Daniel’s interpretation and application of the words occupy vv.***8, where it 1s noticeable that the readings differ slightly from those given in v.™. Méné appears only once, and the singular pérés is substituted for the plural parsin. The texts of Theodotion and Jerome bring v.* into agreement with νν. 35. 38. in the opinion of many critics (cf. Peters in JBL xv. 116) rightly. The general principle of Daniel’s interpretation is to render each word twice (as Hitzig observes). This a pears most clearly in the case of the last word, ahah is made to mean ‘thy kingdom is broken up and given to Media and Persia a rendering which suits parsin if interpreted (1) as ‘fragments’ (Ewald and others) or ‘they break’ (Hitzig and others) ; (2) as ‘the Persias.’ The Persias, according to the writer, stands for Media and Persia, just as with the Arabs ‘the Euphrateses’ [dual] means the Tigris and the Euphrates, ‘the Basras’ [dual] means Basra and Kufa (Vennier, Grammaire Arabe, § 288). The second word means ‘ weighed’ (from ¢k/) and ‘thou art light’ (from ζ11). The first word is apparently made to mean ‘counted’ and ‘ handed over’ (nobwn), the second sense being
rhaps given it on the authority of Is 65" (where
or ἘΝ the Targ. has 70Dx, a eyneuyat of odvx). m
Hitzig suggests that the second sense of méné, πνεῖ: is got from the similar méé, ‘full.’ The grammar of the second word suffers somewhat in this interpretation, since $pn should be S*pr in the first sense.
It might seem that this explanation of the words must be certainly right, since either the whole narrative is the author’s invention, or, if it be historical, Daniel’s explanation was found satisfac- ory ΟΥ̓ those likely to know. There is, however, a third possibility, viz. that 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. Somewhat similarly Epi- phanius (adv. Her. xix. 4) produces the saying of the Arabic prophet Elxai and interprets it quite wrongly ; it was left to M. A. Levy to interpret the words correctly in 1858 (ZDMG xii. 712). In the case of the words in Daniel there is something in favour of such a supposition. Besides the grammatical difficulty in the case of the second word, the uncertainty as to signification in the case of the first, and its actual repetition, make the principle of rendering each word twice resemble the artifice of an interpreter rather than what was actually intended by the author of the inscription. But if that principle be abandoned, the words ‘counted, weighed, and fragments’ are not sufficient to justify the gloss; for the word ‘weighed’ by no means implies that the weight is deficient, any more than ‘counted’ implies that the number is complete. Moreover, if the author was composing a suitable death-warrant for Babylon, it is probable that he would have given a sentence which would be clear, or a quotation which would be appropriate. But if he is not the author of the inscription, these difficulties may
MENELAUS
conceivably be got rid of by a better interpreta- jon.
A suggestion for a fresh rendering of the words in Dn was made by Clermont-Ganneau in the Journal Asiatique for 1886 (Sér. viii. vol. i. 36; translated in Hebraica, 1887), which was followed np by T. Néldeke (ZA i. 414-418), G. Hoffmann (vb. il. 45-48), P. Haupt (John Hopkins Univ. Circ. No. 58, p. 104), Bevan (Dan. 106 f.), and J. D. Prince (Journ. of the American Oriental Society, xv. elxxxii-clxxxix). He regarded the words in the text as the names of weights, ‘a Mina, a Mina, a Shekel, and [two] Peras.’ The word peras is used in Jewish writings for ‘a half,’ especially ‘a half mina.’ This discovery seemed to shed some light on the difficulty of reading the words, which could all be represented by ideographs; though it is not clear why the wise men of Babylon should have been poled by such common signs. It also seemed to give an explanation of tékel which did not violate grammar (though this is not certain). Otherwise this discovery seems to give little help. For, besides the improbable character of the sum (which would be like £1, 1s., some £4), how came it to be connected with the fall of Babylon? Cler- mont -Ganneau therefore practically abandoned his discovery as soon as made, and offered a variety of renderings, of which ‘Mina by Mina weigh the Peras’ may be given as an example. Haupt, who adopted the rendering ‘there have been counted a Mina, a Shekel, and Perases,’ thought these weights stood symbolically for Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and the Medes and Persians. But it is incredible that this, if correct, could have escaped the author of Dn 2; and for a death-warrant it is by no means dramatic.
We are driven back therefore to Daniel’s expla- nation of the first two words as verbs, which, if we had the inscription on stone, we should probably render ‘he has counted, counted, weighed.’ It is curious that the third word 015 has in the Targum a sense which is very similar to that of the pre- ceding two, 7.e. ‘to assess’ (for the Heb. yn in Ly). The reading of vv.**- would therefore be naturally rendered ‘he has counted, weighed, assessed,’ and that of v.* ‘he has counted, counted, weighed, and they assess.’ The first of these reads like a commercial formula with which goods might be labelled, implying that they were ready for immediate delivery ; while the second might be a description in technical language of a sale in which the salesman gives an accurate description of the