Changes

But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established.  Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference "Cyaxares" twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]].  Therefore the academic community remains divided.

But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established.  Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference "Cyaxares" twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]].  Therefore the academic community remains divided.

Below in separate sections we shall examine each of the three instances with the finer details.  But immediately we shall examine the cases for each suggested individual.

It must also be noted that a host of other individuals have been proposed as the identity of ''Darius the Mede'', the case for synergy with [[Cyaxares II]] remains the most historically plausible outcome.

 

This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:

This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:

* Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.

* Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.

* "Darius the Mede received (Aramaic ''qabel'') the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus" (Dan. 5:31) as  

* "Darius the Mede received (Aramaic: ''qabel'') the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus" (Dan. 5:31) as  

* Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.

* Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.

As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], [[Ctesias]], the Cannon of Ptolemy<ref>Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]</ref> or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''<ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]</ref><ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]</ref><ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]</ref> ''Barnes Notes''<ref>Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]</ref> & the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.

As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], the reconstructed fragments of [[Ctesias]], the [[Uruk King Lit]], the [[Ptolemy's Canon|Cannon of Ptolemy]]<ref>Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]</ref> or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''<ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]</ref><ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]</ref><ref>Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]</ref> ''Barnes Notes''<ref>Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]</ref> & the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.

 

 

==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==

==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==

Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”<ref>John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.</ref> The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”<ref>Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.</ref> and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”<ref>George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.</ref>

Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”<ref>John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.</ref> The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”<ref>Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.</ref> and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”<ref>George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.</ref>

Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.<ref>Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.</ref> It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus.  

Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.<ref>Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.</ref> It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus.  

===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===

===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===

This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.<ref>Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.</ref> For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””<ref>C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.</ref> A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”  

This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.<ref>Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.</ref> For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””<ref>C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.</ref> A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”