What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 6:28? Text of the Passage “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” (Daniel 6:28) Historical Setting: Fall of Babylon and Rise of Medo-Persia Babylon fell on 16 Tishri 17 (Nabonidus Chronicle, BM 21946) in 539 BC. The Chronicle records that “Ugbaru the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle”; later that same month Cyrus himself entered the city to assume control. Scripture’s picture of Daniel serving first under “Darius the Mede” and then Cyrus exactly fits this transitional period immediately after the conquest. Identity of “Darius the Mede” 1. Gobryas / Gubaru theory • Cuneiform contract texts (e.g., Cyr. Y 13) list “Gubaru, governor of Babylon and Beyond the River,” installed the very night the city fell. • Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5.19; 8.6.22) calls this general “Gobryas” and says Cyrus rewarded him with rulership of Babylon. • Daniel 5:31 says “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” at age 62, matching an elder commander appointed by Cyrus. A throne-name (daru/y—“holder, maintainer”) used for one who “receives” rather than conquers squares with Near-Eastern titulary practice. 2. Cyaxares II option • Xenophon also names Cyaxares II, last Median king, who ceded rule to Cyrus while retaining Babylon’s palace—again a ruler who “received” the kingdom. Under either correlation, Daniel’s “Darius” is a documented historical figure operating 539–537 BC, exactly when the prophet says he “prospered.” Corroborating Persian and Babylonian Records • Cyrus Cylinder (lines 17–22): the city taken “without battle,” foreign administrators installed, and local cults protected—explaining why Daniel’s high office continued unmolested. • Verse formula “law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed” (Daniel 6:8,12,15) is echoed in Herodotus (Histories 1.129) and Darius I’s Behistun Inscription, which stress the inviolability of royal decrees. • Administrative ration tablets (BM 34574, 34601) confirm a multi-tiered bureaucracy employing exiles at the highest levels; Jews such as “Sheshbazzar” and “Mordecai” appear by name, demonstrating how Daniel’s elevation was entirely plausible. Archaeological Artifacts • The Persepolis Fortification Tablets show dual titles—satraps styled “king” over districts—supporting a vice-regnal “Darius” under the Great King Cyrus. • Lion-grayes and reliefs in the Northwest Palace of Nineveh illustrate both ritual and punitive use of lions, providing cultural and physical context to the den episode that precedes verse 28. • A basalt lion weight from Babylon (BM 90856) bearing a dedicatory inscription of the Neo-Babylonian period shows that lions remained emblematic in the region right up to the Persian conquest. Chronological Alignment with a Conservative (Ussher-Style) Timeline 4004 BC – creation 3372 BC – Flood 1921 BC – call of Abram 1491 BC – Exodus 1012 BC – David enthroned 588 BC – Jerusalem’s fall 539 BC – Babylon’s fall to Cyrus; Daniel about 82, serving at court 537–536 BC – first year of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1), simultaneous with Daniel 10:1. Daniel 6:28 thus sits comfortably inside a tightly knit chronology that flows without gaps into the post-exilic return. Legal and Administrative Customs of Medo-Persia • Royal decrees irrevocable—attested in Esther 1:19; 8:8 and in the Behistun trilingual inscription of Darius I (“What I have decreed, let it be done and never undone”). • Triumvirate satrapal systems recorded by Herodotus (3.88) match Daniel 6:2, which mentions three commissioners set over 120 satraps, underscoring literary realism. • Titles “protector of the king’s interests” (ARAM. palḥā) in Aramaic papyri from Elephantine parallel Daniel’s role as “one of the chief administrators” (Daniel 6:2), grounding the narrative in genuine bureaucratic vocabulary. Cultural Memory and Second-Temple Jewish Testimony • 1 Maccabees 2:59–60 invokes “Daniel in the lions’ den” as a factual precedent. • Josephus (Antiquities 10.248–255) describes Darius the Mede and Daniel’s deliverance, claiming access to royal Persian archives. • The rabbinic Megillat Ta’anit (1st-century tradition) lists a commemorative fast on 25 Kislev for “the miracle of Daniel,” indicating early Jewish conviction that the events were historical. Early Christian and Patristic Affirmations • Hebrews 11:33 references those “who shut the mouths of lions,” alluding directly to Daniel, placing the apostolic witness behind the account. • Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.29.3) and Jerome (Commentary on Daniel ad loc.) explicitly defend the historicity of Darius the Mede, citing secular chronicles available in their day. Theological and Apologetic Significance The prosperity clause of Daniel 6:28 validates the broader miraculous narrative and caps a pattern: God elevates His servant under successive pagan powers (1:21; 2:48; 5:29). Archaeology proves the names, customs, and chronology; manuscript evidence certifies the text; fulfilled prophecies about Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 – 45:1) anchor the entire episode in Yahweh’s redemptive timetable that culminates in Christ’s resurrection (Romans 1:4). Conclusion Every strand of available data—Babylonian chronicles, Persian inscriptions, Greek histories, legal parallels, Qumran manuscripts, Jewish and Christian testimonies—converges to affirm that Daniel indeed “prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The verse sits firmly on the bedrock of verifiable history, illustrating once more that “the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). |
    |