The repetition of these words does not indicate a separation of the Persian kingdom from the Median, but merely a distinction of rulers, one being a Mede and the other a Persian. The sentence construction allows interpretations that make Cyrus either a coruler with, or successor to, Darius.

Following is a summary and evaluation of the various views that have been held as to the identity of Darius the Mede. Prior to the age of modern archeology the book of Daniel posed a number of historical problems, most of which have satisfactorily been solved (see Introduction, p. 747). Of the remaining problems, the question of the person and office of Darius is at present the greatest. However, the remarkable way in which other historical statements of the Bible have been confirmed justifies the confidence that this problem will also be solved.

Higher critics offer their simple but unacceptable explanation that the historical parts of Daniel are legendary and that Darius is a fictitious character invented by a 2d-century author of the book. The fact that secular confirmation of certain Biblical statements of history cannot be produced is no reason for questioning the historical reliability and accuracy of Holy Writ. Many Bible statements formerly challenged by critical scholars have since proved to be in full harmony with the facts of ancient history as revealed by the spade of the archeologist.

Following is a summary of Scripture statements concerning Darius:

 1. Darius was a Mede by descent (chs. 5:31; 9:1; 11:1).

 2. He was “the son of Ahasuerus” (ch. 9:1).

 3. He was “made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (ch. 9:1), hence, “took [or ”received“ (RSV)] the kingdom” (ch. 5:31).

 4. He was “about” 62 years old at the time Babylon was captured (ch. 5:30, 31).

 5. Only his first regnal year is noted (chs. 9:1; 11:1).

 6. He appointed “an hundred and twenty princes” (literally “satraps”) over the whole kingdom, with “three presidents” as their superiors (ch. 6:1, 2).

 7. Cyrus either followed Darius or reigned at the same time (ch. 6:28).

 From this evidence the following picture of Darius emerges: After Babylon’s fall the Babylonian Empire was ruled by Darius, perhaps during the first part of the reign of Cyrus, as counted in Babylon. Darius, a son of Ahasuerus (Greek, Xerxes), is called a Mede in contrast with Cyrus, who is called a Persian (ch. 6:28). He was already 62 years of age when Babylon was conquered, and presumably died shortly afterward.

No known non-Biblical sources except those based on Daniel, such as Josephus, mention a Darius as ruler of the conquered Babylonian Empire prior to Darius I (522-486 B.C.). Future finds may bring to light direct references to Darius the Mede. In the meantime Biblical interpreters must seek to identify Darius the Mede with one of the historical figures of the time of Cyrus who was known by another name. Josephus claims that the Darius of the book of Daniel “had another name among the Greeks” (Antiquities x. 11. 4). Of the several identifications proposed the following merit examination:

 1. That Darius the Mede was Astyages, the last ruler of the Median kingdom before Cyrus took over the empire. Astyages was the son of Cyaxares I, whose name, it is claimed, can be identified linguistically with that of the Ahasuerus of ch. 9:1, although Ahasuerus elsewhere stands for Xerxes (see on Esther 1:1). Since Astyages began to reign about 585 B.C., he would have been an old man at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., as Darius is reported to have been (ch. 5:31). This fact gives some plausibility to the suggested identification.

There are serious objections to this identification. According to Greek sources Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus. When Cyrus was a youth Astyages made several attempts to kill him. Later, when vassal king over the Persian tribes, Cyrus rebelled against his overlord and deposed Astyages in either 553/552 or 550 B.C., making him governor of Hyrcania, south of the Caspian Sea. Not even the Greek sources hint that Astyages was associated with Cyrus at the capture of Babylon in 539. Further, it is questionable whether Astyages, who was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and was the great Babylonian king’s brother-in-law, was still alive at that time. It is therefore highly unlikely that the two can be equated.

 2. That Darius the Mede was Cambyses, Cyrus’ son. Cambyses is mentioned in several cuneiform tablets by the title King of Babylon, as associated on the throne with his father Cyrus, whom these tablets term King of the Lands. However, his coregency with his father is the only factor in favor of identifying Cambyses with the Darius of Daniel. In all other respects Cambyses does not fit the picture as presented in the Bible.

He could not possibly have been 62 years of age in 539 B.C. He was not a Mede, but a Persian like his father. And he was not the son of Ahasueros. Because of these difficulties, the identification of Cambyses as Darius must be rejected.

 3. That Darius the Mede was Gobryas (the view most widely held). Gobryas, says Xenophon (Cyropaedia vii), was an elderly general who took Babylon for Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle, an important cuneiform document describing the fall of Babylon, mentions him. It says that “Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle” on the 16th of Tishri. After describing Cyrus’ entry into Babylon it also mentions a certain “Gubaru, his governor,” who “installed [sub-] governors in Babylon.” Furthermore, after recounting how the gods exiled to Babylon by Nabonidus were returned to their respective cities, the tablet states that “in the month Arahshamnu, on the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru died.” The next sentence is broken, and scholars disagree as to whether it refers to the death of Ugbaru or to the death of a royal personage. The next sentence mentions an official mourning held throughout the country for seven days.

Some have taken Ugbaru and Gubaru as variant spellings of the same name, representing Gobryas of the Greek sources. However, Ugbaru died in the month of Arahshamnu—either in the year of Babylon’s fall or in the next—while there was another Gubaru, who lived on for many years as governor over the satrapies of Babylonia and Greater Syria and later as father-in-law of Darius I, the Great, as attested by tablet documents. According to this view Ugbaru and Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle must be two different persons. The former, having taken Babylon, died soon after. The latter lived on as governor of Babylonia.

 Those who identify Darius the Mede with Gobryas and equate Ugbaru with Gubaru point out that Gobryas is reported to have taken Babylon, and that he virtually became ruler over Babylonia, hence could have been called “king,” although the contemporary records call him only governor. The fact that, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, he is reported to have appointed governors over Babylonia, seems to corroborate ch. 6:1, 2, where this work is attributed to Darius the Mede. The name Gubaru has also been explained as of Median origin. Also his earlier position as governor of Gutium, a province bordering on Media, seems to allow the possibility that he was a Mede.

Although this identification of Darius with Ugbaru (Gobryas) has more in its favor than the two previously mentioned, there are objections to this view. Gobryas is called a governor, not a king. Since he lived many years after the fall of Babylon, he must have been much younger than 62 years of age in 539 B.C.

 An alternative Gobryas theory, based on a reinterpretation of the Nabonidus Chronicle, proposes that Darius the Mede was not Gubaru, the later governor of the contract tablets, but Ugbaru/Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle, the governor of Gutium who took Babylon for Cyrus and died in Arahshamnu, not three weeks but a year and three weeks later. This would allow time for ch. 6 during his rule “over the realm of the Chaldeans” (ch. 9:1). For UgbaruGubaru the term king would be only a courtesy title; Cyrus, already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia before conquering Babylonia, was the de facto ruler of the whole empire.

 4. That Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. Compare the statements in PK 523, 556, 557 concerning Cyrus as the nephew and general of Darius with Xenophon’s claim that

  (1) Cyrus, Astyages’ grandson through his mother Mandane, had become acquainted with his uncle Cyaxares during the years Cyrus spent at the court of his Median grandfather (Cyropaedia i. 3. 1; 4. 1, 6-9, 20-22; 5. 2) ;

  (2) that Cyaxares followed his father on the throne as king of Media, after the latter’s death (i. 5. 2);

  (3) that when Cyrus had conquered Babylon he visited his uncle with gifts and offered him a palace in Babylon; that Cyaxares accepted the presents, and gave Cyrus his daughter as well as the kingdom (viii. 5. 17-20).

Although the details of the story as given by Xenophon cannot be accepted, it is possible that the Greek writer preserves correctly the tradition that Cyaxares was the last Median ruler, and that he was Cyrus’ father-in-law as well as an intimate friend of the great Persian. If these points can be accepted as historical facts, it can be assumed that Cyrus, upon rebelling against Astyages, permitted Cyaxares to rule as a shadow king to please the Medes. At the same time everyone in the kingdom would know that the actual sovereign was Cyrus, and that Cyaxares was a mere figurehead. In that case Darius the Mede may be identified with Cyaxares II, who, presumably, had come to Babylon at Cyrus’ invitation to act in an honorary capacity as king.

That Cyaxares II was advanced in age at the time of the fall of Babylon can be shown as follows, assuming Xenophon to be correct: Cyaxares II was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Cyrus himself was most likely at least 40 years old at the time, as is evident from the fact that his son, Cambyses, was mature enough to represent him in an official position during the next New Year’s Day activities. Hence Cyaxares II could have been 62 years old at the fall of Babylon, the age Daniel assigned to Darius the Mede. His comparatively advanced age—in a time when most people died young—may have been responsible for the fact that he did not survive the fall of Babylon very long. This would explain why Daniel mentions only his first regnal year. Xenophon reports nothing further concerning Cyaxares shortly after the conquest of Babylon.

 Daniel’s statement that Darius was the “son” of Ahasuerus should probably be understood as meaning that he was the “grandson” of Ahasuerus. That the Hebrew word for “son” may mean “grandson,” or an even more remote descendant, can be abundantly demonstrated (see on 2 Kings 8:26). The English form Ahasuerus is from the Heb. ’Achashwerosh, which might possibly be a rendering of Uvaxshtrah, the Old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, but not of Astyages.

 If after his arrival at Babylon, Darius became a special friend of Daniel’s, it is understandable that the prophet would date the visions received during this brief reign in terms of Darius’ regnal years (chs. 9:1; 11:1), rather than of the regnal years of Cyrus. However, after the one year credited to Darius, Daniel dated events in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign (chs. 1:21; 10:1).

Contemporary evidence that might shed light on this reconstruction of the history of Cyaxares II is ambiguous and meager. There is a possible reference to Cyaxares in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Since it is certain that Gubaru lived for many years after the conquest of Babylon, whereas Ugbaru died soon after, and a state mourning was provided for some high personage during the same month, it may be possible to see Cyaxares II in the Ugbaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Or, the name of Cyaxares may have been in the broken line which speaks about the death of a distinguished individual for whom a nationwide mourning was held. However, there seems to be an error in the first mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Either the name Ugbaru is a scribal error for Gubaru, or the title “governor of Gutium” was by mistake transferred by the author of the tablet from Gubaru to Ugbaru.

A second possible piece of contemporary evidence may lie in the double mention of a Cyaxares in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (on the Behistun inscription see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110). Among the several pretenders to the throne against whom Darius I fought were two who claimed to be of the family of Cyaxares. The Cyaxares in question may have been either Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, or possibly Cyaxares II, the father-in-law of Cyrus, and last shadow king of Media.

The foregoing summary makes evident that there are still many obscure factors in the solution of the problem of identifying Darius the Mede from historical and archeological sources. All things considered, however, this commentary favors the fourth view.