Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 42:2 (NA 1991)
Article: Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin: Daniel 5:25 In Cuneiform
Author: David Instone Brewer

TynBul 42:1 (1991) p. 310

Mene Mene Teqel Uparsin:
Daniel 5:25 In Cuneiform

David Instone Brewer

The writing on the wall interpreted by Daniel continues to present problems,1 despite much work done in the past. One particular problem is why the Babylonians could not read these Aramaic words when Aramaic was an official court language. This paper will propose that the inscription was a number written in cuneiform, which was translated into Aramaic and then interpreted. This may provide indirect links between the composition of the narrative and visionary halves of the book (chs. 1-6 and 7-12).

The exact form of the text is difficult to establish. Theodotion (which became the official Greek text for Daniel) agrees with Josephus and the Vulgate in transliterating the text as if it read ‘Mene Teqel Peres’, and the older LXX appears to read it as ‘Mene Peres Teqel’.

Various theories have been put forward to explain why a second Mene should be added and why the plural Parsin should occur. Lacocque2 suggests that the three terms were originally ‘Mene Teqel Parsin’ which applied to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and the (plural) Medo-Persians, but that a later redactor added an extra Mene to make them apply to the four Empires of Daniel. Hans Bauer3 suggested that the original was ‘Mene Teqel Peres Peres’ and that the final pair became the plural Parsin. However, both these ideas compound the problem by proposing original text forms which are different again.

TynBul 42:1 (1991) p. 311

By the principle that the most difficult text is the best, the MT is probably nearest to the original. The double Mene in the text is difficult because this duplication is not referred to in the interpretation and the plural Parsin is difficult because it is referred to as a singular in the interpretation. The reading ’Mene Teqel Peres’ is the easiest reading because it is consistent with the interpretation in Daniel 5:26-28, so it is most likely to be secondary.

A possible explanation for the plural Parsin