Changes

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.”  

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

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

Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was who preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T & T Clark, 1848), 41–42.</ref><ref>Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.</ref><ref>Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. & ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1876), 36.</ref> These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”<ref> Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.</ref> This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.

Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T & T Clark, 1848), 41–42.</ref><ref>Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.</ref><ref>Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. & ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1876), 36.</ref> These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”<ref> Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.</ref> This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.

 

Harpocration was associated with the great library in Alexandria, and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” Harpocration wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes [Darius I Hystapses], 522-486 BC), but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of Cyaxares II in Xenophon, although the force of evidence implies that Xenophon’s Cyaxares was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel.

==In Daniel 5==

==In Daniel 5==

Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon.  While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.

Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon.  While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.