Daniel 3:21

Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(21) Their coats.—The dresses spoken of here correspond with what Herodotus tells us (i. 195) of the Babylonian costume. As far as can be determined from the etymology of the words, the “coat” was an under-clothing, which covered the whole body; the “hose” was some species of tunic—something “spread out” over the under-clothing; the “hat” (the only one of the three words of which no Hebrew root exists (see 1Chronicles 15:27), was a sort of cloak, used probably for State occasions only.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:19-27 Let Nebuchadnezzar heat his furnace as hot as he can, a few minutes will finish the torment of those cast into it; but hell-fire tortures, and yet does not kill. Those who worshipped the beast and his image, have no rest, no pause, no moment free from pain, Re 14:10,11. Now was fulfilled in the letter that great promise, Isa 43:2, When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned. Leaving it to that God who preserved them in the fire, to bring them out, they walked up and down in the midst, supported and encouraged by the presence of the Son of God. Those who suffer for Christ, have his presence in their sufferings, even in the fiery furnace, and in the valley of the shadow of death. Nebuchadnezzar owns them for servants of the most high God; a God able to deliver them out of his hand. It is our God only is the consuming fire, Heb 12:29. Could we but see into the eternal world, we should behold the persecuted believer safe from the malice of his foes, while they are exposed to the wrath of God, and tormented in unquenchable fires.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Then these men were bound in their coats - They were seized just as they were. No time was given them for preparation; no change was made in their dress. In "autos-da-fe" of later times, it has been usual to array those who were to suffer in a peculiar dress, indicative of the fact that they were heretics, and that they deserved the flame. Here, however, the anger of the king was so great, that no delay was allowed for any such purpose, and they proceeded to execute the sentence upon them just as they were. The fact that they were thus thrown into the furnace, however, only made the miracle the more conspicuous, since not even their garments were affected by the fire. The word rendered "coats," is in the margin rendered "mantles." The Chaldee word (סרבלין sarbâlı̂yn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from סרבל sarbēl, to cover. The Greek word used in the translation is derived from this - σαράβαρα sarabara - and the word σαρβαρίδες sarbarides is still used in modern Greek. The Chaldee word is used only in this chapter. The Vulgate renders this, cum braccis suis - hence, the word "breeches," and "brogues." The garment referred to, therefore, seems rather to be what covered the lower part of their person than either a coat or mantle.

Their hosen - This word was evidently designed by our translators to denote drawers, or trousers - not stockings, for that was the common meaning of the word when the translation was made. It is not probable that the word is designed to denote "stockings," as they are not commonly worn in the East. Harmer supposes that the word here used means properly "a hammer," and that the reference is to a hammer that was carried as a symbol of office, and he refers in illustration of this to the plates of Sir John Chardin of carvings found in the ruins of Persepolis, among which a man is represented with a hammer or mallet in each hand. He supposes that this was some symbol of office. The more common and just representation, however, is to regard this as referring to an article of dress. The Chaldee word (פטישׁ paṭṭı̂ysh) is from פטשׁ pâṭash, to break, to hammer (πατάσσω patassō); to spread out, to expand; and the noun means

(1) a hammer; Isaiah 41:7; Jeremiah 23:29; Jeremiah 50:23; and

(2) a garment, probably with the idea of its being "spread out," and perhaps referring to a tunic or under-garment.

Compare Gesenius on the word. The Greek is, τιάραις tiarais, and so the Latin Vulgate, tiaris: the tiara, or covering for the head, turban. The probable reference, however, is to the under-garment worn by the Orientals; the tunic, not a little resembling a shirt with us.

And their hats - Margin, or "turbans." The Chaldee word (כרבלא karbelâ') is rendered by Gesenius mantle, pallium. So the version called the "Breeches" Bible, renders it "clokes." Coverdale renders it "shoes," and so the Vulgate, calceamentis, sandals; and the Greek, περικνηυίσιν periknēmisin, greaves, or a garment enclosing the lower limbs; pantaloons. There is certainly no reason for rendering the word "hats" - as hats were then unknown; nor is there any evidence that it refers to a turban. Buxtorf ("Chaldee Lex.") regards it as meaning a garment, particularly an outer garment, a cloak, and this is probably the correct idea. We should then have in these three words the principal articles of dress in which the Orientals appear, as is shown by the preceding engraving, and from the ruins of Persepolis - the large and loose trousers; the tunic, or inner garment; and the outer garment, or cloak, that was commonly thrown over all.

And their other garments - Whatever they had on, whether turban, belt, sandals, etc.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

21. coats … hosen … hats—Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], "their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles." Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

This is observable and wonderful, that the fire should not catch their garments, being the most obnoxious to it.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then these men were bound in their coats,.... Their upper coats, cloaks, or mantles, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; though, according to the use of the word in the Arabic language, the "femoralia" (r) or breeches are meant:

their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments: their turbants on their heads, which were usually wore in those countries; and their stockings and shoes, and other under garments, as waistcoats and shirts; which through haste or negligence, or with design, were kept on them, to make their torment the greater; but were intended by the Lord to make the miracle the more conspicuous. According to Cocceius (s) and Bynaeus (t), the first of these words signifies the outward covering of the body, as cloaks, &c.; the second the covering of the feet, as socks, shoes, and sandals; and the third the covering of the head, as caps, turbants, helmets, &c.; the last the inner garments that were under the upper ones:

and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace; in the manner and circumstances before related.

(r) "cum femoralibus", Pagninus; so Syr. Ar.; "cum braccis suis", V. L. (s) Expos. Dict. Chald. col. 1022. rad (t) De Calceis Hebr. l. 2. c. 10. sect 4, 5, 6, 7.

Geneva Study Bible

Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

21. coats] The meaning of the Aram. sarbâl (only here and Daniel 3:27) is uncertain (see the very full discussion in Ges. Thesaurus); but on the whole mantles is the most probable. This is the sense which the word has in the Talmud[230], in which it occurs frequently (Ges. p. 971; Levy, NHWB[231], s.v.), so that it has ancient usage in its favour. On the other hand, Aq. and Theod. (σαράβαρα), LXX. in Daniel 3:27 (94), Symm. (ἀναξυρίδες), Pesh., express the meaning trousers (though of a looser kind than those worn by us),—an article of dress known independently (from Herod., and other authorities) to have been worn at least by the ancient Scythians and Persians, and to have been called by them σαράβαρα. The word, in the same sense, passed into Arabic, in the form sirwâl (e.g. in Saadyah’s version of Leviticus 6:3), as well as into several of the Romance languages. In both these senses the word may be originally Persian: in that of mantle, meaning properly (according to Andreas) a head-covering (* sarabâra), for which in Persia the peasants often use their mantle; in that of trousers, corresponding to the Mod. Pers. shalwâr, ‘under-breeches.’ The Syriac form of σαράβαρα has however a different sibilant from the one which is here used; and, as Mr Stanley A. Cook remarks[232], ‘mantles, long flowing robes, and therefore extremely liable to catch the flames,’ are more likely to be specially mentioned in the present connexion than trousers, or (R.V.) hosen.

[230] And so also, as a loan-word from the Aram., the Arabic sirbâl: see Fränkel, Aram. Fremdwörter im Arab. (1886), p. 47.

[231] HWB. M. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 1876–89.

[232] ‘On the articles of dress mentioned in Daniel 3:21,’ in the Journ. of Philology, xxvi. (1899), p. 306 ff.

their hosen] Another uncertain word (Aram. paṭṭish). Sept. and Theod. render τιάραι, ‘turbans’; Pesh. uses the same word, which, however, seems otherwise to be known only to the Syriac lexicographers, who explain it sometimes as a ‘tunic,’ sometimes as ‘trousers,’ sometimes as a kind of ‘gaiter’ (Payne Smit[233] Thes. Syr. col. 3098). R.V. tunics; marg. ‘Or, turbans.’

[233] yne Smith R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

hats] The rendering hats (or caps) is supported by the fact that the same word karbâl (in the fem.) seems in post-Bibl. Hebrew (Levy, s.v.) to denote some kind of covering for the head, and means certainly, both in the Talmud and in Syriac (P.S[234] 1810), the comb of a cock. Others, comparing what is apparently the cognate verb in 1 Chronicles 15:27, render mantle; but the text of the passage quoted is uncertain.

[234] .S. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. - Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. The LXX. omits the complexity of garments, and translates, "Thus these men were bound, having their sandals, and their hats upon their heads, with their other garments, and were cast into the burning fiery furnace." It would seem that karbelatheon was either not in the text before the translator or was omitted by him. The latter hypothesis seems a hazardous one to adopt without good ground. We have no reason to accuse the Septuagint translator of this practice. Theodotion also presents signs of omission. דךתאלסנארת תונ סך סַרְבָלִין, but simply transliterated, σαραβάροις. Under this word Schleusner says, "Vestis Medica sou Babylonica ad genus pertingens." Aquila, it may be not,d, also transliterates, σαράβαλλα. Theodotion's rendering is, "Then those men were bound in their coats (?), and hats, and hosen, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." The Peshitta does as Theodotion, and transliterates with the change of a shin fur a samech, in regard to the first word, and instead of leboosheen, "garments," has qoobe'een, which is rendered by Castelli pileus, or g,lea, a "military cap," or a "helmet." He wrongly says that qoob'o is used to translate karbelathElon; the word used for that is nihtho. We need not go into a discussion of the various garments named here. It is to be observed that, by the time of the Septuagint and the original of the version edited and revised by Theodotion, the moaning of the terms was lost - a thing hardly possible on the critical supposition that the date of Daniel is B.C. 168, if, as seems necessary to suppose from the Greek prologue to Ecclesiasticus, it was already translated into Greek by, at latest, B.C. 130. The point brought out by these garments being mentioned is in order to show the power of God manifested on them. They were all of an inflammable material, therefore emphasis was given to the miracle by this. But, further, it shows they were taken as they were, without opportunity of putting on any specially medicated robes, if such could be imagined (but see Longman's, August, 1894, reference to Basil Thomson's' South Sea Yarns'). Daniel 3:21

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Of the different parts of clothing named, סרבּלין 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 סרבּלין in their translation. Theodot. has rendered it by σαράβαρα, and the third-named piece of dress כּרבּלן 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 (סרבּלין) from the περικνημῖδες; but the false interpretation of סרבּלין by breeches has given rise to the confounding of that word with כּרבּלן, 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, סרבּלין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פּטישׁיהון, for which the Keri uses the form פּטשׁיהון, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כּתנת, 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. כּרבּלן are mantles, from כּרבּל, R. כּבל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1 Chronicles 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מעיל (upper garment). לבוּשׁיהון are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and 2 Kings 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סרבּלין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פּטישׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כּרבּלא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לבוּשׁיהון 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 (Daniel 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.