Changes

[[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes & Cyaxares II.PNG|450px|thumb|right| The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]

[[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes & Cyaxares II.PNG|450px|thumb|right| The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]

'''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]].  Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing "the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book": leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of "historical harmonizers" suggest that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure which is debated, but favours [[Cyaxares II]].

'''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]].  Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing "the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book": leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of "historical harmonizers" suggest that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure whose identity is up for debate, but most commonly favours [[Cyaxares II]].

John Whitcomb advocated that Daniel’s Darius was not Gobryas (Gubaru), governor of the Gutians, but a certain Ugbaru, a governor of Babylon whose name is found in several cuneiform texts.<ref>John C. Whitcomb Jr., ''Darius the Mede'' (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).</ref> However, this identification was abandoned after Lester Grabbe pointed out that Ugbaru did not become governor of Babylon until the fourth year of Cyrus, which does not fit the statements in Daniel that make Darius the king immediately after the capture of the city in 539 BC.<ref>Lester L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the ''Gestalt'' of Darius the Mede,” ''Catholic Bible Quarterly'' 50:2 (1988): 206–7.</ref> Whitcomb’s identification is therefore now generally discredited.

John Whitcomb advocated that Daniel’s Darius was not Gobryas (Gubaru), governor of the Gutians, but a certain Ugbaru, a governor of Babylon whose name is found in several cuneiform texts.<ref>John C. Whitcomb Jr., ''Darius the Mede'' (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).</ref> However, this identification was abandoned after Lester Grabbe pointed out that Ugbaru did not become governor of Babylon until the fourth year of Cyrus, which does not fit the statements in Daniel that make Darius the king immediately after the capture of the city in 539 BC.<ref>Lester L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the ''Gestalt'' of Darius the Mede,” ''Catholic Bible Quarterly'' 50:2 (1988): 206–7.</ref> Whitcomb’s identification is therefore now generally discredited.

===Darius as Cyrus===

===Darius as Cyrus===

The view that “Darius” was just another name of Cyrus was advocated by D.J. Wiseman.<ref>Donald J. Wiseman, “The Last Days of Babylon,” ''Christianity Today'' 2/4 (November 25, 1957): 7–10.</ref>  To support this identification, Wiseman and those who have followed him have argued that Daniel 5:31 should be translated as “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, ''that is'', in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This contrasts with the usual translations which give “. . . in the reign of Darius, ''and'' in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The difference centers on one word, the Aramaic (and Hebrew) conjunction ''waw'', (pronounced ''vav'' in modern Hebrew), which is usually translated “and.” Andrew Steinmann, who accepts Wiseman’s interpretation, points out the following Scriptures where the meaning “that is” must be taken for this conjunction: 1 Chronicles 5:26, Daniel 2:28, and Daniel 3:2.<ref>Steinmann, ''Daniel'', 293.</ref> One advantage of Wiseman’s interpretation is that it is in harmony with the authority that Darius must have had in order to issue a decree that no one could pray to any other king or god except to him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6–9), necessarily implying that he was the highest authority in the empire at that time. Another advantage is that, with this interpretation, Darius the Mede has not “disappeared from history” outside of the book of Daniel and works depending on it; his personage is remembered in all the ancient literature referring to Cyrus the Great.

The view that “Darius” was just another name of Cyrus was advocated by D.J. Wiseman.<ref>Donald J. Wiseman, “The Last Days of Babylon,” ''Christianity Today'' 2/4 (November 25, 1957): 7–10.</ref>  To support this identification, Wiseman and those who have followed him have argued that Daniel 6:28 which is normally cited as evidence that the two were contemporary, should be translated as: “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, ''that is'', in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” As stated, this contrasts with the usual translations which give “. . . in the reign of Darius, ''and'' in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The difference centers on one word, the Aramaic (and Hebrew) conjunction ''waw'', (pronounced ''vav'' in modern Hebrew), which is usually translated “and.” Andrew Steinmann, who accepts Wiseman’s interpretation, points out the following Scriptures where the meaning “that is” must be taken for this conjunction: 1 Chronicles 5:26, Daniel 2:28, and Daniel 3:2.<ref>Steinmann, ''Daniel'', 293.</ref> One advantage of Wiseman’s interpretation is that it is in harmony with the authority that Darius must have had in order to issue a decree that no one could pray to any other king or god except to him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6–9), necessarily implying that he was the highest authority in the empire at that time. Another advantage is that, with this interpretation, Darius the Mede has not “disappeared from history” outside of the book of Daniel and works depending on it; his personage is remembered in all the ancient literature referring to Cyrus the Great.

The problems with this identification may be listed as follows.  

The problems with this identification may be listed as follows.