Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 35:3 (Spring 1973)
Article: The Identification of Darius the Mede
Author: James M. Bulman

WTJ 35:3 (Spr 73) p. 247

The Identification of Darius the Mede

James M. Bulman

When H. H. Rowley in 1935 gave the definitive refutation of various proposals for identifying Darius the Mede with someone known to history,1 he made no mention of any attempt to solve the problem in line with Theodotion’s text of and Bel the Dragon. Here the king who has Daniel consigned to the lions’ den is “Cyrus of Persia”; an opinion attested elsewhere in early Jewish thought.2 But in 1957 Donald J. Wiseman came to this conclusion,3 though without reference to the apocryphal story or ancient commentary. He appealed to the Harran inscription, which refers to the king “of the Medes,”4 who in that year 546 B.C. could be “no other than Cyrus the Persian”5 —Media having been incorporated into what became the greater realm of Persia in 550 B.C. Actually, the inscription only authenticates what is found in Herodotus6 and the Midrash.7

Wiseman’s theory was sympathetically considered, though rejected, by John C. Whitcomb in 1959.8 Modifying a view often put forth in this century, he maintained that Darius was a subordinate of Cyrus and the same as Gubaru, governor of

WTJ 35:3 (Spr 73) p. 248

Babylon. He claimed that more recent cuneiform study showed Rowley’s criticism to be unfounded. In 1960 George G. Cameron, agreeing in part with Whitcomb’s argument against Rowley, said few serious scholars now would dispute the possibility that Gubaru provided the historical basis for the biblical account; but he stressed that this account must then be mistaken in ascribing such authority and honor to a subordinate.9 More recently, Wiseman has published another study, seeking to meet Whitcomb’s criticism particularly.10

The present paper will explore Wiseman’s thesis from a somewhat different standpoint. Here it will be argued that Darius’ identity with Cyrus is allowed by the Book of Daniel, is in accord with the character of the book, and is supported in that it offers explanation for certain exegetical difficulties; and that this supposition is in agreement with sources, secular and sacred, outside this book; and that there is an apparent reason why the author may be thought to have told the story this way.

I. Darius and Cyrus in the...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()