DANITES

See DAN No. 2.

DAN-JAAN

(Dan-jaʹan) [possibly, Dan played a pipe; or simply, Dan of Jaan].

A place mentioned only once, on the route followed by Joab when taking the census ordered by David. (2 Sam. 24:1-6) The description seems to place its location in the extreme N of Israel, since it is stated that they went “on to Dan-jaan and went around to Sidon.” The fact that Beer-sheba is mentioned in the following verse (vs. 7) calls to mind the common expression “from Beer-sheba to Dan,” used by David in instructing Joab about the census. (1 Chron. 21:2) Dan-jaan may therefore refer to the city of Dan or possibly a suburb of that northern city.—Compare Judges 18:28, 29, where Dan and Sidon are also mentioned jointly; see also DAN No. 3.

DANNAH

(Danʹnah).

A city situated in the mountainous region of Judah. (Josh. 15:49) Though its exact location is unknown today, some suggest it may be Deir esh-Shemesh (or Simya), about nine miles (14.5 kilometers) W of Hebron.

DARA, DARDA

(Daʹra, Darʹda) [possibly, thorn thistle].

A descendant of Judah through Zerah (1 Chron. 2:4, 6); possibly the same as the Darda whose wisdom, though great, was not equal to Solomon’s.—1 Ki. 4:31; see MAHOL; ZERAH No. 3.

DARIC

A Persian gold coin weighing approximately .27 ounce troy (8.4 grams) and hence presently evaluated at $9.48. The obverse side of one daric, coined for two centuries from the latter part of the sixth century B.C.E. onward, depicts a king in a half kneeling position, with a spear in his right hand and a bow in his left. The reverse side shows the oblong punch impression made when the coin was stamped. At 1 Chronicles 29:7 one of the figures for temple contributions during David’s reign is stated in terms of darics, although the Persian daric was unknown in David’s time. Evidently the writer of Chronicles converted the original figure into terms then current and familiar to his readers.—Ezra 8:27.

[Picture on page 419]

Gold daric

DARIUS

(Da·riʹus).

In the Biblical record, the name is applied to three kings, one a Mede, the other two Persians. Herodotus (vi, 98) equated the name with the Greek term Her·xeiʹes as meaning “the one who restrains” or “the keeper, ruler.” The Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott (p. 310) considers that the Greek form of Darius (Da·reiʹos) is derived from the Persian darâ, meaning “a king.” Lexicographers Brown, Driver and Briggs believe that the Hebrew form of the name (Dar·yaʹwesh) derives from a root meaning to “raise, make high.” Thus, some consider it possible that “Darius” may have been used, at least in the case of Darius the Mede, as a title or throne name rather than a personal name.

1. Darius the Mede, successor to the kingdom of the Chaldean king Belshazzar following the conquest of Babylon by the forces of Cyrus the Persian, at which time Darius was about sixty-two years of age. (Dan. 5:30, 31) He is further identified as “the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes.”—Dan. 9:1.

DANIEL IN THE LIONS’ PIT

Darius, exercising his administrative capacity, appointed one hundred and twenty satraps (a term that means, basically, “protector of the realm”) to serve throughout the realm, and also three high officials who had jurisdiction over the satraps, acting on behalf of the king’s interests. The prime concern of the arrangement may well have been financial, as the collecting of revenues and tributes for the royal coffers was one of the chief duties of satraps. (Compare Ezra 4:13.) One member of the triumvirate of high officials assigned was Daniel, who so distinguished himself over the other officials and satraps that Darius contemplated making him prime minister. (Dan. 6:1-3) Evidently due to envy, though perhaps due as well to resentment of the restraint against corruption and graft that Daniel’s integrity doubtless produced, the other two high officials, in league with the satraps, devised a legal trap. Appearing as a throng before the king, they presented for the king’s signature an edict, ostensibly favored by the entire body of all ranking government officials (Daniel not being mentioned, however), and prohibiting the making of “a petition to any god or man” other than Darius for thirty days. The penalty was for the violator to be thrown into the lions’ pit. The decree had all the appearances of serving to establish Darius, a foreigner, firmly in his newly received position as king of the realm and of being an expression of loyalty and support on the part of the government officials advocating it.

Darius signed the decree and soon was faced with the result, one that should have revealed to him the hidden purpose of the edict. For continuing prayer to Jehovah God, Daniel, as the edict’s first violator (compare Acts 5:29), was thrown into the lions’ pit despite Darius’ sincere efforts to find a way of circumventing the unchangeable statute. Darius expressed trust in the power of Daniel’s God to preserve him, and, after a sleepless night and fasting, hurried to the lions’ pit and rejoiced to find Daniel still alive and unharmed. The king then not only had Daniel’s accusers and their families thrown into the lions’ pit as retributive justice, but also had a proclamation made throughout the realm that “in every dominion of my kingdom, people are to be quaking and fearing before the God of Daniel.”—Dan. 6:4-27.

Historical records show that, from ancient times, Mesopotamian kings were viewed as divine and had worship offered to them. Many commentators consider that the restriction on the making of ‘petitions’ set forth in Darius’ edict was entirely with regard to petitions of a religious nature, not applying to requests of a general kind. The existence of a “lions’ pit” in Babylon is in conformity with the testimony of ancient inscriptions that show that Oriental rulers frequently had menageries of wild animals. The Soncino Books of the Bible in commenting on this (Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 49) states: “The Persians are known to have inherited from the Assyrian kings the practice of keeping these animals in their zoological gardens.” (Compare Ezekiel 19:3-9.) Greek historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus (of the fifth and first centuries B.C.E. respectively) both testify as to the immutability of the laws of the Medes and Persians.—Compare Esther 1:19; 8:8.

END OF SEVENTY-YEAR EXILE DRAWS NEAR

After chapter six of Daniel the only further mention of Darius is with regard to the time period of his “first year” of rule. It was during that first year that Daniel “discerned” the seventy-year limit on the desolation of Judah and received the revelation concerning the seventy prophetic weeks and Messiah’s coming. (Dan. 9:1, 2, 24-27) The angel who brought Daniel the lengthy vision depicting the strivings of the “king of the north” and the “king of the south” also revealed that he had earlier acted as an angelic strengthener and fortress during Darius the Mede’s first year. (Dan. 11:1, 6) Commentators generally have understood that the angel rendered this service to Darius, but it seems more likely that it was to Michael, the angelic prince over Daniel’s people who is mentioned in the previous verse (Dan. 10:21) as contending alongside this particular angelic messenger, that such assistance was given. Thus there was angelic cooperation and collaboration in contending with the demon ‘prince of Persia’ who endeavored to thwart the fulfillment of Jehovah’s purposes.—Dan. 10:13, 14.

CAMBYSES’ POSITION

Some historical works concerning the Persian Empire present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses actually assumed the title “King of Babylon” for the first time on Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus, who was then setting out on the campaign that resulted in his death. There is, thus, no conflict between the secular historical records relating to Cambyses II and the Biblical record of Darius’ rulership in Babylon.

CONNECTION WITH SECULAR HISTORY

No reference to “Darius the Mede” has as yet been found in any non-Biblical inscription, nor is he mentioned by ancient secular historians prior to Josephus (Jewish historian of the first century C.E.). This has served as the basis or pretext for many critics to label Darius the Mede as a fictitious personage having no rightful place in actual history.

Some scholars have endeavored to associate Darius with Cyrus’ son Cambyses II, but this does not agree with Darius’ being “about sixty-two years old” at the time of Babylon’s fall. (Dan. 5:31) Similarly, the view that Darius might be another name for Cyrus himself does not harmonize with Darius’ being a “Mede” and “of the seed of the Medes,” this latter expression pointing to his father, Ahasuerus, as Median. Cyrus is definitely called “Persian” and, while his mother may have been Median as some historians claim, his father, according to the Cyrus’ Cylinder, was Cambyses I, a Persian.—Dan. 6:28.

Others would identify Darius with a supposed “uncle” of Cyrus, presented by Greek historian Xenophon as “Cyaxares, son of Astyages.” Xenophon relates that Cyaxares (II) succeeded to the throne of his father Astyages, the Median king, but preferred a life of ease and left the exercise of government in the hands of his nephew and son-in-law Cyrus. (Cyropaedia, i, 5, 2; iv, 5, 8; viii, 5, 19) Both Herodotus and Ctesias (Greek historians more or less contemporaneous with Xenophon) give accounts contradicting that of Xenophon, however, and Herodotus claims that Astyages died sonless. The Nabonidus Chronicle shows Cyrus gaining kingship over the Medes through the capture of Astyages. Additionally, this identification of Darius with Cyaxares II would require the assumption that Astyages was known also as Ahasuerus, since Darius the Mede was the “son of Ahasuerus.” (Dan. 9:1) So this view is lacking in confirmation.

A possible identification

More recently, a number of reference works have favored an identification of Darius with Gubaru (Gobryas), who became governor of Babylon after the Medo-Persian conquest of that city. Basically the evidence they present is as follows:

The ancient cuneiform text known as the Nabonidus Chronicle, in recounting the fall of Babylon, says that “Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.” Then, after relating Cyrus’ entry into the city seventeen days later, the inscription states that “Gubaru [not Ugbaru], his governor, installed (sub-) governors in Babylon.” Two different individuals are mentioned. While their names, Ugbaru and Gubaru, appear to be similar, yet in the cuneiform style of writing the sign for the first syllable of Ugbaru’s name is quite different from that of Gubaru. The Chronicle states that Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, died within a few weeks of the conquest. Other cuneiform texts show that Gubaru continued living and served for fourteen years as governor, not only of the city of Babylon, but of the entire region of Babylonia as well as of the “Region beyond the River,” which included Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine down to the Egyptian frontier. Thus Gubaru was ruler over a region that extended the full length of the Fertile Crescent, basically the same area as that of the Babylonian Empire. Darius the Mede, it will be remembered, is spoken of as being “made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 5:31; 9:1), but not as “the king of Persia,” the regular form for referring to King Cyrus. (Dan. 10:1; Ezra 1:1, 2; 3:7; 4:3) So the region ruled by Gubaru would at least appear to be the same as that ruled by Darius.

Since Gubaru is nowhere called “Darius,” the suggestion is made that “Darius” was his title or throne name. Professor Albright states: “It seems to me highly probable that Gobryas [Gubaru] did actually assume the royal dignity, along with the name ‘Darius,’ perhaps an old Iranian royal title, while Cyrus was absent on an Eastern campaign.” (Quoted in Darius the Mede, by John C. Whitcomb [1959], p. 27) In answer to the objection that the cuneiform tablets nowhere speak of Gubaru as “king,” those advocating Gubaru’s identification with King Darius point to the fact that the title of king is likewise not applied to Belshazzar in the cuneiform tablets, yet the cuneiform document known as the “Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus” definitely states that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to his son.

Along this line, Professor Whitcomb points out that, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, “Gubaru, his [Cyrus’] governor, installed (sub-) governors in Babylon,” even as Daniel 6:1, 2 shows that Darius