I don't really see what the big fuss is about. Why does it matter what colour Jesus was recorded as wearing? Certainly people have floated various reasonable options (the colours were confused, Jesus perhaps was given red and scarlet cloaks at different times, reasonable given thee obvious satirical royal significance of both, etc), but it honestly doesn't bother me that there's an apparent discrepancy. Whatever colour the cloak was, it has zero logical bearing one the truth or otherwise of the events in question.
Do I think that for the Bible to be divinely inspired, it must agree in every exact detail about every single event? No, of course not. IF that were the case, it would be silly to have four gospels. Why not just have one?
The reality is that the Bible is written by people. No where in the Bible (and for the purposes of the current discussion, specifically the NT) does it say God literally wrote what is in the Bible. Instead, it says Scripture is God breathed, it talks about God inspiring and moving human beings to write stuff down. It's quite clear on that. I think this is because, in the Judeo-Christian view, there is something significant about people writing about what they see, instead of God dictating it to them, a la the Qur'an.
In the case of the NT particularly, I think it is because human witnessing gives the text the contour of history. You are reading about events that people saw, either the authors themselves or people that they spoke to. Yes, you can complain about the fact that apparently one or another person was colour blind, or failed to record in excruciatingly clear detail what cloak Jesus was wearing then. But then you're imposing an almost farcical level of editorial management and conformity that would whitewash the text and the very human element to most of it.
If four people came into a courtroom and gave exactly the same story of an event, down to the last detail, you would rightly chuck them out of court for conspiracy to perjure themselves. No group of people will remember an event in the same way. IT doesn't happen. Why, then, should we impose an unreal view of truth and witness to the New Testament? God did not write the Bible for himself, he wrote it for human beings. And not just us, either, but for everyone that has come before us and will come after. In many ways, the differing takes on the events of the life of Jesus, agreeing in every important event and many ancilliary details, but differing in perspective and subjective detail, are a compelling proof for the historicity of the text, instead of a weapon against.
Do I think that for the Bible to be divinely inspired, it must agree in every exact detail about every single event? No, of course not. IF that were the case, it would be silly to have four gospels. Why not just have one?
The reality is that the Bible is written by people. No where in the Bible (and for the purposes of the current discussion, specifically the NT) does it say God literally wrote what is in the Bible. Instead, it says Scripture is God breathed, it talks about God inspiring and moving human beings to write stuff down. It's quite clear on that. I think this is because, in the Judeo-Christian view, there is something significant about people writing about what they see, instead of God dictating it to them, a la the Qur'an.
In the case of the NT particularly, I think it is because human witnessing gives the text the contour of history. You are reading about events that people saw, either the authors themselves or people that they spoke to. Yes, you can complain about the fact that apparently one or another person was colour blind, or failed to record in excruciatingly clear detail what cloak Jesus was wearing then. But then you're imposing an almost farcical level of editorial management and conformity that would whitewash the text and the very human element to most of it.
If four people came into a courtroom and gave exactly the same story of an event, down to the last detail, you would rightly chuck them out of court for conspiracy to perjure themselves. No group of people will remember an event in the same way. IT doesn't happen. Why, then, should we impose an unreal view of truth and witness to the New Testament? God did not write the Bible for himself, he wrote it for human beings. And not just us, either, but for everyone that has come before us and will come after. In many ways, the differing takes on the events of the life of Jesus, agreeing in every important event and many ancilliary details, but differing in perspective and subjective detail, are a compelling proof for the historicity of the text, instead of a weapon against.