Darius, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus
Who was Darius the Mede?
In his commentary on the book of Daniel, The Handwriting On The Wall, (301-305) James Jordan writes:
Who was Darius the Mede? This question has vexed interpreters since the beginning of the Christian era. It is simplest to say that Darius the Mede is just another name/title for Cyrus the Persian, and to read Daniel 6:28 as follows:
“So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even [not “and”] in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”
This interpretation, which is perfectly coordinate with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the text, solves all problems very neatly, and it is the solution I have adopted. Older commentaries assume that Darius the Mede was the Median emperor Astyages, grandfather of Cyrus, who was conquered by Cyrus but in a friendly fashion. It is assumed that Cyrus allowed Darius/Astyages to take Babylon and rule it for a time before taking over himself. Or, it is assumed that Cyaxares II, son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus, is in view. This man, many older commentators say, ruled Babylon for two years, finishing out the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, before Cyrus took over and issued his famous decree.
Now it is true that the Medes had a great empire to the east of Babylon, and that they had friendly intercourse with both Babylon and Persia. Amytis, daughter of Astyages, was a wife of Nebuchadnezzar; indeed, Nebuchadnezzar built the famous hanging gardens for her. Mandane, another daughter of Astyages, married the Persian king Cambyses I and became the mother of Cyrus the Great. Thus, the hypothesis that Cyrus was working closely with his Median relatives in conquering Babylon, and would leave one of them temporarily in power over the city, is a possibility. There is, however, no evidence in any of the classical sources or recovered chronicles to suggest that either of these kings went to Babylon, was present at the sack of the city, and ruled there for a time. Thus, this hypothesis is built on sheer, totally unsupported speculation.
Some have suggested that Cambyses II, son of Cyrus, who was indeed left behind to rule Babylon while Cyrus made other conquests, is Darius the Mede. There are two problems with this. First, Darius was about 62 years old (Daniel 5:31 [Heb. 6:1]), which is too old for him to be a son of Cyrus at this time. Second, all evidence indicates that Cambyses disliked the Jews and blocked the building of the Temple, which does not square with Darius’s affection for Daniel and his proclamation of the supremacy of the God of Israel in Daniel 6.
In 1881, M. Ernest Babelon advanced the view that Darius the Mede was Gubaru, the governor of Babylon during the early Persian era. This theory was strengthened and given classical form by John C. Whitcomb in 1959. Recent discoveries have introduced several problems with this theory. First, references to Gubaru as governor of Babylon do not appear until the 4th year of Cyrus, and continue to the 5th year of Cambyses. The general that took the city of Babylon was also named Gubaru, but he died three weeks after the conquest of the city. It appears that a confusion between these two men lies behind the idea that Gubaru the Governor took charge of Babylon immediately after it was taken. Second, newly available cuneiform evidence makes it clear that Cambyses became vice-ruler in charge of Babylon only a few months after the conquest. It is impossible that there should be a third ruler, also called “king.” Moreover, if Gubaru were governor of Babylon, under Cambyses, who was under Cyrus, then what was the post Daniel was being considered for in Daniel 6? It seems clear that Daniel was being considered for the post of governor of Babylon!
With all other candidates eliminated the only viable candidate left appears to be Cyrus himself. This is rather clearly implied in Daniel 11:1–2, where Darius the Mede is said to be the first of the Persian kings.
Daniel 9:1 says that Cyrus/Darius was of Median ancestry and was son of Ahasuerus. “Ahasuerus” is a throne-name, not a personal name, meaning “Chief of Rulers.” As such it can refer as a title or throne-name to any of the preceding Median kings, from whom Cyrus was partly descended. Since the Medes preceded the Persians, and were culturally dominant over them, we are not surprised to read of the “laws of the Medes and Persians” in Daniel 6. Initially at least, the Medes predominated over the Persians, culturally, in the empire of the Persians.
Darius/Cyrus is said to be about 62 years old when he received the kingdom from God (Daniel 5:31). This is the only place in the Bible where the age of a Gentile king is provided. It is clearly provided here to make a link with the 62 weeks of years in Daniel 9:25. Though they are not parallel in detail, there is a typological connection between the 70 years of Babylonian dominance and the 70 weeks of years of world-imperial dominance: Seven years before Darius/Cyrus was born, then 62 years, and then a seventieth year during which the events of Daniel 6 took place — Daniel’s tribulation and elevation typologically prophesying those of Jesus during the 70th week.
Now we can ask the question: Why doesn’t Daniel simply call him Cyrus the Persian to start with? We can answer the question by noting that Isaiah 13:17 and Jeremiah 51:11 and 28 predict that Babylon will be destroyed by the Medes. Why don’t these passages predict that Babylon will be destroyed by the Persians? Because in Isaiah’s day, Persia hardly existed and such a prediction would have made no sense. By the time of Jeremiah, a reference to Persia could have been understood, but Jeremiah wanted to link with Isaiah’s prophecy, so he spoke of the Medes. And since Persia had joined with Media, and the Medes were culturally more ancient and dominant until the time of Cyrus himself, a prediction of Median conquest is entirely accurate. Thus, when Cyrus conquered Babylon in fulfillment of prophecy, he did so as “Darius the Mede.” Cyrus was a transitional figure; it was Cyrus himself who brought about the transfer of emphasis from the Medes to the Persians, so that the “Medes and Persians” in Daniel 6 became the “Persians and Medes” by the time of Esther. With this transition in mind, and with the Biblical prophecy as background, we can understand why the vision of Daniel 10–12 is dated in the 3rd year of Cyrus (10:1), yet refers back to the 1st year of Darius (11:1), even though these were the same person.
James I of England was originally James VI of Scotland, and after becoming king of England, he continued to be James VI of Scotland. It would be appropriate to write that on such and such a date, James VI of Scotland ascended the English throne; later on one would refer to him as James I of England, that being his higher title.
Jordan refers to his biblical chronology study from 2001, which has now been published as a book, Darius, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus in the Bible.
To get some idea of how important this king was in the plan of redemption, take a look at the “Creation” structure of the prophecy concerning Cyrus in the book of Isaiah on the Bible Matrix blog.
