj. Of a beautiful deep red; as the crimson blush of modesty; a crimson stream of blood

PUR'PLE, a.
[L. purpureus; purpura, a shell from which the color was obtained.]

1. Designating a color composed of red and blue blended, much admired,
and formerly the roman emperors wore robes of this color.
2. In poetry, red or livid; dyed with blood.
I view a field of blood,
And Tyber rolling with a purple flood.​

PUR'PLE, n. A purple color or dress; hence, imperial government in the Roman empire, as a purple robe was the distinguishing dress of the emperors.

1. A cardinalate.​

PUR'PLE, v.t. [L. purpuro.] To make purple, or to dye of a red color; as hands purpled with blood.

When morn
Purples the east.
Reclining soft in blissful bowers,
Purpled sweet with springing flowers.​

 

well I think it was the point of how they looked on the robe. Some robe change coolers in the light. Some fabric change coolers in the light. I did work at a fabric compony before I got hert. I pulled rolls of all kinds of fabric and ship them off. I would pull a roll of fabric down thinking it was the color because of the way the light hit it and it was close but was not that color I was looking for. Light and dark can change the way fabrics look. I hoped I helped you out.