Prophecy, History and Archaeology the Identity of Darius the Mede
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
360 The Testimony, September 2000 Prophecy, History and Archaeology The identity of Darius the Mede (1) Bill Form HE BOOK of Daniel 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 book of Daniel 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 Babylon 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 Nabonidus 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 Bible” 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 Belshazzar (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 Medes and the Persians, this historical information about Gubaru, or Gobryas 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. 1992, p. 139), both under the title “Darius the Mede”. 2 His personal background 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.