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 62 years of age. (Da 5:30, 31) He is further identified as “the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes.”​—Da 9:1.

Identification of Darius the Mede. 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.

Some scholars 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 evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until 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. Efforts to associate Darius with Cyrus’ son Cambyses II do not agree with Darius’ being “about sixty-two years old” at the time of Babylon’s fall.​—Da 5:31.

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.​—Da 9:1; 6:28.

Others would identify Darius with a supposed “uncle” of Cyrus, presented by Greek historian Xenophon as “Cyaxares, the son of Astyages.” Xenophon relates that Cyaxares succeeded to the throne of Astyages, the Median king, but that Cyaxares later gave both his daughter and all of Media to his nephew Cyrus. (Cyropaedia, I, v, 2; VIII, v, 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.” (Da 9:1) So this view is lacking in confirmation.

Who really was Darius the Mede?

More recently, a number of reference works have favored an identification of Darius with Gubaru (commonly identified with the Gobryas mentioned in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia), 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 17 days later, the inscription states that Gubaru, “his governor, installed (sub-) governors in Babylon.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 306; compare Darius the Mede, by J. C. Whitcomb, 1959, p. 17.) Note that the names “Ugbaru” and “Gubaru” are not the same. While they appear to be similar, in the cuneiform style of writing the sign for the first syllable of Ugbaru’s name is quite different from that for 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 14 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” (Da 5:31; 9:1), but not as “the king of Persia,” the regular form for referring to King Cyrus. (Da 10:1; Ezr 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. W. F. 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.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1921, Vol. XL, p. 112, ftn. 19) 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 “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, as Cyrus’ district-governor, “appointed . . . (district-governors) in Babylon,” even as Daniel 6:1, 2 shows that Darius “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, 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. A. T. Olmstead 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.” (History of the Persian Empire, p. 71) 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.​—Da 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, though it is possible that they ruled concurrently and that Daniel made special mention of only the year that Darius came to prominence in Babylon. (Da 6:28; 9:1; 2Ch 36:20-23) Gubaru continued in his position for 14 years.

Why historical identification is 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 Middle 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.

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 if 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. (Da 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.” (Da 6:8; Es 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.