Belshazzar’s Riddle (Part II)

When I consider the work of your hands...

For Part I, cp. https://jamesbejon.substack.com/p/belshazzars-riddle-part-i. Or, for a pdf version of the present note (with bibliographic details, etc.), see https://www.academia.edu/44211586/. Otherwise, please scroll away!

Assessment

The exegesis of Daniel 5.25–28 proposed in Part I is relatively involved. What can be said about it by way of assessment? Is it needlessly complex, or are its complexities warranted by the nature of the text? I’m personally of the latter view (cp. Prov. 21.2). Here’s why.

A number of aspects of the text of Dan. 5.25–28 seem either odd or superfluous. Why do we find two occurrences of the word mene in Belshazzar’s riddle yet only one in Daniel’s solution? And why do we find parsin in the riddle yet peres in the solution? And why are three different weights mentioned in the first place? In most treatments of 5.25–28, these issues are either removed (via textual surgery) or dismissed as vestiges of an earlier source (and hence left unexplained), which testifies to their perceived superfluity and/or obscurity. The line of exegesis proposed above, however, is able to make sense of—and is in fact predicated on—the aforementioned oddities, which I take to be a point in its favour, since a theory which is able to explain the text as we have it is preferable to a theory which has to explain away parts of the text.

For a start, our proposed exegesis explains why Belshazzar’s riddle (5.25) mentions the particular weights it does. First God states what he requires of Babylon’s ruler—a 60-shekel king; then God assesses Belshazzar against that standard and finds him inadequate—a mere shekel of a man; and, finally, God appoints a new (60-shekel) government, which consists of two 30-shekel kingships (hence God inscribes the consonants PRSYN rather than PRS on Belshazzar’s wall). The mina, shekel, and half-mina(s) in Belshazzar’s riddle are thus an integral part of God’s message. Each weight is significant, as is the order in which God mentions the three weights. Strings of consonants such as TKLTKLMNHWPRSYN and PRSPRSMNHWTKLYN wouldn’t have adequately conveyed the specifics of God’s message.

Our proposed exegesis also has other attractive features. For a start, it explains why the king is forced to recognise the veracity of Daniel’s solution to his riddle, i.e., because it fits like a hand in a glove. It also grounds Daniel’s message to the king firmly in God’s divine revelation rather than in Daniel’s ingenuity, and it’s supported by—or at least is consistent with—our text’s numerical properties. Consider, for a start, the allusions to the number 91 inherent in Daniel’s message.

• Both the uppermost row (M-N-H) and the leftmost column (S-L-H) of Daniel’s 3 x 3 grid of consonants have a value of 91, as shown below.

• Daniel’s statement and interpretation of Belshazzar’s riddle consists of exactly 91 letters.

• And, finally, the weights mentioned by Daniel in his interpretation of Belshazzar’s riddle have a combined weight of 91 shekels, since a shekel plus a peres (30 shekels) plus a mina (60 shekels) amounts to 91 shekels. In fact, the three letters in the leftmost column of our grid (אלס) sum to 91 precisely because each of their values corresponds to one of Daniel’s weights: alef (א) has a value of 1, lamed (ל) a value of 30, and samech (ס) a value of 60.

• Note: These same letters spell out the verb סלא = ‘to be risen in the balances’, which has an obvious application to Belshazzar insofar as he’s been outweighed by ‘the mina of the land’ (Nebuchadnezzar) on the far side of the balances.

Daniel’s message to the king can thus be shown to contain multiple allusions to the number 91, which is significant. Why? Because the number 91 hints at the identity of both the protagonist and the antagonist in Daniel 5’s events insofar as it’s the gematrial value of both the Hebrew word ha-elohim (האלהים) = ‘God’ and the Aramaic word malkah (מלכא) = ‘the king’ (cp. esp. Dan. 1.2, where Nebuchadnezzar is said to put the vessels of ha-elohim in Babylon’s treasury, which is, of course, precisely why Daniel 5’s events take place). Encrypted within the top row and column of Belshazzar’s riddle, then, is the identity of its sender and addressee. And encrypted within the rest of the riddle, I submit, are the identities of the other parties involved in its fulfilment. Recall Daniel’s consonantal grid and its associated gematrial properties.

As we’ve seen, the leftmost column of our grid identifies the main players in Daniel 5 (God and the king). And the other two columns turn out to be equally informative. The middle column (נקר) identifies the man who’s about to execute God’s judgment on the king—namely Cyrus—, since: a] the letters נקר have the same value as the word parsi (פרסי) = ‘a Persian’ (viz. 350), and b] the letters נקר are an anagram of the word קרן = ‘a horn’, which associates the Persian in question with the Persian horn of ch. 8’s ram (!). Meanwhile, the reanalysis of 5.25’s peres-weights (parsin) as half-shekels rather than half-minas—a known manoeuvre in Mesopotamian sign-interpretation1—hints at the identity of Cyrus’s counterpart, since a meneh, a tekel, and (two) parsin amount to 62 shekels, which points towards the 62-year-old Darius (6.1). (Why would we be told Darius’s age if it wasn’t relevant in some way?) The rightmost column (מתף) then identifies these two Medo-Persian kings more explicitly, since the letters מתף have the same value as the names ‘Darius’ (דָּרְיָוֶשׁ) and ‘Cyrus’ (כֹּרֶשׁ), viz. 520. (No other personal names attested in Scripture have a value of 520.) And, finally, the sum of all nine letters in our grid (viz. 961) hint at the identity of their divine author. Here’s how.

Daniel 5 describes the events predicted in the text of Isaiah 45–47. In and through Isaiah’s prophecies, God summoned Cyrus by name (cp. Isa. 45) and said the loins/bladders of kings would be ‘loosened’ before him, which is precisely what happened to Belshazzar (5.6!). In Isaiah 46, God condemned Babylon’s idols of silver and gold, i.e., the idols present at Belshazzar’s feast. And, in Isaiah 47, YHWH issued a challenge to Babylon’s sorcerers and stargazers—i.e., to the very individuals summoned by Belshazzar to read YHWH’s inscription—, to which they failed to rise. The text of Isaiah 45–47 describes all of these events from YHWH’s first person perspective (‘I am YHWH’, ‘I will take vengeance’, etc.), with the exception of one verse: in 47.4, YHWH’s speech is interrupted by a statement put on the lips of the Israelites, namely, ‘Our Redeemer! YHWH of hosts is his name’ (גֹּאֲלֵנוּ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ), which is the only statement of its kind in Isaiah 45–47 and has the same value as the letters in 5.26–28’s matrix (viz. 961).

Times and seasons

We thus come to the issue of the ‘when’ of Daniel’s message. Daniel’s message to Belshazzar made it quite clear his number was up. But when exactly would Belshazzar’s days come to an end? Did the inscription on Belshazzar’s wall contain any clues? A consideration of the broader context of Daniel’s message suggests it may well have. Recall Line 1 of Daniel’s interpretation:

As we’ve seen, the primary sense of the verb M-N-H in Daniel’s interpretation is ‘to weigh/value’ (hence our translation, ‘God has valued your kingdom at a mina’). It can also, however, have the sense ‘to number/count’. Consequently, many Bible translations render Line 1 as ‘God has numbered the days of your kingdom’ (where the word ‘days’ is supplied: so RSV, ESV, NET), which isn’t dissimilar to Theodotion’s translation, namely ‘God has measured [metreo] your kingdom’.

Suppose, then, per the modus operandi of Mesopotamian interpretation, we take the words ‘Meneh menah-elahah malchutach’ to have two distinct senses. That is to say, suppose Line 1 tells us God has assigned Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom not only a specific value, but a specific duration as well. All well and good, one might say. But what duration? And how does the statement ‘God has numbered the days of your kingdom’ relate to the notion of a mina (per the implication of 5.26a)? The answer, I suggest, is as follows: God has assigned Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom a mina’s worth of years, i.e., a sixty-year period of dominion over God’s people. Or, to put the point in the language of Daniel 3, God has assigned Nebuchadnezzar a year of dominion for every cubit of his golden image (3.1) (cp. πῆχυς!). And, as Daniel stands before Belshazzar in 539 BC, the last of those sixty years has just begun.

In the year 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar plundered Jerusalem and carried away both Jehoiachin and the Temple vessels, the lampstand included (cp. 5.2). Jerusalem thus entered a new phase of her existence. The era depicted by Daniel 2’s colossus began (cp. 2.31ff.), and Ezekiel began to reckon Israel’s history on the basis of ‘years of the exile’ (e.g., Ezek. 1.2), the first of which was 598t/597t BC. And so, as Daniel stood before Belshazzar (in the year 539t/538t BC), it was the sixtieth year since the lampstand entered Babylon’s gates. Consequently, the presence of the lampstand in Belshazzar’s hall is highly significant. (The Bible doesn’t tell us things for no reason.) Picture the scene. We have a king who’s about to be judged. We have a prophet (Daniel) who’s just pronounced God’s verdict on Belshazzar’s reign. (The name ‘Daniel’ means ‘the verdict of God’!) And, in the midst of it all, we have YHWH’s lampstand—a vessel (מאן) which has kept count (מנא!) of Israel’s years in exile.

The lampstand also resonates with its environment in at least two other ways. First, it’s reminiscent of a pair of scales; indeed, the word employed to describe the lampstand’s six branches (kaneh) in Exodus 25 is employed by Isaiah to describe a pair of (Babylonian!) scales. The lampstand’s branches can thus be seen as an illustration of the relationships between particular weights and kings in Belshazzar’s riddle, as shown below. Nebuchadnezzar weighs sixty shekels (the standard = a mina); Belshazzar weighs only one shekel (too light = kalletah); and Darius and Cyrus weigh sixty shekels (sufficient = Hebrew madday).

Second, the lampstand has a number of sixfold characteristics: it has six branches; it spends sixty years in Babylon; as an object of gold, it stands at the head of Daniel’s sixfold list of materials in 5.4 (‘gold, silver, etc.’); and it weighs sixty minas (Exod. 25.39), i.e., 60 x 60 shekels.

Ch. 5’s lampstand doesn’t only, therefore, shed light on God’s inscription in a physical sense (5.5); it also sheds light on it in a historical and theological sense. The lampstand’s presence in Belshazzar’s hall is a statement of why God’s judgment is about to fall (viz. because God’s vessels have been profaned) and when God’s judgment is due to fall (viz. in the 60th year of the lampstand’s exile). It also emphasises the self-inflicted nature of Belshazzar’s judgment. No-one forced Belshazzar to organise Daniel 5’s events: he chose to involve YHWH’s vessels in an idolatrous feast; he summoned God’s messenger of judgement (namely Daniel); and he must now reap the whirlwind.

The fulfilment of Daniel’s solution

Finally, then, we come to the fulfilment of Belshazzar’s riddle, which is even more remarkable than its solution. First, however, we need to briefly recall our discussion of ‘interpretations’. In Mesopotamian texts, to interpret a sign isn’t simply to exegete it; it’s to translate the sign into ‘an unequivocally worded message’ and by implication ‘to dispel its evil consequences’, typically with the help of ‘apotropaic’/‘atonement’ rituals. Such a view of an interpretation, Oppenheim says, is in complete harmony with the semantic range of its root (P-SH-R), viz. ‘to release, remove, relax, loosen, untie’. It’s also, one might add, in complete harmony with 5.12’s description of Daniel as ‘a man who’s able to loosen knots’.

Viewed in light of such considerations, the events of Daniel 5 make good sense. At first blush, the final scene of Daniel 5 reads oddly: Daniel pronounces Babylon’s downfall and is rewarded for his labours (!). When we consider the nature of a pishru, however, things make more sense. As far as Belshazzar was concerned, Daniel had done him a favour. Daniel’s interpretation had removed the element of mystery in YHWH’s inscription and hence ‘defused’ it, and the details of Daniel’s interpretation could then be averted with the help of the appropriate rituals. Yet Belshazzar had overlooked an important fact. The pronouncements of YHWH’s prophets were different to the interpretations of Mesopotamia’s diviners since YHWH was a different deity to his Mesopotamian counterparts. What YHWH said couldn’t be reversed by means of ‘atonement’ (cp. Isa. 47.11, where Isaiah tells Babylon she won’t be able to ‘atone’ her way out of trouble). And it frequently came to pass in remarkably neat and ironic ways, as it did in the case of Daniel 5’s events. Here’s how.

Beaten at their own game

Each year, the sun travels through the twelve constellations of the Zodiac. The Mesopotamians thus came to associate each month of the year with a different constellation. And, as Daniel interpreted the letters MNHMNHTKLWPRSYN, a significant constellation was due to rise in the skies over Babylon—Libra—, a constellation referred to in Aramaic literature as ‘the scales’ (mozenyah). Suffice it to say, then, Daniel’s interpretation of YHWH’s inscription resonated with the astrological conditions at the time (which Babylon’s stargazers would have been well aware of). Indeed, the word ‘scales’ (mozenyah) stands at the (epi)centre of Daniel’s interpretative grid (cp. 5.27).

The fall of Babylon thus panned out as follows. Prior to dawn on the 15th day of Tishri, the time came for Libra to become prominent in the sky. (Babylonian days ran from nightfall to nightfall.) And, in 539 BC, by the 15th day, it had done so. Consequently, as Daniel spoke to Belshazzar about the way God had ‘weighed him in the balances’, a pair of scales had become visible in the night sky. And, later that night, on the 16th day of Tishri, a Median commander (named Ugbaru) led a Persian-backed army into the city of Babylon. Shortly afterwards, Belshazzar was slain (5.30). Daniel’s final words to Belshazzar (‘Medo-Persia’!) were thus fulfilled to the very letter, as was Belshazzar’s final word to Daniel (tishlat = ‘You will reign!’), while Babylon’s stargazers were beaten at their own game. YHWH had long ago thrown down the gauntlet to Babylon’s stargazers; he had announced his plans to bring disaster on Babylon and challenged her stargazers to stop him or even just discern their predicament. ‘Let the stargazers save you!’, YHWH had said. ‘Let those who declare the new moon declare what will befall you!’ (Isa. 47.13).

In 539 BC, Babylon’s stargazers were given the perfect opportunity to rise to the challenge. Yet they failed to do so. Contrary to popular opinion, the stars weren’t autonomous sources of power and wisdom, able to be turned to Babylon’s own ends. They were the creation of the God of heaven, which he’d commanded to spell out Babylon’s fate. Babylon’s stargazers expected a sign in the heavens to tell them what would come to pass on the earth below—an ‘inscription in the heavens’ (shitir shamey), as it were—, and YHWH had provided them with one. He’d even gave them a sign on the earth to boot (the inscription on the palace wall). Yet Babylon’s seers were blind to the work of God. Her wise men were shown to be fools, and her king devoid of power.

A final question

A final question remains. Is what we’ve considered above simply an account of a godless king’s judgment, or is it also Gospel? The answer, I submit, is the latter. The Gospels portray Jesus as a Messiah who bore what the prophets said his enemies deserved to bear. Enshrouded in the darkness of Isaiah 13–14 (cp. Matt. 24.29, 27.45), Jesus was given Jeremiah’s cup of wine/wrath to drink (cp. Mark 10.37–40) and was pierced by Zechariah’s sword of justice (Zech. 12.10, 13.7, Matt. 26.31). He also, I submit, bore the curse of Daniel 5. Jesus was not, of course, a ‘light man’ (like Belshazzar), but he did undergo a process which can accurately be summarised by means of the verbs M-N-H, T-K-L, and P-R-S and which resonates with the events of Daniel 5. As a man, Jesus was worth a mina (and more); he was ‘the mina of the king’ in the truest sense of the term. Nevertheless, Jesus was ‘set at naught’ by his people, treated like a lowly shekel of a man, and betrayed for a mere peres (30 shekels of silver!). Thereafter, Jesus was ‘counted’ (M-N-H) as a transgressor and ‘hung’ (T-K-L) on a cross. As he breathed his last, he ‘payed a debt’ (P-R-S) accrued by others, and died with an inscription etched above his head: ‘King of the Jews’ (John 19.19). Hence, in AD 30, the scales of justice became the cross of justice, and the meneh meneh (מנא מנא) of Belshazzar’s riddle found its answer in the person of Jesus, the manna (מנא) from heaven—the one who determined (מנה) the number of the stars (Psa. 147.4), the one who prefaced his claims not with words of judgment (מנא מנא), but with words of grace and truth (אמן אמן = ‘Amen, Amen!’), and the one who has been reckoned (מנא) among the transgressors so we, fallen men and women, might be reckoned righteous (Isa. 53.12).