Chapter 6

1 Daniel is made chief of the presidents. 4 They conspiring against him obtain an idolatrous decree. 10 Daniel, accused of the breach thereof, is cast into the lions’ den. 18 Daniel is saved. 24 His adversaries devoured, 25 and God magnified by a decree.

1. Princes. Aramaic Хachashdarpan, literally, “satraps” (see on ch. 3:2). The various details of the provincial administration of the Persian Empire prior to Darius I’s reorganization are still obscure. Herodutos (iii. 89) states that Darius I created 20 satrapies as main divisions of the empire. Each satrapy was divided into provinces. The inscriptions of Darius give various totals for the satrapies (21, 23, 29), indicating that the king probably changed the number as well s the size of satrapies during his reign. Some Greek historians use the term “satrap” for lower officials, as Daniel apparently did when he used the term to designate provincial governors. Compare the 127 provinces of Esther 1:1 in the time of Xerxes.

2. Three presidents. This administrative body is not mentioned in non-Biblical sources. There is a complete lack of contemporary documentary evidence as to the organization of the Persian Empire prior to the reign of Darius I.

Daniel was first. Literally, “Daniel was one”. The word here translated “first” is rendered “one” in (chs. 2:9; 4:19; 7:5, 16). The aged prophet soon distinguished himself by conscientious service.

No damage. The reason for the elaborate organization of civil service in Persia is here pictured in vivid colors. On precautions taken by the imperial system to guard against loss of revenue and other damage, compare Ezra 4:13–16.

Excellent spirit. This was not the first time that royal observers had noticed a unique “spirit” in Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar had testified to Daniel’s possession of “the spirit of the holy gods” (ch. 4:8). The queen mother repeated the expression in her interview with Belshazzar on his last fateful night (ch. 5:11). On the same occasion she called attention to the “excellent spirit” that had been observed in Daniel (ch. 5:12). This spirit had no doubt manifested itself, not only in the solving of “hard sentences” (ch. 5:12), but also in scrupulous integrity, unwavering faithfulness, loyalty to duty, and integrity in words and acts—qualities rarely seen in civil servants of that age. A brief acquaintance with this elderly statesman, a survivor of the golden age of imperial Babylonia, was sufficient to convince Darius that Daniel would be a wise choice as chief administrator of the new empire and counselor of the crown.

4. Against Daniel. In his plans to elevate Daniel to the highest civil office in the state, the king doubtless acted in the interests of the crown and of the empire. However, he failed to take into account the feelings of jealousy that would naturally be aroused among the Median and Persian dignitaries when a Jew, a former minister of the Babylonians, occupied a position that, according to their expectations, should be theirs.

Any error. Despite his advanced age—he was now in his middle eighties—Daniel was able to perform his duties of state in such a way that no errors or faults could be charged against him. This accomplishment was due to his personal integrity and to confidence in the unfailing guidance of his heavenly Father. To love and serve God was to him more important than life itself. Scrupulous adherence from his youth to the laws of health doubtless gave him a vigor far beyond what was usual for men of his age.

5. The law of his God. A careful scrutiny of Daniel’s habits, a close observation of his dealings with associates and subordinates, and a careful checking of the records, revealed no irregularities to provide a ground for complaints or accusations. However, Daniel’s enemies discovered that he was never to be found worshiping in any of the temples of Babylon, nor did he take part in any heathen religious ceremonies. Undoubtedly they had noticed that he was absent from his office every Sabbath, the day of weekly rest prescribed in “the law of his God.” They doubtless reasoned that his set times for prayer interfered with the discharge of his official duties.

6. These presidents and princes. There is no need to assume that all governors of the empire assembled before the king concerning this matter. Doubtless only those appeared who envied Daniel’s position. If all had been called together for the occasion, the king might have become suspicious, especially if Daniel was not among them. The plotters probably calculated that with only a few approaching the king with the request, the chances of deceiving the monarch were greater than if they waited until all the governors from every corner of the empire could be assembled to appear before him.

Live for ever. See on ch. 2:4.

7. All. Doubtless a lie, for it is questionable that all were consulted.

Whosoever shall ask a petition. A decree of this nature would be entirely alien to the Persians, who won the reputation of being largehearted in matters of religious tolerance. It is unthinkable that a man like Cyrus would have signed such a decree. However, Darius the Mede evidently had a different background. We know little of the thinking of the Medes with respect to religious tolerance. Cyrus, the Persian king, rebuilt temples of nations destroyed by the Babylonians, and thereby showed his spirit of tolerance with regard to other peoples’ religious feelings and practices. On the other hand Darius I claimed that the False Smerdis, his predecessor, a Magian from Media who ruled for about half a year in 522 b.c., showed his spirit of intolerance by destroying temples. Although generalizations are subject to error, we must reckon with the possibility that the Medes, or at least some of their rulers, showed less religious tolerance than the Persians.

It has also been observed that the command to pray for one month to none but the king, though in this instance especially aimed at Daniel, may have been suggested by a national religious custom of earlier date among the Medes, according to which divine honors were rendered to the king. Herodotus (i. 199) remarks that Deioces, one of the earliest known kings of the Medes, had made his person the object of reverential awe in the eyes of his subjects by removing himself from the observation of the common man, in order to convince his people that he was different from them. That even Persian kings were willing occasionally to accept divine honors is evident from the fact that in Egypt they allowed divine attributes to be added to their names. Hieroglyphic inscriptions refer to Cambyses as the “son of Re” the sun-god, and to Darius as “the son of god.” Hence it is not necessary to go down in history to the Roman emperors to find the first historical parallels to the command referred to in Dan. 6:7, as some critical scholars have claimed.

Den of lions. Contemporary literature and works of art frequently depict kings of antiquity, such as those of Egypt, Assyria, and Persia, engaged in the sport of hunting wild animals. Game consisted chiefly of lions, but included also panthers, wild bulls, and elephants. Reports tell of vassal kings sending captured wild animals to their royal lords in Mesopotamia as tribute. There they were kept in menageries, as symbols of the monarch’s world power and for the amusement of the king and his friends. Although no examples of capital punishment by throwing the culprit before wild animals are known from contemporary records in Persian times, these sources speak of extraordinarily barbaric forms of capital punishment ordered by otherwise humane Persian kings.

8. It be not changed. On the irrevocability of the law of “the Medes and Persians” compare Esther 1:19; 8:8. This characteristic is also attested by Greek writers. For example, Diodorus Siculus (xvii. 30) describes the attitude of Darius II toward the sentence of death upon Charidemos. He claims that the king, after pronouncing the death sentence, repented and blamed himself for having greatly erred in judgment; yet it was impossible to undo what had been done by royal authority.

Medes and Persians. Higher critics frequently pointed to the presence of this expression in the book of Daniel, used at a time when the Persians were actually more in control of the former empire than the Medes, as proof of the supposed late authorship of the book. They claimed that such a term would be used only at a time when the real political situation had become hazy in the memory of the people. Contemporary documents, since discovered, have proved this higher critical view incorrect. These documents refer to the Persians as “Medes,” and to “Medes and Persians,” as does the Bible. The cuneiform documents also mention various Persian kings by the title “king of the Medes,” as well as by the customary title “king of Persia”. Since Darius was a “Mede,” it is only natural that any courtier referring in his presence to the law of the land would speak of “the law of the Medes and Persians”.

10. His house. Daniel’s house probably had a flat roof, like the majority of both ancient and modern houses in Mesopotamia. Usually on one corner there is an apartment raised above the flat roof that contains latticed windows for ventilation. Such rooms provided ideal places of seclusion.

His windows being open. An identical Aramaic expression is used in an Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine. The papyrus describes a house having “open windows” at the lower end and above (Cowley, No. 25, line 6). Another papyrus speaks of a house whose “one window opens to the two compartments” (Kraeling, No. 12, line 21). Daniel’s open windows faced in the direction of Jerusalem, the city he had left as a boy and probably never saw again. On the custom of turning in prayer toward Jerusalem see 1 Kings 8:33, 35); Ps. 5:7; 28:2.

He kneeled. The Bible notes various postures in prayer. We find servants of God praying while sitting, like David (2 Sam. 7:18), bowing, like Eliezer (Gen. 24:26) and Elijah (1 Kings 18:42), and frequently standing, like Hannah (1 Sam. 1:26). The most common attitude in prayer seems to have been that of kneeling, of which the following are examples: Ezra (Ezra 9:5), Jesus (Luke 22:41), Stephen (Acts 7:60. See further PK 48; GW 178.

Three times a day. In later Jewish tradition the offering of prayer three times a day took place at the third, sixth, and ninth hours of the day (the hours being counted from sunrise). The third and ninth corresponded to the time of the morning and the evening sacrifices. The psalmist followed the same practice (Ps. 55:17). Three daily prayers later became a fixed custom with every orthodox Jew living according to rabbinical regulations (Berakoth iv. 1). This custom of the three daily times of prayer seems also to have been adopted in the early Christian church (Didache 8).

11. Found Daniel praying. The plotters did not have to wait long to see Daniel disregard the king’s prohibition. Decree or no decree, this man of God felt that he should continue his regular prayer habits. God was to him the source of all his wisdom and success in life. The favor of Heaven was dearer to him than life itself. His conduct was the natural result of his trust in God.

13. Of the captivity. The form of the accusation revealed the full hatred and contempt that these men felt toward Daniel. They did not refer to the dignity of his office but characterized him merely as a foreigner, a Jewish exile. They doubtless hoped thereby to bring his conduct under the suspicion of being an act of rebellion against the royal authority. They inquired, in effect, How could a man whom the king had so highly honored, and who had every reason to demonstrate his gratitude toward the king by strict obedience to royal decrees, be so shameless as to defy the royal orders openly? Their words were calculated to lead Darius to regard Daniel as an ungrateful, if not traitorous, character.

14. Deliver him. The monarch saw the snare that had been set for him. When the decree was proposed, the men had resorted to flattery, and the aging king had agreed without recognizing the plot that underlay the plan of the men whose judgment he had been accustomed to trust. He suddenly realized that the whole matter had ben conceived, not, as he had thought, to bring honor to his reign and person, but to deprive him of a true friend and trustworthy public servant. Despite his almost frantic efforts, the king could find no legal loophole by which to save Daniel and at the same time preserve the basic Median and Persian concept of the inviolability of law.

15. Assembled. For the second time on that fateful day Daniel’s enemies came to the king, this time in the evening. For many hours they had waited for the execution of the verdict, and when nothing happened they resorted again to the king and impudently claimed their prey. They knew they had a legal right to demand Daniel’s execution, and that there was no loophole in the law by which he could escape.

16. Deliver thee. The king’s words were in striking contrast with those of Nebuchadnezzar uttered on another occasion that was in some respects similar (ch. 3:15). Darius may have been acquainted with the miracles that God had performed in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.

17. A stone was brought. No ancient lions’ den has yet been excavated, and it is thus impossible to reconstruct an accurate picture of such a place.

Sealed it. The official sealing by the king and his lords had a twofold purpose. It served as a guarantee to the king that Daniel would not be killed by any other means, in case he was not harmed by the lions. Because Darius hoped that Daniel’s God would save His faithful servant from the lions, he would naturally want to take precautions against any interference on the part of the men who were determined to take Daniel’s life. On the other hand the seal provided assurance to Daniel’s enemies that no attempt could be made to save him, in the event he was not immediately torn to pieces by the wild animals. Darius’ counselors may have feared that such an attempt to save Daniel from the pit would be made by Daniel’s friends or by the king as soon as everyone had withdrawn from the place of execution. Hence, their seal, as well as that of the king, was used to make sure that the stone would not be tampered with during the night.

Sealed Egyptian tombs may serve to illustrate the technique of sealing an opening. After the door had been closed for the last time, it was covered with plaster, and either seals were stamped all over the wet plaster or roll seals were rolled over it. A similar procedure may have been followed in the case of the closing and sealing of the lions’ den. The sealing was most probably carried out by means of cylinder seals, which were common among the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. Every excavation in Mesopotamia brings to light numerous examples of such seals.

18. Instruments of musick. Aramaic dachawan. The word is obscure. In the Bible it occurs only here. The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi explained it to mean “tables”. Ibn Ezra, another Jewish scholar, interpreted the word to mean “musical instruments.” His interpretation may have influenced the translators of the KJV. Among the many other interpretations found in translations and commentaries, all of which are conjectural, the following may be listed: “foods,” “musicians,” “dancing women,” “perfumes,” “entertainers,” and “concubines.” The translation of the RSV, “diversions,” appears to aim at a noncommittal reading.

19. Very early in the morning. Aramaic shepharpar, “dawn.” The meaning of the passage is clearly revealed in Keil’s translation: “The king as soon as he arose at morning dawn, went hastily by the early light.”

20. Lamentable. Aramaic Фas\ib, “sad,” “pained,” “full of anxiety”. The voice is an index to the emotions, and it is difficult for people to hide their inner feelings. The king had gone through the ordeal of seeing his most faithful servant thrown to the lions. This dreadful experience was followed by a long, sleepless night. Little wonder that his voice betrayed his inner restlessness, anxiety, and bitter remorse!

Servant of the living God. The words of Darius reveal a degree of acquaintance with the God and religion of Daniel. The fact that the king spoke of Daniel’s God as the “living God” suggests that Daniel had instructed him concerning the nature and power of the true God.

21. O king, live for ever. For this ceremonial greeting see on ch. 2:4.

22. Shut the lions’ mouths. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews refers to this experience of Daniel and attributes the deliverance of the prophet to the power of faith (Heb. 11:33).

Innocency was found in me. Presumably Daniel had not defended himself or his actions before he was thrown to the lions. Any word spoken at that time might have been interpreted by his enemies as weakness or a sign of fear. Now, however, after God had seen fit to save his life, Daniel chose to declare his innocence.

23. Take Daniel up. The requirements of the royal decree had been met. That decree had not required the execution of the transgressor, but only that he “be cast into the den of lions” (v. 7). There is no question, of course, but that these words implied the death sentence. Daniel had been cast into the lions’ den, and there were no constitutional restrictions to prevent the king from removing Daniel from the lions’ den.

24. They cast them. The angry king acted in the fashion typical of despots of his day. Ancient history gives many examples of such actions. Some critical commentators have tried to show that the narrative is unhistorical by claiming that the den in which the lions were kept could not have been large enough to receive 122 men with their families; further, that there could not have been enough lions in Babylon to eat so many victims. However, the Bible nowhere states that this was the number condemned to death. These critical scholars have drawn the unnecessary conclusion that every one of the 120 princes and the two presidents of vs. 1, 2 were involved in the unfortunate experience. It is pure speculation to say how many were involved in the matter.

Their children. Both Herodotus (iii. 119) and Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 6, 81) testify that consigning to death the wives and children along with condemned men was in accordance with Persian custom.

26. I make a decree. After the wonderful deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar had issued an edict to all the nations of his kingdom forbidding them, on pain of death, from saying anything against the God of these Hebrews (ch. 3:29). In similar manner, in consequence of the miraculous preservation of Daniel in the den of lions, Darius gave out an edict commanding all the nations of his realm to fear and reverence Daniel’s God. We need not necessarily conclude from this that the king personally departed from the polytheism of the Medes. Darius acknowledged the God of Daniel as the living God, whose kingdom and dominion are everlasting, but it is not stated that he acknowledged Him as the only true God. See further on p. 751.

28. In the reign. The repetition of these words does not indicate a separation of the Persian kingdom from the Median, but merely a distinction of rulers, one being a Mede and the other a Persian. The sentence construction allows interpretations that make Cyrus either a coruler with, or successor to, Darius.

additional note on chapter 6

Following is a summary and evaluation of the various views that have been held as to the identity of Darius the Mede. Prior to the age of modern archeology the book of Daniel posed a number of historical problems, most of which have satisfactorily been solved (see Introduction, p. 747). Of the remaining problems, the question of the person and office of Darius is at present the greatest. However, the remarkable way in which other historical statements of the Bible have been confirmed justifies the confidence that this problem will also be solved.

Higher critics offer their simple but unacceptable explanation that the historical parts of Daniel are legendary and that Darius is a fictitious character invented by a 2d-century author of the book. The fact that secular confirmation of certain Biblical statements of history cannot be produced is no reason for questioning the historical reliability and accuracy of Holy Writ. Many Bible statements formerly challenged by critical scholars have since proved to be in full harmony with the facts of ancient history as revealed by the spade of the archeologist.

Following is a summary of Scripture statements concerning Darius:

1. Darius was a Mede by descent (chs. 5:31; 9:1; 11:1).

2. He was “the son of Ahasuerus” (ch. 9:1).

3. He was “made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (ch. 9:1), hence, “took [or ”received“ (RSV)] the kingdom” (ch. 5:31).

4. He was “about” 62 years old at the time Babylon was captured (ch. 5:30, 31).

5. Only his first regnal year is noted (chs. 9:1; 11:1).

6. He appointed “an hundred and twenty princes” (literally “satraps”) over the whole kingdom, with “three presidents” as their superiors (ch. 6:1, 2).

7. Cyrus either followed Darius or reigned at the same time (ch. 6:28).

From this evidence the following picture of Darius emerges: After Babylon’s fall the Babylonian Empire was ruled by Darius, perhaps during the first part of the reign of Cyrus, as counted in Babylon. Darius, a son of Ahasuerus (Greek, Xerxes), is called a Mede in contrast with Cyrus, who is called a Persian (ch. 6:28). He was already 62 years of age when Babylon was conquered, and presumably died shortly afterward.

No known non-Biblical sources except those based on Daniel, such as Josephus, mention a Darius as ruler of the conquered Babylonian Empire prior to Darius I (522–486 b.c.). Future finds may bring to light direct references to Darius the Mede. In the meantime Biblical interpreters must seek to identify Darius the Mede with one of the historical figures of the time of Cyrus who was known by another name. Josephus claims that the Darius of the book of Daniel “had another name among the Greeks” (Antiquities x. 11. 4). Of the several identifications proposed the following merit examination:

1. That Darius the Mede was Astyages, the last ruler of the Median kingdom before Cyrus took over the empire. Astyages was the son of Cyaxares I, whose name, it is claimed, can be identified linguistically with that of the Ahasuerus of ch. 9:1, although Ahasuerus elsewhere stands for Xerxes (see on Esther 1:1). Since Astyages began to reign about 585 b.c., he would have been an old man at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 b.c., as Darius is reported to have been (ch. 5:31). This fact gives some plausibility to the suggested identification.

There are serious objections to this identification. According to Greek sources Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus. When Cyrus was a youth Astyages made several attempts to kill him. Later, when vassal king over the Persian tribes, Cyrus rebelled against his overlord and deposed Astyages in either 553/552 or 550 b.c., making him governor of Hyrcania, south of the Caspian Sea. Not even the Greek sources hint that Astyages was associated with Cyrus at the capture of Babylon in 539. Further, it is questionable whether Astyages, who was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and was the great Babylonian king’s brother-in-law, was still alive at that time. It is therefore highly unlikely that the two can be equated.

2. That Darius the Mede was Cambyses, Cyrus’ son. Cambyses is mentioned in several cuneiform tablets by the title King of Babylon, as associated on the throne with his father Cyrus, whom these tablets term King of the Lands. However, his coregency with his father is the only factor in favor of identifying Cambyses with the Darius of Daniel. In all other respects Cambyses does not fit the picture as presented in the Bible. He could not possibly have been 62 years of age in 539 b.c. He was not a Mede, but a Persian like his father. And he was not the son of Ahasueros. Because of these difficulties, the identification of Cambyses as Darius must be rejected.

3. That Darius the Mede was Gobryas (the view most widely held). Gobryas, says Xenophon (Cyropaedia vii), was an elderly general who took Babylon for Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle, an important cuneiform document describing the fall of Babylon, mentions him. It says that “Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle” on the 16th of Tishri. After describing Cyrus’ entry into Babylon it also mentions a certain “Gubaru, his governor,” who “installed [sub-]governors in Babylon.” Furthermore, after recounting how the gods exiled to Babylon by Nabonidus were returned to their respective cities, the tablet states that “in the month Arahshamnu, on the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru died.” The next sentence is broken, and scholars disagree as to whether it refers to the death of Ugbaru or to the death of a royal personage. The next sentence mentions an official mourning held throughout the country for seven days.

Some have taken Ugbaru and Gubaru as variant spellings of the same name, representing Gobryas of the Greek sources. However, Ugbaru died in the month of Arahshamnu—either in the year of Babylon’s fall or in the next—while there was another Gubaru, who lived on for many years as governor over the satrapies of Babylonia and Greater Syria and later as father-in-law of Darius I, the Great, as attested by tablet documents. According to this view Ugbaru and Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle must be two different persons. The former, having taken Babylon, died soon after. The latter lived on as governor of Babylonia.

Those who identify Darius the Mede with Gobryas and equate Ugbaru with Gubaru point out that Gobryas is reported to have taken Babylon, and that he virtually became ruler over Babylonia, hence could have been called “king,” although the contemporary records call him only governor. The fact that, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, he is reported to have appointed governors over Babylonia, seems to corroborate ch. 6:1, 2, where this work is attributed to Darius the Mede. The name Gubaru has also been explained as of Median origin. Also his earlier position as governor of Gutium, a province bordering on Media, seems to allow the possibility that he was a Mede.

Although this identification of Darius with Ugbaru (Gobryas) has more in its favor than the two previously mentioned, there are objections to this view. Gobryas is called a governor, not a king. Since he lived many years after the fall of Babylon, he must have been much younger than 62 years of age in 539 b.c.

An alternative Gobryas theory, based on a reinterpretation of the Nabonidus Chronicle, proposes that Darius the Mede was not Gubaru, the later governor of the contract tablets, but Ugbaru/Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle, the governor of Gutium who took Babylon for Cyrus and died in Arahshamnu, not three weeks but a year and three weeks later. This would allow time for ch. 6 during his rule “over the realm of the Chaldeans” (ch. 9:1). For UgbaruGubaru the term king would be only a courtesy title; Cyrus, already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia before conquering Babylonia, was the de facto ruler of the whole empire.

4. That Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. Compare the statements in PK 523, 556, 557 concerning Cyrus as the nephew and general of Darius with Xenophon’s claim that (1) Cyrus, Astyages’ grandson through his mother Mandane, had become acquainted with his uncle Cyaxares during the years Cyrus spent at the court of his Median grandfather (Cyropaedia i. 3. 1; 4. 1, 6–9, 20–22; 5. 2) ; (2) that Cyaxares followed his father on the throne as king of Media, after the latter’s death (i. 5. 2); (3) that when Cyrus had conquered Babylon he visited his uncle with gifts and offered him a palace in Babylon; that Cyaxares accepted the presents, and gave Cyrus his daughter as well as the kingdom (viii. 5. 17–20).

Although the details of the story as given by Xenophon cannot be accepted, it is possible that the Greek writer preserves correctly the tradition that Cyaxares was the last Median ruler, and that he was Cyrus’ father-in-law as well as an intimate friend of the great Persian. If these points can be accepted as historical facts, it can be assumed that Cyrus, upon rebelling against Astyages, permitted Cyaxares to rule as a shadow king to please the Medes. At the same time everyone in the kingdom would know that the actual sovereign was Cyrus, and that Cyaxares was a mere figurehead. In that case Darius the Mede may be identified with Cyaxares II, who, presumably, had come to Babylon at Cyrus’ invitation to act in an honorary capacity as king.

That Cyaxares II was advanced in age at the time of the fall of Babylon can be shown as follows, assuming Xenophon to be correct: Cyaxares II was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Cyrus himself was most likely at least 40 years old at the time, as is evident from the fact that his son, Cambyses, was mature enough to represent him in an official position during the next New Year’s Day activities. Hence Cyaxares II could have been 62 years old at the fall of Babylon, the age Daniel assigned to Darius the Mede. His comparatively advanced age—in a time when most people died young—may have been responsible for the fact that he did not survive the fall of Babylon very long. This would explain why Daniel mentions only his first regnal year. Xenophon reports nothing further concerning Cyaxares shortly after the conquest of Babylon.

Daniel’s statement that Darius was the “son” of Ahasuerus should probably be understood as meaning that he was the “grandson” of Ahasuerus. That the Hebrew word for “son” may mean “grandson,” or an even more remote descendant, can be abundantly demonstrated (see on 2 Kings 8:26). The English form Ahasuerus is from the Heb. ХAchashwerosh, which might possibly be a rendering of Uvaxshtrah, the Old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, but not of Astyages.

If after his arrival at Babylon, Darius became a special friend of Daniel’s, it is understandable that the prophet would date the visions received during this brief reign in terms of Darius’ regnal years (chs. 9:1; 11:1), rather than of the regnal years of Cyrus. However, after the one year credited to Darius, Daniel dated events in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign (chs. 1:21; 10:1).

Contemporary evidence that might shed light on this reconstruction of the history of Cyaxares II is ambiguous and meager. There is a possible reference to Cyaxares in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Since it is certain that Gubaru lived for many years after the conquest of Babylon, whereas Ugbaru died soon after, and a state mourning was provided for some high personage during the same month, it may be possible to see Cyaxares II in the Ugbaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Or, the name of Cyaxares may have been in the broken line which speaks about the death of a distinguished individual for whom a nationwide mourning was held. However, there seems to be an error in the first mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Either the name Ugbaru is a scribal error for Gubaru, or the title “governor of Gutium” was by mistake transferred by the author of the tablet from Gubaru to Ugbaru.

A second possible piece of contemporary evidence may lie in the double mention of a Cyaxares in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (on the Behistun inscription see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110). Among the several pretenders to the throne against whom Darius I fought were two who claimed to be of the family of Cyaxares. The Cyaxares in question may have been either Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, or possibly Cyaxares II, the father-in-law of Cyrus, and last shadow king of Media.

The foregoing summary makes evident that there are still many obscure factors in the solution of the problem of identifying Darius the Mede from historical and archeological sources. All things considered, however, this commentary favors the fourth view.

Ellen G. White comments

1–28PK 539–548; 1T 295, 296

1–4SL 42

1–5PK 539

3, 4 1T 295

4 Ed 56; FE 305; ML 75; PK 546; 7T 248

4–104T 368

5 SL 43

6–9PK 540

7 SL 43

10 CH 423; GW 178; PK 48, 541; SL 43; 1T 296; 4T 373, 569; 5T 43, 453, 527

12, 13 PK 542

14–16SL 44

14–17PK 543

16 AA 575; Ed 254; 4T 448, 525

17–24SL 35

20–27PK 544

22 ML 317; 5T 453, 527

22–28PK 557; TM 443; 1T 296

25–27Ed 56

26 PK 545

27 2T 54

28 PK 545