[Para español haz clic aquí]
For a summary of views on Darius the Mede, see the following article: The Identifications of Darius the Mede (English) | Español | Français | Português | Norsk | Kiswahili | Русский | العربية | 中文 (繁體) | 中文 (简体) |
The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, a problem arises when trying to identify Darius the Mede in extrabiblical literature. Darius the Mede is generally considered fictional by modern critical scholarship. (There are a few critical writers who accept the historicity of Darius the Mede, but not many.) The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions.
When I started writing my dissertation on Darius the Mede, the scholarly discussion was essentially at an impasse. Neither evangelical nor critical scholars had any significant new ideas, and neither side found the other side’s arguments compelling. However, most scholars were unaware that the Greek historian Xenophon describes a Median king, whom he calls Cyaxares II, who corresponds very closely to Daniel’s Darius the Mede. The view that Cyaxares II is Darius the Mede was the standard Jewish and Christian interpretation from Josephus and Jerome until Keil in the 1870s, but it was abandoned after cuneiform inscriptions were discovered that seemed to support Herodotus’ account of the accession of Cyrus, which does not allow for the existence of Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.
The thesis that I argue in my 2014 Ph.D. dissertation and published book (both entitled Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal and available in pdf format here and here, or as a print book here) is that Cyrus shared power with a Median king until about two years after the fall of Babylon. This Median king is called Cyaxares (II) by the Greek historian Xenophon, but is known by his throne name Darius in the book of Daniel. Cyrus did not make a hostile conquest of Media, did not dethrone the last Median king, and did not become the highest regent in the Medo-Persian Empire until after the fall of Babylon. Cyrus was Darius’s co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm. Darius died naturally within two years after the fall of Babylon, and as he had no male heir and Cyrus had married his daughter, Cyrus inherited his position upon his death and united the Median and Persian kingdoms in a single throne.
My reconstruction of the accession of Cyrus is based largely on the detailed account given by the Greek historian Xenophon, which agrees remarkably well with the book of Daniel and is supported by a surprising variety of other ancient sources. The account of the accession of Cyrus given by the Greek historian Herodotus, which forms the basis for the reconstruction of these events by modern historians, is a legendary recasting of a propagandistic myth promoted by Cyrus as a means of legitimating his conquest in the minds of an unfavorable Babylonian populace. Cuneiform references to Cyrus (and his son Cambyses) as “king” soon after the fall of Babylon are easily explained through a coregency which lasted until the death of Darius the Mede/Cyaxares II.
Major supporting arguments made in the book include the following:
- The historical reliability of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was found to be much higher than scholarly consensus currently holds. (One scholar of Xenophon, Steven W. Hirsch, also argues for a much higher view of the historical reliability of the Cyropaedia.) Xenophon was found to be historically credible, and superior to Herodotus, with regard to his accounts of the royal upbringing of Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of Gobryas, and the marriage of Cyrus to Cyaxares’ daughter.
- The Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes (“Darius I”) states that two Medians who launched rebellions against Darius at separate times did so on the basis of (allegedly) false claims to be of the family of Cyaxares. The fact that they claimed a relation to Cyaxares, rather than to Astyages, is evidence that Cyaxares II did indeed exist and was the last Median king.
- The adoption of “Darius” and “Ahasuerus” (= Xerxes) as throne names of the first two Persian kings in the dynasty which followed that of Cyrus is evidence that they were used as throne names by kings of an earlier dynasty. This is indirect evidence that there indeed was a Median king named “Darius,” and another named “Ahasuerus,” as the book of Daniel presents them (Dan 9:1). The use of throne names by Persian kings also gives plausibility to the suggestion that the given name of Darius the Mede was “Cyaxares.”
- There are strong historical evidences that the Medes and the Persians had formed a confederated government, and that Herodotus’ story of Cyrus subjugating the Medes and deposing the last Median king is therefore historically inaccurate. Xenophon and Herodotus agree that the Median king Astyages gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses I, who was king of the Persians. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. A passage in the Persae of Aeschylus is noted in chapter 4 which presents Astyages as the founder of the alliance, though without naming him directly. Chapter 3 notes biblical texts which describe the Medes and Persians governing their empire jointly, and also notes abundant archeological evidence which presents the Medes as senior partners and equals with the Persians, rather than their vassals.
- The Harran Stele, which is an inscription of Nabonidus, mentions a certain “king of the land of the Medes” alongside the kings of Egypt and Arabia as Babylon’s leading enemies. This inscription was produced well after the supposed conquest of Media by Cyrus, and therefore seems to indicate that Cyrus did not depose the last Median king.
- The historian Berossus, whose history of Neo-Babylonia is well respected but poorly preserved, refers to the actions of an unspecified “King Darius” shortly after the fall of Babylon. The conventional version of the history of the period does not recognize any such “King Darius.”
- Valerius Harpocration, a professional researcher and lexicographer at the library of Alexandria, affirms in a lexical work that there was a king of the Medo-Persian Empire named “Darius” who reigned sometime before Darius Hystaspes. Once again, the conventional version of the history of the period has no explanation for this “Darius.”
- The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus, who wrote before Herodotus, describes two Median kings who preceded Cyrus as rulers of Medo-Persia. Although Aeschylus does not name these two kings, he presents the first as the founder of the dynasty, the second as his son and the king who was on the throne when Babylon fell, and the third, Cyrus, as the natural successor of the second king. The conventional history of the period does not recognize this second Median king.
Scholars tend to be skeptical when presented with new theories, and rightly so. My own dissertation committee at Dallas Theological Seminary was quite skeptical when I proposed the topic. However, after exhaustive research on the primary source texts for the period, the evidence supporting Xenophon’s description of a Median king reigning in parallel with Cyrus, and corresponding to Daniel’s Darius the Mede, was compelling. My work has been well received so far by evangelical Bible scholars, a number of whom have communicated to me that they are now advocating my position. Some others have told me that my work has spurred them to start their own research projects on Babylonian contract texts or related topics. Evangelical scholars seem quite happy to have a new solution to the problem of Darius the Mede which fits well with both the book of Daniel and extrabiblical literature. It is my hope that the evidence for identifying Cyaxares II with Darius the Mede will not only reinvigorate scholarly discussion on Darius the Mede, but also will also create a significant change in the way that Cyrus’ rise to power is understood by historians of Neo-Babylonia and Medo-Persia. In conclusion, I present a list of references to my book or dissertation in academic articles and online sources, starting with a few additional works of my own:
- After publishing my dissertation, I gave a presentation on Darius the Mede at the 2015 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, “Darius the Mede – The Evidence for Identifying Him with Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.”
- I coauthored an article with Rodger Young, “The Remembrance of Daniel’s Darius the Mede in Berossus and Harpocration,” that was published in the July–September 2016 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra (pages 315-23). This article was briefly reviewed by Brian Collins on his Exegesis and Theology site.
- I was the primary creator of the Daniel volume of the Photo Companion to the Bible (BiblePlaces.com, 2019). This volume can be consulted for photographs illustrating the archaeology of the book of Daniel. One photograph that is relevant to the issue of Darius the Mede is the one shown at the top of this post, which is a relief carving at Persepolis that depicts Median and Persian nobles as equal in status.
- My dissertation was favorably reviewed by Benjamin Noonan in the June 2015 issue of The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (p. 386 of the book reviews).
- Kirk MacGregor follows my line of argumentation on pages 51-54 of his April 2016 JISCA article “A Contemporary Defense of the Authenticity of Daniel.”
- Paul Tanner favors identifying Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II, and he includes extensive argumentation in his commentary on Daniel in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series; see also his book review on Amazon.
- John Goldingay cites my work on p. 293 of the revised edition of his commentary on Daniel (Logos; Amazon), and his summary of viewpoints on Darius the Mede relies heavily on my dissertation.
- Christian Varela has a lengthy article in Spanish, “Un Analisis De La Identidad De Dario El Medo del Libro De Daniel” (pages 324-53 in El Pueblo del Pacto: Hechos Destacadas de la Historia de Israel). Varela cites my book extensively while arguing from an Adventist perspective that Darius the Mede should be identified with Cyaxares II.
- James Bejon has an extensive discussion of Darius the Mede in his online commentary on Daniel (Appendix 5, starting on p. 9).
- Rodger Young published an article, “Xenophon’s Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel,” in the June 2021 (vol. 64, no. 2) issue of JETS, pages 265-85. Young argues for the historicity of Cyaxares II from both biblical and extrabiblical sources.
- References to my work have also appeared on various Christian websites, such as Thomas Ross’ page about my book on his apologetics website, Peter Goeman’s blog article, Kyle Pope’s article in Focus Online, John Oakes’ reference in his Evidence for Christianity site, and the link on Eddie Van Gent’s Daniel Prophecies site.
Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.
TruthOnlyBible 
Thanks Dr. Anderson, your work on this important issue is much appreciated. You have offered a very valid and sound solution to the problem.
Rev. Douglas Kump
Thanks, Steven, for posting this. For those interested, the whole Cyropaedia is available on line at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2085/2085-h/2085-h.htm . Of course the speeches put in Cyrus’s mouth were the invention of Xenophon, but this was a known and acceptable literary convention in those times. Josephus practiced it extensively, and ancient readers would have been aware of, and appreciated, this artifice. Here is a summary of some of the reasons that Xenophon’s Cyropaedia should be more trusted in its historical statements than the Histories of Herodotus regarding Cyrus, the Median kingdom, and the capture of Babylon.
1) Herodotus incorrectly related that there was only one king of Babylon when it fell to Cyrus; Xenophon correctly stated that there were two, a father and the son, and the son was the one who was in the city when it was captured (Cyropaedia 4.6.3, 5.2.27, 5.4.12).
2) Xenophon relates that this king/son was slain the night the city was taken; this detail is not found in Herodotus, but is corroborated by Daniel 5:31. It is curious that commentaries on the Book of Daniel do not present the graphic account of the slaying of Belshazzar that is given in the Cyropaedia, 7.5.26-30.
3) Ugbaru/Gubaru (Greek Gobyras) plays an important role in the Cyropaedia, and his existence and importance is verified by the Cyrus Cylinder; Herodotus knows nothing of him.
4) Xenophon states that Cyrus was the son of a Persian king, which is verified by the Cyrus Cylinder. Herodotus said he was not of royal blood, and his account of Cyrus’s early years is a fairy tale.
Rodger C. Young
St. Louis
Dr. Anderson (or Rodger Young) Can you provide an analysis of Daniel 2 and Daniel 9? I would like to see a rigorous interpretation for the prophecies. Thank you.
My own analysis of Daniel 2 and 9 is in my Interpretive Guide to the Minor Prophets, available here (as hard copy) or here (as a free PDF download). I also have a visual analysis of Daniel 11 as a free download here. Otherwise I would recommend standard evangelical commentaries on Daniel such as the one by Leon Wood. Harold Hoehner’s book Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ is also excellent.
The commentator John Gill also came to the same conclusion….. ‘This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after…’
Thank you for your research and writings on this, Dr. Anderson. I am currently writing an undergraduate paper on the topic of Darius the Mede and have found your dissertation very helpful and informative. Other than the mention of Cyrus giving Cyaxares II a palace and estate in Babylon (Cyropaedia 8.5.17), are there any other references to Cyaxares II having been in Babylon at this time?
Excellent question. I do not know of any sources which state that Cyaxares II ever visited Babylon. The reference you mentioned in the Cyropaedia does not indicate whether Cyaxares II did in fact go to Babylon. His distance from Babylon explains, in part, why cuneiform texts are not dated by his reign.
Thank you Dr. Anderson. I have been preaching through Daniel and found myself unconvinced of the Darius as Ugbaru or Gubaru or Cyrus arguments. I had just finished reading Keil-Delitzsch on the subject and wondered if there was any recent scholarship to confirm, what they seemed absolutely certain about regarding the association of Cyaxares with Darius. It seemed to me to be the most likely of the other theories. Your contribution to this has proven, for me at least, to be very a very helpful recent agreement with their findings.
Thanks for your research. It seems logical to me. I do not believe that Darius the Mede and Darius or Median descent are the same person.
Chapter 9 starts in the first year of Darius. I am possibly the only person that believes this is Darius I in secular history and dates about 522 BC when Daniel was probably well into his 90’s. Others believe it is the same Darius as in Chapters 6 and 11, described as “Darius the Mede” in Chapter 11. But Chapter 9:1 says “of the seed of the Medes”. This statement naturally implies that while this Darius was of Median descent, he was naturalized into some other race. Say Persian.
While work on the Temple had been started, work had been stopped and there was no work being done on it in 522 BC and it would be just 6 years before the rebuilt Temple was finished in 516 BC (70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC, which began the desolation of Jerusalem spoken of in Daniel 9:2), if it was Darius the Mede it would be about 538 BC and 20 years before the new Temple’s completion (not all that close). Then, Daniel prays a beautiful prayer that God would forgive the Jews and let their Temple be rebuilt because he knew that the 70 years spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah were coming to an end. Then Gabriel came to give Daniel insight with understanding with the seventy weeks of years’ vision.
Thanks for your interest. Daniel 9:2 makes reference to the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah. The two prophecies of seventy years are found in Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10. In their context in Jeremiah, the seventy years are the years when the nations are serving Babylon, and they end with Babylon’s judgment and Israel’s return to the land. For this reason, I understand Daniel 9 as a description of a prayer and vision of Daniel which occurred a couple of years before Israel’s return from exile in 536 BC, and therefore during the reign of Darius the Mede.
Thanks for your speedy reply. Although it is impossible to be certain of the meaning in Jeremiah, Jeremiah 25:11 says “and this whole land shall be a desolation” and Jeremiah 25:12 says “and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations”. To me it would not seem that Judea did not become a desolation until the 586 BC destruction and the whole point of Jeremiah’s 70 years is that it would be in desolation; that seems to be Daniel’s understanding also.
I would like to send you my conclusions on the Mt. of Olives Discourse and the Book of Daniel if you are interested, if so please send me your email address.
God bless your studies in God’s Word
I understand that there are different views as to the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem of Jeremiah’s seventy years, but I believe the best analysis of Jeremiah’s prophecy and its citation in 2 Chronicles 36 and Daniel 9 show that it refers to the period from the first deportation to Babylon and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC until the first year of Cyrus and the return from exile in 536 BC. Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5 do refer to a period of approximately seventy years after the destruction of the temple in 586 BC.
I will send you an email.
I’m not a scholar in any sense, just a curious, interested Christian. After a short Google search, I was a bit disheartened to read that “Darius the Mede” is regarded as a fictional character by most historians. Within a few minutes of finding your article, I was quite encouraged to read your thoughts, theories, and supporting evidence.
Like many people, I suppose, I wish there was a time machine that would help us determine the historicity of the Bible in cases like this, but at least there are fine people out there like yourself who are looking for realistic clues and evidence on these matters.
Thank you for your research and for sharing it with the world.
As keelingdm has already observed, an internet search for Darius, the Mede posts a number of results that disparage the historical accuracy of Daniel and repudiates the existence of a Darius, the Mede. The first result is Wikipedia which many nonChristians and lay Christians read first. I would guess that the average reader will stop his investigation with that source.
It might be beneath a true scholar to contribute to a Wikipedia article, but I think it would a great service if one of the scholars here would make a contribution to not only the article about Darius, the Mede, but also ones regarding other figures such as Belshazzar, whose place as a ruler is disputed by Wikipedia and his feast on the night of Babylon’s fall is portrayed as having all the elements of “historical fiction.” Also, it is confidently asserted that the writing of Daniel was after 164 BC. A scholarly contribution with some of the arguments for the credible possibility of Darius the Mede being Cyaxares II would be an encouraging read for the average believer and a refreshing counter for the skeptical reader.
For myself, the articles did not lead me to doubt the historical accuracy of Daniel (the editors neglected to say that Belshazzar was once considered to be a fictional character of Daniel until he was found in some ancient inscriptions and writings) but it did lead me to dismiss the historical reliability of Xenophon, and hence no longer considered Cyaxares II as an option to be Darius, the Mede, in my search for his identity. All other alternatives were so problematic in my estimation that I figured that there must still be a figure in history that hadn’t yet been discovered that would be Darius, the Mede. Dr. Anderson has clarified for me the historical waters simply by so ably restoring the reliability of Xenophon. If he or another scholar with the ability to contribute these evidences on Wikipedia were to do so, it could help its readers see a more balanced perspective on the reliability of the book of Daniel itself.
I agree. If Dr. Anderson could edit and update the negative bias towards the historicity of Daniel which exists on Wikipedia this would be beneficial for many. Thank you for your fine scholarship.
Yes, it would be great if we could change what is on Wikipedia, since that is where search engines usually send people. I have tried to do this, and so has at least one other scholar I know. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia moderators are virulently anti-Christian, and will not allow affirmations of the historicity of Darius the Mede and the book of Daniel to stand. They act like the only real scholars are the unbelieving critics, and everything that evangelical scholars have written on the book of Daniel should be dismissed. The truth is, they know that if rebuttals are given to the critical view, a lot of people will recognize the problems with it and will believe the Bible.
Cyaxares II – Well done Mr. Anderson! ‘He reveals deep and hidden things to them that fear him’ (Dan 2: 22-23). Just ask Kepler, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. Also, personally knowing the man who was speaking about Darius in Daniel 11:1 is an advantage. I recognized his voice as the sheep know the voice of the shepherd. “In the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to strengthen and protect him.”
Another clue is the unique physical appearance of this gentleman, which was also noted by the apostle John five centuries later: He was like the ‘son of man’, with eyes of fire, feet like burnished brass, a voice like rushing waters, wearing a gold sash and shining like the sun!! Oddly enough, John and Daniel both reacted the same way. They were so terrified, they fell down as if dead. And this, despite the fact that they were “greatly loved” by this ‘son of man’!
Imagine how an enemy would feel in that situation! Say, for instance, those who try to convince a dying world that the word of God is a bunch of rubbish. Like the metaphysically-challenged ‘scholars’ who insist Daniel 11:1 was fabricated by some anonymous crack-pot trying to hoodwink an unsuspecting public! About what though? How could a vague assertion about an imaginary king fool anyone about anything?
Keep up the good work, Mr. Anderson,
M.J. Baekelandt, R.Ph, CSPI
I just love this; and I’m not a professor of anything but love of the Lord and I love the story of Daniel and this Darius who can’t even sleep because of his concern over Daniel. I just wanted to know if Darius, after getting Daniel out of the lions den really became a follower of Daniel’s God…..he sure should after issuing a final decree about Him; fascinating, and it begs more study and prayer. Our Father God knows……and there must be something out there that will prove it, wouldn’t you think? Thank you for your astute contributions….all of you!
The conversion of Darius the Mede is an interesting question, and we won’t find a definitive answer this side of glory, at least based on the information that is currently available. The decree issued by Darius in Daniel 6:26 commands everyone in the empire to show reverence to Daniel’s God, which in a polytheistic context could mean adding the Jews’ God to the pantheon of other gods to be worshiped. Some commentators think the order to “stand in awe” of Daniel’s God was nothing more than a decree of protection for the Jews, which was needed after the way Daniel was targeted for his Jewish faith. This is a much weaker statement in any case than Nebuchadnezzar’s confession in Daniel 4:37. Darius the Mede clearly believes in the existence and power of Daniel’s God, but it is not clear that he has stopped worshiping the pagan gods. But maybe I will be surprised when I get to heaven and will see Darius the Mede there!
Thank you for getting back to me so soon; I have more to say but it’s getting late so I will get back to you, ok?
Thank you; it would be nice to find out that Darius started following “our” God and not have to wait for the surprise later. My question would be; “What about the book that is mentioned in Esther 10:2 called-THE BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF MEDIA AND PERSIA? Wouldn’t you think it would all be recorded in there? And who would King Xerxes be to King Darius? Were they related? Medes and Persians are mentioned quite a bit in the book of Esther. And do you know about the history of King Xerxes and Esther or even what happened to former Queen Vashti? All these ancient people are so fascinating to me. I just read too that King Xerxes had a book too; THE BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF KING XERXES. If you could enlighten me on any of these subjects it would be worth a great study and I would be thankful again….
If you have time you are welcome to check out my Blog as well. http://fromcoaltodiamond.com and let me know what you think, comments are very welcome.
Thanks for your interest! It would be wonderful to have the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, as they contained so much valuable and detailed historical information. Unfortunately, it appears that they were only written on papyrus scrolls (cf. Ezra 6:2), which typically rot away over time.
The relationship of Xerxes to Darius the Mede is interesting. When Darius the Mede died, his realm passed to Cyrus the Persian, who had married his daughter. However, the dynasty of Cyrus was overthrown in a coup led by Darius I of Persia in 522 BC, who was a distant relative of Cyrus. We don’t actually know Darius I’s real name, as he chose the throne name “Darius” in order to reinforce his claim to be a legitimate king. He also chose the throne name “Ahasuerus” (= “Xerxes” in Greek) for his son and successor. These names were chosen in order to connect the new dynasty with the last two reigning kings who had preceded Cyrus (cf. Dan 9:1).
As for Esther, it doesn’t seem that she is specifically mentioned in extant extrabiblical sources (specifically, Herodotus). Herodotus calls Xerxes’ queen “Amestris,” but this is probably phonologically equivalent to the Hebrew “Vashti,” the way scholars think the queen’s name was transliterated from Old Persian to Greek and Hebrew. Also, Herodotus’ description of Amestris as a domineering woman fits the biblical description of Vashti, and Herodotus says nothing about any activities of Amestris between the biblical date for the crowning of Esther (the seventh year of Xerxes) and the and the accession of Amestris’ son Artaxerxes I following Xerxes’ death. So Amestris probably = Vashti.
Thank you Dr. Anderson for your work regarding the identity of Darius.
In doing a brief review of his personage, I have found both your coverage and that of Stephen Miller in in his commentary pp 171-177 useful.
If I am correct, I understand that the stronger position is that of Darius being the same personage as Cyrus in Daniel. However, with regard to this position, I have not come across a clear explanation of the similar terms (Darius/Cyrus) in Ezra where it seems clear that that in Ezra they are indeed two different people. For example, in Ez 6:1-3 King Darius searched the records and found the scroll from King Cyrus; appearing to clearly substantiate that the Darius is different than Cyrus at least in Ezra.
the closest evidence to this end seems to be your chart on pg 192 in “Darius the Mede: a Re-appraisal,” where it seems that the solution is to consider the term(s) Darius (and Cyrus?) in Ezra 6:1 may different than the Darius in Daniel because Darius is a “throne name?”
Can you suggest a solution to the identity of the similarly named personages in Ezra when compared to the similary named personages Daniel?
It would be most helpful to have the chart on pg 192 with cross references to Daniel/Ezra to better trace the terms found in both books.
Perhaps there might be a more straightforward solution?
Thank you for your time and effort,
Paul
Hi Paul,
The issue in Ezra 6 is that this is a different Darius than Darius the Mede of the book of Daniel. This is something that all evangelical scholars agree upon, regardless of their view of Darius the Mede. The Darius of Ezra is called “king of Persia” (Ezra 4:4, 24), and he reigns after the reigns of Cyrus and his sons. He is to be identified with Darius I, the son of Hystaspes. There were also two later Persian kings who adopted the throne name “Darius.” I argue that this throne name was also used earlier by the Median king who is called Cyaxares II by Xenophon. Thus, I do not adopt the view that Cyrus used the name Darius, although this view has more points in its favor than the view that Darius the Mede is Gubaru.
Let me know if there are issues that need further clarification.
Steven
Sounds good to me, but then which Darius is referred to in Haggai and Zechariah? Darius “I”?
Yes, Darius I, also known as Darius the Great and Darius Hystaspes, is the “Darius” referenced in Haggai and Zechariah. Technically, Darius the Mede should be called Darius I, but because he is generally not recognized by modern historians, they call Darius the Great “Darius I.”
Ah, thank you very much. I would not have been able to find an easy answer to that on my own. I will make corrections on my guide.
Ok, while I’m on a roll, in Esther is the king Ahasuerus/Xerxes? Then are there any naming subtleties/issues with Artaxerxes in Ezra and Nehemiah?
Yes, “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther is called “Xerxes” by Greek historians. Scholars have long recognized that the name אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ (’Ăḥašwērôš, “Ahasuerus”) is a Hebrew transliteration of the Old Persian name Khšayāršan, which was transliterated into Greek as Ξέρξης (Xerxēs), into Elamite as Ikšerša, and into Akkadian as Aḫši’aršu. As for “Artaxerxes,” Yamauchi notes that “Artaxerxes is the Greek form of the Old Persian Artaxšaça, derived from arta (justice) plus khshatra (kingdom), that is, ‘having a kingdom of justice’ or ‘having just rule.’ ” Edwin Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 241.
Thank you. Very helpful and, as an interpreter/practical linguist, fascinating. You are doing what God made you to do, and doing it well.
Thank you Dr. Anderson for your clarification. Your reply, combined with a more careful read of your dissertation, provided the insight that I needed in changing my view that Darius the Mede was = Cyrus to Darius the Mede was not Cyrus. Originally I found Miller’s articulation regarding the identity of Darius the Mede in Daniel chapter 6 (Daniel, NAC, pp 171-177) convincing. That is until I read further where Daniel in later chapters (9:1 & 10:1) he (Daniel) very clearly distinguished between the two personages. i.e. How could they be the same when in 9:1 and 10:1 there was a distinguishment? After some doubt was cast regarding Miller’s initially persuasive arguments, your work, (and especially your chart in your dissertation); gave me the necessary information to adopt my original persuasion. Thank you.
Dr. Anderson, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your excellent work on this topic and your generosity in making your book available on-line. I particularly appreciate your strongly Biblical approach — the best scholarship in the world will drift if not anchored in Biblical truth. You’ve built excellent scholarship on a dependable foundation.
In support of your work I am surprised you did not reference Daniel 5:28 “PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. “
I do reference Daniel 5:28 in the book, just not in this blog post. The placement of “Medes” before “Persians” in that verse indicates that the Medes were still the dominant power at the time, since the order becomes “Persians and Medes” in the book of Esther.
Dr. Anderson,
Would you be able to comment on two questions that I have surrounding Zerubbabel from Ezra and Haggai? One is the genealogical question and the other is the issue with Sheshbazzar that I would like to run past you, your time permitting. Thank you.
Sure, go ahead and ask. My view is that Sheshbazzar was a Persian official, not a Hebrew governor (or Zerubbabel), although I have not done thorough research on the issue.
Greetings Paul and Steven,
May I share what Valerius Coucke wrote on this, as taken from p. 26 of https://www.academia.edu/36173119/English_translation_corrected_and_updated_of_Valerius_Coucke_s_Chronologie_Biblique_in_Suppl%C3%A9ment_au_Dictionnaire_de_la_Bible_Paris_1928_
A. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the same person.
— It has been claimed that Zerubbabel arrived at Jerusalem in the reign of Darius I or II, several years after Sheshbazzar, who rebuilt the temple in the reign of Cyrus. This opinion is contrary to the text of the Bible (Ezra chs. 1–4:5).
Not only were Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar contemporary, but they were the same person.
• Zerubbabel is a prince of Judah, son of Shealtiel, son of Jehoiachin, king of Judah (Ezra 3:2, 5:2, Neh. 12:1). Sheshbazzar is also a prince of Judah (Ezra 1:8).
• Zerubbabel bore the title of pekhah (Haggai 1:1), a title that Sheshbazzar received from King Cyrus (Ezra 5:14).
• Zerubbabel is at the head of the caravan of immigrants and chief of those taken into exile (Ezra 2:1, 63 ff., 3:2 ff., 4:2 ff.). Sheshbazzar is the chief of the immigrants (Ezra 1:5 ff.).
• Zerubbabel laid the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3; Zech. 4:9), as did Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:16).
[end of quote from Coucke]
Rodger Young, St. Louis
Thank you so much. My ministry has been mainly in prisons, homeless centers, and sometimes inner city streets, so I have not had opportunity to teach through the Book of Daniel but on a couple of occasions over the years. At the age of 70 God called me to work on starting a church in a Gypsy village in Romania. I am now 72 with only a little formal Bible education, but I have been reading and studying for 60 years now. THis timing is perfect for me as I am doing a youtube series through Daniel right now and I am sure at least 3 or 4 people watch them 🙂 I have just started chapter 9. My question is, do you think it possible that Cyrus could have ruled the Empire from the start and Darius was given rule as King only of what was the old Babylonian Empire or province? I appreciate the hard work you have put into this.
Hi Dale! That is one of the common views, but I do not believe it fits the biblical description of Darius the Mede. Notably, the decree made by Darius in Daniel 6:7-9 that no one could make a petition to any god or man but himself for thirty days is a decree that could only be issued by the highest authority in the realm. Persian kings held absolute power, and would not tolerate an attempt to honor a subordinate above themselves. Further, it is stated three times in Daniel 6 that the decree issued by Darius could not be altered (Dan 6:8, 12, 15), which shows that it was issued by the highest regent in the kingdom, whom none could overrule.
Thank you sir. The more I studied it after asking my question, the more I have come to agree with your conclusion. It seems to answer all the questions.
Dr. Anderson, saludos.
En estos momentos de cuarentena estaba estudiando acerca de este tema, “Darío el Medo” , y veía muchas posiciones e investigando un poco más a fondo solo quedaron decidir por 3 opciones:
1. Darío = Ciro
2. Darío = Ciaxares II
3. Darío = Ugbaru
Sinceramente me inclinaba por la opción 3, pero luego de leer su publicación y volver a leer los pasajes de Daniel relacionados con Darío el Medo (Dn 5, Dn 6, Dn 9: 1, Dn 11:1 ), me acordé de “la visión del carnero y el macho cabrío” (Dn 8: 3, 20 ) , que me confirmó su postura:
Es verdad, Dn 8: 3 habla de 2 cuernos (reyes o reinos) en el carnero y no 1; no un imperio persa, sino un imperio medo-persa; no el rey Ciro sólo o con un sátrapa, sino el rey Ciro y otro rey más (Ciaxares II) .
En conclusión:
Darío = Ciaxares II
Disculpe, con respecto a su libro “Darius the Mede: una reevaluación” ¿estará en traducido al español? ¿llegará a publicarse al español?, muchas gracias.
Dr. Anderson, regards.
In these moments of quarantine I was studying about this topic, “Darius the Mede”, and many positions and doing a little more research would only decide on 3 options:
1. Darius = Cyrus
2. Darius = Ciaxares II
3. Darius = Ugbaru
Honestly I was inclined towards option 3, but after reading his publication and rereading the passages of Daniel related to Darius the Mede (Dn 5, Dn 6, Dn 9: 1, Dn 11: 1), I remembered “the vision of the ram and the goat ”(Dn 8: 3, 20), who confirmed his position:
It is true, Dan 8: 3 speaks of 2 horns (kings or kingdoms) in the ram and not 1; not a Persian empire, but a Medo-Persian empire; not King Cyrus with only a satrap, but King Cyrus and one more king (Ciaxares II).
In conclusion:
Darius = Ciaxares II
Excuse me, regarding your book “Darius the Mede: a reevaluation”, will it be translated into Spanish? Get published in Spanish? Thank you very much.
Hola Abel, gracias por compartir sus comentarios sobre esta tema. Espero que mi libro haya sido útil a pesar de estar escrito en inglés. En este momento no tengo planes para traducir este libro a español. Esto es porque mi conocimiento de español no es suficiente para hacer la traducción yo mismo, y no puedo pagar otros para hacer la traducción. Puedo leer español y conversar en español, pero no puedo escribir libros académicos en español. Estoy trabajando con traductores colombianos muy capaces para traducir mi serie de guías interpretativas para la Biblia, pero ahora solo estamos enfocados en esa serie de libros. Entonces si usted conoce alguien capaz que quiere traducir mi libro sobre Darío el medo al español, digame y tal vez podamos llevar al cabo ese proyecto. Bendiciones.
Steven, I read with great interest your doctoral thesis on Darius the Mede. I am a retired pastor and a continuing student of the Word, as I continue to teach and preach. My wife and I have been long-time friends of DTS for many years. Ever since my seminary days, I have not been happy with most stances on the identity of Darius the Mede specifically, and the handling of the Medo-Persian history in general. The chronology of the post-exilic books of the Bible and apocryphal writings have been massacred in most commentaries, and I kept telling myself over the years, “One of these days, I will find the time to get this straightened out once and for all”. About three years ago, that time came, as I finally carved out the time to make an exhaustive study, as I was preparing to teach on some of the post-exilic books and needed to try to resolve in my own mind the Medo-Pesian history and chronology. After many hours of study, I came to the conclusion that Cyaxeres II was the best fit for being Darius the Mede. At that time I wrote three monographs to use as an introduction to teaching that series. The three were “Throne Names for the Medo-Persian Kings”, “Who is Darius the Mede of Scripture?”, and “Who Was Ahasuerus, the King of Esther?” A few months later I ran across your thesis. Needless to say, I was thrilled to find a confirmation of my work. However, my scope was a bit broader than yours, as I was including Ahasuerus into the mix ( or should I say, the Ahasueruses).
This past week, I ran into a fascinating monograph entitled “Medes and Persians” written by Dr. Charles C. Torrey of Yale University. (I think he was either the brother of R.A.Torrey, or his first cousin). He agreed with your identification of Darius the Mede. But what made it fascinating? I noticed you did not include his monograph in your Bibliography. The paper was written in 1947 in the Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 66, No.1, 15 pages. I accessed the monograph through my JSTOR membership. His route to determining who Darius the Mede was a bit different than yours, although in most points the two of you used the same points. The places where he differed were very good points and could be used to fortify some of your points. But what made his paper so fascinating was his identification of Ahaseurus. If you have not seen this paper, I think it would be worth your while to look at it, and then comment back to me what you think. I know the identification of Ahaseurus was not in the scope of your thesis, but it still may be of interest to you.
Thanks,
Tom Anderson
Lynden, WA
Steven, I earlier stated that Dr. Charles Torrey agreed with your conclusion on the identity of Darius the Mede, but upon further review, I found I was mistaken – Dr. Torrey’s conclusion was that Darius the Mede was Darius the Great. I’m sorry for the mistake. I agree with your analysis, but find parts of Dr. Torreys work very interesting.
Thanks,
Tom Anderson
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing about your work on Darius the Mede! I always appreciate feedback and pointers about other sources. I will take a look at Torrey’s article when I have a chance.
Thank you very much. Any chance you have an updated family tree you could attach to this article?
Yes, there is a family tree on page 139 (page 151 of the pdf) of my book, available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/drjsa3shweq2szl/Darius_the_Mede_-_A_Reappraisal_ebook.pdf?dl=0
I also have this summary article that is in the process of being translated into multiple languages:
https://www.stegozoeterno.org/aa-darius-the-mede
Thank you very much! Trying to understand and keep track of the players at this time in history is worse than a long running soap opera – at least this is worth trying to grasp!
I would not call it mere opinion to say that the timing of your research is clearly divinely inspired. There is a need and a hunger for such solid research with a high view of God’s word to bring clarity and strengthen that which remains. I have noticed several people and organizations whose related work in this area is dated after yours was made public, but didn’t connect the dots until you pointed it out. It’s exciting!
I am not yet familiar with specific publications you have inspired, but have probably run across some of it unawares and expect will see more. My own small project is not inspired, but clearly informed by your work, and I wouldn’t have had a chance to make it a trustworthy study tool had not God led me to it.
I signed up to be a Wikipedia editor (it’s easy and free) about 2 years ago, but am not yet familiar enough with their (html?) editing style to comfortably take on larger challenges, like fixing their many annoyingly erroneous entries on the subject.
People who are well-informed in your field of study are DESPERATELY needed to make substantive corrections to this popular source of information, since many take their information as definitive. I hope some of your followers are better equipped than I and are willing and able to join in the good fight!
Greetings Lloyds-of-Rochester,
You refer to the “many annoyingly erroneous entries on the subject” in Wikipedia, and, like yourself, I’m hoping and praying that Dr. Anderson’s ideas will become more widely acknowledged. However, correcting the errors in the Wikipedia entries is not easy, and I will explain why.
The basic idea of Wikipedia (an on-line encyclopedia into which anyone can make an entry, but with moderators to enforce necessary academic rules) came from a graduate of my Alma Mater, Reed College, who majored in philosophy. His name is Larry Sanger. In order to get his ideas into production, he joined up with someone named James (nickname Jimbo) Wales. Wales was working on “Nupedia,” which was sort of a predecessor to Wikipedia, but Sanger gave the ideas about how to implement things to really get the online encyclopedia off the ground.
Jimbo Wales apparently had the finances to get the project going. He got those finances from a career in pornography. That’s the first thing you ought to know before venturing to interact with Wikipedia. Sanger eventually had a fallout with Wales, and so the pornographer became (and still is) the CEO of Wikipedia. This means that the basic culture of the organization is atheist; after all, if the Bible is true, atheists are in big trouble, and so it is necessary for those who want to maintain their atheism and their licentious lifestyle to make any kind of argument they can to discredit the Bible.
It should be no surprise, then, that when it comes to subjects in Wikipedia that relate to the Bible, J. Wales has appointed moderators—the people who ultimately control what can be said—as people who share his atheistic viewpoint. Since I believe the Bible is the Word of God written, it was inevitable that, when I began to try to correct Wikipedia’s “many annoyingly erroneous entries on the subject,” I would run into one of these moderators. There was a lot of interaction with the moderators that was very frustrating. I found out that these so-called experts really were following the old JEDP “Documentary Hypothesis” as if that was the final word on how the Bible came into existence. If you have any real knowledge on this matter, you will know that the Documentary Hypothesis has been so thoroughly discredited that it’s a wonder that anyone still appeals to it. Yet citing the “assured results of higher criticism” of the Documentary Hypothesis, and other false imaginings of the old liberalism, is what the moderators will do in discrediting, and censoring, anyone who doesn’t go along with their outdated idea—ideas that are thoroughly discredited by anyone who knows how to think clearly on these issues.
When you try to make an entry that to you makes a lot more sense than that fostered by the pseudo-experts who will be censoring your entry, you will soon become acquainted with some of these upholders of the status quo of Wales’s atheistic and pro-pornography outlook. Here are two of them that I ran into—I think you’ll find them cancelling your entries if you try to enter anything in support of the genuinely solid research that supports the Bible, such as the investigations of Dr. Anderson. The first individual, one of Wales’s moderator looking over religious matter, is someone who advertised for his qualifications that he was an expert geologist. Someone investigated his background and found out that he had no degrees in geology; his expertise was all a lie. But last I heard he was still there. Another individual who tries to pretend he knows a lot about religious issues because he can quote scholars who follow the relics of the documentary hypothesis is probably the first one you will encounter. I’ll give his pseudonym: it is Pico, and I’ll pass on some information about him that he shouldn’t mind my sharing, since he posted it himself. Pico bragged about the time when he was frequenting a prostitution bar in SE Asia (he has some kind of job there, maybe as a reporter), and while he was in the bar he thought of a brilliant extortion scheme that he was considering putting into effect.
These are the kind of people that Jimbo Wales favors. Now if you’re searching Wikipedia to learn how to grow tomatoes, you may find a lot of useful information entered by, and moderated by, people who are really sincere and who really know there stuff. But when you want to say something that defends the Christian faith, it’s an entirely different story. The people you will encounter—especially the moderators and people like Pico, are the kind of people who have their own great faith, a faith that is well described in the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.” Their faith, however, is not based on reason but on their wish to maintain an ungodly life style.
Having said all that, I still believe it is important that Christians try to do what they can to show how shallow the thinking of these atheists is. If you still want to go ahead and try to enter something sensible to counteract the foolish religious ideas of the atheists, maybe Dr. Anderson or myself could offer some advice on how to learn and follow the Wikipedia rules for editors. The rules are good, but it’s like having good rules for a sports game but the referees are crooked.
Yours in St. Louis, Rodger C. Young
That was very enlightening! 😲 I guess it’s something I shouldn’t be immensely surprised with, but “know thy enemy” is always a good idea. Perhaps I should get out my copy of The Art of War and reread it.
Most entries fall into the category of erroneous, but I’ve seen some smaller entries that have actually been pretty good, although they are a minority. There may be something in how they presented their information, or their sources, or place in the tree, or something else which has caused them to somehow fly below the radar. So far.
Your information now has my antenna up to observe what made those different enough that they’re still around. I have occasionally gone in and subtly wordsmithed sentences in certain articles where they started out using more neutral/objective wording, and then “slipped” into using words revealing, and then promoting, their bias. It’s gratifying to be able to do that online😁 because I can’t do it in books. I label them as “minor edits in grammar and word choices to maintain a uniform presentation of the information”, or something to that effect. I consider it “dulling their blades” by word-choice swaps.
Greetings! I recently read your dissertation Dr. Anderson. I think you make a very strong case for your thesis. Honestly, I am currently undecided between whether Darius was a vassal king under Cyrus, or Cyaxeres II. However, if I had to give a percentage as a result of reading your dissertation, I can say I went from giving less than 10% of Cyaxeres being Darius with now leaning 70% as opposed to the vassal king view. Hopefully more information will emerge in coming years!
In case you’re not aware, there’s a rising Assyriologist, George Heath-Whyte, who has told me that he finds the Cyaxeres view as most likely. He’s the one who brought my attention to your work. And who knows? He might eventually find cuneiform evidence that will add weight to your thesis.
Very interesting. I was looking for and explanation to a note while reading. Also interestingly, your conclusion seems consistent with Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 5:24-27. I look forward to reading your text in its entirety. It gave clarity to my curiosity so that I could continue reading the passage.
Hi Steven! Thank you for a fantastic thesis, well argued! And very interesting, indeed.
I have a small, but important question. In your thesis, you seems to hardly mention the Babylonian lists of kings, which list all the kings of Babylon but bypass Darius the Mede. I am thinking especially about the Uruk King List (“King List 5”) and the Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period (BKLHP/“King List 6”). None of these mention Cyaxares II/Darius. Instead they go directly from Nabonidus to Cyrus.
Do you have any idea of why this could be the case? What is the weight of their testimony? Why did you not include them in your thesis?
Would be very grateful for an answer!
Hi Jon! Thank you for your comments and questions. First off, the Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/babylonian-king-list-of-the-hellenistic-period/) is not relevant, since it does not start until after the end of the Persian Period. As for the Uruk King List (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/), it does indeed have Cyrus following Nabonidus immediately in 539 BC. The Uruk King List is of course a valuable and generally accurate historical document, but since it was composed after 250 BC it is not nearly as weighty as the earlier sources. There are many later sources which follow the standard “official” history of the period (i.e., Herodotus and the Persian propaganda texts), and since they are secondary I did not note most of these in my thesis. One problem I see with the Uruk King List is that although it notes coregencies during the reign of Ashurbanipal, it does not note the coregency between Nabonidus and Belshazzar; only Nabonidus is listed. This affects the issue of Darius the Mede, if Darius/Cyaxares II and Cyrus were coregents for a short time after the fall of Babylon. The Uruk King List lists only one of the two coregents, probably because Cyrus was by far the more prominent king and is the only king mentioned in the contract texts and propagandistic documents. However, the Uruk King List also fails to recognize the brief reign of Bardiya in 522 BC, even though contract texts were briefly dated by his reign. This indicates that the records used to compile the Uruk King List were lacking in detail or accuracy. I haven’t read much about the purpose of the Uruk King List, but often these lists were written by astrologers for the purpose of interpreting omens, or for some other purpose besides pure historical interest. Perhaps the author(s) of the Uruk King List would not have mentioned the coregency of Darius the Mede even if they knew of it. In any case, the history of Berossus is evidence that at least some Babylonian scholars in the Ptolemaic era knew of Darius the Mede.
Hi Steven! Thank you very much for this most lucid answer! It is very satisfying and seems to direct the attention away from the Uruk King List in this matter. But people have argued from this list (I mistakenly included the Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period) against the historicity of Darius the Mede. So, it leads me to a follow up question, if you are in the position or time to answer: Is there any consensus as to what sources the Uruk King List drew from?
I appreciate a man who, despite being educated, stands up for the veracity of the scriptures in the face of profane history. I am quoting your dissertation in my book Desealing Daniel. God bless your work brother. Question:
How long did Darius the Median reign before Cyrus’ famed first year?
How do we prove that?
Thank you for replying.
Hi George! The primary biblical evidence for the length of Darius the Mede’s reign comes from the prophecies of a seventy-year exile (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10; cf. 2 Chr 36:20-21; Dan 9:1-3). Seventy years from the first deportation to Babylon in 605 BC is 536 BC, three years after the fall of Babylon. The return to the land in 536 BC occurred in Cyrus’ first year (Ezra 1:1). This implies a reign of about two years for Darius the Mede after the fall of Babylon.
The extrabiblical evidence for a two-year reign of Darius the Mede comes from Xenophon Cyropaedia 8.6.22, 8.7.1. Xenophon says that Cyrus made a journey from Babylon to Persia once a year, and that he died after his seventh return journey. This indicates that Cyrus reigned for seven years. Counting backwards from 530 BC, that would place the beginning of Cyrus’ reign in 536 or 537 BC. Since Babylon fell in 539 BC, Darius the Mede must have reigned for about two years after the fall of Babylon.
As for the length of Darius the Mede’s reign over Medo-Persia before the fall of Babylon, ancient sources do not provide a definite date for the death of his father Astyages/Ahasuerus, but it was probably around the year 559 BC. (That is the year Herodotus and Diodorus of Sicily give for Cyrus’ deposition of Astyages.) Thus, Darius the Mede reigned for about twenty years before the fall of Babylon, and for about two years afterward.
Very interesting article, Mr. Anderson. I just have one question for you: According to a 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article under the entry “Ahasuerus”, the Ahasuerus (‘Achashwerosh) that Daniel 9:1 presents us as the father of Darius the Mede should be identify with Ciájares I, since the expression “son” in the Bible can also be used in the sense of descendant (cf. Tob. 1:5) and that the biblical author would have preferred to mention him in relation to his grandfather and not his father due to the fame enjoyed by the former.
It is also argued that Tobias 14:15 mentions another Ahasuerus (’Asyeros), in union with Nabopolassar, to whom the taking of Nineveh is attributed. Since according to conventional history it is known that Nineveh was taken by Nabopolassar in alliance with Ciaxares I, it has been argued that here too the author of Tobit would be referring to that Ciaxares under the name of Ahasuerus, which would again reinforce the identification of the Ahasuerus of Daniel with said monarch.
What is your view about this identification proposal? Is it linguistically possible that the original Median name ‘Ciaxares’ could have been rendered as ‘Ahasuerus’ in hebrew?
Thank you for responding and may God bless you.
Hi Alex,
The article you mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia is available here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02005c.htm
That article assumes that the reference to Ahasuerus in Tobit 14:15 is historically accurate. There are two problems with this. First, there are textual variants in Tobit 14:15. For example, the NRSV has “Cyaxares,” the RSV has “Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus,” and the KJV has “Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus.” Second, as a Protestant I find many historical and doctrinal errors in the Apocrypha (see Tobit 1:2, 15; 5:6; 6:1-5; 12:9). Since the book of Tobit appears to be a work of fiction which includes many historical inaccuracies even in the alleged setting for the story, I see no reason to give credence to the reference to Ahasuerus as the conqueror of Nineveh. As for the linguistic evidence, “Cyaxares” (https://iranicaonline.org/articles/cyaxares-gk) is very different from “Xerxes” (https://iranicaonline.org/articles/xerxes-1-name), the name that is rendered as “Ahasuerus” in Hebrew.
It is true that the word “son” in Hebrew can mean “descendant,” but the normal understanding of the expression used in Daniel 9:1 is that “Ahasuerus” refers to the father, rather than the grandfather, of Darius the Mede.
I do appreciate the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement that Darius the Mede is probably Cyaxares II.
Mr. Anderson:
I thank you for answering me. Let me now point out to you where I disagree with what you’ve written:
– Although the Book of Tobias has several textual variants in that verse, the variant that mentions Ahasuerus is attested by the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, so the authenticity of this variant can be perfectly the original without much problem.
The variant referring to Ciájares may be possibly a correction by a later copyist.
– Like you but in reverse, as a Catholic Christian I disagree that Tobias has historical or doctrinal errors. But since I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the inspiration of said book but just about the identity of the Ahasuerus of Daniel, I will limit myself to pointing out that just because a book is not inspired does not mean that it cannot have genuine historical material.
For example, you will not believe that the Maccabean books are inspired but that is not why we are going to say that the Maccabean Revolt is an entire fiction.
– Although Ciájares does not resemble the known forms of the name Xerxes (although it could perhaps be a Median variant of said Persian name), I still consider it as linguistically more probable. According to the same Iranian Encyclopedia, the name Astiages in Babylonian is “Ištumegu” while in Middle it is possibly “R̥štivaigah”.
On the other hand, the forms of the name Ciájares “Uvaxštra” (ancient Persian), “Huxšaθra” (Avestan) and “ksuwaksaros” (ancient Phrygian) I see closer to the “Achashwerosh” of Daniel.
– That the expression “son” in Daniel 9: 1 is usually understood literally does not mean that this way of understanding has to be correct; that is an ad populum fallacy. Similarly, I doubt that critics taking the description of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s “son” literally is going to make you and I do it too.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing to you again because I’ve been searching about the idea of equating Daniel’s Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II (I read your thesis and I found it fascinating), and I’ve got a doubt with the identification: According to the Wikipedia, Xenophon does never claim Cyaxares II to have ruled in Babylon.
Now, I know that a passage from Xenophon states that Cyrus had prepared a palace for Cyaxares after his conquest of Babylon and that he even stated to Cyaxeres that it was ready for if he wanted to use it (cf. Cyropedia VIII v. 17).
The doubt I have is this: Does Xenophon claim that Cyaxeres ruled or did not rule in Babylon? Or does he give any contextual evidence which presuposes one among both options? Is that compatible with Daniel’s statement the Darius/Cyaxares II was given the kingdom of Babylon (cf. Dan. 5:31)?
Thank you for responding me.
Hi Alex,
Xenophon never directly states that Cyaxares II visited Babylon. He only says, as you mentioned, that Cyrus prepared a palace in Babylon for Cyaxares II. However, the book of Daniel never says that Dairus the Mede visited Babylon; it only says that he ruled over the conquered Neo-Babylonian Empire. The likely setting for Daniel 6 is at the Median royal court in Ecbatana, which agrees with Xenophon. After the death of Darius the Mede/Cyaxares II, Cyrus moved the capital of the empire to Pasargadae. Later, Persepolis and Susa were added as alternate (rotating) capitals, but Babylon was never a location of the Medo-Persian royal court. Babylon was ruled from the Medo-Persian homeland. So there is no conflict between the book of Daniel and Xenophon on this issue.
Mr. Anderson! You may not believe it, but it’s true: Your thesis on Cyaxares II now figures prominently on the Spanish edition of Wikipedia’s article on Darius the Mede. You can see it here:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C3%ADo_el_Medo
The recent editions of the article now make a reference to your theory already in the entry and in the latter section on the identifications of king Darius. Your efforts on divulgating your theory are finding its fruits. Congratulations!
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I know this is the fifth time I am writing to you, and that you may feel that I’m seeming to be quite heavy, but I found necessary to tell it to you: I have found another historical source which agrees with Xenophon and Daniel in reporting the existence of a Median king (Cyaxares II/Darius the Mede) rulling alongside Cyrus the Great during the fall of Babylon.
The author is the historian Abydenus, who wrote a “History of the Chaldeans and Assyrians” of whom some fragments are preserved by later authors such as Eusebius. Concretely, in chapter XLI of Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica, a quotation of Abydenus states:
“‘And afterwards, the Chaldeans say, he went up to his palace, and being possessed by some god or other uttered the following speech:
‘”O men of Babylon, I Nebuchadnezzar here foretell to you the coming calamity, which neither Belus my ancestor, nor Queen Beltis are able to persuade the Fates to avert.
‘”There will come a Persian mule, aided by the alliance of your own deities, and will bring you into slavery. AND THE JOINT AUTHOR OF THIS WILL BE A MEDE, in whom the Assyrians glory. O would that before he gave up my citizens some Charybdis or sea might swallow him up utterly out of sight; or that, turning in other directions, he might be carried across the desert, where there are neither cities nor foot of man, but where wild beasts have pasture and birds their haunts, that he might wander alone among rocks and ravines; and that, before he took such thoughts into his mind, I myself had found a better end.””
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_09_book9.htm
What do you think about this fragment, Mr. Anderson?
Thanks, Alex, for bringing attention to this intriguing source. The reference to Cyrus as a mule is probably taken from Herodotus 1.55, in which Cyrus is referred to as a mule due to the fact that his father was a Persian and his mother a Mede. However, the reference in the following paragraph to Cyrus exiling Nabonidus to Carmania is taken from Berossus, whose work was redacted by Abydenus. In addition to the English translation in the link you provided, I also found a French translation and Greek text online:
http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/eusebe/preparation9.htm#XLIV
http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/eusebe/preparation9grec.htm#XLIV
The writer Charles Boutflower comments on this passage in his book In and around the Book of Daniel (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1923), 65-66. (https://archive.org/details/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft/page/64/mode/2up) Here is a quote from his book:
“A Persian mule (Cyrus) will come, having your own gods as his allies. He will impose servitude upon you, and will have for his helper the son of a Median woman (Nabonidus), the boast of the Assyrians (i.e. Babylonians).
“The traditional text reads ἔσται Μήδης, “shall be Medes.” But, as A. von Gutschmid points out, it is impossible to look on Μήδης here as a proper name. The presence of Πέρσης in the context compels us to take it in a gentilic sense. Since, however, the Greek for “Mede” is Μῆδος, not Μήδης, we are forced to regard the latter as the genitive feminine of the adjective and to suppose that υἵος has dropped out of the text. Further, to translate Μήδης “a Mede” would not be true to history, as the Medes could not be called “the boast of the Assyrians” . . . . To this it may be added that Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, may very well have been the son of a Median mother, seeing that his father was the high-priest of Haran, which, though included in the Babylonian Empire, must have been close to the Median frontier.”
In context, it looks like the exile of Nabonidus to Carmania by Cyrus is viewed as the fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar’s wish that the [son of a] Mede would be exiled to a desolate land. Thus, I tend to agree with Boutflower’s evaluation, and I don’t think Gifford’s translation is the best. This text does not appear to be a reference to Darius the Mede, although it may be worth further investigation.
Hi, Mr. Anderson. I want to confess that I am neither a scholar of Greek nor of Abydenus, but if you let me give my own opinion about Boutflower’s thesis on the translation of Abydenus’ passage, I thank you for letting me to do so.
Firstly, I have visited the French webpage on Eusebius Greek text and I have seen that the main fault on Boutflower’s translation is the fact that the said Greek text only refers to “a Mede” (Μήδης) instead to “a son of a Mede” (γιος ενός Μήδης), so his translation of the original Greek in such way is quite arbitrarily.
The second objection I find comes from the fact that the reference to “a Mede” in Abydenus’ text is in its femenine form it does not necesarily follow that he could not have been referring to a Median king, as he claims. I’m a Spaniard and in my language “mule” is a femenine noun, so if the same happens also in the Greek language (although I’m no entirely sure about this), then Abydenus would have referred there to “a Mede” in the sense of a Median mule, in contraposition with the Persian one (i.e. Cyrus). This would solve the liguistic problem without making any change in the content of the text.
Finally, I also consider that the rendering of Abydenus’ text as a reference to Nabonidus would cause historical inconsistencies, since if we followed Boutflower’s translation then Abydenus would be saying that Nabonidus would have helped Cyrus to conquer Babylon, something pretty unlikely. He claims historical inconsistencies for the fact that Abydenus would have referred to a Median King (Cyaxares II/Darius) as “the boast of the Assyrians (i.e. Babylonians)”, but I find that statement explainable on the basis that Media had been an important ally of Babylon since the times of Cyaxeres I (who along with Nabopalasar conquered Nineveh and Assyria) and they would have been seen favorably by the Babylonians; thus the explanation of such praising language.
Certaintly, I have to recognise that his argument has its strength and he has made me become much more skeptical abouth the value of the passage, but I think Gifford’s translation remains still correct in spite of the objections raised againts it. Thank you for your answer.
I can confirm that the Greek word for “mule” (ἡμίονος) is indeed a feminine noun. However, it would be grammatically problematic in this context to understand “the Mede” as referring back to “mule.” A better proposal would be to understand “the Mede” as a proper name that the original source uses for a Median man, which is the way Gifford understands it. The point you made about the Mede helping Cyrus conquer Babylon is a good one. I will leave this thread open for further comments and research.
Reblogged this on Christian Apologists and commented:
Excellent insights from this dissertation. He’s rescued Daniel from the lion’s den!
Hi Stephen … thank you so much for this erudite treatise revealing the ‘Mede’
as co-regent … would you stipulate as to the posibillity of the first year of Darius
being 552 as to the age of Babylon stated as 62 ( ch. 5) relative to 614 when the Medes squashed Assyria ?
Hi Jack, Daniel 5:31 refers to the age of Darius the Mede, not to the age of Babylon. The Aramaic is literally, “as a son of sixty and two years.” The year of the fall of Babylon is well established from various sources, with the Babylonian contract texts and the Nabonidus Chronicle dating the fall of Babylon to October 12, 539 BC. So Darius began to reign over Babylon in 539 BC. Greek sources indicate that the reign of Darius over the Median kingdom may have begun around 559 BC.
Thanks so much for your quick response Steven, and especially for the 559 Greek opening. Could it be that the failure to resolve the Daniel 70 years is due to a false reliance on the Nabonidus Chronicle as well as Herodotus and as you say we should rather trust Xenophon and perhaps the Sippar relic (summer of 553 note) which reveals Belshazzar. I suspect that we have been overly zealous to assist God with His prophecies by insisting on a 606 to 536 result. Perhaps we could start with a new ending date such as 552 and thereby find the intended start date as 622 when the book was found and Josiah was exempted. In this vein, may I indulge a second date in Ezekiel ch. one where 597 leads to 592 minus 40 for 552. Is the Aramaic “as a son” subject to challenge ? Thanks again for your indulgence.
Hi Steven …you are evidently quite correct as to ’62’ being the age of Cyaxares II although I still see it as an indicator to the age of Babylon. Now, in researching this issue I came across a rather mean-spirited blog against your position … https://bloggingtheology.com/2018/12/28/was-daniels-darius-the-mede-really-xenophons-cyaxares-ii/ … { It also seems strange for Harpocration to be referring to Cyaxares II as a “more ancient king” than Darius I, when Cyaxares is said to have died only two years after the conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.[32] Darius I was born in 550 BCE and ruled as the third king of the Persian Empire from 522-486 BCE.[33] Thus, he would have been around 13 years old when Cyaxares II died, and around 28 years old when he became king. That hardly makes Cyaxares a “more ancient king”. A mere 15 years separated the end of Cyaxares’ reign and the beginning of Darius’ reign. } …. If the fall of Babylon was actually in 552 bc contrary to the Nabonidus Chronicle’s 539 bc, it would mean that Cyaxares II died at the age of 62 two years before Darius I was even born and Harpcration would not seem strange. I say this in light of information as to his having been poisoned by the priests after only one or two weeks post fall … see … http://archive.atsjats.org/JATS12.1-10Shea.pdf … May I present my ‘current’ assessment as to events and timeline for your evaluation …
Having co-reigned with Belshazzar since 556/5, Nabonidus fees from the priests, leaving Belshazzar feasting in 552. Cyrus, having become king of Persia in 554,makes his deal with Cyaxares to capture Babylon and install him as a ‘maintainer’ (pos. meaning of Darius) … then the writing on the wall … the slaying of Belshazzar … and now read Shea’s excellent article indicated above as to the poisoning of Darius… Cyrus becomes king by default of the Medo-Persian empire … and naturally installs Danel under the Persian name Gobryas as governor all within one month of the fall of Babylon…..perhaps as the ‘lance bearer’ for Israel …this is why he does not return to Jerusalem.
Hi Jack, thank you for your interest in this subject. With regard to the date of the fall of Babylon, the 539 BC date is well established from diverse sources. A 552 BC date would require postulating some sort of grand conspiracy involving all the ancient primary sources from the period—including hundreds or thousands of preserved commercial contracts which are dated by the reign of the king, the many inscriptions of Nabonidus which were created after 552 BC, Herodotus, Xenophon, the Nabonidus Chronicle, etc. So I think the 539 BC date is unquestionable.
As for the seventy-year exile, from an exegetical standpoint this has to begin with an exile of the Jews to Babylon, and is also the period during which Judah is under Babylonian domination. The Babylonians did not gain control over Judah until 605 BC, which was also the year of the first exile. The prophecy of 70 years is given in Jeremiah 25, which is dated to 605 BC. So starting the 70 years at 605 BC makes excellent exegetical sense. If Babylon fell in October, 539 BC and Darius the Mede reigned for about two years afterward, then the decree to return from exile that was issued in the first year of Cyrus could date to 536 BC, which is exactly 70 years after 605 BC.
With regard to the objection you cited from the other blog, the Greek term used by Harpocration that is translated “more ancient” just means “older” or “former.” So that term need not imply a long gap of time.
Shea’s article has some problems, which I discuss in my book. Of course it is problematic to identify Darius the Mede as a governor named “Ugbaru” instead of as a king named “Darius.” It also does not seem possible to fit all the events of Daniel 6 and 9 into a single week, as Shea attempts to do.
Again, thank you Steve, for your indulgence and I can only say at this juncture that there are serious reasons and consequences that have prompted me to focus on the date of 552 bc. The conspiracy could be grand considering our ancient foe … so … let’s whittle …. for starters 540 is readily allowed instead of 539 … and I read someplace that there is hardly any information from 547 to 539 … also I find Shea’s read to be compelling as Darius’s tenure continues to shrink to only a few weeks … so … we are only about five years off and how much of that, I wonder is supplied by the
supposition that Nabodidus is still running around the outskirts. Add to that the questionability of the primary sources and 552 looks a bit better; but, from my point of view, is left to contend with the thousands of commercial contracts.
Secondly, as to the 70 years having to begin in 605, Jeremiah began his early ministry in 626 and was with Josiah in 622 when the book was found and continued into the captivity years. He loved Josiah and knew of God’s promise to exempt him from the captivity. He lamented his death, but he knew it was the fulfillment of God’s promise.
In chaper 25 Jeremiah states that all of the lands round about, as well as Israel, were to be subjected to the 70 year dominion of Babylon. This dominion, which was also to include other northern nations allied with Babylon, was begun circa 622 when the book
was found and repentence was begun and ended, proposedly, in 552. All of these lands about were taken in differing ways and times , but ended at the same time when Babylon fell. I believe that we have been over zealously asisting God to the goal-line with a run straight up the middle… instead of a hail mary pass …praise God.
Thirdly, it seems to me that the unusually quick switch of events and rulers solves most of the issues.
Okay, thanks, Jack, for sharing these ideas, but I am convinced that the biblical and extrabiblical evidence both point in another direction. There are, for example, inscriptions of Nabonidus in Teima in Saudi Arabia, and also inscriptions he erected in Babylonia when he returned just a few years before the fall of Babylon in 539. Within the Bible, Jeremiah 25:11-12 is clear that the seventy years are years in which the nations are serving the king of Babylon–in other words, this is the duration of the Babylonian Empire insofar as that empire included the land of Judah. From 622 to 605 BC, the land of Judah was under the sway of Assyria and/or Egypt, which were allied against Babylon. So I don’t see any biblical or extrabiblical evidence pointing to a different date for the fall of Babylon.
Okay, thanks so much Steven … of course the other northern nations did not have to be allies to Babylon…such as Assyria … I will educate myself on the inscriptions of Nabonidus … best wishes.
PS Steve …no reply needed here. It has dawned on me, that you have won the field and I must appeal to a higher court. The extrabiblical is questionable as Nabonidus may not have had the sanity to know that the gods were done with him; however, the biblical is solidly in your court, as per Jeremiah 25. Now, this appeal is to the intra-biblical division of scriptural knowledge …. the kind Daniel must have used when faced with an unexpected circumstance. Daniel was familiar with the book of Jonah, and he was contemporary with Jeremiah and Josiah, and the promise of exemption. He did not cleverly add one plus one … no, he mystically knew God’s heart and purpose to reward repentance and keep His promise and change the result … even as delaying
the judgement on Assyria held Babylon in check to spare the early years of the Babylonian captivity.for Josiah and the Israelites and the lands all about. And this was in direct variance to the oft repeated ‘law of the medes and the Persians’.
Hi Dr Anderson – how can the first deportation to Babylon occur in 605 BC before Jehoiakim’s 11th year which was 598 BC?
Hi Alex! The deportation to Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim (605 BC) is described in Daniel 1:1-4 and is alluded to in 2 Kings 24:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:6-7. Pharaoh Necho of Egypt defeated King Josiah of Judah at Megiddo in 609 BC (2 Kgs 23:29-30; 2 Chr 35:20-24). Necho then moved north to join the remnants of the Assyrian army at Haran, where a great battle was fought against the Babylonians in 609 BC. Although the Egyptian-Assyrian force was defeated by the Babylonians, the Egyptians held sway over Israel/Palestine, and Pharaoh Necho replaced the pro-Babylonian Judean king Jehoahaz with his pro-Egyptian brother Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:31-35; 2 Chr 36:1-4). In 605 BC, shortly after Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar had appointed him as commander-in-chief of the Babylonian army, Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians and their Greek mercenaries at Carchemish on the Euphrates (Jer 46:2). He then pursued the Egyptian army to Hamath. In the midst of this pursuit, on August 15, Nebuchadnezzar received word that Nabopolassar had died. He rushed back to Babylon to seize the throne, forcing his troops to march over forty miles a day. On September 7, Nebuchadnezzar seized power in Babylon. Some scholars think Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel and other leaders captive to parade them in Babylon during his coronation. However, it seems that Nebuchadnezzar did not take the time to round up captives before returning to Babylon. It is known that Nebuchadnezzar returned to Israel/Palestine after becoming king, and conquered the whole of it in his accession year in order to deprive Egypt of allies. It is more likely that he took captives at that time.