Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 3:21

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 3:21 - 3:21

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 3:21 - 3:21

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Of the different parts of clothing named, סַרְבָּלִין are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwâr, which in the Arabic is sarâwîl; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal, which means tunica or indusium; cf. Ges. Thes.

(Note: The lxx have omitted סַרְבָּלִין in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by σαράβαρα, and the third-named piece of dress כַּרְבְּלָן by περικνημῖδες, which the lxx have rendered by τιάρας ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν. Theodoret explains it: περικνημῖδας δὲ τὰς καλουμένας ἀναξυρίδας λέγει. These are, according to Herod. vii. 161, the αναχυρίδες, i.e., braccae, worn by the Persians περὶ τὰ σκέλεα. Regarding Σαράβαρα Theodoret remarks: ἔστι Περσικῶν περιβολαίων εἴδη. Thus Theodot. and Theodor. expressly distinguish the σαράβαρα (סַרְבָּלִין) from the περικνημῖδες; but the false interpretation of סַרְבָּלִין by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with כַּרְבְּלָן, and the identification of the two, the περικνημῖδες being interpreted of covering for the feet; and the Vulg. translates the passage: “cum braccis suis et tiaris et calceamentis et vestibus,” while Luther has “cloaks, shoes, and hats.” This confounding of the two words was authorized by the Greek scholiasts, to which the admission of the Persian shalwâr into the Arabic saravilu may have contributed. In Suidas we find the right interpretation along with the false one when he says: Σαράβαρα ἐσθὴς Περσικὴ ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι βρακία. Hesychius, on the other hand, briefly explains σαράβαρα by βρακία, κνημῖδες, σκελέαι. Hence the word in the forms sarabara, siravara, saravara or saraballa, sarabela, is commonly used in the middle ages for hose, and has been transferred into various modern languages; cf. Gesen. Thes. p. 971.)

p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, סַרְבָּלִין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פְּטִישֵׁיהוֹן, for which the Keri uses the form פַּטְשֵׁיהוֹן, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כְּתֹנֶת, tunica, and is derived from פשׁט, expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion's translation, τιάραι, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek πέτασος, the covering for the head worn by the ἔφηβοι. כַּרְבְּלָן are mantles, from כַּרְבֵּל, R. כְּבַל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1Ch 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מְעִיל (upper garment). לְבוּשֵׁיהוֹן are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לְבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and 2Ki 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סַרְבָּלִין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פְּטִישָׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כַּרְבְּלָא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לְבוּשֵׁיהוֹן the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood.

(Note: With the setting aside of the false interpretation we have disposed of the objection against the historical character of the narrative which v. Leng. and Hitz. have founded on the statement of Herodotus l.c., that the Babylonians wore no hose, but that they were first worn by the Persians, who adopted them from the Medes.)

The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.