Who was Darius the Mede?

In another (older) article, William Shea made a different proposal, namely that Darius the Mede refers to Ugbaru; the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus. By comparing the book of Daniel to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Shea provides four reasons for this proposal:

(1) Both were in Babylon that night.

Darius was in Babylon the night the last Babylonian king was slain (Dan 5:30-31). Ugbaru was also there because he was the general who conquered Babylon.

Since Cyrus was not in Babylon when Belshazzar was slain, Daniel 5:30-31 implies that Darius cannot be another name for Cyrus.

(2) Both were made king.

Darius was “made king” (Dan 9:1 - NASB); by implication, by Cyrus.

Ugbaru appointed governors. This implies that he also was king. After the conquest of Babylon, he probably was the military governor and was “made king” when Cyrus arrived in Babylon two weeks later.

(3) Both ruled only the Chaldean province (Dan 9:1).

In other words, they did not rule the entire empire.

This confirms that Darius is not another name for Cyrus because Cyrus ruled the entire empire.

(4) Both appointed governors (Dan 6:1-2).

As discussed above

CONCLUSIONS

Consequently, Shea proposes that Ugbaru took the throne name of Darius, by which he appears in the book of Daniel.

A possible objection to this proposal is that Ugbaru died only three weeks after he conquered Babylon. Shea continues to show that it is possible to fit the events of Daniel 6 into that period. This includes that Darius appointed governors quickly and in a very undemocratic style.

Shea’s explanation implies that Daniel received the prophecy in Daniel 9 (See Daniel 9:1) during the three weeks after Ugbaru conquered Babylon.

The narrow time frame may explain why historians have not found other evidence for Darius elsewhere in the Scriptures or in secular sources.

See here for a summary of Shea's article.

Who was Darius the Mede?

It is often claimed that there is no evidence of Darius the Mede outside the Bible in the book of Daniel. Those who claim this tend to accept the testimony of Josephus, writing in the first century ad, and tend to dismiss the testimony of earlier writers.

It is obviously true that the currently available evidence is sketchy; had there been no destruction of the ancient library at Alexandria in Egypt (destroyed 48 bc) and at Persepolis in Persia (destroyed 330 bc) we would doubtless have much more extra-biblical evidence.

A hint from Berossus, writing beginning of 3rd century bc

C. F. Keil in his commentary on Daniel quoting Berossus wrote:

"Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him [Nabonidus] margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land." (See page 1061 of https://archive.org/details/biblicalcommenta00keil9/page/n1057/mode/2up?q=Darius)

A comment is made on this in an article by Stephen Anderson and Rodger C. Young:

Nabonidus was between sixty-five and seventy years old when he became king [of Babylon] in 556 BC which means that he would have been between 99 and 104 years old when Darius Hystaspes ascended to the throne in 522 BC, if he were still alive (possible, but unlikely). In addition, the mention of King Darius is in the context of the fall of Babylon and before Berossus concluded his account of the reign of Cyrus, or even of the career of Nabonidus. Thus, Berossus seems to have believed that there was a King Darius who reigned concurrently with Cyrus and who had greater authority than Cyrus within the Medo-Persian Empire.

Evidence from Harpocration

In the same article of Anderson and Young:-

Valerius Harpocration was a lexicographer who wrote in the latter half of the second century AD and who was a tutor of the emperor Verus (reigned AD 161-169). He was associated with the great library at Alexandria and consequently had access to many ancient books that later were lost when the library was destroyed. His only surviving work is "Lexicon of the Ten Orators", a glossary to terminology used by Greek orators. The portion of Harpocration's work that is significant for the issue of Darius the Mede is his entry for the word "daric". Herodotus claimed that Darius Hystaspes invented the daric coin as a memorial to himself (Histories 4.166). By contrast, in Harpocration's entry for "daric," he wrote, "But darics are not named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes, but after a certain other more ancient king." This is the second reference that Keil cited as evidence, outside of the book of Daniel, for the existence of Daniel's "Darius the Mede" as a historical figure.

For further reading see the online article: "THE REMEMBRANCE OF DANIEL'S DARIUS THE MEDE IN BEROSSUS AND HARPOCRATION" by Steven D. Anderson and Rodger C. Young http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/darius.html

See also the wikipedia article on Cyaxares II which presents both sides of the argument as to whether he existed. If Cyaxares II did in fact exist then his story matches very closely the sketch of Darius the Mede we have in the book of Daniel.

Recently, Tom Finley, professor emeritus of Old Testament and Semitics at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, wrote an article on this subject.

He discusses three options for the identity of Darius the Mede, namely that he was:

• A certain Gubaru, whom Cyrus appointed governor of Babylon,
• A certain Cyaxares, whom Xenophon identified as the maternal uncle of Cyrus the Great, or
• Cyrus the Persian.

He concludes that, for the following reasons, Darius was an alternate name for Cyrus:

• Ancient Babylonian and Greek sources identified the king who conquered Babylon as Cyrus.
• Cyrus did not appoint Gubaru as king of Babylon. He appointed his son Cambyses in that position. Cyrus appointed Gubaru as governor of Babylon. And that was only several years after the conquest of the city.
• Xenophon describes how Cyrus organized the empire. Nothing indicates that Cyaxares was doing anything of substance in Babylon or that Cyrus was subject to Cyaxares as the real king of the Medo-Persian empire. Xenophon, like Herodotus and the Babylonian documents, ascribes to Cyrus what Daniel 6 ascribes to Darius the Mede.
• Most historians view Cyaxares as “wholly unhistorical.”
• Daniel 6:28 may be translated as: “Darius, that is, in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (a marginal reading found in an earlier edition of the NIV (2011)).
• Cyrus’ father was Persian but he married the daughter of the king of the Medes. This would make Cyrus part Persian and part Median. His Median ancestry follows the Jewish custom of tracing the ancestry of a person of mixed parents through the mother (cf. Ezra 6:3).
• Daniel never called Darius the king of the Medes but Cyrus is called “the king of Persia” (Dan 10:1).
• At Daniel 11:1, both ancient Greek versions (the Old Greek and Theodotion) substitute Cyrus for Darius the Mede.

From what I can tell in other answers, it is eluded to that Daniel is speaking to King Darius I. I would like to bring some evidence that the Book of Daniel was written around 600 BC (Dr. Bryan S. Rennie, REL 101: Understanding the Bible, Westminster University) to help us get back on track to finding out who this "Darius" truly is.

In the prophecy Daniel 11:1-4, he tells this "Darius" that there would be 3 more great kings and then a 4th king more powerful than his predecessors (Xerxes I: Encyclopedia Iranica, Xerxes). So if the Darius he is speaking with is King Darius I, wouldn’t the prophecy be more correctly worded “1 more king” rather than “3 more kings and then a 4th?” That would be after Cyrus' rule, about 500 BC, so that would put Daniel in a different era entirely. And the way he is speaking, he's talking from a perspective of about 600 BC (again referencing the fact that he is speaking of these rulers in future tense).

Now, the dates of Daniel’s prophecies have been debated many times to have been written in 200 BC and to be a scam rather than a prophecy. However, the research done by BibleArchaeology and History.com expresses just the opposite. The bronzed papyrus parchment for the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as some languages used in scholarly transcription date back to at least 150 BC. It is written in some forms called Qumran Hebrew, but mostly in Nabataean-Aramaic and New Greek which scholars say was not popular until that time (John C Reeves, Pursuing the Text). Latin and Arabic were also used. Thus, a popular supportive theory is that the documents were being transcribed from ancient languages hence the different levels of vocabulary and the fact that the many dialects in DS Scrolls were necessary to effectively translate what was being conveyed from the ancient languages in the original texts. 5 different Semitic languages and 7 Indo-Mediterranean languages died between the 7th and 4th centuries (LinguistList.com). And that's just what we know about. We don't know for sure which one Daniel spoke, but in light of this research, chances are high that it was a language put to death close to or by the time the DS scrolls were written. Alexander’s last will and testament was read and carried out between 221-146 BC (Roisman & Worthington - Ancient Macedonia). And because the DS Scrolls were transcriptions of ancient works rather than recent works the Book of Daniel would have been written at least 100 years before this era (DeadSeaScrollsOrganization) thus, qualifying at least the latter part of Daniel 11:1-4 as a prophecy.

There is plenty of legitimate, scholarly evidence in this post and outside of it to support Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 11:1-4 and its legitimacy. However, it is only enough to combat the myth that Daniel was written around 200 BC.

The Point – Based on the dating from this research for the Book of Daniel, Daniel was most likely NOT speaking with King Darius I in Daniel 11:1-4.

Other theories for consideration would be that the name Darius the Mede was a title rather than a name. Or that “Darius” is a rough translation for a different name noted in history. Also possible that it is the name of general rather than a king.

Dr. Steven Anderson wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on Darius the Mede. His conclusion that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II mainly derived from Xenophon’s book Cyropaedia. Xenophon was a student of Socrates, a soldier and a historian. Dr. Anderson believes that Cyrus had a coregency with Darius the Mede (Cyaxares II) his father-in-law then became sole king on the death of Cyaxares II. Dr Anderson goes on to give 8 major supporting arguments for his conclusion.

https://truthonlybible.com/2016/01/08/darius-the-mede-a-solution-to-his-identity/

We would probably have a more accurate and complete history of the Persian Empire if Alexander the Great had not burned the library of Persepolis upon defeating the Persians. As it is Persian history is written by Greek historians.

I personally believe that this so-called Darius the Mede is the Darius mentioned in Chapters 5, 6 and 11 of the Book of Daniel but the Darius mentioned in Chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel may be a different Darius. In Chapter 9, the Darius is said to be the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes. This statement naturally implies that while this Darius was of Median descent, he was naturalized into some other race; say Persian.
This Darius could possibly be Darius I in secular history and his first year would date about 522 BC when Daniel was probably well into his 90’s. In verse 23, Daniel is said to be highly esteemed, perhaps this because he has lived a long life of faith and devotion to God. There is disagreement on when the 70 years of desolation mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah began and ended but I believe the following scenario. In Daniel 9:17-18, Daniel is distress because there is no Temple in which to worship and the 70 years is nearing an end. In 522 BC, while work on the Temple had been started, the work had been stopped. It would be just 6 years before the rebuilt Temple would be finished in 516 BC (in the 6th year of the reign King Darius, Ezra 6:15, 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC, which I believe began the desolation spoken of in Daniel 9:2).
In Haggai Chapter 1, even though many Jews had returned to their land the land was unproductive (desolate) because the Temple had not been rebuilt. Therefore, if the Darius in Daniel 9 was Darius the Mede it would be about 538 BC and 20 years before the new Temple’s completion (not all that close). That is why I believe Daniel 9 is a different Darius (Darius I, the Great).

One theory I have encountered is that Cyrus the Great is Darius the Mede and that Daniel is alluding to Cyrus's Median ancestry in part because Jeremiah 51:11,28 and Isaiah 13:17 suggest the Medes would play a crucial part in the overthrow of Babylon. This requires a reinterpretation of Daniel 6:28, 'So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian' so that the 'and' read 'even the reign of Cyrus the Persian'.

The advantages of this reading are historically Cyrus was present shortly after the overthrow of Babylon as far as I can tell everyone agrees with this (including the Bible, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Cyrus Cylinder, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, and Xenophon of Athens).

Secondly, from what we know of Cyrus from Cicero and Dinon, a fourth century historian, Cyrus would have been about 62 years old when he entered Babylon (being born in 600 BC, the conquest of Babylon taking place in 539 BC and Cyrus dying in 530 BC aged 70). This agrees with Darius age according to Daniel 5:30.

Thirdly, Herodotus gives a mythical(?) account Cyrus ancestry, suggesting that he was the grandson of the Median king Astyages by his daughter Mandine and Cambyses. This would lend credence to the idea that a Mede was involved in the fall of Babylon.

I would see the main problem with this theory being that Daniel speaks of Darius and Cyrus (why does he choose to use both names?) (Daniel 9, Daniel 10).

But also Daniel calls Darius 'the son of Ahasuerus' (Daniel 9:1) clearly this would make Darius a Persian and born several years later than the fall of Babylon if this was true. It could be that 'Ahasuerus' was a title applied to a number of Median and Persian rulers and that in context it refers to Astyages this would make sense of the context that tells us that Darius was a Mede by descent!

At the risk of presenting an opinion, let me explain where I am coming from on this: On balance, and at present, I favour this reading because try to approach the Bible with an assumption that it is trustworthy and true, and because I feel this makes most sense of the evidence of the Bible and history. I cannot imagine a mere general in Ugbaru writing laws into the statute book of the Medes and the Persians nor am I convinced of the chronology of other suggestions.