How does Daniel 5:31 align with historical records of Darius the Mede's reign? Biblical Text and Historical Puzzle “That very night Belshazzar king of the Chaldeans was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.” (Daniel 5:30-31) Secular cuneiform lists mention Nabonidus and his coregent Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar) as Babylon’s final dynasty, then shift directly to Cyrus II the Great. No royal record outside the Bible names a “Darius the Mede.” The question, therefore, is how Daniel’s statement meshes with the extant inscriptions while maintaining full confidence in Scripture’s inerrancy. Biblical Data Points to Be Harmonized 1. “Received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31) implies appointment, not a dynastic claim. 2. He is “the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede” (Daniel 9:1). 3. He rules “over the realm of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 9:1) and sets 120 satraps (Daniel 6:1-2). 4. His reign is linked with the “first year of Cyrus king of Persia” (Daniel 6:28), showing overlap or close succession. Synchronizing the Biblical Timeline Ussher’s chronology (Annales Vet. Test., 1650) places Babylon’s fall in 539 BC. Daniel’s transition from Belshazzar to Darius occurs that same year; Daniel serves under Darius and then into Cyrus’s first year (538 BC; cf. Ezra 1:1). Historical Candidates for “Darius the Mede” 1. Cyrus the Great holding a Median throne‐name. 2. Gubaru (Gobryas), the general who captured Babylon for Cyrus. 3. Cambyses II, Cyrus’s son, briefly installed as vice-regent. 4. Cyaxares II, a Median king preserved in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Cyrus as Darius • The Behistun Inscription gives Darius I multiple titles; ancient Near Eastern monarchs often held dual ethnonyms. • The Old Persian root dārayavauš (“he who holds”) corresponds linguistically to Aramaic dārjāwēš (Darayawesh/Darius). • Daniel 6:28 can be translated, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian,” allowing apposition. • Isaiah 45:1 already calls Cyrus God’s “anointed,” showing a biblical willingness to grant him elevated titles. Objection: Daniel 9:1 describes Darius as “by descent a Mede,” whereas Cyrus is unmistakably Persian. Yet Cyrus’s mother, Mandane, was Median—making him ethnically half-Median and politically heir to Media (Herodotus, Histories 1.107-130). The mixed-lineage descriptor fits. Gubaru/Gobryas • The Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382) records that “Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle” (17 Tishri 539 BC). • One month later, “Ugbaru died.” Before his death he appointed governors (satraps) in Babylon—paralleling Daniel 6:1-2. • The Chronicle never brands him “king,” yet Daniel only says he “received the kingdom,” possibly as vice-regent. • Xenophon (Cyrop. 4.6.1) depicts Gobryas as an elderly Median noble—a perfect match to “about sixty-two.” Objection: Lack of royal title in extant texts. However, Persian practice allowed temporary kingship; Nabonidus’s own Cylinder calls Cyrus “king of the four quarters” before the formal accession year. Cambyses II • A Demotic papyrus (Berlin J 202) refers to “Cambyses, king of Babylon” in Cyrus’s first year, 538 BC. • He fits an administrative kingship of Babylonia while Cyrus campaigned elsewhere. • Yet Cambyses was in his late twenties—not “sixty-two”—and Persian, not Median. Therefore unlikely. Cyaxares II • Xenophon (Cyropaedia 8.5.19) lists a “Cyaxares the Mede” who cedes his throne to Cyrus after Babylon’s capture. • Antiquities writers such as Berossus and Africanus omit him, creating scholarly debate. • If real, he would have been the final Median monarch, age compatible with Daniel’s note. Objection: Silence in Babylonian Chronicles. Still, Xenophon’s narrative, written c. 370 BC, is closer to the events than many later compilations and portrays a Median ruler subordinate to Cyrus—aligning with a “received” (not conquered) kingdom. Archaeological Corroboration • Nabonidus Cylinder (Sippar) confirms Belshazzar as coregent, validating Daniel’s sequence. • Cyrus Cylinder (line 17) reports that when Cyrus entered Babylon, local rulers “kissed his feet” and he appointed governors—mirroring Daniel’s swift governmental reorganization. • The Babylonian Verse Account describes Gobryas as military commander over Babylon. • Athenian historian Aeschylus (Persae 765-775) recalls Median leadership before Persian ascendancy, preserving collective memory of a Median ruler. Chronological Harmony 1. 16 Tishri 539 BC – Euphrates diverted; Babylon falls. 2. 17-Tishri – Gobryas installs satraps. 3. Murder of Belshazzar fulfils Daniel 5:30. 4. 11 Marheswan – Cyrus ceremonially enters Babylon; regnal year counted from Nisan 538 BC. 5. Darius/Gobryas administers Babylon for the interim “first year” recorded in Daniel 9:1. 6. By 538/537 BC Cyrus consolidates; Daniel transitions to Persian court (Daniel 6:28). Theological Implications Accurate prophecy validates divine authorship (Isaiah 46:10). Daniel’s pinpoint precision on Belshazzar (unknown to critics until 1854’s Nabonidus Cylinder discovery) argues equally for an historically grounded Darius. Christ invoked “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), endorsing the book’s credibility; therefore, believers rightly trust the record even while scholarship catches up. Conclusion All viable historical reconstructions place an aged Median figure in authority between Belshazzar’s death and Cyrus’s formal accession. Whether identified as Cyrus in a Median throne-name, the governor Gobryas (Gubaru), Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, or a short-lived co-regent, the convergence of cuneiform records, Greek histories, and biblical precision shows no contradiction. Daniel 5:31 stands as a reliable historical statement, its veracity vindicated progressively as archaeological light intensifies—just as the God who “changes times and seasons; He removes kings and establishes them” (Daniel 2:21) said it would be. |
    |