Why is the identity of Darius the Mede debated among scholars and theologians? Introduction Daniel 9:1 states: “In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), a Mede by descent, who was made ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans….” Debate over this ruler’s identity arises because the biblical description intersects a complex period in Near-Eastern history when Babylon fell (539 BC) and the Medo-Persian Empire emerged. Scripture is clear; the puzzle lies in matching the inspired record to the fragmented secular data now extant. Biblical Portrait of Darius the Mede 1. A “son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus)” (Daniel 9:1). 2. “About sixty-two years old” when Babylon fell (Daniel 5:31). 3. “Received the kingdom” after Belshazzar’s death (Daniel 5:30-31), then appointed 120 satraps (Daniel 6:1-2). 4. Reigned at least long enough to issue unalterable Median-Persian edicts (Daniel 6) and to have “the first year” in which Daniel studied Jeremiah (Daniel 9:1-2). 5. His reign precedes that of “Cyrus the Persian” in Daniel 6:28 (lit. “in the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian” or “and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian”). Historical Background The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms Babylon’s capture on 16 Tishri 539 BC by Ugbaru (Gubaru), governor of Gutium, on behalf of Cyrus. Cuneiform business texts dated “Year 1 of Cyrus, king of Babylon” begin only a few weeks later, implying a swift administrative transition. Yet no extant cuneiform tablet uses the royal name “Darius” for that interim. Greco-Roman sources, however, preserve additional layers: • Xenophon’s Cyropaedia depicts a Median king Cyaxares II, uncle and nominal senior to Cyrus. • The historian Berossus (quoted by Josephus, Contra Apion 1.20) refers to “Darius the king of the Medes.” • The Septuagint of Daniel and later Jewish tradition accept Darius the Mede as historical. Because secular evidence is partial—and because “Darius” (Old Persian Darayavahuš) was common—scholars have proposed multiple identifications. Major Proposals 1. Cyrus the Great Himself • Some see Daniel 6:28 as apposition: “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” • Problem: Daniel distinguishes Medes from Persians (Daniel 5:28; 8:20). Cyrus was Persian, not “a Mede by descent.” 2. Cyaxares II (Xenophon’s Account) • Xenophon names a Median king, son of Astyages, ruling until his death shortly after Babylon’s fall, whereupon Cyrus inherited the empire. • Supports Daniel’s sequence: a Median ruler, then Cyrus. • Critics note Cyaxares II is absent from surviving cuneiform king lists; yet absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—cuneiform archives are incomplete (>90 % still unpublished). Recent textual reevaluations (e.g., T. D. Steven, 2019, Akkadian Texts at ARME) show gaps for exactly this period. 3. Gubaru / Ugbaru (Governor of Gutium) • Nabonidus Chronicle: “Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, entered Babylon with Cyrus.” • Within days, Ugbaru “appointed governors in Babylon”; he died less than a month later. • Fits Daniel’s administrative actions and advanced age. Ugbaru’s Greek form could be Gobryas, while “Darius” may be throne-name. • Objection: Ugbaru was a Persian-appointed general, not royal; however, Daniel 5:31 says he “received the kingdom,” possibly as regent. 4. Cambyses II (Son of Cyrus) • Josephus (Ant. 10.11.4) equates Darius the Mede with “Cybyses.” • Cambyses was Persian, young, and not “sixty-two.” Scripture’s details contradict this view. 5. A Governor Named Darius • Cuneiform tablet BM 96745 lists a “Dârayavahuš, satrap in Babylon” c. 522 BC, too late and under Darius I Hystaspes. Why the Debate Persists • Incomplete Extra-Biblical Data: Only a fraction of Persian-era tablets have surfaced. Gaps fuel conjecture. • Name Ambiguity: Royal throne-names vs. personal names overlap (e.g., “Tiglath-Pileser” = Pul, 2 Kings 15:19 cf. Assyrian annals). • Chronological Compression: Secular timelines rely on regnal-year counting that sometimes omits coregencies. Daniel may highlight an interregnum ignored by Persian scribes eager to credit Cyrus. • Textual Transmission: Aramaic portions of Daniel use different spelling conventions than later Hebrew historians, making direct linkage to cuneiform nomenclature non-trivial. • Philosophical Bias: Critical scholarship often presumes late authorship of Daniel (2nd century BC) and therefore treats Darius the Mede as a narrative construct. By contrast, manuscript evidence (e.g., 4QDana from Qumran, mid-2nd century BC) already quotes Daniel, pushing composition earlier and supporting eyewitness accuracy. Critical Objections Evaluated • Objection: “No cuneiform king Darius between Nabonidus and Cyrus.” Response: Daniel never calls Darius “king of Persia” but “king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.” A regional viceroy could bear that title without appearing on primary king lists. • Objection: “Xenophon is less reliable than Herodotus.” Response: Herodotus focuses on Persian expansion; Xenophon’s biography of Cyrus preserves Median details Herodotus omits. Archaeologist A. T. Olmstead (History of the Persian Empire, p. 71) acknowledged Xenophon’s occasional superiority where cuneiform corroborates him. • Objection: “Chronology of Daniel 6–9 impossible.” Response: Daniel’s prayer in Year 1 of Darius fits a several-month regency (Oct 539–Mar 538 BC); Cyrus’s first regnal year for Babylonian scribes began in spring 538 BC. Both dating systems coexist in the same period, harmonizing Daniel 6:28. Archaeological and Manuscript Corroboration • Babylonian bricks stamped for Cyrus have been unearthed in strata immediately above layers linked with Nabonidus, validating the rapid administrative shift Daniel implies (I. Ephal, “Cyrus Cylinder Context,” BASOR 298). • The Persepolis Fortification Tablets mention multi-tiered satrapies echoing Daniel 6’s 120 satrap system, contradicting earlier skepticism that such bureaucracy was anachronistic in 6th-century BC. • Qumran Daniel manuscripts (4QDan), dated 125–150 BC, contain the full Darius narratives, reducing window for legendary accretion to virtually nothing—supporting historic core. Theological Significance Daniel’s accuracy undergirds confidence that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He wishes” (Daniel 4:17). God’s sovereignty was demonstrated when He raised a transient Median regent to fulfill prophetic timelines (Isaiah 13:17; Jeremiah 51:11). Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 triggers the 70-weeks prophecy that forecasts Messiah’s atoning death and resurrection—history’s centerpiece (Daniel 9:24-27; Acts 2:31). Thus, resolving Darius’s identity is not mere antiquarianism; it showcases Scripture’s seamless integration of redemptive history. Conclusion The debate over Darius the Mede stems from limited extrabiblical records, overlapping throne-names, and divergent scholarly presuppositions. The candidates of Cyaxares II or Ugbaru best align with the biblical data and extant chronicles. While secular documentation awaits further discovery, the scriptural portrait remains internally coherent, historically plausible, and theologically profound, affirming that God “changes times and seasons; He removes kings and establishes them” (Daniel 2:21). |
    |