Darius the Mede

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Latent (Talk | contribs) at 02:30, January 14, 2021. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media
predecessorAstyages
reignca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC
successorCyrus the Great
fatherAstyages
motherunknown
birthca. 602 BC
deathDecember, 538 BC
spouseunknown

Darius the Mede is a character appearing thrice in the biblical Book of Daniel. 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" with skeptics claiming him to be fictional and "historical harmonizers" suggesting that this is simply another name for a real historical individual.

This subject is further complicated by Josephus simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of Astyages king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that was. Meanwhile the broadly used "Father of History" also oft called "the Father of Lies" in his dramatic recount, records that Astyages had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to Cyrus by force of arms (Histories 1.109.3, 1.129.4). Yet Herodotus' account stands in direct opposition to Xenophon's far more extensive and detailed book on the subject, which was written about 60 years later and was constantly studied by Alexander the Great. The Cyropaedia provides a natural solution to the question of the existence and identity of Darius the Mede. But with the only extant clay tablets and Ptolemy's Canon seeming to support the direct passage of power to Cyrus II and the Behistun Inscription references to Cyaxares being questionable as to whether the Cyaxares in the Inscription is Cyaxares I, father of Astyages or Cyaxares II his son, 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.

PLEASE NOTE THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION!

Arguments for Fictional

It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of Darius the Mede to be purely fictional and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes[1] is generally presented as evidence that the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.

Arguments for Cyaxares II

In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather Astyages, Cyrus II the Great, while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle Cyaxares II as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity Cyrus campaigns with Cyaxares II at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of Babylon. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which Cyrus the Great returns to the capital city of Ecbatana in Media and presents Cyaxares II with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives Cyaxares II's daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father Cambyses I.

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 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.

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[2] or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the 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[3][4][5] Barnes Notes[6] & the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.

Finally even Saint Jerome asserts that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II, son of Astyages,[7] leaving Benson to conclude "so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [Jerome's] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after Cyrus."[8] Alexander's love of the Cyropaedia and thereby Aristotle's recommendation show acceptance of the identity of Cyaxares II by heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.

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.”[9] 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,”[10] and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”[11] 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.[12] 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”

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.[13] 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.””[14] 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.”

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).[15][16][17] 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.”[18] 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

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.

In Daniel 10 through 11

External Links

https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/

Resources

  • [1]Steven D. Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014).
  • [2]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.
  • [3]Xenophon, Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus, translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.

References

  1. ↑ Barnes Commentary, Daniel 6:1, Section 2 - "Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers." [4]
  2. ↑ Ptolemy's Canon[5]
  3. ↑ Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [6]
  4. ↑ Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[7]
  5. ↑ Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [8]
  6. ↑ Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[9]
  7. ↑ Jerome, Commentariorum in Danielem libri III<IV>, 820-21.
  8. ↑ Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [10]
  9. ↑ John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.
  10. ↑ Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.
  11. ↑ George Wesley Buchanan, The Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.
  12. ↑ Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.
  13. ↑ Anderson, Darius the Mede, 3–5.
  14. ↑ 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.
  15. ↑ [11]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.
  16. ↑ Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 199–200.
  17. ↑ 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.
  18. ↑ Josef Karst, ed., Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar, vol. 5 of Eusebius Werke (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&oldid=1721231"