Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible [1]
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin The words of the handwriting on the wall, which, according to Daniel 5:5; Daniel 5:26 , appeared mysteriously at Belshazzar’s feast, and was successfully deciphered by Daniel alone ( Daniel 5:26-28 ), in Daniel 5:25 the words of the inscription (‘the writing … inscribed ,’ RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) are given as above, but in the explanation ( Daniel 5:26-28 ) are quoted in a divergent form, and no account is taken of the repetition of the first word. This discrepancy can best be accounted for by assuming that the words of the inscription as given in Daniel 5:25 already lay in their present form before the author, and are not the product of his free invention; while Daniel 5:26-28 are the result of ‘an attempt to extract from the words, in spite of grammar, a meaning suitable to the occasion.’
What, then, is the real significance of the mysterious words? As has been shown by M. Clermont-Ganneau in the Journal Asiatique for 1886, they are really names of weights. Mene is the Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] equivalent of the Heb. maneh ( Ezekiel 45:12 , Ezra 2:69 ) and = mina; tekel = shekel ; and pharsin is a plural, and probably represents a word ( perâs lit. ‘division’) which means half-mina. Thus the four words read consecutively: ‘A mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas.’ The enigmatic character of the combination apparently consisted partly in the manner in which the words were supposed to have been written perhaps in some unfamiliar form of Aramaic cursive or with some curious inversion in arrangement and partly in determining their import even when read. The appositeness of a list of three weights in such a connexion is not obvious. In deducing a meaning fitted to the occasion Daniel’s skill as an interpreter of riddles is strikingly set forth. Each of the mysterious words is invested with a meaning suggested by etymological affinities. The term for ‘mina’ is connected with a root meaning ‘to number’; hence it signifies ‘God hath numbered thy kingdom and brought it to an end’: ‘shekel’ is connected with a root meaning ‘to weigh,’ and hence ‘thou hast been weighed in the balance and found wanting’: ‘half-mina’ ( perâs ) suggests a double play; ‘thy kingdom is divided (peris ) and given to the Persians (Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] pâras = ‘Persian’). It should be noticed that a double interpretation is apparently given throughout, each of the words having perhaps been read in two ways, and the meanings combined (see art. ‘Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] for details). Another possible rendering is, ‘He has counted, counted, weighed, and they assess’ (?a commercial formula). Possibly ‘an actual inscription found on the walls of the palace at Babylon, or, at any rate, found somewhere, was worked by the author of Daniel into this dramatic scene and arbitrarily explained’ (D. S. Margoliouth, ib .).
G. H. Box.
Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature [2]
Me´ne, Me´ne, Te´kel, Uphar´sin, the inscription supernaturally written 'upon the plaster of the wall' in Belshazzar's palace at Babylon , which 'the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers' could neither read nor interpret, but which Daniel first read, and then interpreted. Yet the words, as they are found in Daniel, are pure Chaldee, and if they appeared in the Chaldee character, could have been read, at least, by any person present on the occasion who understood the alphabet of his own language. To account for their inability to decipher this inscription, it has been supposed that it consisted of those Chaldee words written in another character. Dr. Hales thinks that it may have been written in the primitive Hebrew character, from which the Samaritan was formed, and that, in order to show on this occasion that the writer of the inscription was the offended God of Israel, whose authority was being at that moment peculiarly despised , he adopted his own sacred character, in which he had originally written the Decalogue, which Daniel could understand, though it would be unknown to the wise men of Babylon. This theory has the recommendation, that it involves as little as possible of miraculous agency. It has been supposed by some, that 'the wise men' were not so much at fault to read the inscription, as to explain its meaning; and certainly it is said throughout our narrative that 'the wise men could not read the writing, nor make known the interpretation of it,' phrases which would seem to mean one and the same thing; since, if they mean different things, the order of ideas would be that they could not interpret nor even read it, and Wintle accordingly translates, 'could not read so as to interpret it' (Improved Version of Daniel, London 1807). At all events the meaning of the inscription by itself would be extremely enigmatical and obscure. To determine the application, and to give the full sense, of an isolated device which amounted to no more than 'he or it is numbered, he or it is numbered, he or it is weighed, they are divided,' must surely have required a supernatural endowment on the part of Daniel a conclusion which is confirmed by the exact coincidence of the event with the prediction, which he propounded with so much fortitude .
