Why is Darius the Mede's identity debated among scholars in Daniel 5:31? Scriptural Data Daniel 5:31: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.” Daniel further places him over “a kingdom divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (5:28), calls him “son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede” (9:1), and dates events to “the first year of Darius” (9:1; 11:1). He is distinct from the later Persian “Darius the Persian” (Nehemiah 12:22). Historical Setting: Babylon, 539 BC Cuneiform tablets (e.g., Nabonidus Chronicle, col. III, lines 15-16) fix Babylon’s fall to 16 Tishri (= 12 Oct.) 539 BC. Cyrus II of Persia entered the city shortly after. Daniel presents Darius the Mede as ruler immediately after the capture and before Cyrus’ public reign (Daniel 6:28, margin: “or ‘in the reign of Darius—and in the reign of Cyrus’”). This “intermediate” rulership is the primary historical puzzle. Why the Debate Arises 1. No extant extra-biblical text yet names a “Darius” ruling Babylon between Nabonidus and Cyrus. 2. Later Achaemenid inscriptions reserve the name “Darius” (Old Persian Darayavahuš) for rulers beginning with Darius I Hystaspes (522 BC). 3. Secular historians (Herodotus, Berossus, et al.) list no Median king after Astyages, whereas Daniel implies a Median monarch subordinate to, yet distinct from, Cyrus. Major Proposed Identifications 1. Cyaxares II (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.5; 4.5) • Xenophon describes a Median “Cyaxares the Younger,” maternal uncle of Cyrus, who ceded authority to him. If Cyaxares bore the throne-name “Darius,” Daniel 5:31 harmonizes with Xenophon and preserves an otherwise lost regnal name. • Strength: explains Median ethnicity, senior age (62), and joint rule (Daniel 6:28). • Weakness: Herodotus omits Cyaxares II; no cuneiform confirmation yet. 2. Ugbaru/Gubaru (Gobryas) the General • Nabonidus Chronicle: “Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.” Eleven days later Ugbaru “died.” • Some scholars equate Ugbaru (Akk. GUB-a-ru) with Gubaru/Gobryas, later named governor of Babylonia and eber nari (CIS VI 34). If “Darius” is an honorific (Akk. dâru, “royal, lasting”), Daniel could be using his throne-name. • Strength: Ugbaru actually takes the city. Governor status aligns with Daniel 6:1-2 (“set over the kingdom 120 satraps”). Age is unknown. • Weakness: Chronicle’s Ugbaru dies within weeks; Gubaru governs for years—perhaps two individuals with similar names. 3. Cyrus the Great under a Throne-Name • “Darius” might be a Median-Persian title meaning “holder of the scepter.” Daniel 6:28 could translate, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” • Strength: solves absence of separate extrabiblical record. • Weakness: Daniel 9:1 explicitly distinguishes Darius “by descent a Mede” from Cyrus “the Persian.” Cyrus was Persian, not Mede (Herodotus 1.91). 4. Cambyses II (son of Cyrus) as Coregent • Several Akkadian texts call Cambyses king of Babylon while Cyrus remained king of lands (BM 35420, Cambyses Year 1). If Cambyses’ throne-name in Babylon were “Darius,” and his mother were Median, he could match Daniel’s description. • Strength: documented coregency. • Weakness: Cambyses was likely in his 20s, not 62; he was Persian. 5. Darius I Hystaspes Retrojected • Critics once claimed a late, erroneous insertion. Yet the Dead Sea Daniel scrolls (4QDan^a, 125-100 BC) already read “Darius the Mede,” destroying the hypothesis of a post-Hellenistic redactor. Chronological Coherence within Scripture Daniel’s own date formulae dovetail: • “First year of Darius” (9:1) ≈ 538 BC aligns with Jeremiah’s 70-year exile ending (Jeremiah 25:11-12). • “Third year of Cyrus” (10:1) ≈ 536 BC; two years after Darius’ first year, matching Cyrus’ documented Year 3. Archaeological Corroboration • Existence of unique throne-names is supported by the Behistun Inscription, where Darius I lists pretenders each adopting regal names (DB I.10-12). • Multi-tier governance is illustrated in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (509-494 BC), showing satrapies paralleling Daniel 6:1-2’s administrative schema. • The Cyrus Cylinder (lines 17-19) records Cyrus appointing governors over Babylon, consistent with Daniel’s immediately functioning bureaucracy. Theological Significance 1. Fulfilled Prophecy: Isaiah 13:17 foretold, “I will stir up the Medes against them,” centuries before Babylon fell. Daniel records that fulfillment by naming a Median ruler. 2. Covenant Continuity: Daniel 9 links Darius’ first year to Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy, anchoring God’s faithfulness to literal history. 3. Apologetic Value: Each unresolved historical question has repeatedly tilted toward Scripture as new data surface (e.g., Hittites, Belshazzar). The Darius debate is expected to resolve similarly. Why Still Unresolved? • Median-Babylonian strata were recycled for later construction; only a fraction of administrative tablets survive. • A six-month interim rule (as some reconstructions suggest) yields scant epigraphic “footprint,” easily lost. • Scholarly presuppositions often dismiss Scripture prematurely; yet gaps of evidence are not evidence of absence. Conclusion The debate persists because secular records are fragmentary and because “Darius” functions as either a throne-name or a short-lived coalition king whose cuneiform dossier remains undiscovered. Scripture presents a coherent, internally consistent portrait of a real Median sovereign governing Babylon immediately after its 539 BC fall. Every archaeological trend since the 19th century has narrowed, not widened, the gap between Daniel and the spade. With the same confidence afforded fulfilled prophecy, believers expect future discoveries to place Darius the Mede firmly in the catalogs of world history, vindicating once more the God who “changes times and seasons; He removes kings and establishes them” (Daniel 2:21). |
    |