by
Damien F. Mackey
“Through
chiasmus, once again, it may tell us exactly who [Darius the Mede]
was by
mirroring him with his alter ego monarch of a different
name”.
This article has a parallel in
my:
Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh
{Toledôt and chiasmus, the keys to the
structure of the Book of Genesis,
may lead us to a real name for this “Pharaoh”.}
In that article I was been able,
with the benefit of the toledôt and chiastic structures 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 apparently 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, then it is found that “pharaoh” is
perfectly mirrored by “Abimelech”.
The Bible, therefore, appears to
be providing us with a key identification.
Although it does need to be
noted that two names that intersect in a chiastic structure do not necessarily
always identify each one named as being the same person.
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 may tell us 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
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 seems to point it out
for us.
Now, the Apocrypha 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment