Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.The words of the handwriting on the wall, which, according to Dan 5:5; Dan 5:26, appeared mysteriously at Belshazzars feast, and was successfully deciphered by Daniel alone (Dan 5:26-28), in Dan 5:25 the words of the inscription (the writing inscribed, RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) are given as above, but in the explanation (Dan 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 Dan 5:25 already lay in their present form before the author, and are not the product of his free invention; while Dan 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 (Eze 45:12, Ezr 2:69) and = mina; tekel = shekel; and pharsin is a plural, and probably represents a word (pers 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 writtenperhaps in some unfamiliar form of Aramaic cursive or with some curious inversion in arrangementand 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 Daniels 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 hencethou hast been weighed in the balance and found wanting: half-mina (pers) suggests a double play; thy kingdom is divided (peris) and given to the Persians (Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] pras = 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.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
mene, mene, tekel, u-farsin, mena, mena, tekel, oo-farsin ( , mene’ mene’ tekel upharsn; Theodotion, , , , Mane, thekel, phares): These are the words that, according to Daniel’s reading, were inscribed on the walls of Belshazzar’s palace and that caused the great commotion on the occasion of his last feast (Dan 5:25). As the only authority that we have for the reading is that of Daniel, it seems but fair that the interpretation of the terms be left to the person who gave us the text. According to his interpretation, there is a double sense to be found in the three different words of the inscription (Dan 5:26-28).
Mene’, which, however it is pointed, must be taken from the verb menah (Hebrew manah; Babylonian manu), is said to have indicated that God had numbered (the days of) Belshazzar’s kingdom and finished it (or delivered it up). Both of these meanings can be shown to be proper to the translation, menah.
Tekel, on the contrary, is interpreted as coming from two roots: the first, tekal, to weigh, and the second, kal, to be light or wanting (Hebrew kalal; Babylonian kalalu).
Peres (or parsn) also is interpreted as coming from two roots: first, peras, to divide (Hebrew paras or parash; Babylonian parasu), and the second as denoting the proper name Paras, Persia. Thus interpreted, the whole story hangs together, makes good sense, and is fully justified by the context and by the language employed. If the original text was in Babylonian, the signs were ambiguous; if they were in Aramaic, the consonants alone were written, and hence, the reading would be doubtful. In either case, the inscription was apparent but not readable, except by Daniel with the aid of God, through whom also the seer was enabled to give the proper interpretation. That Daniel’s interpretation was accepted by Belshazzar and the rest shows that the interpretation of the signs was reasonable and convincing when once it had been made. We see, therefore, no good reason for departing from the interpretation that the Book of Daniel gives as the true one.
As to the interpretation of the inscription, it makes no difference whether the signs represented a mina, a shekel, and two perases, as has been recently suggested by M. Clermont-Ganneau. In this case the meaning was not so apparent, but the puns, the play upon the sounds, were even better. We doubt, however, if it can be shown that tekel means shekel. On the old Aramaic documents of Egypt and Assyria, it is with one exception spelled shekel. In the Targum of Onkelos, shekel is always rendered by sela; in the Peshitta and Arabic VSS, by mathkal; in the Samaritan Targum, by mathkal (except only perhaps in Gen 23:16, where we have ethkel). In the Targum of Onkelos, wherever tikla’ occurs, it translates the Hebrew beka (Gen 24:22 and Exo 38:26 only). Mene, to be sure, may have meant the mina, and peres, the half-mina. The parash is mentioned in the inscription of Panammu and in an Aramaic inscription on an Assyrian weight. Besides this, it is found in the New Hebrew of the Mishna It is not found, however, in the Targum of Onkelos, nor in Syriac, nor in the Old Testament Hebrew; nor in the sense of half-shekel in the Aramaic papyri. While, then, it may be admitted that Daniel may have read, A mina, a mina, a shekel, and two half-minas, it is altogether unlikely, and there is certainly no proof that he did. Yet, if he did, his punning interpretations were justified by the usage of ancient oracles and interpreters of signs, and also by the event.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, the inscription supernaturally written ‘upon the plaster of the wall’ in Belshazzar’s palace at Babylon (Dan 5:5-25), 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 (Dan 5:2-4), 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 (Dan 5:30-31).
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
The words written on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast. Dan 5:25. There are two things said of the king’s wise men: they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king its interpretation. Dan 5:8. Various suggestions have been made as to why the wise men could not read the writing. It may have been because the letters were the ancient Hebrew characters, which, though known to Daniel, would be unknown to them. The words and their meanings stand thus ( peres is the singular of upharsin which is plural):
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.
numbered numbered weighed divided.
It will readily be seen that even if such a sentence had been read, its signification could not have been known apart from the teaching of God. Each word appears to have had a hidden meaning which was revealed to Daniel. Thus the kingdom was ‘numbered’ and finished. As we say of a person, ‘his days are numbered.’ The king had been ‘weighed’ in the balances, and was found wanting, as none can come up to God’s standard. The kingdom was ‘divided,’ and given to the Medes and Persians (Peres). Thus, as always, God alone can interpret what He has caused to be written. The prediction was fulfilled by the city and kingdom being taken that same night.