360 The Testimony, September 2000

Prophecy, History and Archaeology

The identity of Darius the Mede (1) Bill Form

HE BOOK of has long had a back- who acknowledge the final authority of the Lord ground of Biblical criticism. The reason Jesus, who said in his Olivet discourse: “When T for this is not to be found in the lack of ye therefore shall see the abomination of desola- historical information concerning the nature and tion, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in authorship of the book, but rather in the very na- the holy place . . .” (Mt. 24:15). It is evident from ture of the book itself. The claims these words that the Lord Jesus believed the au- to be a sixth-century-B.C. document, which sets thor of the book to have been Daniel the prophet, forth, amongst other things, a series of prophetic not some unknown author of the second or third visions that outline the course of world history centuries B.C., as misguided critics would have down to the time of the Lord Jesus Christ and us believe. beyond. Who then was Darius the Mede? My interest Such astonishing prophecies could not go un- in the subject dates back to September 1987 fol- challenged by the unbeliever, and such has been lowing the reading of this statement: the case. Beginning with the heathen philosopher “Whitcomb has suggested very plausibly that Porphyry (A.D. 233-304), and culminating in the Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, was the one higher criticism of the last two centuries, men who led the Persian troops to victory in Bab- have sought to escape the powerful and compel- ylon in 539 B.C. and died after the event, pos- ling evidence of fulfilled prophecy by maintaining sibly of wounds. Gubaru was then appointed that the book was written after the fulfilment of Governor of and the Region beyond the prophecies. the River, by Cyrus, a position he appears to This allegation has been backed by claims that have held for at least fourteen years, and was the book of Daniel contains historical errors which mentioned in the book of Daniel under the show that it was written many years after the designation of Darius the Mede. This theory time when it claims to have been written.* One has undoubted merit, being based upon an such allegation is that there was no such person accurate reading of the Chronicle as Darius the Mede mentioned in Daniel 5:31. rather than on secondary sources”.2 The following quotation adequately expresses This statement was a comment on a book the prevailing attitude: written by the American scholar Dr John C. Whit- “The references to Darius the Mede in the comb, Junior, entitled Darius the Mede: A Study in Book of Daniel have long been recognised as Historical Identification, published in 1959. After providing the most serious historical problem many years of searching I eventually managed of the book. . . The claim of the Book of Daniel to obtain a copy of Dr Whitcomb’s book, and Dr to be a work of history, written by a well- Whitcomb has kindly agreed to let me present his informed contemporary, is shattered beyond repair by this fiction of Darius the Mede . . . So far as Darius the Mede is concerned, we * The currently running series of articles by Brother have seen that there is no way of reconciling David Green entitled “Higher Criticism and the ” the Book of Daniel with assured history, and dealt with the book of Daniel in June and July 2000 (pp. all the efforts of the apologists, of whom the 234 and 268) and provided answers to various higher- critical objections to the historicity of the book.—T.B. present century has seen a new and plentiful 1. Darius the Mede and the Four Empires of the Book of Daniel, 1 crop, definitely fail”. H. H. Rowley, pp. 9,59,175. These are bold words. However, the historicity 2. Introduction to the Old Testament, R. K. Harrison, p. of the book of Daniel cannot be doubted by those 342. The Testimony, September 2000 361 arguments in reduced form in this short series B.C., since he was sixty-two in the autumn of articles, for which I thank him. These follow of 539 B.C. when he received the kingdom of the same order as that adopted by Dr Whitcomb Babylon after the death of (5:31). himself: 3 His political power “In presenting our proof for this identification, He is said to have been “made king over the we shall first set forth the Biblical information realm of the Chaldeans”, and events are dated concerning Darius the Mede and Cyrus the to the first year of his reign (9:1). The Hebrew Persian (in the Book of Daniel). This will be expression strongly suggests that he was not followed by a presentation of the historical the absolute monarch of the Persian Empire, evidence for the career of Gubaru the Gover- but rather a subordinate. However, in spite nor of Babylon as gathered from the Babylo- of his subordinate position with regard to nian cuneiform documents of that era. Next, the ruler of the entire Persian Empire, Cyrus the various objections to the identification of the Great, he did exercise vast administrative Darius the Mede with Gubaru the Governor powers within the realm of the Chaldeans. of Babylon will be considered, along with According to Daniel 6 it was Darius the two major alternative identifications. Our the Mede who appointed 120 satraps in the discussion will conclude with the presentation kingdom of Babylon, and three presidents, of of six arguments for the historical accuracy whom Daniel was chief. He was addressed, of the sixth chapter of the Book of Daniel, “King Darius, live for ever”, and had the which contains the account of Darius the power to execute a royal interdict that none Mede” (p. 3).† could ask any petition of god or man for In the remainder of this article I give the Biblical thirty days except of him. In accordance with information regarding Darius the Mede and the the laws of the and the Persians, this historical information about Gubaru, or could not be changed, even by himself. He as he is sometimes called. God willing, in the had power to command that a number of his second part I will deal with the objections and the subjects with their wives and children be cast two major alternative identifications, and in the into a den of lions, and to make a decree that third part with the arguments for the historical “all people, nations, and languages, that dwell accuracy of Daniel 6. in all the earth”, that is, “in every dominion of my kingdom”, should “tremble and fear The Biblical evidence for Darius the Mede before the God of Daniel” (vv. 25,26). A full understanding of the problems involved in 4 His personal characteristics identifying Darius the Mede necessitates first of all Daniel 6 reveals Darius as being a ruler of great a careful analysis of the information about him in administrative ability. He had the discernment the book of Daniel. It is to be noted that the book to see “an excellent spirit” in Daniel and thus of Daniel gives far more information about his appointed him as chief president. He was will- personal background than that of Belshazzar or ing to follow the advice of his counsellors, but even Nebuchadnezzar, for he is the only monarch too easily permitted his own vanity to ensnare in the book whose age, parentage and national- him in their trap. However, this momentary ity are recorded. Although he is presented, as is lapse in character is offset by his marvellous Belshazzar, in terms which suggest subordina- loyalty to Daniel in the hour of his peril, his tion to a still higher authority, it is evident that remarkable faith in the Lord’s ability to deliver Darius had a far more powerful control over the Daniel from the lions, and his acquiescence to kingdom of Babylon than the profligate Belshaz- zar. We give the information provided under a number of headings: † Arguments for the identity of Darius the Mede with 1 His office Gobryas were put forward previously in The Testi- In Daniel 6 he is called ‘king’ twenty-eight mony by Brother Fred Mitchell (Aug. 1964, p. 258), times. and Brother Philip Edmonds (Mar. 1992, p. 100; Apr. 2 His personal background 1992, p. 139), both under the title “Darius the Mede”. Brother Mitchell based his article on Whitcomb’s He bore the same name as Darius king of book, Brother Edmonds gives a more general view of Persia (Ezra 4:5). His father’s name was Ahasu- the issues and concludes that Darius the Mede was erus, and he is stated to be “of the seed of the a governor of Babylon appointed by Cyrus, possibly Medes” (Dan. 9:1). He was born about 600 Gobryas.—T.B. 362 The Testimony, September 2000

P e r s i a n E m p i r e

Persian Empire under Cyrus and Cambyses Great satrapy of "Babylon and the region beyond the River" ruled by Gubaru (Darius the Mede)

the law of the land, after having made every powerful governor named Gubaru, whom Cyrus effort to rescind the penalty upon Daniel. the Great placed in charge of Babylon in 539 B.C. Furthermore, the unselfish concern that Since this governor corresponds in many respects he had for Daniel’s wellbeing is evidenced by to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel, we his night of fasting, his refusal to be comforted must examine in some detail the information by musicians, his sleeplessness, his haste to about Gubaru supplied by these cuneiform reach the den at the earliest possible moment documents. the following morning, his anxious cry “with In his book Dr Whitcomb lists a considerable a lamentable voice” when he got there, and number of texts, running from the Nabonidus the great gladness with which he heard the Chronicle of 29 October 539 B.C.4 to a tablet of triumphant response of Daniel from the den. 525-4 B.C., the fifth year of Cyrus’s son Cam- Darius had a strong sense of justice, for he byses. We learn from them that the Gubaru who immediately commanded Daniel’s accusers to appears in the was the Gu- be punished in the same way as he had been. baru whose name appears as the final warning He restored Daniel to his former position, to criminals throughout the entire region of the and made a decree that Daniel’s God should Fertile Crescent for at least the period 535-25 B.C. be honoured throughout his entire kingdom. Whitcomb states: One writer observes: “Darius the Mede was “With monotonous regularity the cuneiform no fickle, vengeful, lustful oriental tyrant, but tablets . . . of that decade warned against a wide-awake, beneficent and very human the possibility of bearing ‘the guilt of a sin ruler”.3 against Gubaru, the Governor of Babylon and the District beyond the River’. It is highly The historical evidence significant that neither Cyrus nor Cambyses Having examined the Biblical information about are mentioned in any cuneiform texts as being Darius the Mede, the task now is to discover in the final and supreme authorities in Babylonia extra-Biblical historical sources a person who against whom crimes would be committed. might correspond to this important ruler in the Only Gubaru held such a pre-eminent legal book of Daniel. position in the vast and populous areas of During the past century, archaeologists have unearthed a large number of Babylonian and 3. Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Persian tablets written in cuneiform script that Questions, Robert Dick Wilson, 1917, p. 257. shed important light on the history of the sec- 4. Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. The Belshaz- ond half of the sixth century B.C. Among these zar of Daniel 5 was his son who ruled on behalf of are a number of tablets that make mention of a Nabonidus, who was in Arabia at the time. The Testimony, September 2000 363

Babylonia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine”.5 scribe whose text we now possess. Dr Whitcomb Most of the lines of cuneiform texts listed by consulted Dr Donald J. Wiseman of the British Whitcomb contain the warning “the guilt of a sin Museum on this point, and the latter confirmed against Gubaru, the Governor of Babylon and the the distinction of the names. Moreover, recent District beyond the River”. scholarship has confirmed that the Nabonidus The Nabonidus Chronicle gives a brief account Chronicle definitely reads “Ugbaru died”. of the activities of Nabonidus king of Babylon and As mentioned above, various documents dat- the capture of Babylon by the troops of Cyrus. In ing from 535 B.C. in the reign of Cyrus to 525 B.C. spite of the brevity of the account, it constitutes in the reign of Cambyses mention a governor of the most complete cuneiform record of the and Beyond the River called Gubaru. Babylon. The relevant part reads as follows, as He must be the same Gubaru who, according translated by Professor Leo Oppenheim: to the Nabonidus Chronicle, was the governor “In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus at- appointed by Cyrus who in 539 B.C. appointed tacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the sub-governors in Babylon. Otherwise there would Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, have been two men with the same name holding but [Nabonidus] massacred the confused the same high office in the same province under inhabitants. The 15th day, Sippar was seized the same emperor within four years of each other, without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day a theory which is as improbable as it is unneces- Gobryas, the Governor of Gutium and the sary. If it is the same Gubaru in both the Nabon- army of Cyrus entered Babylon without bat- idus Chronicle and the various later documents tle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in from the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses then it Babylon when he returned (there) . . . In the could not have been this man who died on the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus night of the eleventh of Arahshamnu. Hence the entered Babylon. Green twigs were spread Nabonidus Chronicle gives the latter a different in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (shulmu) name, Ugbaru, and it was Ugbaru, not Gubaru, was declared upon the city. Cyrus sent greet- who was the general who took the city on the ings to all Babylon . . . Gobryas, his governor, sixteenth of Tashritu and who was governor of installed (sub-)governors in Babylon . . . In the Gutium. By making this clear distinction between month of Arahshamnu, on the night of the 11th Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and Gubaru, gov- day, Gobryas died. In the month (Arahshamnu, ernor of Babylon, two erroneous assumptions the . . . th day, the wi)fe of the king died. From are avoided: the 27th day of Arahshamnu till the 3rd day of 1 That the Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle Nisanu an official ‘weeping’ was performed in was in power for only a short time (three Akkad, all the people went around with their weeks), having died soon after the capture hair dishevelled”.6 of Babylon. Such an assumption would effec- I have put the three occurrences of the name tively eliminate the possibility of identifying Gobryas in italics. However, it is important to note this Gubaru with Darius the Mede of the book that there are in fact two quite different names of Daniel, who must have ruled for much in the Nabonidus Chronicle, both of which are longer than this. Three weeks would hardly translated ‘Gobryas’ by Professor Oppenheim. have been enough time for Darius the Mede The governor of Gutium who entered Babylon to have set up his entire administration, for on the sixteenth day of Tishri was in fact named the officials to have become jealous of Daniel, Ugbaru, and it was this same Ugbaru whose death and for their clever plot to have matured. is recorded as having occurred on the eleventh 2 That Gubaru governor of Babylon had been at of Arahshamnu. But the governor of Cyrus who one time governor of Gutium. Scholars who installed sub-governors in Babylon after the fall have defended the identification of Gubaru of the city was Gubaru, not Ugbaru. with Darius the Mede and who have not been This distinction has generally been obscured careful to distinguish Ugbaru from Gubaru by translators and historians, but it is a distinc- tion that has great significance for the identifica- tion of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. 5. Op. cit., p. 23. The cuneiform signs for Ug, as in Ugbaru, and 6. Translation by Leo Oppenheimer in Ancient Near Gu, as in Gubaru, are quite different, and could Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, London, Methuen, not possibly have been confused by the Persian 1924, pp. 110ff. 364 The Testimony, September 2000

in the Nabonidus Chronicle have gone to satrapy. To the satrap Gobryas the province great lengths to show that Gutium was near was officially ‘Babirush’; to the natives it was Media and that Gubaru could thus have been ‘Babylon and Ebir-nari’, the Assyrian name a Mede. However, the location of this sixth- for the territory ‘Across the River’ (by which century-B.C. Gutium is still uncertain, and is they meant the Euphrates). Over this whole most likely not near Media. vast stretch of fertile country, Gobryas ruled If the Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle is almost as an independent monarch”.7 the same person as the Gubaru of the later texts To conclude this section, we quote again from then he ruled from the day that Cyrus set foot Dr Whitcomb: in conquered Babylon, seventeen days after its “It is our conviction that Gubaru the Governor conquest by Ugbaru, through the rest of the reign of Babylon and the Region beyond the River of Cyrus and through half the subsequent reign of appears in the Book of Daniel as Darius the Cambyses. The great prominence given to Darius Mede, the monarch who took charge of the the Mede in the book of Daniel is more readily Chaldean kingdom immediately following explained if we assume his identification with a the death of Belshazzar and who appointed Gubaru who ruled for such a period. satraps and presidents (including Daniel) to Professor A. T. Olmstead emphasised the re- assist him in the governing of this extensive markable extent of Gubaru’s (Gobryas’s) power territory with its many peoples. We believe as governor of Babylon as follows: that this identification is the only one that “In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, satisfactorily harmonises the various lines Cyrus was ‘king of Babylon, king of lands’ of evidence which are found in the Book of . . . But it was Gobryas as the satrap who Daniel and in the contemporary cuneiform represented the royal authority after the king’s records”.8 departure”; (To be continued) “While there was a short-lived attempt to organise the Nabataean Arabs in a satrapy un- der the name ‘Arabaya’, Syria, Phoenicia, and 7. History of the Persian Empire, 1948, pp. 71 and 56. Palestine were joined to Babylonia in one huge 8. Op. cit., p. 24.

The seventh vial and the seven thunders Peter Robinson

ERE NOT the seven thunders of Rev- we are to be kings and priests in the age to come elation 10:4 sealed? Do not these judge- it is honourable for us to search out the matter, Wments occur well after Christ’s return as as Solomon advises in Proverbs 25:2: “It is the a thief, after the resurrection and judgement of the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour saints, and even after Armageddon? John tells us of kings is to search out a matter”. in this verse: “And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I The seven thunders heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal There are three important clues to the seven up those things which the seven thunders uttered, thunders, namely, time, order and place. Their and write them not”. timing is given in Revelation 10:1-4 as being after In answering, we need only to be reminded of the cry of the rainbow angel; therefore they occur the many scriptures covering the time of the sev- after Armageddon and the mid-heaven gospel enth vial (Rev. 10:3,4; 16:17–18:24; 19:17-21; Ezek. proclamation by the resurrected saints. Their 39:17-20) to know it is important to understand. If order is suggested by deduction from a common