All four Gospels record that, during the trial of Jesus, he was mockingly dressed in a robe:

Mt 27:27 Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole cohort around him. 27:28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην) around him, 27:29 and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand, and kneeling down before him, they mocked him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” 27:30 They spat on him and took the staff and struck him repeatedly on the head. 27:31 When they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes back on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

Mk 15:16 So the soldiers led him into the palace (that is, the governor’s residence) and called together the whole cohort. 15:17 They put a purple cloak (πορφύραν) on him and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 15:18 They began to salute him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” 15:19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Then they knelt down and paid homage to him. 15:20 When they had finished mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes back on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

Lk 23:11 Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, dressing him in elegant clothes (ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν), Herod sent him back to Pilate.

Jn 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 19:2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe (ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν). 19:3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face.

So, according to Matthew, the robe was scarlet.  According to Mark and John, it was purple.  According to Luke, Jesus was dressed in ‘elegant clothes’ – sometimes taken to mean ‘respledent’, or even ‘dazzling’ (with the possible implication that they were white).

I put to one side the rather lazy conclusion that these differences are merely due to misremembering on the part of the evangelists or their sources.  I’m not much more impressed with this proposed solution, according to which Jesus was, at different times, made to wear three different robes (in addition to his own clothes).

We are left with a couple of more interesting possibilities.

1. Symbolic interpretation

This is discussed by Ian Paul in this post, which draws on this post by James Bejon.

According to Bejon, the colour of Jesus’ robe has a different significance in each of the Synoptics.

In Matthew (scarlet robe):

‘Jesus emerges from a genealogy stained with deep red—the colour both of sin and of its remedy (Matt. 1, Isa. 1). First we have Judah, the one destined to wash his garments in the blood of grapes (Gen. 49); then we have Tamar, who ties a scarlet thread around her chosen son’s hand; and finally we have Rahab, saved by a scarlet thread. These strands of sin and salvation reach their climax in the true Son of Judah—the one who is clothed in scarlet as he bears his people’s sins to the cross.’

In Mark (purple robe), we are introduced to Jesus

‘as Israel’s king—the one before whom messengers run, crying out ‘Prepare the way of the Lord!’. And so, in Mark, Jesus is clothed in purple (the colour of royalty)—the colour of the kings of Midian (Judg. 8), of Solomon’s chariot (Sngs. 3), of Daniel’s royal robe (Dan. 5).’

Turning now to Luke (resplendent robe):

‘Luke doesn’t open his gospel with an account of the sin-stained history of Judah, nor does he open it with a royal fanfare. Instead, Luke talks to us about innocence and righteousness—about a blameless couple from the line of Aaron, a virgin overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (to bear the holy Son of God), a genealogy which connects Jesus with the innocence of Adam. Hence, in Luke, Jesus begins his ministry at the priestly age of thirty. As he goes to the cross, he is arrayed in a white/resplendent robe, like the linen of the saints (or, perhaps better, vice-versa).’

Taking all three Synoptics together, we find that:

‘Jesus fills up the pattern of Joseph, he wears a robe of purple, scarlet, and white—a coat of many colours. And the specific colours of his coat find a distinct echo in those of Joseph’s garments.’

In particular:

‘At the start of his story we find Joseph clothed like royalty, marked out as his father’s heir (just like Jesus). The high priest transferred his authority to his successor by the transfer of his garments (Num. 20); so too did Jonathan and Elijah (1 Sam. 18.4, 23.17, 1 Kgs. 19.19, 2 Kgs. 2); and so too did Jacob (Gen. 37.7). Not much later we find Joseph’s coat stained scarlet with blood (just like Jesus’ robe). And finally Joseph’s coat is exchanged for a linen one as he is sent into the courts of a Gentile king (Gen. 41.42, Luke 23.11).’

Comment

This may be reading too much into the biblical text.  In fact, it appears to be akin to the ‘spiritualising’ of the text that was favoured by preachers in the old, pre-critical days.

To point out a couple of weaknesses:

Lk 23:11 – This verse may imply that Herod dressed Jesus in a white garment, but this is by no means certain.

Gen 37:3 – The identification of Joseph’s garment as ‘a coat of many colours’ is highly dubious.  According to a note in the NET Bible:

‘It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.’

2. Harmonising interpretation

Yes, I know that harmonisation of Gospel differences is frowned upon in some circles.  But not so much in this circle.  So here goes.

Carson (EBC on Matthew) says that the ‘scarlet robe’ was probably the short red cloak worn by Roman soldiers and civilian officials.  There is evidence that indicates that such cloaks were sometimes described as ‘purple’.  Carson adds that the ancients did not distnguish between different colour so precisely as we do today.

This article comments that:

‘The tinting of colors can be very close to one another. For example, compare hex codes scarlet #560319 to purple #660066.’

Luke’s esthēta lampran, means that the clothing was resplendent, and may have been white, like the finest linen (cf. Rev 19:8).  But Luke Timothy Johnson comments:

‘The adjective lampros can mean “white” or “radiant” (Acts 10:30; 26:13), but also simply “magnificent” (Jas 2:2–3), as in the adverbial form used to describe the feasting of the rich man (16:19).’

Nolland (WBC) thinks that the garment could be described as ‘splendid’.

Garland thinks that dressing Jesus thus was not part of the soldier’s mockery, but was intended to convey a message from Herod to Pilate.  The resplendent garments mock Jesus’ claim to be royalty and indicate that he is not to be taken seriously.

Conclusion

I think that all four evangelists are describing one and the same garment – variously depicted as ‘scarlet’, ‘ purple’ or ‘splendid’.  In each case, the main point is that Jesus’ tormenters seek to humiliate him by dressing him in attire that mimics that of a king.  The irony, of course, is that the one who is mocked as king really is King.  In choosing different words to describe the robe, the evangelists may have been hinting at further symbolism (scarlet = blood; purple = royalty), but I am not sure.