...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?
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.