Darius the Mede: Historical figure?
Who was Darius the Mede mentioned in Daniel 9:1, and is he historically verified?

Scriptural Foundation

“In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, a Mede by birth, who was made ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans ” (Daniel 9:1).


Biblical Profile of Darius the Mede

• Name and Ethnicity: “Darius” (prob. Old Persian dārayavahu, “the one who holds/maintains”) linked here to “the Mede,” not to later Persian kings.

• Lineage: “son of Ahasuerus” (Daniel 9:1) identifies a Median royal line distinct from Persian lineage.

• Age & Accession: “received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two” (Daniel 5:31).

• Sphere of Rule: Over “the kingdom of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 9:1) immediately after Babylon’s fall in 539 BC.

• Duration: At least one year (Daniel 11:1) and long enough to reorganize the empire into 120 satrapies (Daniel 6:1).


Historical Setting: Fall of Babylon, 539 BC

The Nabonidus Chronicle (lines 17–23) records that on 16 Tishri (12 Oct 539 BC) “Cyrus entered Babylon” and that “Gubaru, his governor, installed governors in Babylon.” No king called “Darius” appears in extant cuneiform, prompting scholarly proposals as to which known figure bore the throne-name “Darius” in Daniel.


Major Identification Proposals

1. Gobryas/Gubaru (Ugbaru)

• Role: Median general who led the night assault through the Euphrates channel (cf. Herodotus 1.191).

• Governor: Nabonidus Chronicle names him governor over Babylon after the conquest.

• Median Origin & Advanced Age: Xenophon (Cyrop. 4.6.3) calls him “an old man of Media,” compatible with Daniel’s “about sixty-two.”

• Darius as Throne-Name: Near-Eastern rulers often assumed new names on accession (e.g., Daniel 1:7; 2 Kings 23:34).

• “Received the kingdom”: Phrase aligns with Gubaru’s installation by Cyrus rather than independent conquest, matching Daniel 5:31.

2. Cyaxares II (Median king in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia)

• Lineage: Presented as son of Astyages, uncle to Cyrus—fits “of the seed of the Medes.”

• Co-Regency: Xenophon depicts Cyaxares’ ceding authority to Cyrus yet retaining titular kingship—harmonizes with Daniel 6:28 (“during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus,” lit. “and / even”).

• Historicity Objection Answered: While not in extant Babylonian texts, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; Median annals are nearly non-existent archaeologically.

3. Cyrus the Great under a Median Throne-Name

• Grammatical Note: The waw in Daniel 6:28 can be explicative (“that is”), yielding “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

• However, Daniel distinguishes Median and Persian realms elsewhere (Daniel 8:20), making this less likely.

4. Cambyses or Astyages

• Chronological and genealogical data conflict with Daniel’s details; conservative scholarship largely dismisses these.


Archaeological and Textual Corroboration

• Nabonidus Chronicle & Verse Account of Nabonidus: Confirm sudden Medo-Persian capture of Babylon without protracted siege, matching Daniel 5.

• Cyrus Cylinder (539 BC): Affirms policy of appointing local governors and respecting sub-kings, consonant with Darius’ administrative reforms (Daniel 6:1-2).

• Hillah Stele & Babylonian administrative tablets (BM 33041, BM 33097): List “Gubaru” as governor, demonstrating historic plausibility for a Median ruler subordinate to but distinct from Cyrus.

• Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDan^a, 4QDan^b, 4QDan^c; mid-2nd cent. BC): Contain Daniel 5–9 with the name “Darius the Mede” exactly as in the Masoretic text, showing transmission stability centuries before Christ.


Compatibility with the Biblical Timeline

Archbishop Ussher dates Creation to 4004 BC and the fall of Babylon to 539 BC. Daniel’s sixth-century presence dovetails with Ezekiel’s captivity chronology (Ezekiel 1:1-2). The synchrony validates Scripture’s internal consistency and chronology.


Answering Critical Objections

• “Lack of cuneiform ‘Darius the Mede’ ” – Scores of figures in Achaemenid administration remain nameless archaeologically (e.g., Nabonidus’ sons never once named in Babylonian contracts). A throne-name usable only in Babylon would evade broader inscriptions.

• “Median empire ended before Babylon’s fall” – The Nabonidus Chronicle describes Cyrus as “king of Anshan” in 546 BC; a residual Median structure could persist under a Median elder, precisely the scenario Daniel records.


Theological Significance

God “changes times and seasons; He removes kings and establishes them” (Daniel 2:21). Darius the Mede’s brief rule exemplifies divine sovereignty, paving the way for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25) that culminates in Messiah’s atoning death and confirmed resurrection “on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). The historicity of Darius strengthens confidence in the prophetic 70 weeks, fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, the risen Lord.


Conclusion

Darius the Mede was a real historical sovereign who ruled Babylon immediately after its 539 BC overthrow. The best harmonization of biblical, cuneiform, and classical data identifies him with Gobryas/Gubaru, Cyrus’ 62-year-old Median general installed as king-governor, or—with equal textual legitimacy—Cyaxares II, the final Median monarch cited by Xenophon. Either reconstruction vindicates Daniel’s accuracy, reinforcing the reliability of Scripture as God-breathed truth.

What lessons from Daniel 9:1 can we apply to our leadership roles?
Top of Page
Top of Page