Darius the Mede

Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, unknown by that name except in Daniel. He "took the kingdom" from Belshazzar at about the age of 62 years at the time of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon (539 b.c.), and had at least one regnal year (Dan 5:31 6:28 9:1). He appointed various governors, making Daniel one of his three most intimate counselors (ch 6:1—3). Tricked by Daniel's enemies into issuing a decree which the Hebrew statesman could not obey, he was forced to throw his friend Daniel to the lions, and was exceedingly happy when Daniel was miraculously saved (vs 4—27).

Various modern attempts to identify this Darius have resulted in several theories, none of them free from difficulties. One theory equates him with Cambyses, Cyrus' son and successor, who ruled jointly with his father for a time another equates him with Gobryas, the officer of Cyrus who actually took the city of Babylon, and may have ruled the conquered Babylonian kingdom under Cyrus for a year or so. Another explanation, plausible enough, is that Darius is another name for Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, who according to the Greek writer Xenophon was Cyrus' uncle and father—in—law, and whom Cyrus might have retained temporarily as a figurehead king to please the Medes. The fact that the Persian account of the fall of Babylon to Cyrus begins Cyrus' reign in Babylon immediately, without any intervening reign of Darius the Mede, does not contradict the Biblical narrative.

Darius was evidently recognized as a ruler in Babylon by courtesy of Cyrus, while it was Cyrus who actually held the power (see Is 45:1). It was natural that Daniel, in direct contact with Darius, should speak of him as the "king" and mention his "first year" (Dan 9:1). It seems evident that we are to consider the accession year and 1st year of Darius the Mede as coinciding with the same years of Cyrus. For full discussion of this Darius. The lack of conclusive evidence as to the identity of Darius the Mede must not lead one to question the Bible statements concerning this ruler, for future finds may clarify the problem, as archeology has already done for Belshazzar, who puzzled earlier historians.