The Tomb

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why do you want extraneous evidence? He was mentioned by Tacitus and Josephus. Seems he made an impression on them. Not to mention he changed the entire world, even our calendar reflects his influence. The fact that we are here arguing about him shows that he was certainly not some nobody.

But in the bible we have evidence that just the week prior he was welcomed into Jerusalem with palm branches and basically a parade. Jesus went around healing, and even a soldier came to him for that. The Sanhedrin thought he was getting too popular also and that is part of the reason they wanted to get rid of him. He was successfully challenging their authority.

Jesus is not mentioned by Tacitus. Tacitus refers to Christus and that is a title not a personal name. Josephus makes a laconic aside to Jesus the brother of James as well as the highly contentious Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus was writing in the late first century and Tacitus in either the late first or possibly very early second century.

Jesus changed nothing. The Christian church did those things you mention.

[rogue06]

Jesus is not mentioned by Tacitus. Tacitus refers to Christus and that is a title not a personal name. Josephus makes a laconic aside to Jesus the brother of James as well as the highly contentious Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus was writing in the late first century and Tacitus in either the late first or possibly very early second century.

Jesus changed nothing. The Christian church did those things you mention.

Christ is also not a name but a title. What is your point here?

Apparently Josephus figured his readers would know who he meant since he makes no attempt at identifying who that was.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why would one assume this? Particularly after you likened it to a bloody mess.

As assumptions and conjecture are the "order of the day" on this topic why not? However, the remark was intended to be somewhat frivolous. Are you now suggesting someone carried the purple cloak to the execution site?

This appears to address the issue more than adequately

Actually, the fact that two independent witnesses give such a similar account using different words is compelling evidence that they are truly independent. If they were verbatim, they could be charged with collusion.

That is a whine you consistently make.

The slight difference in the colour is more apparent than real - whatever the actual colour, Mark and Matthew may have seen the robe in slightly different light (it was NOT daylight but inside with poorly lit torches) and they may have observed a slightly shade.

Now to the actual words. Matthew 27:28 has the word "scarlet is from κοκκίνην (kokkinēn) from the lexical form κόκκινος (kokkinos) (see also Heb 9:19, Rev 17:3, 4, 18:12, 16) which, according to BDAG means: "red, scarlet" and used in Matt 27:28 of a cheaply dyed garment placed on Jesus suggesting that the colour may not have been uniform.

In Mark 15:17 the operative word for "purple" is πορφύραν (porphyran) from the lexical form πορφύρα (porphura) (see also Mark 15:20, Luke 16:19, Rev 18:12) which, according to BDAG means: "purple" - but note the association between these words in Rev 18:12.

Thus, it appears that the range of colours covered by these two words overlapped; but in any case, I am confident that Matthew, Mark recorded what they saw which may have been slightly different depending on the angle and light. This very difference in wording lends credence to the facts underlying the witness accounts. The pulpit commentary observes for Mark 15:17:

Purple and scarlet are not such very dissimilar colors. Purple is a royal color; and the chlamys of St. Matthew was a short military cloak of scarlet, intended to be a kind of royal livery. St. Cyril says that the purple cloak symbolized the kingdom of the whole world, which Christ was about to receive, and which he was to obtain by the shedding of his most precious blood. It was designed in mockery of his claim to be a King, and it probably bad a reference to his supposed insurrection against Caesar.

That is hilarious to suggest that these two authors were eye witnesses. I understood that according to Papias someone called Mark was Peter's interpreter or translator and wrote down everything Peter had to say about Jesus. So where was Peter in this account in Mark? You earlier commented that the disciples had all fled.

Ellicott observes in commenting on Matt 27:28,

A scarlet robe.--Here again we have a technical word, the chlamys or paludamentum, used for the military cloak worn by emperors in their character as generals, and by other officers of high rank (Pliny, xxii. 2, 3). St. Mark and St. John call it purple (Mark 15:17; John 19:2); but the "purple "of the ancients was "crimson," and the same colour might easily be called by either name. It was probably some cast-off cloak of Pilate's own, or, possibly, that in which Herod had before arrayed Him (Luke 23:11). Philo records a like mockery as practised upon an idiot at Alexandria, who was there made to represent Herod Agrippa II. (in Flacc. p. 980). It was but too common a practice to subject condemned prisoners before execution to this kind of outrage. Here the point of the mockery lay, of course, in the fact that their Victim had been condemned as claiming the title of a King. They had probably seen or heard of the insults of like kind offered by Herod and his soldiers (Luke 23:21), and now reproduced them with aggravated cruelty.

Ellicot was a churchman, later the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and he died in 1905. A pious "explanation" is to be expected.

[And this comment seems helpful as well

The research above has been helpful and then I did an internet search for the word "kermes."

Thayers says: "κόκκινος, κοκκινη, κόκκινον (from κόκκος a kernel, the grain or berry of the ilex coccifera; these berries are the clusters of eggs of a female insect, the kermes ((cf. English carmine, crimson)), and when collected and pulverized produce a red which was used in dyeing..."

When I searched for this color of dye I found a picture of a silk coronation robe worn by Roger II of Sicily which has been "dyed with kermes." In this photo, you can clearly see that where the light is directly hitting the robe it looks red but where the shadows dominate at the bottom of the photo I would say it looks more like a deep purple.

As has already been said, "the slight difference in the color is more apparent than real."

An item I have seen on my several visits to the Schatzkammer and although the lighting in that museum is very dim in order to preserve the fabrics and other artefacts it appears more red than purple.

"Changes it"? Or simply describes the same thing in a slightly different manner which is to be expected when different people describe the same event.

Yes changes it.

"[T]he same thing in a slightly different manner"? No other gospel writer mentions a quick visit to Herod.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have an over-weaned respect for (that is a polite way of saying that you are besotted by) academia and reputation.

Yet you will happily cite those with whom you are in agreement.

Many things are accepted that simply don't hold true in the harsh light of reality.

Well you should know!

How did you come to miss the "The robe was put on him after Jesus was flogged according to John 19:1-2," the first sentence of the relevant paragraph?

As it is in Mark and Matthew. Do you have a point?

On the standards and practices of the time, a purple robe would most likely have been described as elegant, as close as possible in colour to the imperial purple without breaching the prohibitions on wearing imperial purple.

That is all your speculation.

OK. So now you're claiming that Jesus was bedecked in robes twice on different occasions and very close in time.

I am merely referring to the textual translations.

Luke made no comment about it - which is what I stated. Pilate said he would have Jesus flogged and released. Apparently, Jesus wasn't released either - why assume that he was flogged?

It was standard practise prior to a crucifixion.

Because that is the expected course is why. Luke's account leaves open whether or not Jesus was flogged. Even taking Luke's account in isolation, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus would have been flogged: it is not reasonable to claim that Luke said he was, mainly because Luke didn't say he was.

I await rogue06 6 to come along and tell us that Luke did not need to mention because his audience would have known!

The accounts vary, that much is self evident. What you want to make of the fact is not particularly germane.

Therefore they cannot be assumed to be accurate or reliable. No doubt our friend rogue06 will come along with his usual whine on that!

[tabibito]

Yet you will happily cite those with whom you are in agreement.

Not without first analysing what they have to say and whether it holds water. More than once I have expressed agreement with an author's conclusion while rejecting the reasoning the author has used to draw that conclusion.

Well you should know!

I do know - when I don't, someone points out that I have made a mistake and presents a sound and valid argument to demonstrate the fact. After that, I do know. "Tradition says otherwise" or "everyone knows" are not sound and valid arguments. "Professors such and so say otherwise," might be a sound and valid argument, provided that their argument is presented and not just their conclusions. "Professor such says X because ..." definitely worth looking into.

As it is in Mark and Matthew. Do you have a point?

Only that you made a fuss about me missing something when I hadn't.

That is all your speculation.
I am merely referring to the textual translations.

You're making a fuss about nomenclature that is subject to a loose or tight description depending on the person.

It was standard practise prior to a crucifixion.

I await rogue06 6 to come along and tell us that Luke did not need to mention because his audience would have known!

The people of the time were not less familiar with the practice than you. If you are capable of working out that Jesus was flogged (as you stated in the comment immediately prior to this), then so were they. And yes, authors writing in Koine Greek would often leave out detail that they considered unnecessary, that is what makes Koine Greek a high context language.

Therefore they cannot be assumed to be accurate or reliable. No doubt our friend rogue06 will come along with his usual whine on that!

Accurate enough for anyone who doesn't engage in nit-picking in a vain effort to undermine the credibility of the source, and does nothing but destroy her own credibility in the attempt.

This pretty much conceptualizes that

The picture shows two different ways of describing the same colours.
There was a time when someone asked me to hand the red container to her.
What red container, there isn't one?
She went to the shelf and picked up a carmine container. To me, carmine falls into the range of pink.
Back to the picture. Japanese will call everything from honeydew to turquoise "ao."
Then to Gaelic - bice might have been either brown or grey.
Fuchsia and magenta are shades of purple, but it would be no surprise if some people classified them as scarlet.

[Sparko]

Jesus is not mentioned by Tacitus. Tacitus refers to Christus and that is a title not a personal name. Josephus makes a laconic aside to Jesus the brother of James as well as the highly contentious Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus was writing in the late first century and Tacitus in either the late first or possibly very early second century.

Jesus changed nothing. The Christian church did those things you mention.

The very fact that the church even exists is evidence that Jesus was somebody and changed everything. And "Christus" refers to Jesus, the Christ. Who else do you think he was speaking of?

It seems your online life revolves around this guy you think changed nothing. For several years, it is the main topic of your online interactions, at least here and on CARM.

[rogue06]

That is a whine you consistently make.

That whine as you call it wasn't mine but the first paragraph of the article.

Still, the point is valid. When testimony is exactly alike, detail for detail, it is natural to suspect coaching or collusion. Folks tend to tell things from their perspective -- often both literally and figuratively. They'll stress things that they think are important (or at least important to the point they seek to drive home) and give less stress or even ignore things that they consider unimportant.

When Witnesses Agree 100%, They’re Probably Wrong

Perfect agreement among witnesses is so unlikely that it should be considered a red flag, a study suggests

Let’s face it—there’s something inherently fishy about a panel of witnesses who each recall the exact same series of events. Humans are imperfect; we see things differently, forget minor details and recount stories in odd orders. So, when witnesses’ accounts don’t differ by a healthy margin, it’s actually a sign something might be wrong.

Now, in a new study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, scientists use statistics to prove this point, with findings that suggest the probability of perfect agreement between witnesses is almost zero.

“Getting a large group of unanimous witnesses in these circumstances is unlikely, according to the laws of probability,” said Professor Derek Abbott, a probability expert at the University of Adelaide in Australia and coauthor on the study, in a prepared statement. “It’s more likely the system itself is unreliable.”

So, hardly a "whine" but rather the fact of the matter.

I'll also add the following which you'll promptly dismiss since it's from a smiley shudder.gifChristian source, but others might fight it useful...


Why We Should Expect Witnesses To Disagree

I’ve worked more cases involving witnesses than I can even count. A career in law enforcement will put you in direct contact with eyewitnesses on a daily basis, starting with your very first night on the job. After interviewing literally thousands of witnesses over the course of twenty five years, I think I’ve learned something about reliable eyewitness testimony. I want to share three simple characteristics of reliable eyewitness testimony and relate these three characteristics to the Gospels:

Reliable Eyewitnesses Never Agree
In all the cases I’ve ever worked, from simple theft and assault cases, to robberies and homicides, I’ve yet to have a case where the witnesses of the event agreed on every single detail. It’s never happened. I’ve learned that perspective is important, and it’s not just one’s physical perspective that determines what a witness did or didn’t see. When you’re staring down the barrel of a robber’s pistol, you have a tendency to miss certain details that are picked up by the witness who is watching from across the isle of the liquor store. There are many factors that contribute to one’s perception of an event. Physical location, past experience, familiarity with a feature of the crime scene; a witness’ physical, emotional and psychological distinctives play a role in what they see and how they communicate this testimony after the fact. No two people are alike, so no two people experience an event in precisely the same way. If you’ve got three witnesses in a murder case, expect three slightly different versions of the event. Don’t panic, that’s normal. In fact, when three different witnesses tell me the exact same thing, I start to get suspicious.

Reliable Eyewitnesses Raise Questions
As a young, inexperienced investigator, I used to think that an eyewitness would answer all my questions about an event. I wish this were true, but the reality is that for every question an eyewitness answers about what occurred at a crime scene, a new question is often raised. There are times when eyewitnesses even raise more questions than they have answered. I’ve worked a number of cold-case homicides in which an eyewitness account was captured decades ago, at the time of the original investigation. After reading the testimony, I was left with a few troubling questions. How could the crime have occurred like the witness described it? How could the suspect have done what the witness said? There are times when an eyewitness just doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. But after paging through the case file to the next eyewitness statement, the questions raised by the first eyewitness are sometimes answered by the second observer of the event. I call this “unintentional eyewitness support”; times when an eyewitness raises questions that are then unintentionally answered by a second observer. I’ve seen this so many times over the past twenty-five years, that I’ve come to recognize it as a feature of reliable eyewitness testimony.

Reliable Eyewitnesses Are Sometimes Incorrect
There are times when an eyewitness gets something wrong. In fact, I’ve seen this repeatedly over the course of my career. Witnesses are people and people make mistakes. But the fact that a witness might be wrong about a particular detail or element of the crime does not necessarily disqualify them or render their testimony unreliable. If that were the case, we would never be able to prosecute anyone for anything. When examining the reliability of an eyewitness and encountering some factual error, I’ve got to determine (1) if the errant aspect of the statement is relevant to the larger issues in the case, and (2) the reason why the witness got the detail wrong in the first place. If a victim of a robbery misidentifies the kind of shirt the suspect wore at the time of the robbery, I have to ask myself this misidentification makes the victim an unreliable witness. Is there a reason why the stress of the situation may have caused the victim to focus on issues other than the kind of shirt the robber wore? Is the truth about the shirt captured in some other way (like in the surveillance video) that can help us determine the truth of the matter? Does the misidentification of the shirt make a difference to the larger nature of the case? Is the victim accurate on the other more pertinent details of the crime? A witness can be incorrect about a particular detail, yet still be reliable as an eyewitness.

Now let’s take a look at the gospel accounts. Skeptics often cite the variations between accounts as evidence of their unreliability. As a detective who has worked multiple eyewitness cases, I find their variations to be with an expected and acceptable range. And, like other cases involving more than one eyewitness, I find that some gospel accounts raise as many questions as they seem to answer. Interestingly, I also see the expected “unintentional eyewitness support” from one gospel account to another (I’ve written about this in my book); this support is precisely what I’ve seen in cold-case homicides that I’ve worked. Finally, let me say something about inerrancy and reliability. While I believe that the original gospel narratives are inerrant, I don’t need this standard to trust what the gospel accounts have to say about Jesus. Remember, reliable accounts are sometimes incorrect in some particular detail. This does not necessarily disqualify them, especially if the detail is not essential, can be understood on the basis of some additional testimony or evidence, and if the error on the part of the witness can be explained. Inerrancy is not required of witnesses in a court of law, reliability is. With a standard far lower than the gospels possess, the documents can still be considered reliable.

I spent the first nine years of my career investigating crimes as a committed atheist. Even then, I would have approved the notion that witnesses who fail to agree on every detail, raise as many questions as they seem to answer and are inaccurate in some detail of the event, could still be trusted as reliable eyewitnesses. Even my old atheist criteria for eyewitnesses would have been sufficient to make the case for gospel reliability. I now know that the gospels actually exceed what I would require to consider them reliable.

[rogue06]

Not without first analysing what they have to say and whether it holds water. More than once I have expressed agreement with an author's conclusion while rejecting the reasoning the author has used to draw that conclusion.



I do know - when I don't, someone points out that I have made a mistake and presents a sound and valid argument to demonstrate the fact. After that, I do know. "Tradition says otherwise" or "everyone knows" are not sound and valid arguments. "Professors such and so say otherwise," might be a sound and valid argument, provided that their argument is presented and not just their conclusions. "Professor such says X because ..." definitely worth looking into.



Only that you made a fuss about me missing something when I hadn't.



You're making a fuss about nomenclature that is subject to a loose or tight description depending on the person.



The people of the time were not less familiar with the practice than you. If you are capable of working out that Jesus was flogged (as you stated in the comment immediately prior to this), then so were they. And yes, authors writing in Koine Greek would often leave out detail that they considered unnecessary, that is what makes Koine Greek a high context language.



Accurate enough for anyone who doesn't engage in nit-picking in a vain effort to undermine the credibility of the source, and does nothing but destroy her own credibility in the attempt.



The picture shows two different ways of describing the same colours.
There was a time when someone asked me to hand the red container to her.
What red container, there isn't one?
She went to the shelf and picked up a carmine container. To me, carmine falls into the range of pink.
Back to the picture. Japanese will call everything from honeydew to turquoise "ao."
Then to Gaelic - bice might have been either brown or grey.
Fuchsia and magenta are shades of purple, but it would be no surprise if some people classified them as scarlet.

FWIU "orange" wasn't considered a distinct color in Europe until the fruit were brought back to there. It wasn't even considered a distinct color in the rainbow.

Also interesting is that some Slavs, particularly Russian divided blue into two colors with (IIRC) the teals/aquamarines/turquoise being split off.

[eider]

It is a literary invention that echoes Psalm 22

They stare and gloat over me;
¹⁸ they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.

Likewise the sacrifice, suffering, and burial is a reference to Isaiah 53

Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases,
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

⁷ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
⁸ By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
Who could have imagined his future?
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.
⁹ They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb^[c] with the rich,^[d]
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

¹⁰ Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with affliction.
When you make his life an offering for sin.

The early Christians ransacked the Hebrew texts to find verses they could then re-interpret to make fit their own beliefs and theology.

Absolutely. This ^^^^^^^^^
My very first rule whilst reading the gospels is to dismiss any verses that attempt to fit with old prophesies.
That shortens the accounts considerably.

[eider]

Yeah they were having a grand time sipping afternoon tea and playing Parcheesi while listening to their favorite songs.

You haven't got a clue as to how Magdalene, Salome and the others were coping with what they were seeing.
You might probably have wailed and whimped, but I think they were made of stouter material.

[eider]

Things like a robe would have been stripped off of him before any scourging.

That wasn't his robe....... and did they take it off him before his journey to execution...?
The authors were trying to fit their imagined scene in to an old prophesy, but if you want to believe those then you will.

[eider]

Reliable Eyewitnesses Never Agree
In all the cases I've ever worked, from simple theft and assault cases, to robberies and homicides, I've yet to have a case where the witnesses of the event agreed on every single detail.

What a very weird title to give to the statement!
Of course reliable witnesses can agree, and as Warner Wallace explains ........that he's never had a case where witnesses agreed on every detail.
That's quite different to his titled claim.

And so:- Reliable Witnesses can and do agree, but see incidents from different positions, and slightly differing scenes.

When witnesses can never agree, that's usually when cases either get chucked out or dismissed by the judge.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The very fact that the church even exists is evidence that Jesus was somebody and changed everything.

That is somewhat misconceived. Had Christianity, in all its myriad forms in the early fourth century not been granted toleration, along with certain other religions, it is possible that the disparate sects would have either disappeared or been subsumed into other religions.

And "Christus" refers to Jesus, the Christ. Who else do you think he was speaking of?

Your initial claim was wrong. Christus is a title. And in the late first/early second century CE which Christ was the "correct" one?

It seems your online life revolves around this guy you think changed nothing.

On the contrary, along many others I am interested in the historical figure within his contemporary context. However, we have nothing on this figure apart from the numerous early Christian writings and so we have to examine those and try and tease out a real human being and some real history behind those. Given the enormous impact of Christianity and the Hebrew bible on western society these texts, and their application and interpretation, form an important part of our culture. Their effect is still present to this day.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That whine as you call it wasn't mine but the first paragraph of the article.

Still, the point is valid. When testimony is exactly alike, detail for detail, it is natural to suspect coaching or collusion. Folks tend to tell things from their perspective -- often both literally and figuratively. They'll stress things that they think are important (or at least important to the point they seek to drive home) and give less stress or even ignore things that they consider unimportant.

When Witnesses Agree 100%, They’re Probably Wrong

Perfect agreement among witnesses is so unlikely that it should be considered a red flag, a study suggests

Let’s face it—there’s something inherently fishy about a panel of witnesses who each recall the exact same series of events. Humans are imperfect; we see things differently, forget minor details and recount stories in odd orders. So, when witnesses’ accounts don’t differ by a healthy margin, it’s actually a sign something might be wrong.

Now, in a new study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, scientists use statistics to prove this point, with findings that suggest the probability of perfect agreement between witnesses is almost zero.

“Getting a large group of unanimous witnesses in these circumstances is unlikely, according to the laws of probability,” said Professor Derek Abbott, a probability expert at the University of Adelaide in Australia and coauthor on the study, in a prepared statement. “It’s more likely the system itself is unreliable.”

I think eider has made a good riposte to that.

One hundred percent agreement from a group of eye witnesses on every single detail would give pause for thought but your "eye witnesses" vary on quite substantive details.

So, hardly a "whine" but rather the fact of the matter.

I'll also add the following which you'll promptly dismiss since it's from a smiley shudder.gifChristian source, but others might fight it useful..

Snipped for space.

I have no idea why you repeatedly cite Mr Wallace in this matter. Do you consider him to be an academic authority on NT texts? However, the cartoon makes the point. We did get multiple versions, as at the time those texts that have since been consigned to Christian Apocrypha were deemed to be just as reliable for their audiences as the four narratives that made it into the canon.

Even your own Christian tradition does not place the author of Mark as an eye-witness. The author of Luke also makes it clear he is not an eye-witness either and that "many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events" that have been "handed on", which again suggests various texts were in existence by the late first century.

He then writes that he is going to produce a "well-ordered account" and that he is writing to Theophilus [God lover]. Could that be reference to a member [or leader] of a sect? Or might it simply be a literary device that, while indicating his narrative is personal to one individual, is in fact being addressed to a wider group?

Given the estimated dating for the gospel of Luke that also indicates he is supposedly contacting eye-witnesses some sixty years after the events they purportedly witnessed.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that it was common in ancient literature for an author to claim he was using eye-witness testimony, as this was deemed to be superior to written accounts and we find this approach in histories, biographies, and novels.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not without first analysing what they have to say and whether it holds water. More than once I have expressed agreement with an author's conclusion while rejecting the reasoning the author has used to draw that conclusion.



I do know - when I don't, someone points out that I have made a mistake and presents a sound and valid argument to demonstrate the fact. After that, I do know. "Tradition says otherwise" or "everyone knows" are not sound and valid arguments. "Professors such and so say otherwise," might be a sound and valid argument, provided that their argument is presented and not just their conclusions. "Professor such says X because ..." definitely worth looking into.



Only that you made a fuss about me missing something when I hadn't.



You're making a fuss about nomenclature that is subject to a loose or tight description depending on the person.



The people of the time were not less familiar with the practice than you. If you are capable of working out that Jesus was flogged (as you stated in the comment immediately prior to this), then so were they. And yes, authors writing in Koine Greek would often leave out detail that they considered unnecessary, that is what makes Koine Greek a high context language.



Accurate enough for anyone who doesn't engage in nit-picking in a vain effort to undermine the credibility of the source, and does nothing but destroy her own credibility in the attempt.



The picture shows two different ways of describing the same colours.
There was a time when someone asked me to hand the red container to her.
What red container, there isn't one?
She went to the shelf and picked up a carmine container. To me, carmine falls into the range of pink.
Back to the picture. Japanese will call everything from honeydew to turquoise "ao."
Then to Gaelic - bice might have been either brown or grey.
Fuchsia and magenta are shades of purple, but it would be no surprise if some people classified them as scarlet.

Is there a point to all of the above?