Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Since much has been stated about the interpretations of translators, see Daniel 3.21 below:

New International Version
So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace.

New Living Translation
So they tied them up and threw them into the furnace, fully dressed in their pants, turbans, robes, and other garments.

Berean Study Bible
So they were tied up, wearing robes, trousers, turbans, and other clothes, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace.

New American Standard Bible
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.

New King James Version:
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.

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

Holman Christian Standard Bible
So these men, in their trousers, robes, head coverings, and other clothes, were tied up and thrown into the furnace of blazing fire.

NET Bible
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.

*Lexicographers on the Aramaic noun translated "pants" or "trousers" in this text:

Hebrew-Aramaic-Lexicon of the OT (HALOT [essentially the BDAG of the OT]): סַרְבָּל‎, pl. sf. סַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן‎ Daniel 3.21.27, 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).

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon (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.

Another Ref. from BDB: [מְּטַשׁ] noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings SACJPhil. xxvi (1899), 309; (probably later insertion in text Id.ib. 311 ff.) (Talmud (rare); √פטשׁ spread out according to K§ 57 b) a)); — plural suffix פטישי הון Kt (probably ׳מְּטִי K§§ 54, 3 a)a); 57, b)a), Kmpon the passage M78* and others ׳מַּטִּי), מַּטְּשֵׁיהוֺן Qr, Daniel 3:21.

Complete Word Study of the OT and NT (Drs. Zodhiates, Carpenter and Baker): H5622. 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).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance: פַּטִּישֵׁי (a garment) perhaps leggings.

*And lest we forget:

(Deut. 22.5; NKJV): A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

*Once again we're shown that men wore the trousers, breeches, or pants (synonymous terms) in Bible days - which women were forbidden to wear. Something that is deemed "an abomination to YHVH" is serious business - thus, we are trying to remain as consistent as possible where I pastor (w.out being nasty...sweet lil' feller' that I am !).

I don't disagree with the fact that men wore the baggy trousers in the ancient world, especially in the royal courts of ancient Babylon and Persia as demonstrated in the text above from the book of Daniel. However, in ancient Babylon and Persia, women also wore a similar type of trouser that differed very little except in fabric and color. The notion that just because this text mentions men wearing trousers means that the women of that culture didn't is jumping to a conclusion that contradicts our knowledge of the culture, and a conclusion that the text doesn't even support.

It was common throughout ancient Near Eastern culture for women to wear very similar baggy trousers made for women.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't disagree with the fact that men wore the baggy trousers in the ancient world, especially in the royal courts of ancient Babylon and Persia as demonstrated in the text above from the book of Daniel. However, in ancient Babylon and Persia, women also wore a similar type of trouser that differed very little except in fabric and color. The notion that just because this text mentions men wearing trousers means that the women of that culture didn't is jumping to a conclusion that contradicts our knowledge of the culture, and a conclusion that the text doesn't even support.

It was common throughout ancient Near Eastern culture for women to wear very similar baggy trousers made for women.

*The difference is that I showed you where YHVH’s covenant men in the OT were wearing pants, whereas you are appealing to secular society who is not concerned w. adhering to the Deut. 22.5 edict.

*This would be identical to Christian men in Asia saying, “Well, some men in America wear dresses made explicitly for men, so why can’t we?” But, these are obviously not Christian men in America wearing dresses designed for men. Sound conclusions allows these category distinctions to remain intact upon analytical deduction - whether it be the hair issue or apparel doctrines.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't disagree with the fact that men wore the baggy trousers in the ancient world, especially in the royal courts of ancient Babylon and Persia as demonstrated in the text above from the book of Daniel. However, in ancient Babylon and Persia, women also wore a similar type of trouser that differed very little except in fabric and color. The notion that just because this text mentions men wearing trousers means that the women of that culture didn't is jumping to a conclusion that contradicts our knowledge of the culture, and a conclusion that the text doesn't even support.

It was common throughout ancient Near Eastern culture for women to wear very similar baggy trousers made for women.

Those are pictures of Bedouins, and Muslims from the 1900s.

Sorry, they don't represent first century A.D. Judeans.

1900 years later a lot changed.

[Aquila]

Actually, the pictures are designed to reflect the cultural trends in fashion among the Persians. The style hadn't changed for thousands of years. The "trousers" mentioned in Daniel are reflective of these fashions. My point is, they were worn by both men and women in both Babylon and Persia. So, the Daniel reference isn't a significant point for only men wearing trousers in ancient Persia.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Those are pictures of Bedouins, and Muslims from the 1900s.

Sorry, they don't represent first century A.D. Judeans.

1900 years later a lot changed.

The following pic depicts the common attire of the Bedouin women between the years 1800 and 1900.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, the pictures are designed to reflect the cultural trends in fashion among the Persians. The style hadn't changed for thousands of years. The "trousers" mentioned in Daniel are reflective of these fashions. My point is, they were worn by both men and women in both Babylon and Persia. So, the Daniel reference isn't a significant point for only men wearing trousers in ancient Persia.



The following pic depicts the common attire of the Bedouin women between the years 1800 and 1900.

well at least their modest.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

well at least their modest.

I guess. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, the pictures are designed to reflect the cultural trends in fashion among the Persians. The style hadn't changed for thousands of years. The "trousers" mentioned in Daniel are reflective of these fashions. My point is, they were worn by both men and women in both Babylon and Persia. So, the Daniel reference isn't a significant point for only men wearing trousers in ancient Persia.



The following pic depicts the common attire of the Bedouin women between the years 1800 and 1900.

So what Chris, you are talking about people who are living 2,000 years after the fact.You must typically deal with people who know way less than you. Who believe your Google gleaned wisdom.

Bedouins from the 1900s are now what Persian and Babylonians looked like 5,000 years ago. Good job, now go find a church, and a pastor.