Book of Daniel Identifies Darius the Mede Through Chiasmus

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

This article has a parallel in our:
 

 

Biblical Name of Abram’s (Abraham’s) Pharaoh

http://amaic1.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/ten_6466.html

 

 

In that article we were able, with the benefit of the toledôt and chiasticstructures of the Abrahamic histories, written (or owned) by Ishmael and Isaac,

 

“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis 25:12).

“These are the generations of Isaac ...” (Genesis 25:19).

 

(a) to show that the two accounts of the abduction of Sarai/Sarah actually referred to just the one single incident, not two; and that

(b) he who is called “pharaoh” in the first account (Ishmael’s) was the same as the “Abimelech”referred to in the second account (Isaac’s).

Thus the Bible does name Abram’s Pharaoh!

Now Ishmael, whose mother was Egyptian, writes his account from an Egyptian perspective; whereas Isaac, who dwelt in Palestine, writes from a more northerly perspective. This difference in perspective, yielding two rather different accounts of just the one incident, if not appreciated by commentators, can lead them to conclude, but wrongly, that these were two quite separate abductions (thereby increasing the pain for Sarah).

But, when the Abrahamic narratives are subjected to chiasmus (unfortunately unformattable in chiastic form in the above post), then it is found that “pharaoh”is perfectly mirrored by “Abimelech”. The Bible is therefore providing us with a key identification.

Now to Darius the Mede.

Perhaps more important for commentators is the fact that the Book of Daniel provides the very same service in the case of the very enigmatic, but key, Darius the Mede. Through chiasmus, once again, it tells us exactly who he was by mirroring him with his alter ego monarch of a different name. See James B. Jordan’s brilliant chiastic structuring of Daniel 6 on p. 314 of

 

The Handwriting on the Wall

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=l25D1d4ub_0C&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=chiastic+structure+of+the+book+of+daniel+darius+and+cyrus

 

{Once again, I cannot properly format chiasmus}

Hence, as many have suspected (e.g. George R. Law, Identification of Darius The Mede:

http://readyscribepress.com/home_files/DtM-Daniel_5_30-31.pdf.), Darius the Mede is the same as Cyrus the Persian.

The Bible points it out for us.

 

Now the Apcrypha provides a further confirmation of this identification with another account of Daniel in the lions’ den. Here Darius the Mede is presented as Cyrus. This again, like with the abduction of Sarai/Sarah, is a case of the same story being told by two different authors, quite differently. But it is nevertheless about the one same incident. All of the main protagonists are there in both accounts. Biblical scholars ought easily to be able to reconcile the two with sufficient care and attention to detail.

Just as God would assure that his beloved Sarah was never going to be abducted twice, so would he assure that his beloved Daniel had only once to endure the den of lions.