“set up over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps.” Whitcomb therefore holds that Gubaru, as a governor over governors, was likely addressed as king by his subordinates. (Darius the Mede, pp. 31-33) And referring to the extensive region over which Gubaru (Gobryas) exercised dominion, Professor A. T. Olmstead says: “Over this whole vast stretch of fertile country, Gobryas [Gubaru] ruled almost as an independent monarch.”—History of the Persian Empire, 1948, p. 56.

In harmony with the above, some scholars consider it likely that Darius the Mede was in reality a viceroy who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans but as a subordinate of Cyrus, the supreme monarch of the Persian Empire. Professor Olmstead (History of the Persian Empire, p. 71) observes: “In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was ‘king of Babylon, king of lands.’ By thus insisting that the ancient line of monarchs remained unbroken, he flattered their vanity, won their loyalty. . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king’s departure.” Those who hold that the Biblical Darius was indeed such a vicegerent point to the fact that Darius is stated to have “received the kingdom” and that he was “made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans” as evidence that he was indeed subordinate to a superior monarch.—Dan. 5:31; 9:1; compare 7:27, where the “Supreme One,” Jehovah God, gives the kingdom to the “holy ones.”

While in many respects the information available concerning Gubaru appears to parallel that regarding Darius, and while Darius may have been a viceroy under Cyrus, still such identification cannot be considered conclusive. The historical records do not tell us Gubaru’s nationality nor his parentage to show thereby that he was a “Mede” and the “son of Ahasuerus.” They do not show that he had kingly authority to the extent of being able to make a proclamation or edict of the nature described at Daniel 6:6-9. Additionally, the Bible record appears to indicate that Darius’ rule over Babylon was not of long duration and that Cyrus thereafter took over the kingship of Babylon. (Dan. 6:28; 9:1; 2 Chron. 36:20-23) Gubaru, on the other hand, continued in his position for fourteen years.

Reasons why historical identification uncertain

The truth of the Bible account is, of course, not dependent upon confirmation by secular sources. The numerous cases where individuals or events recorded in the Bible, once rejected as ‘unhistorical’ by critics, have eventually been demonstrated beyond denial to be historical should protect the student of God’s Word against giving undue weight to adverse criticism. (See BELSHAZZAR; SARGON.) The hundreds of thousands of cuneiform tablets unearthed in the Near East still present a very imperfect history with various gaps and blanks. As for other sources, the ancient secular historians, copies of whose writings have survived (though often in fragmentary form), were few in number, the majority of them Greek, and they were separated from the events in the book of Daniel by one, two or more centuries.

The accounts by Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, and Berossus (as quoted by Josephus), as to the reign of Cyrus and the events surrounding and subsequent to the fall of Babylon, all differ and in various points contradict one another. If this is true of these historians it may also be true of the Babylonian scribes. The Nabonidus Chronicle is evidently only a copy of an earlier writing, and its script dates it as likely of the Seleucid period (from 312 to 65 B.C.E.) or at least two centuries after the time involved. The possibility of error or deliberate alteration in the copying of such records is undeniably great.

A far more cogent reason, however, for the lack of information concerning Darius in the Babylonian records is provided by the book of Daniel itself. It shows that Darius assigned Daniel to a high position in the government, much to the distaste of the other high officials. Their plot against Daniel was abortive and Darius executed Daniel’s accusers and their families, likely incurring the animosity of the remaining officials by doing so. Darius’ proclamation ordering all in the kingdom to ‘fear before the God of Daniel’ inevitably must have caused deep dissatisfaction and resentment among the powerful Babylonian clergy. Since the scribes were assuredly under the direction of the aforementioned elements, it would not be in the least strange that, if Darius’ reign was indeed relatively short, the records were subsequently altered and evidence concerning him eliminated. Similar actions are known to have been taken in the history of those times.

The dual form of the Medo-Persian rule presented in the Bible must therefore be given its proper weight. (Dan. 5:28; 8:3, 4, 20) Though secular history accords overwhelming prominence to Cyrus and the Persians, the Bible record shows that the Medes continued in an apparent partnership arrangement with the Persians, and the laws continued to be those of “the Medes and the Persians.” (Dan. 6:8; Esther 1:19) The Medes played a major part in the overthrow of Babylon. (Isa. 13:17-19) Note, too, that Jeremiah (51:11) foretold that the “kings [plural] of the Medes” would be among Babylon’s attackers. Darius may well have been one of these kings. For a leading man of the Medes to be granted the full rulership over the fallen kingdom as a reward for such military service by that nation would not be without similar parallels in past as well as current history. (Compare the division of the Assyrian Empire by the Medes and Babylonians that led to the formation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.) Since Darius was sixty-two years old at the time, he may have died within a year or so, with Cyrus thereafter bringing Babylon under his own rule. Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman, writing in Douglas’ The New Bible Dictionary (p. 293), says of Daniel’s record of Darius: “. . . the narrative has all the appearance of genuine historical writing, and in the absence of many historical records of this period there is no reason why the history should not be accepted.” The inspired Record certainly merits acceptance over and above the often contradictory accounts of secular history.

2. Darius Hystaspis, also called Darius the Great or Darius I (Persian). He is viewed as one of the outstanding rulers of the Persian Empire. Darius describes himself as “son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, of Aryan seed.” He thus claimed royal descent from the same ancestor as Cyrus the Great, though being of a different family branch than Cyrus.

Following the death of Cambyses II, who died about 522 B.C.E. while returning from Egypt, the Persian throne was occupied for a short time by Gaumata (or Bardiya). Darius, with the aid of six other Persian nobles, slew Gaumata and gained the throne, the account of this being set forth in three languages in the immense Behistun Inscription that Darius had carved on sheer cliffs facing a plain through which ran the principal caravan route from Baghdad to Teheran. According to the inscription Gaumata was a usurper, posing as Cambyses’ brother who had been put to death. Most modern authorities accept this account (which is laced with repeated assurances by Darius that “it is true and not lies”) as basically factual, while some believe that Darius was a “monumental liar” and that the evidence indicates him to be the actual usurper. Whatever the case, Darius was faced with an empire in revolt upon assuming the kingship and is considered as having spent the next two years in subduing the insurrectionary elements throughout the realm. Egypt, which had thrown off the Persian yoke, was reconquered by Darius about 519-518 B.C.E. Thereafter he extended the imperial borders into India in the E and into Thrace and Macedonia in the W. He is noted as well for his efficient reorganization of the administrative structure throughout the empire, the formation of an imperial law code, called the “Ordinance of Good Regulations,” and for having reopened the canal connecting the Nile River of Egypt with the Red Sea.

It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis figures in the Bible record. The temple work had begun in 537 B.C.E. but about 522 it came under ban and “continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius” (520/519). (Ezra 4:4, 5, 24) During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction and the work got under way again. (Ezra 5:1, 2; Hag. 1:1, 14, 15; Zech. 1:1) This provoked an inquiry and the sending of a letter to Persian King Darius by Tattenai, the governor representing the imperial interests in the region W of the Euphrates, and other officials, advising him of the construction work, setting forth the Jews’ claim for the legality of the project, and requesting an investigation in the royal archives to see if there existed written evidence to substantiate that claim. (Ezra 5:3-17) The Jewish declaration that contrasted the actions of the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar, as the destroyer of the temple, with the Persian Cyrus, as the one authorizing its reconstruction, should have had an appropriate and felicitous effect on Darius since, in the first years of his reign, he had to overcome two revolts by rebels each taking the name Nebuchadnezzar (called Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV by historians), claiming to be sons of Nabonidus, and endeavoring to make Babylon independent of the Persian Empire.

The official search of records in the archives at Ecbatana, the ancient Median capital, uncovered the document by Cyrus. Darius thereupon sent orders to Governor Tattenai that he and the other officials should not only refrain from interfering with the temple work but also provide building funds from the “royal treasury of the tax beyond the River,” as well as animals and other necessary supplies for the sacrificial offerings. Anyone violating the king’s order was to be impaled on a stake and his house “turned into a public privy.”—Ezra 6:1-12.

With this official cooperation, and with continued prophetical encouragement (Zech. 7:1; 8:1-9, 20-23), the temple work went on to successful completion by the “sixth year of the reign of Darius” (Ezra 6:13-15; probably by March 5/6 of 515 B.C.E.). Since Darius’ inscriptions show him to be a devoted worshiper of Ahura Mazda, it is evident that his action, though serving Jehovah God’s purpose and doubtless having his direction, was basically done out of respect for the irrevocable nature of the Medo-Persian laws and in harmony with a policy of tolerance by Darius’ government, evidence for which tolerance is found in some of his inscriptions.

LATER CAMPAIGNS IN GREECE

Toward the turn of the century, various Greek cities of Ionia revolted against Persian domination and, though their revolt was quelled, Darius determined to punish Athens and Eretria for their having rendered aid to the rebellious cities. This led to a Persian invasion of Greece, resulting, however, in defeat of Darius’ forces at the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C.E. Though Darius made careful preparations for a further Grecian campaign, he was unable to carry it out before his death in 486 B.C.E. He was succeeded by his son Xerxes.

3. Nehemiah 12:22 mentions the recording of Levitical heads of paternal houses “in the days of Eliashib, Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua . . . down till the kingship of Darius the Persian.” Since Eliashib was high priest at the time of Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem (Neh. 3:1) and since by the time of Nehemiah’s second visit to that city (during or following the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes [c. 443 B.C.E.]) Joiada had a married son (Neh. 13:28), it is likely that the “Darius” mentioned was Darius II, Ochus (also called Nothus, the “illegitimate son” of Artaxerxes I), who ruled from 423 to 404 B.C.E.

A letter found among the Elephantine Papyri, reckoned as dating from the last years of the fifth century B.C.E., makes reference to “Johanan” as high priest at Jerusalem at that time.

4. Darius III (surnamed Codomannus), the last king of the Persian Empire. He became king in 336 B.C.E., the same year Alexander the Great was crowned king of Macedonia. Though Darius III is not mentioned directly in the Bible account, he, as the head of the Persian Empire, experienced the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the two-horned ram (representing Medo-Persia) and the powerful he-goat (representing the Grecian kingdom). (Dan. 8:2-7, 20, 21) Darius III was able to effect the reconquest of Egypt, but when he later (334 B.C.E.) marched against the swiftly advancing forces of Alexander he met defeat at the Granicus River in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor. The Persian forces withdrew and prepared for another attempt at halting Alexander’s advances, this time engaging the Greek forces on the narrow plain of Issus, at the point where Asia Minor and Syria join. Again Alexander routed the Persians and, two years later (331), the final battle was fought at Gaugamela, not far from the ruins of ancient Nineveh on the Tigris River. Utterly defeated, Darius took flight but was murdered by a satrap of the Persian Empire in the year 330 B.C.E. Thus, the Medo-Persian Empire had “no deliverer out of its [the symbolic he-goat’s] hand.”—Dan. 8:7; see PERSIA, PERSIANS.

DARKON

(Darʹkon) [possibly, rough].

One whose descendants were represented among “the sons of the servants of Solomon” returning with Zerubabbel from Babylonian captivity.—Ezra 2:1, 2, 55, 56; Neh. 7:6, 7, 57, 58.

DATE

The fruit of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), a tree common to Palestine. Dates are oval-shaped, fleshy, sweet tasting, and produce one seed.

In the Bible account dates are mentioned only indirectly. For example, the Shulammite maiden