Women Wearing Pants

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Unless I am overlooking something, I do not see where Daniel 3.21 “explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes” (?).

I'm very short on time today, so I can only partially respond right now. I had mentioned robes because of how the ESV and NIV render the verse. For this post, I checked out some other translations as well to compare:

ESV: "Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace."

NIV: "So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace."

NKJV: "Then these men were bound in their coats, their trousers, their turbans, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace."

NASB: "Then these men were tied up in their trousers, their coats, their caps and their other clothes, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire."

NET: "So those men were tied up while still wearing their cloaks, trousers, turbans, and other clothes, and were thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

HCSB: "So these men, in their trousers, robes, head coverings, and other clothes, were tied up and thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

NRSV: "So the men were bound, still wearing their tunics, their trousers, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the furnace of blazing fire."

Four of these (ESV, NASB, HCSB, NRSV) note that there are uncertainties regarding how the Aramaic should be translated in this verse.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

Is not this what I have been saying? Again with a closer look at Deut. 22:5 The way the wording is placed and the different words. The woman was not to "wear" that which pertiantath to a man. the word wear does not mean to put on clothing hear. But to exist or become, but the man is instructed not to put on a women's garment.

In other words this passage is not talking about simply taking about a cut in clothing. Rather to emulate the opposite sex in appearance and actions.

The wording may be different but every commentary I checked noted the ideas are similar.

Here is something I posted earlier about the wording of this verse:

"I don't know Hebrew well enough to look at it unaided, but I looked at the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, and at a Hebrew interlinear.

The Septuagint reads: "The items of a man will not be on a woman." I compared this to the interlinear. The Greek is just a literal rendering of the Hebrew. The Greek has a future form of the verb "to be" to translate the Hebrew verb "to be." I would not see the use of the verb "to be" as significant, but just as another way of communicating the idea of a women not wearing, using, or having men's things."

But as with other issues this passage has been used to preach against something that has been held as a standard by some. But when it all comes down to it, this passage has no more meaning to preach against pants. Than does Exo 34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Mean that we must eat kosher food.

I know these threads get really long, and a new poster might not be able to go back and read every post, so I'm not sure if you saw this issue discussed at length. The debate was over the fact that Deut 22.5 is specifically said to be an "abomination to Yahweh," while other laws, such as the ones you mention, are never described this way. The point is that by calling it an abomination to Yahweh it seems to be raising the issue to a moral level, in a way that eating kosher food is not.

Of course, even if someone accepts this--that wearing clothes of the opposite sex is hateful to God--it does not settle the issue of whether or not women can wear pants today. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be other verses that clearly speak to this issue, so I just conclude that pants are no longer exclusively male clothing, as they once were, and so women can wear them, provided they are modest, the same for men.

[Scott Pitta]

Eating non kosher food is labelled as an abomination by Moses.

No one in the Bible ever suggests the term abomination indicates a sin is different in any special way.

If abominations are a special class of sin, the type which is still in effect today, create a list of all the abominations and live according to that list.

The discussions at the council of Jerusalem made no mention of abominations at all.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Eating non kosher food is labelled as an abomination by Moses.

No one in the Bible ever suggests the term abomination indicates a sin is different in any special way.

If abominations are a special class of sin, the type which is still in effect today, create a list of all the abominations and live according to that list.

The discussions at the council of Jerusalem made no mention of abominations at all.

We've gone down this road already, and since there's no need to rehash what was said, I suggested Loran read what has already been discussed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Unless I am overlooking something, I do not see where Daniel 3.21 “explicitly mentions that they were wearing robes” (?). In fact, I looked at the Aramaic text closely and, to my surprise, it actually says these “men” were wearing “trousers/pants” for two separate articles of clothing. See the LEB below, w. lexical quotes following.

Daniel 3:21 (LEB): Then these men were bound with their garments, their trousers and their turbans and their other clothing, and they were thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.

**The initial Aramaic noun rendered “garments” above is defined as:

סרבל noun סרבלא:
1 Biblical Aramaic: trousers
2 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: cloak

(BDB): כַרְבָּל] n.[m.] prob. mantle (v. esp. SAC:JPhil. xxvi (1899), 307 f., cf. Andr:M 74*, with conj. as to orig. Pers. form; > trousers; NH; J Aram. id., with both mngs., also shoes; Ar. سِرْبَالُ mantle is loan-word Frä:47; Egypt. Ar. زربول shoe is Gk. loan-word acc. to Vollers:ZMG li (1897), 298, cf. Krauss:ii. 412);-pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן Dn 3:21, 3:27.

(CWSB Dictionary): סַרְבָּל sarbāl: An Aramaic masculine noun referring to a coat, a robe, trousers. It refers to a piece of the extensive outfits that the three Hebrew young men wore none of which was singed by fire (Dan. 3:21, 27).

(HALOT): *סַרְבָּל‎, pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן‎ Da 321.27, an item of clothing, trousers or coat (see now Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000), 99); Sept. ἱματισμοω" (σὺν τς`/ ἱματισμς`/ αυξτς`ν), Theodotion σαραβαωρα (σὺν τοι`" σαραωβαροι" αυξτς`ν); σαή ἔσθη" Παρσικηω (CTA), also σαραωβαλλα, σαραωπαρα, Pauly-Wissowa 2: R I 2: 2386, Symmachus αξναχυριωδη",

Vulgate braccae: long, baggy, oriental trousers (perhaps the sbst. has a Scythian origin), foreign word.; EmpArm., Pehl. (Junker Frahang 15: 12 ליא‎[י‎]סרב‎ shirt; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); EgArm. סרבלק‎ (Cowley Arm. Pap. 42: 9, for ק‎ see p. 144; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 802 s.v srblwn; Sokoloff loc. cit. prefers to read סרחלץ‎); JArm., CTA (Dalman Wb. 300a: סַרְבְּלָא‎, Beyer Arm. Texte 648 s.v. שרבל‎; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.);

MHeb. סַרְבָּל‎ coat, trousers (Dalman Wb. 300a); denom. JArm. סַרְבֵּל‎ to wrap up; MHeb. pt. passive מְסֻרְבָּל‎ wrapped up, corpulent (Dalman Wb. 300a; but see Sokoloff loc. cit.); > Arb. sirbāl coat (Fraenkel 47f with important notes); cf. also Syr. šarbālā (Brockelmann Lexicon 806b);

Latin sarabala, sarabara, [a type of Persian pantaloon] (Lokotsch 1849); Mnd. šaruala (Drower-Macuch Dictionary 445b); NeoSyr. šarwāl and šarwār; Neo-Persian širwāl and šalwār trousers; on the Persian sbst. see especially Vogt 120a; see further Jean-H. Dictionnaire 197; Fraenkel; Commentaries.

**Regarding the next article mentioned, cf. my posts earlier in this thread wherein I pasted numerous Aramaic lexicographers affirming that these are indeed “trousers” or “pants.” I haven’t really taken the time to look at the LXX yet, but HALOT above indicates the same meanings appear there also. This is why I am a sucker for these types of discussion !

*Concerning the Babylonian cultural argument, we should remember that it was equally Babylonian culture to embrace their idols and bow before them—which, obviously, is what occasioned this whole unit of passages (i.e., the Hebrew men’s refusal to do so to align themselves w. Yahweh’s laws). In light of this truism, I would have a *REALLY* difficult time believing that they were not wearing something that was known to be exclusively masculine for these Hebrew men.

*I realize no one will change their minds over this issue (which is very perplexing to me), but, it has helped me to see things I was previously unaware of. In revival for the next week, will look in and follow up as time allots. God bless.

The lexical data you posted indicates a range of proposed meanings: mantle/cloak, trousers/pantaloons, and even shoes. How do we determine which is the correct meaning? Usually when I see such disparity in lexical information it suggests to me the lexicographers are essentially guessing, or else that the underlying term is too vague to admit of precise definition (like the English term "apparel", that could mean anything worn, from shoes to hats).

Also, how can it be ruled out the Hebrews were not wearing Medo-Persian-Chaldean attire? Considering they appear to be part of the royal court, and were educated in the Chaldean system, I would expect them to be dressed in a manner conforming to the culture of their captors. I do not find a Mosaic injunction against wearing Eastern attire per se, as if Hebrew attire was wholly different by divine injunction. So, they could refuse to sin against Jehovah while wearing court appointed clothing. In which case the trousers would likely have been foreign attire not native to common Israelites. The common attire of Israelite culture seems to be the ephod, robe, kuttoneth, tunic, mantle, cloak rather than trousers or pants.

So I'm having trouble seeing how the three Hebrews in Daniel are illustrative of distinctively and uniquely male clothing. That is, that they provide evidence that trousers were uniquely male garments. I'm not saying trousers aren't, or weren't, such. Just that I'm not seeing how this particular passage proves such.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

We've gone down this road already, and since there's no need to rehash what was said, I suggested Loran read what has already been discussed.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[Jay]

Essiac, the attire you are describing were priestly garments. The only two individuals not priests that ever adorned the ephod were David and Samuel, and the latter was essentially an adopted son or servant of Eli the high priest.

[Scott Pitta]

That is easy to say, but since we have such very little information about how people dressed back then, we cannot be adamant about clothing selection or attire.

The glimpses of what was worn at a given time, over centuries and cultures should temper any conclusions about the subject.