Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Yigal,

> Where did all this come from? Cyrus II (The Great) became king of the
> Persians in 559, and conquered Babylon in 539. His proclamation was issued
> in that year or the next. He died in 530 and was succeeded by his son
> Cambyses. Cambyses stabbed himself to death under strange circumstances in
> 522, which is when Darius took over. "Darius the Mede" is an invention of
> Daniel - there was no such king.

HH: There are other ways of handling the problem than declaring 
Darius the Mede a fiction.

John Whitcomb identified Darius the Mede of Daniel 6 with "Gubaru, 
the Governor of Babylon," a person known from inscriptions as Cyrus' 
governor over Babylon, who appointed sub-governors.
http://xxx.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/Whitcomb-darius.html

HH: Here is this same idea presented by the International Standard 
Bible Encyclopedia:
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2531

 In the original Persian it is spelled "Darayavaush"; in Babylonian, 
usually "Dariamush"; in Susian(?), "Tariyamaush"; in Egyptian 
"Antaryuash"; on Aramaic inscriptions, d-r-y-h-w-sh or 
d-r-y-w-h-w-sh; in Hebrew, dareyawesh; in Greek, Dareios; in Latin, 
"Darius." In meaning it is probably connected with the new Persian 
word Dara, "king." Herodotus says it means in Greek, Erxeies, 
coercitor, "restrainer," "compeller," "commander."

(1) Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:1; 11:1) was the son of Ahasuerus 
(Xerxes) of the seed of the Medes (Daniel 9:1). He received the 
government of Belshazzar the Chaldean upon the death of that prince 
(Daniel 5:30,31; 6:1), and was made king over the kingdom of the 
Chaldeans.

From Daniel 6:28 we may infer that Darius was king contemporaneously 
with Cyrus. Outside of the Book of Daniel there is no mention of 
Darius the Mede by name, though there are good reasons for 
identifying him with Gubaru, or Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, who 
is said in the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle to have been appointed by 
Cyrus as his governor of Babylon after its capture from the 
Chaldeans. Some reasons for this identification are as follows:

(a) Gubaru is possibly a translation of Darius. The same radical 
letters in Arabic mean "king," "compeller," "restrainer." In Hebrew, 
derivations of the root mean "lord," "mistress," "queen"; in Aramaic, 
"mighty," "almighty."

(b) Gutium was the designation of the country North of Babylon and 
was in all possibility in the time of Cyrus a part of the province of 
Media.

(c) But even if Gutium were not a part of Media at that time, it was 
the custom of Persian kings to appoint Medes as well as Persians to 
satrapies and to the command of armies. Hence, Darius-Gubaru may have 
been a Mede, even if Gutium were not a part of Media proper.

(d) Since Daniel never calls Darius the Mede king of Media, or king 
of Persia, it is immaterial what his title or position may have been 
before he was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans. Since the 
realm of the Chaldeans never included either Media or Persia, there 
is absolutely no evidence in the Book of Daniel that its author ever 
meant to imply that Darius the Mede ever ruled over either Media or 
Persia.

(e) That Gubaru is called governor (pihatu), and Darius the Mede, 
king, is no objection to this identification; for in ancient as well 
as modern oriental empires the governors of provinces and cities were 
often called kings.

Moreover, in the Aramaic language, no more appropriate word than 
"king" can be found to designate the ruler of a sub-kingdom, or 
province of the empire.

(f) That Darius is said to have had 120 satraps under him does not 
conflict with this; for the Persian word "satrap" is indefinite as to 
the extent of his rule, just like the English word "governor." 
Besides, Gubaru is said to have appointed pihatus under himself. If 
the kingdom of the Chaldeans which he received was as large as that 
of Sargon he may easily have appointed 120 of these sub-rulers; for 
Sargon names 117 subject cities and countries over which he appointed 
his prefects and governors.

(g) The peoples, nations and tongues of chapter 6 are no objection to 
this identification; for Babylonia itself at this time was inhabited 
by Babylonians, Chaldeans, Arabians, Arameans and Jews, and the 
kingdom of the Chaldeans embraced also Assyrians, Elamites, 
Phoenicians and others within its limits.

(h) This identification is supported further by the fact that there 
is no other person known to history that can well be meant. Some, 
indeed, have thought that Darius the Mede was a reflection into the 
past of Darius Hystaspis; but this is rendered impossible inasmuch as 
the character, deeds and empire of Darius Hystaspis, which are well 
known to us from his own monuments and from the Greek historians, do 
not resemble what Daniel says of Darius the Mede.

HH: Another suggestion I have heard is that Darius the Mede was a 
dynastic name for Cyrus himself. This theory was put forward by 
Donald Wiseman, and also by J. M. Bulman:

D. J. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (1965), pp. 9-16
J. M. Bulman, Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973) 247-67

HH: Here are a couple more suggestions:
http://www.nisbett.com/people/bp-darius.htm

Various modern attempts to identify this Darius have resulted in 
several theories, none of them free from difficulties. One theory 
equates him with Cambyses, Cyrus' son and successor, who ruled 
jointly with his father for a time; another equates him with Gobryas, 
the officer of Cyrus who actually took the city of Babylon, and may 
have ruled the conquered Babylonian kingdom under Cyrus for a year or 
so. Another explanation, plausible enough, is that Darius is another 
name for Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, who according to the Greek 
writer Xenophon was Cyrus' uncle and father-in-law, and whom Cyrus 
might have retained temporarily as a figurehead king to please the 
Medes. The fact that the Persian account of the fall of Babylon to 
Cyrus begins Cyrus' reign in Babylon immediately, without any 
intervening reign of Darius the Mede, does not contradict the 
Biblical narrative. Darius was evidently recognised as a ruler in 
Babylon by courtesy of Cyrus, while it was Cyrus who actually held 
the power (see Is 45:1). It was natural that Daniel, in direct 
contact with Darius, should speak of him as the "king" and mention 
his "first year" (Dan 9:1). It seems evident that we are to consider 
the accession year and 1st year of Darius the Mede as coinciding with 
the same years of Cyrus. The lack of conclusive evidence as to the 
identity of Darius the Mede must not lead one to question the Bible 
statements concerning this ruler, for future finds may clarify the 
problem, as archaeology has already done for Belshazzar, who puzzled 
earlier historians.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard