1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

apparel

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Helen, Mar 24, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Was curious about the ‘apparel’ thing.

    1 Timothy 2:9-10

    NIV -- I also want women to dress modestly with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or [the word ‘and’ is in the Greek here, not ‘or’] gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

    KJV – In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

    Word used for clothes/apparel in the KJV: katastole
     Strong’s definition: from ‘katastello’; a deposit, i.e. (spec.) costume: -- apparel
    katastello – to put down, i.e. quell: appease, quiet.
     And THAT word is also a combination of other words.

    What is interesting is that in an older manuscript, from which the NIV was translated, the word in that verse is himatismos, used only five times in the New Testament in that form, but coming from the more commonly used himation, which is used 61 times, and which the NIV translates as ‘clothes’ (23 times), ‘cloak’ (13 times), ‘cloaks’ (7 times), ‘garment’ (6 times), ‘robe’ (4 times), ‘garments’ (2 times), and ‘clothing’, ‘dressed’ (in conjunction with another word), ‘one’ (used as a pronoun), ‘stripped’ (in conjunction with two other words), and untranslated each one time.

    I checked a Luke reference in which the word himatismos is used. It is Luke 7:25, which, in context, reads as follows
    What did you go out into the desert to see? [Jesus is here referring to John the Baptist] A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes [himation]? No, those who wear expensive clothes [himatismos] and indulge in luxury are in palaces.

    Evidently, then, in this older mss, the word used in 1 Timothy refers to expensive and fine clothing, not referencing whether or not it is loose and flowing or gathered or anything else.

    I cross-checked Luke 7:25 to see how the King James dealt with it. Here is their translation, again in context:
    But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously appareled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts.

    checking each of the words there in turn:

    clothed – ‘amphiennumi’ – to enrobe or clothe
    raiment – ‘himation’ – apparel, cloak, clothes, garment, vesture, raiment, robe
    appareled – ‘himatismos ‘ – array, raiment, vesture
    Seeing now that himatismos and himation could both be used for masculine as well as feminine apparel, I wanted to track down the word the KJV text had in 1 Timothy: katastole. The word simply means ‘modestly’ with no mention of the word ‘apparel’ in the Greek manuscript there!

    I went to the NIV parallel to look at the Greek for myself:
    Here is the literal translation:

    Similarly women in clothing orderly, with modesty and sobriety to adorn themselves, not with plaiting and gold or pearls or raiment costly, but what suits women professing reverence, by means of works good.

    So I went on to the only other mention of women in apparel in the NT, and that is 1 Peter 3:3. Here it is in the King James, in context:
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
    While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
    Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel…

    OK, this is apparel a woman should NOT put on. The word here is himation – evidently a reference again to expensive and fine clothing.

    In other words, there is NO word that translates ‘apparel’ in the King James in the 1 Timothy verse, and the admonition is to be modest and sober in clothing. And in the 1 Peter verse, the admonition is NOT to put on expensive clothes!

    That sort of changes things!

    There is no implication whatsoever that I could find that indicates that any word used in either of those two verses means something loose and flowing. Modesty can, in other words, be just as much a pair of loose pants as a flowing gown or dress.

    In short, there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that says women should be in dresses. Ever. At any time.

    We are to be modest and feminine and not wear fancy expensive clothes but let our good deeds show our character.
     
    #1 Helen, Mar 24, 2003
  2. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Apparel

    Katastole: primarily a garment let down; hence dress, attire, in general (cp. stole, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank,—Eng., stole)

    Stole: denotes any stately robe, a long garment reaching to the feet or with a train behind.

    These definitions are from An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words by Dr.'s Vine, Unger and White.

    I counted no less than eight different Greek words used to describe clothing in the New Testament. I will post the rest of them in detail tomorrow or Tuesday.
     
    #2 Aaron, Mar 24, 2003
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here: http://www.foreignword.com/Tools/dictsrch_hp.asp?query=modesty&src=BP&srcbox=20&trg=CQ&submit1=+Go+

    the word itself is feminine. That does not mean it belongs only to females, however! Ships and nations are also feminine.

    It means clothing let down, or that which is modest. That is why it is translated simply as modesty in some of the modern translations. It is in contrast to that which is immodest, or belted up/raised up. Because NO ONE wore pants then, the meaning was simply modest attire, or that which was let down.

    The reason this was considered modest was not just because of the legs showing, which did not bother them so much as the fact that people did not wear underpants! This is also why there were to be no steps leading up to the altar even in the times of Moses -- so the priests would not show their nakedness.

    The entire message to women in the New Testament and to all of us throughout the Bible regarding our dress is that it should be modest and gender-appropriate. There is also the restriction on women in 1 Peter regarding fancy clothes -- expensive and show-off things he instructs us not to wear. This definitely leaves it up to the culture involved and the individual's understanding.

    However, this does compliment those pastor's wives who are able to look nice but not fancy with clothes bought from anywhere they can get them!
     
    #3 Helen, Mar 24, 2003
  4. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remembered reading sometime ago about men in the bible times,and their clothing,(similar to wmen's clothing in that they appeared as our dresses today do),a dn that when men went out to the field, or into battle thay would pull thier long robe up above their 'belt' so that it hung above the waste, and that the bottom edge of it came to mid thigh(or perphaps higher, depended on the man pulling it up), so that men had freedom of movement to work or run and fight in battle. Which if anyting tell us not to wear short dress, which I think we've all got down pat, I don't think any of us want to do that anyway. Another thing it is telling us(if you read my post o the other thread) is that the woman is not to pull up her garmat as one going into battle, a warrior, or soldier.
    Since men's and women's clothing were so very similar in the bible, and yu isist that women are to wear long flowing dresses, then I challenge yu to dress in what biblical men wore. if you really want to be biblical that is, see as how pabts that you wear did not exsist when scripture was written.
     
    #4 donnA, Mar 24, 2003
  5. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post Helen, I didn't think to investigate the word apprael more. Looks like we got the topic covered.
     
    #5 donnA, Mar 24, 2003
  6. Maverick

    Maverick Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maybe because it quieted or appeased or put down the lust of eyes. Adam Clarke describes the style of dress perfectly. Note his mention of what would be equal to our current slit dress craze.

    1 Timothy 2:9

    In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

    [In like manner also] That is, he wills or commands what follows, as he had commanded what went before.
    [That women adorn themselves] Kai (grk 2532) tas (grk 3588) gunaikas (grk 1135) en (grk 1722) katastolee (grk 2689) kosmioo (grk 2887). The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stolee (grk 4749), stola, seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up on both sides, having room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body, just under the breasts. It was sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to discover a part of the thigh. These were termed phainomeerides, showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them thus.
    The katastolee (grk 2689) seems to have been the same as the pallium or mantle, which, being made nearly in the form of the stola, hung down to the waist, both in back and front, was gathered on the shoulder with a band or buckle, had a hole or slit at top for the head to pass through, and hung loosely over the stola, without being confined by the zona or girdle. Representations of these dresses may be seen in LEN'S Costume des Peuples de l'Antiquite, fig. 11, 12, 13, and 16. A more modest and becoming dress than the Grecian was never invented; it was, in a great measure, revived in England about the year 1805, and in it, simplicity, decency, and elegance were united; but it soon gave place to another mode, in which frippery and nonsense once more prevailed. It was too rational to last long; and too much like religious simplicity to be suffered in a land of shadows, and a world of painted outsides.
    (from Adam Clarke Commentary)
     
    #6 Maverick, Mar 24, 2003
  7. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    I refuse to allow this to go any further down the path to anger that these topics have traveled before. Please make certain of my intent to keep this and the other threads concerning clothing clean. Whatever happened before has no bearing here, please don't let old problems surface. Play nice or don't play at all.

    Murph
     
    #7 C.S. Murphy, Mar 24, 2003
  8. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Helen, the word modest means "well-ordered." The word apparel means "let-down." People did wear pants millennia ago.

    The idea that no one wore pants in Biblical times is based on what we have seen in movies and art. Mummies on the order of three thousand years old have been discovered with pants. This link does not show them, but I saw the NOVA documentary and attest that men and women were in pants.

    Why do we assume pants are a new thing?
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html

    Again, not true. According to Dr.'s Unger and White, the OT term for Garment is "beged":
    Also in the New Testament:
    Undergarments are not a new innovation. I can't imagine anyone wanting to engage in hard manual labor, as did Adam and Eve, without support.
     
    #8 Aaron, Mar 25, 2003
  9. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #9 Aaron, Mar 25, 2003
  10. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    #10 Headcoveredlady, Mar 25, 2003
  11. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the transcript of the NOVA Documentary:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2502chinamum.html

    Remember, these mummies are over 3,000 years old.

    [ March 25, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
    #11 Aaron, Mar 25, 2003
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2502chinamum.html

    Remember, these mummies are over 3,000 years old.     </font>[/QUOTE]Aaron, it was all a college kid hoax. Did you see the one with the cigarette where its mouth would have been?

    Just kidding. [​IMG]
     
    #12 Daniel David, Mar 25, 2003
  13. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't get the joke, but I laughed anyway. :D
     
    #13 Aaron, Mar 25, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...