Decoding Daniel: The Case of Dan 7,5 The translation of Dan 7,5 provided here is in accord with the findings of the present paper. bdl hymd hnynt yrja hwyj wraw tmqh djArfçlw hynç ˆyb hmpb ˆy[l[ tltw aygç rçb ylka ymwq hl ˆyrma ˆkw “And behold, another beast, a second, like a bear and it was established as one dominion and three suckers were in its mouth between its teeth and thus they said to it, ‘Arise, devour much flesh’ (Dan 7,5). 1. The puzzling aspects of Dan 7,5 In many respects Dan 7,5 has proved puzzling to scholars: djArfçl has been taken by most scholars, following the LXX, to mean “to one side” (1) and by a few as “one dominion” (2). tmqh has been translated as active, “raised itself up” and as passive, “was raised up” or “established” (3). The meaning of ˆy[l[ has been debated: some commentators have translated it as “ribs”, in line with the LXX, taking them to represent the remnant of three items the bear has already devoured; others, by analogy with the description of the other beasts, i.e. the (two) feet of the first, the four wings and heads of the third, the ten or eleven horns of the fourth, say that ˆy[l[ should be understood as an integral physical characteristic of the bear. Accordingly scholars have sought an alternative meaning with “fangs”, from an arabic root, suggested originally by Saadia Gaon being adopted by R.M. Frank (4) . (1) Some scholars have posited that the phrase implies that the bear was raised up ready to pounce on Babylon e.g. J.A. MONTGOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh 1927) 288-289; C.C. TORREY, “Medes and Persians”, AOS 66 (1946) 1-15 proposed an alternative rationale: “one side” indicates the remoteness of Media from Israel. L. WATERMAN, “A Gloss on Darius the Mede in Daniel 7 5”, JBL 65 (1946) 59-61, followed by L.F. HARTMANN – A. DI LELLA, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City – New York 1978) 212-213 and J.E GOLDINGAY, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas1989) 162, think that “one side” refers to the only “Median” monarch known to the author of Daniel, Darius the Mede. (2) AV and RV translate as “one dominion”. MONTGOMERY, Daniel, 289, comments that such a translation is “a mistaken understanding of the noun”! (3)The MT has the active but LXX and Theodotian have the passive. R.H. CHARLES, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford 1929) 177 comments that “the difference is immaterial as far as the meaning goes, which is far from obvious”. Scholars are divided on the issue although the majority favour the passive. HARTMANN – DI LELLA, Daniel, 202, 205 and M. DELCOR, Le Livre de Daniel (Sources Bibliques; Paris 1971) 145 are among the few who accept the active rendering of the verb. (4) “The Description of the ‘Bear’ in Dan 7:5”, CBQ 21 (1959) 505-507. Frank concentrates on the etymology of ˆy[l[. He points out that Saadia Gaon said that some