Comments on: Whose soldiers put the robe on Jesus, Herod’s or Pilate’s? http://www.errancy.com/whose-soldiers-put-the-robe-on-jesus-herods-or-pilates/ Does the Bible contain contradictions or errors? Biblical inerrancy examined. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:23:00 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Errancy http://www.errancy.com/whose-soldiers-put-the-robe-on-jesus-herods-or-pilates/comment-page-1/#comment-186 Errancy Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:01:36 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=936#comment-186 Matthew's "they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him" suggests to me that the soldiers removed Jesus' clothes in order to put the scarlet robe on him, which would mean that he wasn't already wearing it. That's why I was suggesting two robes, rather than just two robings. That said, I appreciate that scarlet robes would have been in short supply, and so that a reading that requires only one would be preferable. Matthew’s “they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him” suggests to me that the soldiers removed Jesus’ clothes in order to put the scarlet robe on him, which would mean that he wasn’t already wearing it. That’s why I was suggesting two robes, rather than just two robings.

That said, I appreciate that scarlet robes would have been in short supply, and so that a reading that requires only one would be preferable.

]]> By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/whose-soldiers-put-the-robe-on-jesus-herods-or-pilates/comment-page-1/#comment-185 WisdomLover Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:11:24 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=936#comment-185 No need to multiply the <em>robes</em> to avoid contradiction. It is only necessary to multiply the <em>robings</em>. Presumably, Herod gave Jesus the robe prior to the flogging, the soldiers stripped him of it, flogged him and then put it back on him. Later on they cast lots for it. The Luke passage actually <em>explains</em> how it is that the Roman soldiers came by such an incredibly valuable item that they wasted on a prisoner for a bit of fun. In my prior comment on the color of the robe, I surmised that the purple dye used for the robe was redder because it was of lower quality. I still hold to that. But I supposed that the dye was of lower quality because the soldiers wouldn't have a high quality robe lying around. Of course, I should have gone the full mile and realized that they wouldn't even have a low quality robe lying around. Such an item would be hugely expensive. To have one lying around would be like having a gold Rolex lying around today. And the answer now is obvious. They did not have the robe lying around: Herod gave it to Jesus. But wouldn't Herod have a high quality purple robe? Doesn't that, then, undercut the prior harmonization regarding the scarlet purple robe? There are two answers to that. First, Herod probably wouldn't want to waste one of his good robes on Jesus. He probably sent a less valuable extra red purple robe along with him. Second, even if Herod did give Jesus a high quality purple robe, it would be the color of clotted blood, and thus might still be described as scarlet. No need to multiply the robes to avoid contradiction. It is only necessary to multiply the robings. Presumably, Herod gave Jesus the robe prior to the flogging, the soldiers stripped him of it, flogged him and then put it back on him. Later on they cast lots for it.

The Luke passage actually explains how it is that the Roman soldiers came by such an incredibly valuable item that they wasted on a prisoner for a bit of fun.

In my prior comment on the color of the robe, I surmised that the purple dye used for the robe was redder because it was of lower quality. I still hold to that. But I supposed that the dye was of lower quality because the soldiers wouldn’t have a high quality robe lying around.

Of course, I should have gone the full mile and realized that they wouldn’t even have a low quality robe lying around. Such an item would be hugely expensive. To have one lying around would be like having a gold Rolex lying around today. And the answer now is obvious. They did not have the robe lying around: Herod gave it to Jesus.

But wouldn’t Herod have a high quality purple robe? Doesn’t that, then, undercut the prior harmonization regarding the scarlet purple robe? There are two answers to that. First, Herod probably wouldn’t want to waste one of his good robes on Jesus. He probably sent a less valuable extra red purple robe along with him. Second, even if Herod did give Jesus a high quality purple robe, it would be the color of clotted blood, and thus might still be described as scarlet.

]]> By: Errancy http://www.errancy.com/whose-soldiers-put-the-robe-on-jesus-herods-or-pilates/comment-page-1/#comment-184 Errancy Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:33:16 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=936#comment-184 Yes, I think the best response here is that there were two different robes placed on Jesus by two different groups of soldiers. Usually I'm not keen on multiplying events in order avoid contradictions, but in this case it doesn't seem particularly implausible. Yes, I think the best response here is that there were two different robes placed on Jesus by two different groups of soldiers.

Usually I’m not keen on multiplying events in order avoid contradictions, but in this case it doesn’t seem particularly implausible.

]]> By: Amtiskaw http://www.errancy.com/whose-soldiers-put-the-robe-on-jesus-herods-or-pilates/comment-page-1/#comment-183 Amtiskaw Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:17:24 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=936#comment-183 Presumably you could say that Herod's soldiers put "an elegant robe on him", then Pilate's men "stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him"? Presumably you could say that Herod’s soldiers put “an elegant robe on him”, then Pilate’s men “stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him”?

]]>