Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Darius the Mede and

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ronald Monestime <wbsc400 AT gmail.com>
  • To: <thebodyofjesusthenazoraion AT juno.com>, Hebrew Mailing List <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Darius the Mede and
  • Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:09:07 -0400


Hello Eva Ritsema,I have done an more in depth study on the issue of "Darius
the Mede" as part of my work on the "Seventy Weeks of Daniel" (Dan 9:24-27),
in order to confirm the said date when it was written (Dan 9:1), especially
against the popular (non-believing) theory that it was written by an
uninformed Jew long after the fact, mainly due to a supposed wrong naming of
the Medo-Persian ruler here. (See my summary of findings in this blog post:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.html
)It turns out that the view that identifies "Darius the Mede" with Cyrus the
Great is indeed the one that is most valid. It is supported by several
conclusive customary, historical and linguistic factors. I'll state them as
succinctly as possible here:Customary-Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) indicated the
that name "Darius" was a actually surname/title (i.e., a "throne name") that
meant "Doer/Worker" (Histories 6:98.3)-though Cyrus was the son of "Cambyses
I, the Persian", the semitic use of son does not necessarily mean the
immediate son of a father, but can also refer to any descendant. (The writer
of the book of Daniel was more than likely a Jew and/or a semite and thus
would have been familiar and comfortable with using "son" as such. His
audience also would readily understand this.) It is in this way that Jesus of
Nazareth was said to be the "son of David" and not solely, strictly the "son
of Joseph". So the mention of Darius the Mede (Cyrus) as the "son of
Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Mede" is not automatically an error. (It has
been demonstrated that the same thing is done by this author of Daniel in Dan
5:2 with Belshazzar who was actually the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar)-As
Herodotus also points out that "Xerxes" was also a surname/title (= "throne
name") which meant "Warrior" (Histories 6:98.3), then it can be seen that
since "Ahasuerus" is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek "Xerxes," then this
ancestor was not being referred to by his actual name but by his throne
name.Historical-In the Jewish Historical/Apocryphal book Tobit (originally
composed in Aramaic), there is a brief mention in the final verse (14:15), of
the destruction of Nineveh. This is a historical event that had taken place
in 612 B.C. It is also said in this passage that at that time the king of
Babylon united with the king of the Medes in order to overthrow this great
city. What is significant in this passage is that the names of these two
kings who united together are given in the (standard version) Greek
manuscripts of this text as “Nebuchadnezzar and Asuerus [=Ahasuerus],” but
historically, the Babylonian and Median kings that had united to overthrow
Nineveh are cited as being: “Nabopolassar and Cyaxares.” F. Zimmerman (The
Book of Tobit, 123) was on a right [though parallel] track when he
suggested/concluded that 'The Greek scribes indulged their fancy by
substituting more familiar names as Nebuchadnezzar and Asuerus [=Ahasuerus]
for the unfamiliar ones in the Gk.[=Greek] texts' However, it instead is the
case that these kings were instead being referred to by their throne names.
(Josephus shows that such titular substitutions were quite common (e.g.
Antiquities 11:6.1 [#184] (though his chronology, and thus identifications,
are faulty here; cf. also Plutarch, Life of Artaxerxes, 1-2)So this
Ahasuerus/Xerxes ancestor could easily have been this Cyaxares I (625-585
B.C.), the great-grandfather of Cyrus. He was also from the royal, Median
lineage of Cyrus's mother Mandane thus the applicable addition of "the Mede".
However if Cyrus is simply referred to in a non-titular way, it is quite
acceptable to call him Cyrus, the Persian (father's side) (Dan 6:28 vs.
titular mentions in 5:31/11:1).-Why make reference to Cyaxares I, Cyrus's
great-grandfather here? Well it was also customary among semites to make such
ancestral references/identifications to a notable and prominent ancestor.
(That is why, e.g., Jesus was called the "son of David" and not, e.g., "the
son of Melchi" (Luke 3:24).) Cyaxares I was indeed such a "worthy" ancestor
as it is noted of him that he was the first king of the Medes, the one who
“established the Medes’ universal empire,” (Diodorus Siculus, 9:20.4) and
thus it has been said that he was the one who “saw the ascendancy of the
Medes to their greatest heights.” (Herodotus 1:106; Yamauchi, Persia and the
Bible, 53)Linguistic-the waw in Dan 6:28 could easily be explicative and thus
restating with more precision: "...Darius, that is Cyrus the Persian"So in
summary: The opening statement in Dan 9:1a which said that “Darius, was the
son of Ahasuerus, of the seed [lineage] of the Mede,” was actually a
reference to King Cyrus who was the descendant of the great Median King:
Cyaxares I. His "first year when he was caused to be made king (cf. Waltke
and O’Connor, IBHS, 482 [30.2.1d]) over the realm of the Chaldeans" and thus
when this prophecy was given, was thus: ca. 539/38B.C.Hope this helps!More
details and documentation is provided in my forthcoming book on Dan 9.
Summarized on this blog
post:http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.htmlRonald

Monestimewww.njkproject.info/wbschttp://njkproject.blogspot.comwww.njkproject.info

> From: thebodyofjesusthenazoraion AT juno.com
> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:08 +0000
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Darius the Mede and
>
> Could ya'll comment on this hypothesis
>
> Stephen Miller's appropriation of D. J. Wiseman's hypothesis that "Darius
> the Mede" and Cyrus the Great were the same person, a highly speculative
> theory. This "solution" to the absence of nonbiblical references to "Darius
> the Mede" is based on the claim that Daniel 6:28, which says that "Daniel
> prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian" has
> been mistranslated and should read that "Daniel prospered in the reign of
> Darius, even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." By claiming that the
> Aramaic waw traditionally translated with the English conjunction and could
> have meant even or namely in this verse, Wiseman and proponents of this
> interpretation "solve" the problem of Darius's historicity by making this
> just another name for Cyrus, who was mentioned in several extrabiblical
> records contemporary to the time when Daniel presumably served as an
> important official in the sixth-century BC Babylonian and Persian
> governments. We will soon see that this int
> erpretation of Daniel 6:28 is tenuous at best.
>
> Eva Ritsema
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> $500,000 Life Insurance
> No Exam Necessary. Same- day coverage as low as $6.month. Free Quotes
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4bc8b1d8e53c4664adst02duc
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail & Messenger are available on your phone. Try now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724461



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page