Dariuses and Cyrus and Herodotus (or, did Abraham Lincoln exist?)
Continuing the theme from the previous post, here are a variety of views on Darius the Mede.
From biblehistory.net:
According to historical records a man named Gubaru, a Mede, was appointed by King Cyrus to be ruler in Babylon at this time. Gubaru was born in 601 B.C. which would make him 62 years old when he invaded Babylon. Exactly the age found Daniel 5:31.
The Babylonian record of Darius the Mede's conquest of Babylon is given below:
"In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.
On the 14th day, Sippar was taken without a fight. Nabonidus then fled for his life.
On the 16th day, Gubaru (Darius the Mede) the leader of Gutium along with the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any opposition. Later they arrested Nabonidus when he returned to Babylon.
On the third day of the month of Arahshamnu, Cyrus marched into Babylon, and they laid down green branches in front of him. The city was no longer at war, Peace being restored. Cyrus then sent his best wishes to the residents living there. His governor, Gubaru, then installed leaders to govern over all Babylon."
This account says that Darius the Mede installed sub-governors in Babylon. The Bible says the same thing, and the prophet Daniel was one of them....
From ccel.org:
The noble author of "The Times of Daniel" has thrown much "life" into the subject by his elaborate defense of a theory which we now proceed to state and discuss. Cyrus the Great he thinks identical with Nebuchadnezzar the First, and Cambyses with his son Nebuchadnezzar the Second; the exploits of the hero of Herodotus and Xenophon are attributed to the former, while Coresh becomes but a minor character, contemporary with Darius the Mede, after whom he is said to reign, and before Darius the son of Ahasuerus. This view also brings the story of Esther within the period of the captivity of Babylon. It has always been a subject of great difficulty with commentators on Daniel, to reconcile the scriptural narrative with those of both Herodotus and Xenophon. The majority finding this impossible, have decided in favor of one or the other of these historians; and the best modern writers usually prefer Herodotus....
Some writers have supposed Cyrus to be identical with this Darius the Mede; and Archbishop Secker acknowledges some ground for such a conjecture. "The first year of Darius the Mede is by the LXX. translated the first year of Cyrus," 2 and the Canon of Ptolemy favors the identity. "Now all agree, as far as I have seen," says Wintle, "that the year of the expiration of the captivity, or the year that Cyrus issued his decree in favor of the Jews, was the year 212 of the era of Nabonassar, or 536 A.C.; and there is no doubt but Darius the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, according to Daniel, from the capture of Babylon, till this same first year of Cyrus, or till the commencement of the reign alloted by Scripture to Cyrus the Persian." "The Canon certainly allots nine years' reign to Cyrus over Babylon, of which space the two former years are usually allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede, by the advocates of Xenophon." (Prelim. Dissertation.) Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias all agree in the original superiority of the Medes, till the victories of Cyrus turned the scale, and gave rise to the Persian dynasty. At the fall of Babylon, and during the life of Darius, the Medes are mentioned by Daniel as superior, but at the accession of Cyrus this order is reversed, and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, all assign the foremost place to the Persians.
encyclopedia.com says this:
Otherwise unknown outside biblical tradition, it is likely that this Darius has been confused with Cyrus the Persian....
biblicalhorizons.com outlines several views:
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....
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 62 years old, which is too old for a son of Cyrus at this time. Second, all evidence indicates that Cambyses hated 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, 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. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed). 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 cunieform 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."...On the problems with the Gubaru identification, see William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede: An Update," Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (1982):229-247. (This article is not Shea's latest word on the Darius problem....)
With all other candidates eliminated, and Cambyses evidently secure as vice-ruler, the only viable candidate left appears to be Cyrus himself. This identification has been ably argued by William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian Setting," Andrews University Seminary Studies 29 (1991):235-257.
bibleinsight.com makes the following comments:
Darius the Mede was the overall king of the Medo-Persians at the time of the fall of the Babylonian Empire and at that time Cyrus (a Persian) was in his first year as the king of Persia. (The reigns of both kings being restarted following the fall of the Chaldeans - refer the inference of Dan 9:1)....
The father of Darius the Mede, stated either as 'Ahasuerus' or 'Xerxes' in Daniel 9:1, should not be confused with either the subsequent Darius the Persian or Ahasuerus mentioned in the book of Esther.
atheists.org takes a somewhat different view:
Apart from the fact that every schoolboy knows that Babylon actually fell to Cyrus the Persian, and the modest inconvenience resulting from the fact that "Darius the Mede" never existed, the only serious flaw in the above passage concerns the number of satraps in the Persian Empire.
As one sees in the passages quoted above, the author of Daniel thought there were 120 satraps in the empire. But according to the Behistun Rock inscription (Column 1, paragraph 6) which was carved during the reign of Darius the Great (the Persian king, 522-486 B.C., who actually organized the Persian Empire into satrapies) there were only twenty-three.
Is it possible that a prophet living through the collapse of the Babylonian Empire would not know that it was Cyrus, not Darius, a Persian, not a Mede, who was responsible?
It may be argued, however, that Cyrus did not deal with Babylon directly, but may have had a Median general named Darius do the job for him. According to this view, the Book of Daniel reflects the immediate contact with the conquerors (under "Darius the Mede") and not with the highest level of imperial government (Cyrus).
The problems with this are several. First of all, the Book of Daniel gives the impression that "Darius the Mede" is in complete control (e.g., Dan. 6:25-26). Who but the "King of Kings" would have the authority to organize an entire empire?...
Because the author of the Book of Daniel thought the Median kingdom succeeded the Chaldean, he has Babylon fall to a semi-fictitious "Darius the Mede" I say "semi-fictitious" because it is apparent that the late author of the Book of Daniel has confused a real Persian monarch — Darius Hystaspis, who had to reconquer Babylon in 521 B. C. and again in 515 — with the original conquerer, Cyrus. That the author has a garbled knowledge of history is further shown by his mistaken notion that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), instead of vice versa.
To lay "Darius the Mede" to rest for once and for all, one may observe that the archeological evidence leaves no space at all for a ruler of Babylon between Nabonidus and Cyrus. Archeologists have found numerous contract-tablets from the period in question. The dates of the tablets pass directly from one dated 10 Marchesvan in the 17th year of Nabonidus, to one dated 24 Marchesvan in the accession year of Cyrus the Persian.
But what about an older source? Josephus says something different:
In The Antiquities of the Jews (10:11), Josephus repeats the stories about Daniel, including the story of the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar (the biblical, not scholars' spelling) but with some significant divergences. Josephus says that Nebuchadnezzar was followed not by Belshazzar but by Evil-merodach ("his son"), then Neglissar, then Labosordacus--for a total period of nearly 59 years--and finally by Belshazzar, who Josephus says was also called Nabonidus. Josephus also identifies Darius the Mede and Cyrus, as the conquerors of Babylon. He says Darius was the son of Astyages, a king of the Medes. Josephus apparently used another source besides Daniel and combined the two, both expanding and contradicting parts of Daniel.
infidels.org argues that the story was convoluted even one century after it happened:
Little more than a century after the conquest of Babylon, the story already was becoming confused. Modern historians' version of these events are based upon the 6th-century B.C.E. sources: Nebuchadrezzar was followed by Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk ruled for a total of only about seven years, not 59. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and was never the king. The story of the insanity of Nebuchadrezzar was probably adapted erroneously from accounts of the strange actions of Nabonidus. And as Till pointed out, no ruler named Darius the Mede was involved in the conquest of Babylon. A Persian general named Ugbaru led the troops who first entered the city. Nabonidus was captured soon after and was either executed or given a minor official post. The accounts conflict. The records make no mention of Belshazzar in connection with the city's occupation.
The ruler of the Persians and the Medes was Cyrus II the Great. He was the son of Cambyses, grandson of Cyrus I, according to Cyrus's own account. He defeated the last king of the Medes, Istuwigu (his Babylonian Chronicle name), called Astyages in later texts. The defeat is recorded both by the Chronicle and by The Dream Text of Nabonidus, attributed to that king. Neither text claims any family relationship between Cyrus and Astyages. Amelie Kuhrt warns against other sources, such as Xenophon's Cyropaedia, as suspect. Finally, Kuhrt describes the Persian Verse Account, a poem attacking Nabonidus and praising Cyrus. It "lampoons Nabonidus's oppressive rule and lampoons his pretensions to wisdom to the point of making him appear a crazed despot" (Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IV, p. 123). Kuhrt adds, "It is possible that the first part of the poem had already been composed in Nabonidus's reign to express popular discontent and was later manipulated for their own purposes by the Persians." The Babylonian Chronicle also mentions eccentric behavior by Nabonidus. So we have two contemporary texts that claim strange behavior by Nabonidus, plus the later Qumran text that Everette mentions that attributes a period of insanity to Nabonidus. Additionally, no contemporary sources give any hints that Nebuchadrezzar was insane. Set against this is the claim in Daniel, repeated in The Antiquities of the Jews, that Nebuchadnezzar was insane; Nabonidus's eccentricity is never mentioned.
The errors of both Daniel and Antiquities raise very serious doubts about their credibility. The fact that the origin of Daniel is unknown and that Antiquities was written 600 years later and is based partially on Daniel, while contradicting it upon the city's last monarchs, makes them worthless for purposes of historical scholarship.
So there are obviously a number of questions about the accuracy of Daniel. Yet there are surprisingly few questions about the accuracy of other texts:
Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).
Of course, the atheists could argue that this is the Church's fault:
Well into the time of Aquinas, the first of the sanctified to adopt Aristotle, Greek and Roman literature was taboo. While ample evidence exists that Irish monks copied many ancient manuscripts, there is less reason to think that they read, understood, or learned anything from them. Often these monks sanitized the texts by littering the pages with generous amounts of Biblical allusions.
So when the learned scholars refer to the writings of Herodotus, how are they certain that they are not referring to the writings of a Catholic monk? Actually, it seems that higher criticism can be applied to everything:
Biblical criticism is a part of the historic process. The Jewish texts, once the infallible basis of history, are now tested by the libraries of Babylon, from which they were partly drawn, and Hebrew history sinks into its proper place in the wide horizon of antiquity. The finding of the Rosetta stone left us no longer dependent upon Greek, Latin or Hebrew sources, and now fifty centuries of Egyptian history lie before us. The scientific historian of antiquity works on the hills of Crete, rather than in the quiet of a library with the classics spread out before him. There he can reconstruct the splendour of that Minoan age to which Homeric poems look back, as the Germanic epics looked back to Rome or Verona. His discoveries, co-ordinated and arranged in vast corpora inscriptionum, stand now alongside Herodotus or Livy, furnishing a basis for their criticism. Medieval archaeology has, since Quicherat, revealed how men were living while the monks wrote chronicles, and now cathedrals and castles are studied as genuine historic documents.
The immense increase in available sources, archaeological and literary, has remade historical criticism. Rankes application of the principles of higher criticism to works written since the invention of printing (Kritik neuerer Gesc/iichtsschreiber) was an epoch-making challenge of narrative sources. Now they are everywhere checked by contemporary evidence, and a clearer sense of what constitutes a primary source has discredited much of what had been currently accepted as true. This is true not only of ancient history, where last years book may be a thousand years out of date, but of the whole field. Hardly an old master remains an authoritative book of reference.
Hardly anything:
At what point does the Bible begin to present historical fact? The sons of Adam mentioned by Name in Hebrews and by Jesus are not literal? How about Noah, mentioned by Jesus and Peter? Was Joseph literal? Was Israel in Egypt? Was there an Israel? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? Julius Caesar? Richard Nixon?
As for me, I'm still waiting for evidence that proves the existence of North Dakota.
Comments