Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal by Steven D. Anderson A revision of the author’s May 2014 Ph.D. dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary Print copies available from CreateSpace/Amazon: http://amzn.com/1502390388 Copyright © 2014 by Steven David Anderson. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced without the explicit written consent of the author. Minor errata corrected, April 2015 Published by Steven D. Anderson on http://Bible.TruthOnly.com Author’s blog: http://truthonlybible.com Citation for The Chicago Manual of Style (Turabian) and The SBL Handbook of Style: Anderson, Steven D. Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal. Grand Rapids: Steven D. Anderson, 2014. Cover photograph (taken by the author): Qasr Iraq el-Amir, which is a Tobiad palace near Amman, Jordan. Darius the Mede’s palace no longer stands. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are given by the author. ii ABSTRACT AND OVERVIEW This study is an investigation of the historical problem concerning the identification in extrabiblical sources of the king called “Darius the Mede” in the biblical book of Daniel. The central issue concerns two different stories of the end of the Median dynasty and the accession of Cyrus the Persian, as presented by two different Greek historians, Herodotus and Xenophon. The goal of this study is to establish the identity of Darius the Mede in extrabiblical literature, and to give an explanation for contradictory accounts regarding the accession of Cyrus and the existence of a Median king at the time of Babylon’s fall. The thesis of the work is that Cyrus shared power with a Median king until about two years after the fall of Babylon. This king is called Cyaxares (II) by the Greek historian Xenophon, but is known by his throne name Darius in the book of Daniel. Cyrus did not make a hostile conquest of Media, did not dethrone the last Median king, and did not become the highest regent in the Medo-Persian Empire until after the fall of Babylon. Cyrus was Darius’ co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm. Darius died naturally within two years after the fall of Babylon, and as he had no male heir and Cyrus had married his daughter, Cyrus inherited his position upon his death and united the Median and Persian kingdoms in a single throne. Chapter 1 of this study is intended to provide basic introductory information to understand the issue of Darius the Mede and the history of interpretation of the problem before proceeding to an analysis of the sources. A major conclusion of this chapter is that the issue of Darius the Mede has as much to do with the nature of the accession of Cyrus as it does with Darius himself. Chapter 2 summarizes, compares, and evaluates the two major classical historians who give an account of the accession of Cyrus, Herodotus and Xenophon. Herodotus began his account of Cyrus’ accession by stating that he knew of three other versions of the story in circulation—a remark which sets the tone for the analysis of other sources in this study. It is found that Herodotus and Xenophon told different and contradictory stories of the accession of Cyrus. Notably, Xenophon describes a Median king, Cyaxares II, who was the actual head of government while Cyrus led the Medo-Persian armies on campaigns of conquest. Herodotus, on the other hand, claims that Cyrus overthrew the previous Median king (Astyages) in a coup, and recognizes no further Median kings. A preliminary analysis finds that Xenophon’s story is more credible than Herodotus’. Chapter 3 analyzes various proposals to identify a figure in either of the two Greek versions of the Cyrus story with Daniel’s Darius the Mede. Xenophon’s Cyaxares II is found to parallel Darius the Mede very closely; there are differences between the two, but not contradictions. However, each of the many attempts to identify a figure in the Herodotean story with Darius the Mede breaks down upon analysis; Herodotus and the book of Daniel are in conflict. Chapter 4, the largest chapter in this study, analyzes the remaining extrabiblical texts of significance for the issue of Darius the Mede. This analysis reveals a basic division between texts which generally support Herodotus and texts which generally support Xenophon and Daniel (which were found in chapter 3 to concur). The major witnesses which support Herodotus are cuneiform propaganda texts produced by the government of Cyrus. These texts are found to be historically problematic due to a propagandistic bias, contradictions, and implausible claims. A strong and diverse minority of witnesses supports Xenophon and Daniel. iii Chapter 5 summarizes the historical scenario proposed in this study and evaluates prospects for future research on Darius the Mede. For a list of major supporting arguments made in this work, the reader may refer to the appropriate section of the appendix. iv Table of Contents ABSTRACT AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... V FOREWORD: A PROBLEM OF BIAS .................................................................................................................................... IX ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... XI General Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... xi Abbreviations of the Books of the Bible ........................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ 1 NEED FOR THIS STUDY ................................................................................................................................................... 2 HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Interpretations in the LXX ................................................................................................................................... 2 Darius as Cyaxares II ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Darius as Gubaru ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Darius as Cyrus .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Minor Proposals .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Darius as Historical, but of Uncertain Identity .................................................................................................... 8 Darius the Mede as Fiction.................................................................................................................................. 9 PLAN OF THIS STUDY.................................................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2: HERODOTUS AND XENOPHON ON THE ACCESSION OF CYRUS .................................................. 12 BACKGROUND TO HERODOTUS ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Ancient Writers ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Aristophanes ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Diodorus of Sicily............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Strabo .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Plutarch ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Modern Writers ................................................................................................................................................. 17 HERODOTUS’ ACCOUNT OF CYRUS .................................................................................................................................