NENE, MENE, TER_EL, UPHARSIN (me' ne, mene, te'ker, (Chald. 8:;'?, men ay', tek-al% r;71, u-phar' sin).
The inscription supernaturally written 'upon the plaster of the wall' in Belshazzar's palace at Babylon (Dan. v :5-25) ; which 'the astrologers, the Chaldmans, and the soothsayers' could neither read nor interpret, but which Daniel first read, and then interpreted. The sentence reads, when translated literally, Mene, "he is numbered;" Alene, "he is numbered:" Tekel, "he is weighed ;" Upharsin, "they are divided." "Peres," in the original language, is the same word with "Uphar sin," but in a different case or number. It means "he was divided" (Dan. v:25).
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 Chal dee 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 (verses 2, 3, 4), Jehovah adopted the sacred char acter in which the Decalogue had been writ ten, which Daniel could understand, but which would be unknown to 'the wise men of Baby lon' (New Analysis of Chronology, vol. i, p. 505, Land., 18t 1). This theory has the recom mendation 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, which, it is said, they might sufficiently understand to see its boding import to the mon arch, and be unwilling to consider further—like the disciples in regard to the predictions of our Lord's death (Luke ix :45), where it is said, 'this saying was hid from them, they perceived it not, and they feared to ask him of that saying.' 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 in terpret nor even read it, and Wintle accordingly translates 'could not read so as to interpret it' (Improved Version of Daniel, Lond. 18o7). At all events the meaning of the inscription by it self 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 endow ment 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 (verses 3o, 31). J. F. D.