What Should We Know about Darius the Mede?

Where Does Darius the Mede Appear in Scripture?

In Daniel 5:39, the kingdom is taken from Belshazzar after his blasphemous drinking from sacred vessels. The writing is on the wall, his kingdom is taken from him, and the way that Daniel reads, Belshazzar dies (Daniel 5:30), and the kingdom is given into the hands of Darius the Mede. This is the same Darius, it is assumed, that we read of in Daniel 6 and his encounter with the lion’s den.

There is another Darius, Darius I—also known as Darius the Great—who appears in Ezra. This is the Darius most known to history. He is the son of Hystaspes and ruled Persia from 521 to 486 B.C.

Another Darius is mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22. Many believe this could be a reference to Darius Codomannus who was the last Persian king who ruled from 336-331 and was ultimately defeated by Alexander the Great.

You can see, then, why it might be a little confusing to separate all of these leaders named Darius. Making all of this even more confusing. But there is quite a length of time between these leaders. And Daniel tells us that Darius the Mede took the throne when he was 62. Darius the Great doesn’t come into the picture until much later, and he was much younger when he ascended to the throne, so he cannot be identified as Darius the Mede. Therefore, we must conclude that there is a leader who “received the kingdom” named Darius the Mede. But history seems silent on this man.

History According to Babylon, Persia, and the Bible

Now, just because Babylonian or Persian history doesn’t square with biblical history, it doesn’t mean that we ought to discard the Scriptures. Secular history doesn’t automatically take precedence over sacred history. But from a historical perspective, it does tend to be more suspect—as it is assumed that there is a theological purpose for jumbling up history. This means that, at times, we are called upon to explain historical discrepancies.

In this instance, what do we do if there is no character known as Darius the Mede outside of the Bible? And that is partially what we find. Tom Finley gives us an apt summary of scholarship on this:

Ancient Babylonian and Greek sources identified the king who conquered Babylon as Cyrus, and Darius the Mede is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible or in ancient sources outside of the Bible, with the exception of Josephus (A.J. 10), who had knowledge of the biblical account. Thus, many argue that the author of Daniel made a blunder when he said that Darius the Mede “received the kingdom” of Babylon rather than Cyrus.

But why would Daniel have made this up? Was it to fulfill the prophecy from Jeremiah 51:11? That’s a compelling argument, but it doesn’t entirely answer questions of identity. Why name him Darius? Is Darius entirely fictional? This has led many to come up with various hypotheses as to the identity of this Darius the Mede.

What seems pretty certain from history is that in 539 BC, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered the Babylonians and took over the Empire. And Darius the Great (also of Persia) succeeded Cyrus but didn’t do so until 522 BC. This leaves us, then, with the difficulty of placing this Darius the Mede.

Who Was Darius the Mede?

As mentioned, one option is simply to say that Daniel was blundering his history—maybe connecting Jeremiah 51 and Darius of Persia. But this isn’t ultimately compelling, nor is it an option we want to take. If Daniel was telling the truth, and we believe he was, is it possible that Darius the Great appears in history with a different name? Here are a few options, and I’m indebted to the excellent work of Stephen Anderson here:

Darius the Mede is Gubaru/Gobryas/Ugbaru. Gubaru was appointed governor of Babylon by Cyrus, so some believe this might have been Darius. But there is no definitive reason why he should be known as Darius. Furthermore, Babylonian texts do not have him as the governor immediately after Babylon was conquered.

Darius the Mede is Cyrus. In this view, Daniel 6:28 should be translated as “during the reign of Darius, that is, during the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This view would certainly resolve the issue of saying someone other than Cyrus was “given the kingdom,” but the Scripture seems to make a clear distinction between Cyrus and Darius.

Darius the Mede as Cambyses II. Some cuneiform texts mention Cambyses II as a co-regent during the first years after the fall of Babylon. The idea of a co-leader could explain how Cyrus could be the one who took the kingdom and also how there was another one called king. The only problem with this theory is that there is no reason to identify Cambyses with Darius. Cambyses was considered a Persian.

Darius the Mede as Astyages. This theory has some attestation in the extra-canonical Bel and the Dragon. Herodotus listed this Astyages as the last of the Median kings. He had no son and was eventually deposed by Cyrus. But other historical records have Astyages dying before Cyrus began his conquest.

Darius the Mede as Cyaxeres II. Maybe Astyages did have a son. According to Xenophon, he did have a son, and Cyaxeres II was his name, and he should be identified as Darius the Mede. This was the view that many held (including Josephus) for centuries within the church. In this view, Cyaxeres and Cyrus were allies. One was the king of Media, the other of Persia. But this Cyaxares didn’t have an heir, and so after his death, Cyrus merged the two kingdoms into one.

Conclusion

What should we conclude from all this? I’m hesitant to identify any particular leader as also being known as Darius the Mede. But I am fairly certain that what happened was that when Cyrus took over the region and put in place another leader. Whoever this Darius the Mede is, he is a subordinate king. And as John Lennox helps us see, there is some plausibility for this even from the text itself:

This idea is supported linguistically: a) by the fact that Daniel 9:1 says that Darius was ‘made king’, using a passive verb rather than an active ‘became king’; and b) by the fact that Daniel 6:1 says that Darius ‘received the kingdom’—an unusual way of describing a conqueror. It is also argued that Daniel never refers to Darius as king of Medo-Persia, only as ruler of Babylon (Against the Flow, p. 196).

Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Tetra Images