The garment is called by our interpreter [the Vulgate] “a scarlet garment [pallium] exceeding good”; by the Seventy [LXX] ψιλὴ ποικίλη [psilē poikilē, “a smooth-woven, variegated [cloak]”]; by Aquila and the Targum στολὴ βαβυλωνικὴ [stolē babylōnikē, “a Babylonian robe”]; by Symmachus ἔνδυμα Σενναάρ [enduma Sennaar, “a garment of Shinar”; the Greek printed indistinctly]; by Josephus χλαμὺς βασίλειος [chlamys basileios, “a royal cloak”], not χλανὶς [chlanis], as Masius says, and Theodoret (q. 9), and from him the note in the Greek Bible. These interpretations indeed explain the thing itself well, but from various attributes and, as it were, circumstances of the same thing. For it is to be known that in Hebrew it is called אדרת [adereth]. And if the origin of this adereth be considered, it seems to signify a garment not just any [one], but a strong, splendid, and magnificent [one]. For that word adar [אדר], and the noun eder — that is, “magnificence” (whence some think the German edel [noble] flowed) — imports [this]. Yet in Scripture I see a twofold use of it. For either that name alone is put absolutely, and is rendered indeed “a mantle” or “garment,” and “toga”; but yet, according to the reason of the place and circumstances, by the Seventy [as] στολὴ [stolē, “robe,” at] Jonah 3:6; [as] μηλωτὴ [mēlōtē, “sheepskin mantle,” at] 1 Kings 19:13, [and] 2 Kings 2, often: or else another name is joined to it, as se’ar [שער, “hair,” at] Gen. 25:25, [and] Zech. 13:4 — here, [joined with] se’ar; but the Seventy [render it] δορὰ δασύ [dora dasy, “a shaggy hide”]; or, if Esau himself be considered, they rendered [it] δασύς [dasys, “hairy”] in Genesis; in Zechariah [13:4], δέῤῥιν τριχίνην [derrhin trichinēn, “a hairy skin”] — that is, “a shaggy and hairy pelt,” perhaps through some allusion of that [word] δορὰ and δέῤῥις [dora & derrhis] to adereth; and at the same time showing [that] by this name is signified a garment which would have something of excellence and of admirableness, by reason of [its] material or form. For sometimes they were very precious; but sometimes indeed cheap and mean, yet notable by use and novelty — since they were worn only by prophets and by those doing penance, [being] woven in a certain manner, and of a certain cheap and rough material: [garments] Philosophical, which, though combed [rough] and worn, were nevertheless [held] in admiration, far surpassing [ordinary] mantles. And such was Elijah’s better [mantle], of which above, and Heb. ch. 11; [and] Esau’s hairy skin; and the shaggy skin[-mantle] in Zechariah — or, as our [Vulgate] there renders [it], “a sackcloth mantle.” For all these had a certain sacred excellence in the garb of the prophets, and, so to speak, magnificence — just as also [do] the garments, customary among Christians, of the various religious [orders]: of the Capuchins, the Carthusians, the Hermits, and the like. But those which have excellence and price of material and of form are understood [to be] such either from the persons [who wore them] — as that [garment] of the King of Nineveh (Jonah 3) — or from this addition “Shinar,” or, as the Seventy and our [Vulgate] write (Gen. 10:10; ch. 11:2), “Senaar,” where Mesopotamia and Babylonia are signified. Whence also, in those parts, in Ptolemy and other Geographers, [there] is Mount Singaras, and the town Singara, near which [was] that huge battle of the Emperor Constantius with Sapor king of the Persians, of which Eutropius, Ammianus, and Sextus Rufus [write] — from which also a part of Mesopotamia is called Singarena. For out of the Hebrews’ [guttural cheth] a G often comes among the Greeks and Latins, as is plain in “Gomorrah” and “Gaza,” when the guttural is pronounced too thickly. And therefore, by some — as was said above — the garment which Achan stole is called “a garment of Shinar” [indumentum Synar]; by others, “a Babylonian robe” [stola Babylonica]: not that the Babylonian King had his dwelling in Jericho — as the Jew Rashi fables that all the Kings of the whole world had [dwellings there] — but that it was either brought thence, or made in the same manner, just as among us there are Italian silks and “Angelic” cloths, as Abulensis rightly observes (q. 50). Now at Babylon various colors used to be interwoven and painted into garments. “Babylon,” says Pliny (bk. 8, ch. 48), “taught [men] to interweave diverse colors by [the art of] embroidery.” Apuleius (bk. 1 of the Florida): “He had a belt girded on, of the kind that Babylonian embroidery variegates with wondrous colors.” Martial (bk. 8, Epig. 28):
“I would not prefer the proudly-painted Babylonian [webs], the Semiramian [tapestries], which are varied with the needle.”
Silius [Italicus] (bk. 14):
”…[a garment] that would vie with tawny gold — a garment reproducing breathing faces beneath its covering, which Babylon weaves with the shuttle.”
Lucretius (bk. 4): “When [the couches] are drenched with the magnificent splendor of Babylonian [coverlets].” Plutarch, in [the Life of] Cato, says that he [Cato] straightway sold off an ἐπίβλημα τῶν βαβυλωνίων ποικίλων [epiblēma tōn babylōniōn poikilōn, “a coverlet of Babylonian embroideries”], when it had come to him by inheritance. Josephus (bk. 7, ch. 17): τὰ ἐκ πορφύρας ὑφάσματα τῆς σπανιωτάτης, τὰ δ’ εἰς ἀκριβῆ ζωγραφίαν πεποικιλμένα τῇ βαβυλωνίων τέχνῃ [ta ek porphyras hyphasmata tēs spaniōtatēs, ta d’ eis akribē zōgraphian pepoikilmena tē babylōniōn technē, “(some were) webs of the rarest purple; (others) embroidered into exact picturing by the art of the Babylonians”] — which Rufinus renders thus (ch. 24): “Some garments of purple from the rarest nations; others
(col. 829)
…in the Latin-Greek Paris [Lexicon], in Brissonius, at the beginning of bk. 2 On the Signification of Words, ψιλὴ πολύμιτος [psilē polymitos, “a smooth-woven [cloak] of many threads / damask”]. But why our [Vulgate] rendered [it] “a scarlet mantle” — since many things about scarlet were said in ch. 2 — we now rest in Masius’s answer alone. “The Latin,” he says, “for ‘Shinar,’ that is, ‘Babylonian,’ said ‘scarlet.’ For that the luxury of the Persians and the neighboring nations was wont to show itself off in that color is plain even from this — that, when Susa was taken by Alexander, there were found there, as Plutarch relates, fifty thousand [talents by] weight, or talents, of Hermionian purple.” Nay, some of the ancient Hebrews too — as is handed down in [the] בְּרֵשִׁית רַבָּה [Bereshith Rabbah, the “Great Genesis” midrash] — interpreted that אדרת שנער [addereth Shinar] as “a Babylonian purple [robe],” and some as “a red robe.” For the dyes of scarlet and of purple produce nearly the same red color; whence we see the one used for the other in the Evangelists, when they describe the garment with which the impious executioners mocked CHRIST as a King. But that this garment was some small thing — like a napkin [sudarium] — as Abulensis thinks (q. 50), I do not believe. For that is contrary both to the Hebrew name addereth, and to so many Greek interpretations already adduced, and indeed to the Latin itself. For who would call a mantle, a garment, a robe, and a cloak a “napkin”? “But Achan,” says Abulensis, “could not, returning from the city into the camp, have hidden a garment of this kind.” Nay rather, he easily could. For he could put it under [his own] garments, and roll it up tightly so that it took little room. For we see, on account of the thinness of silk and of fine linen [byssus], that very many ells [of it] can be carried, and hidden away, without difficulty. But since I said that the Seventy sometimes interpret the Hebrew word adereth by the name “skin” [pellis], I will not pass over in silence that mention is made of “Babylonian [cloths]” which were spread on horses, and of “Babylonian skins,” [in the Digest] bk. 25, §1, ff. On gold [and] silver bequeathed, and at the last law ff. On publicans.