Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?
  • Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:46:05 +0100

On 24/09/2004 11:48, Yigal Levin wrote:

...

As for your "there was no such king", arguments from silence are
dangerous. This Darius (son of Ahasuerus, 62 years old, according to
Daniel 5:30, 9:1), could have been Cyrus' co-regent or governor of
Babylon - perhaps to be identified with the Gubaru, governor of Babylon,
known from ancient records.


We have so many ducuments from Persian-period Babylon, Susa, Syria, Egypt
and other places, even without Herodotus, that to postulate a king,
otherwise unknown, based on a book written 300 years later or so, is not
reasonable.

Well, there is no real evidence that Daniel, or at least this part of it, was written 300 years later. (And Herodotus was written 100 years later.) In fact Daniel ties up so well with Herodotus, with the Persians capturing Babylon without warning while a feast was in progress in the city, that surely either they both witness to the same truth or one is dependent on the other. So why would the book of Daniel suddenly replace the well-known name of Cyrus by the obscure one of Darius the Mede, unless there was some truth in his story?

There is in fact some evidence that Darius was a secondary ruler. Although in chapter 6 he is called "king", in 5:31 and 9:1 there is the rather strange wording, "received the kingdom" and "was caused to reign" (Hophal of MLK) respectively, suggesting that he was king by appointment rather than by conquest. And is it really credible that an absolute monarch would not have been able to find a way to render null and void his decree that Daniel would be thrown into the lions' den? The story makes sense only if Darius had to be careful to preserve his reputation in the eyes of Cyrus. In other words, it makes sense if Darius was in fact a governor under Cyrus. Perhaps he was the Gobryas 1 or 2 of http://www.iranica.com/articles/v11f1/v11f1020.html, although from his age he could not have been Gobryas 3.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page