Why the Medes and Persians are considered a single kingdom in the Book of Daniel

[gadam123]

Darius the Mede – Historiography as Exegesis

The most anomalous element in the introductory passage in Dan 9 is the figure of Darius the Mede.

Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Previous generations of scholars attempted to identify this Median monarch, but today there is a general consensus that he is a fictitious character.  A historical King Darius is known from both within and outside of the Bible – in fact, we find more than one by that name – but they were Kings of Persia, not Media. Furthermore, the Medians did not overthrow the Babylonian kingdom – the Persians did. The same fictitious Darius the Mede is found in Dan 6:1 as the successor to Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans (5:30-31), as well as in 11:1. Why did the author/editor of Daniel create this fictional character? Two
primary explanations have been suggested. First, it has been noted that some earlier biblical prophecies predict the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom at the hands of the Medes (Isa 13:17; 21:2; Jer 51:11,28).

Is 13:17 See, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver
and do not delight in gold.

Is 21:2 A stern vision is told to me;
the betrayer betrays,
and the destroyer destroys.
Go up, O Elam,
lay siege, O Media;
all the sighing she has caused
I bring to an end.

Jer 51: 17 Sharpen the arrows!
Fill the quivers!
The Lord has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is the vengeance of the Lord, vengeance for his temple.

28 Prepare the nations for war against her,
the kings of the Medes, with their governors and deputies,
and every land under their dominion.

According to this view, the writer responsible for the date in chapters 6 and 9 was describing the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom as a fulfillment of these prophecies, which thus came to fruition through the rise of a fictional Median monarch. The second approach is to view the addition of a Median king as a necessary element of the four-kingdom scheme found in both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2, and in the vision in chapter 7. According to this interpretation, the editor of the book structured its chronological framework according to the kingdoms represented in those visions, Babylon–Media–Persia–Greece. He artificially added this date in chapter 9 and 11, in order to “fill in” the lacuna of a second kingdom. Neither of these approaches presupposes an inherent connection between the date assigned to the vision in chapter 9 and its contents, since each presumes a motivation for the dating based upon broader issues in Daniel or in the Bible as a whole.

It is possible, however, to posit an alternative explanation for this chronological framing that is directly related to the vision found in chapter 9. Daniel 9:1 offers an explanatory note that reveals the significance of the rise of the Median monarch; according to this verse Darius “was made king over the kingdom
of the Chaldeans.” According to this introduction, the reign of Darius the Mede brings to an end the period of Babylonian rule on the one hand, and as noted explicitly in 6:28, ushers in the rule of King Cyrus of Persia on the other. The only chronological note on this monarchy is the mention of a single year, “the first year (אחת בשנת)” of Darius’s reign (9:1; 11:1). According to the method of counting that will be described below in reference to 9:24–27, this date implies that Darius ruled for one year (or less), and was merely a passing note in this historical sequence, without any particular significance in and of itself. Functionally, the Median monarchy represents the midpoint in time between the Babylonian and Persian empires, following the fall of the former and prior to the rise of the latter. Comparison of the fictionalized historical context in Daniel 9:1, which assumes that the Babylonian king had just been deposed, with the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah quoted above, which describe the seventy-year period until the end of Babylonian rule, leads to the conclusion that according to the Danielic author the seventy years of Jeremiah 25 and 29 had indeed been chronologically completed.

The is the reason why the writer of Daniel narrated the Median kingdom with its the fictitious king Darius the Mede separately to show that the Median kingdom is the successor to the Babylonian kingdom. Therefore the scholars interpreted the Median as the second kingdom of Dan 2 and 7. And hence the four kingdoms of Dan 2 and 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece which were to be succeeded by the Fifth, Godly kingdom by his Holy ones which never took place in the history. This is the reason why Jewish and Christian apologists tried hard to replace the fourth kingdom by Rome by clubbing the Media and Persia as the second kingdom.

[GeneBalthrop]

Adam…….you have to go back to the original prophesy of Daniel 2,   And make it all fit to the coming of Jesus , if you do that you will see there a SIX KINGDOMS mentioned by him there.  We are in the fifth and the Sixth is yet to come, that is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s,  Daniels 2 prophesy only went that far.  Rev 17 picks it up from there and carries it to the return of God the Father to this earth.

The only way you can make it all fit, is to understand that John in Rev 17 , was transported in time to the very end of the Thousand year rule of the Sixth kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s,  then will arise the Seventh and from the Seventh will come the Eighth kingdom consisting of ten kings and Satan himself as their leader,  he will completely destroy the “Seventh”  Kingdom of Babylon and then try to destroy The Sixth Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s,  then God the Father will send fire down from heaven (the battle of Armageddon) and destroy the Eighth kingdom at Jerusalem,  and God the Father himself will receive the Sixth Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s, and rule it forevermore.

If what ever you, or anyone else comes up with ,  doesn’t  exactly matches that “TIMELINE ” , it won’t EVER work. IMO

Peace and love to you and yours Adam………gene

[gadam123]

DARIUS THE MEDE

The Problem: ‘The references to Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel have long been recognised as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.’ Yet the Bible clearly declares that after the death of the Chaldean king Belshazzar ‘Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old’ (Dn. 5:30-31). This Darius was ‘son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans’ (9:1). He ‘set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be throughout the while kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps
should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss’ (6:1-2). Daniel held a position of authority at least during the first regnal year in Babylon of this king (6:1; 9:1) and, according to the traditional translation of 6:28, ‘Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Thus Darius the Mede appears to have been succeeded by Cyrus and this verse is considered ‘the clearest evidence of the book’s belief in a Median empire between the Babylonian and the Persian’

On the other hand, contemporary extra-biblical sources relate that Belshazzar, co-regent with his father Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king of Babylon, died some time after the entry of Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, with the army of Cyrus into Babylon without a battle on the sixteenth of Tashritu. Nabonidus, who had fled the day before, was probably captured and died in exile. Cyrus, who had remained with his troops at Opis, entered the city eighteen days later (third of Arahshamnu = 29 October 539 BC) when the temple ritual had been restored and agreement for surrender reached. He was received as a victor and
deliverer with popular rejoicing and at once sent greetings to all Babylonia. Gubaru, his governor, installed sub-governors in Babylonia. The deities which had been brought in by Nabonidus to Babylon were restored to the shrines in their own cities. On the eleventh of Arahshamnu Ugbaru died and later that month some person, whose description is lost (possibly the wife or mother of the king), died amid national mourning at the end of which Cambyses, son of Cyrus, entered the temple. There is thus no room for the reign of a king Darius or for a ‘Median empire’ between the fall of the Chaldean Dynasty and the
inauguration of the Achaemenid suzerainty at Babylon.

The solution: The writer of Daniel inserted the fictitious rule of Darius the Mede before the rule of Cyrus the Persian to incorporate the second kingdom as Media before Persia to the four kingdom formula of Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.

 

[gadam123]

Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel by H.H. Rowley_book review

H.H. Rowley suggests of the author of Daniel, “the author had an exaggerated sense of the significance of contemporary events… Recognizing the seriousness of the attack on his faith that Antiochus was making, and rightly inspiring his contemporaries to battle for their faith, he mistakenly thought the victory would be final and would inaugurate the kingdom that has no end.” (Pg. 137)

He acknowledges, “On neither of the two opposing views of the second and third kingdoms… can a really convincing explanation of the symbolism of 7:5 ff. be given. Their evidence cannot fairly be used for or against either view, and we can only say with confidence that in the mind of the author they had some definite meaning, which is too obscure to be recovered, in the absence of any assured clue in his work. But that he believed that a Median empire stood between the Babylonian and the Persian can be proved without the aid of these verses, and this gives at once the simplest and most satisfying solution of the problem of the four empires.” (Pg. 160)

He summarizes in conclusion, “(a) So far as Darius the Mede is concerned, we have seen that there is no way of reconciling the book of Daniel with assured history, and all the efforts of the apologists… definitely fail. (b) So far as the four empires are concerned, the identification with the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Macedonian [Grecian] empires, to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is the only one that can be found to accord with the data presented… The case against the traditional date … rests on a variety of considerations, but the single one … in the first part of our study would alone be sufficient to establish it. For a sixth-century person… could not have made so gross an error as … introducing Darius the Mede between Belshazzar and Cyrus. Nor could he have supposed that a Median empire stood between the Babylonian and the Persian… the work… is anchored in the second century by the accuracy of the knowledge of that age which appears in its pages… It is impossible to believe that the mind of Daniel was illumined with accurate knowledge of future times, while, at the same time, thoroughly befogged as to the events in which he himself had played no mean part, and we can only find in the limited range of the accurate knowledge the indication of the author’s period.” (Pg. 175)

Though more than 80 years old, this is still an excellent book laying out nearly all the possible theories, and more-or-less fairly assessing them. It will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying the book of Daniel.

[Proclaimer]

Gadam thinks that because archaeology hasn’t discovered it yet, it is not true

Let me state something. When you are not looking at the moon, does that mean it is not there?

Now to the subject at hand. I would first like to state that whether Darius is a real person or not, in the context of Daniel, the Medes and Persians took rulership away from Babylon. They are the second beast, metal, and two horns.

Now that we have this out of the way. The next thing to mention is  the name Darius. The same letters in Arabic mean “king,” “compeller,” “restrainer.” In Hebrew, derivations of the root mean “lord,” “mistress,” “queen”; in Aramaic, “mighty,” “almighty”. So it could be a name, a descriptor, maybe a title.

Following that, many people that attack accounts in the Bible do so because of bias. They want more than anything for the Bible to be wrong, so they can feel justification for their sin or lack of faith in God. They probably reason that if the Bible is completely wrong on this point, then the rest doesn’t matter. So eat, drink, and be merry. But as long as it lines up with history, there is always the chance it is true and therefore, they know they are found wanting at that worries them.

However, such views have time and time again been corrected with archaeological discoveries. The Bible says this and archaeology and history have no mention of it, then a discovery shows the Bible was correct. Let’s list some of the supposed errors in the Bible that have since been proven to be true by archaeology. Or have been backed up of extrabiblical sources.

1. The existence of Jericho and the outward fallen walls.
2. The crossing of the Red Sea.
3. The existence of King David and The House of David.
4. The existence of the Hittite civilization.
5. The existence of King Belshazzar

Of course this is not an exhaustive list, rather 5 easy examples you can google in a matter of minutes.

Gadam, you seem to have a warped understanding of history and archaeology. King David and the House of David as being mentioned in an extrabiblical source was discovered in 1993. That is quite recent in archaeological terms. So historical evidence is always going to take time. In the meantime however, it would be foolish to write off Biblical history because a man or woman hasn’t happened to dig in the area where the proof is sitting. Imagine what else is lying buried in the ground just waiting to be discovered. This is just common sense Gadam. Even the Smithsonian Institute has a different opinion to you on this.

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened.”

[Proclaimer]

The Early Medes and the Median Empire

In this video podcast, we’ll take a look at one of the most overlooked peoples of ancient history, the Medes, and reconstruct their early history using Assyrian, Babylonian and Greek sources, namely Herodotus (the Medes don’t have any primary sources of their own). It was the Medes and the Median Empire that laid the foundation upon which the Achaemenid Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great and his descendants rested upon.

[Proclaimer]

The Ancient Middle East up till the Achaemenid Empire (Medes and Persians)

[Proclaimer]

‘The Persians were originally nomadic pastoralists in the western Iranian Plateau. The Achaemenid Empire was not the first Iranian empire, as the Medes, another group of Iranian peoples, established a short-lived empire and played a major role in the overthrow of the Assyrians”

https://www.worldcat.org/title/history-of-the-ancient-near-east-ca-3000-323-bc/oclc/904507201

[Proclaimer]

The makeup of the Persian Empire

History attests to the single Mede and Persian empire. Understanding this places the order of empires and consequently, the order of the prophesied kingdoms in the Book of Daniel to:

1. Babylon
2. Media and Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome

[keras]

There was a King Darius:

Bisotun is located along the ancient trade route linking the Iranian high plateau with Mesopotamia and features remains from the prehistoric times to the Median, Achaemenid, Sassanian, and Ilkhanid periods. The principal monument of this archaeological site is the bas-relief and cuneiform inscription ordered by Darius I, The Great, when he rose to the throne of the Persian Empire, 521 BC. The bas-relief portrays Darius holding a bow, as a sign of sovereignty, and treading on the chest of a figure who lies on his back before him. According to legend, the figure represents Gaumata, the Median Magus and pretender to the throne whose assassination led to Darius’s rise to power. Below and around the bas-reliefs, there are ca. 1,200 lines of inscriptions telling the story of the battles Darius waged in 521-520 BC against the governors who attempted to take apart the Empire founded by Cyrus. The inscription is written in three languages. The oldest is an Elamite text referring to legends describing the king and the rebellions. This is followed by a Babylonian version of similar legends. The last phase of the inscription is particularly important, as it is here that Darius introduced for the first time the Old Persian version of his res gestae (things done). This is the only known monumental text of the Achaemenids to document the re-establishment of the Empire by Darius I. It also bears witness to the interchange of influences in the development of monumental art and writing in the region of the Persian Empire. There are also remains from the Median period (8th to 7th centuries B.C.) as well as from the Achaemenid (6th to 4th centuries B.C.) and post-Achaemenid periods.

[Proclaimer]

Thanks keras.

[Proclaimer]

A brief history of the Medes and Persians becoming an empire

I am trying to picture the succession of beasts as written in the Book of Daniel. It is quite hard because there is a difference between empires and beasts. At what point does an empire or empires become a beast. I would think when a government controls the empires or kingdoms around it and not just it’s own empire.

This video above points out that the Assyrians fought many battles with the Medes. Historian Herodotus says that the Medes were fiercely independent, but a disunited people. Tradition has it that they grew tired of Assyrian invasions and general lawlessness, so they united to become a single kingdom. The king they chose to lead them was Deioces (727-675 BC). It was his grandson Cyaxares who turned the kingdom into a world leading empire. He allied with the king of Babylon and launched an attack on the Assyrian Empire and helped to destroy it. They then divvied up the territory between them.

Eventually Cyaxares passed away and his son Astyages took the throne. During this time, there were three empires in the region. Neo-Babylon, Lydia, and Media. It was then that the Medes and the closely related Persians who were part of Media gained stronger ties when Astyages daughter married Cambyses 1 the king of Persia. These were the parents of Cyrus II, better known as Cyrus the Great. Historians disagree on this however as some say there was no lineage or link, but they all agree that Cyrus attacked Astyages the king of the Medes with Cyrus becoming the king of a stronger and more unified Median and Persian state.

What made Cyrus different to kings in the past was he showed mercy on Astyages and even made him a member of the his entourage. If history is true, Cyrus often treated his defeated enemies with dignity and was tolerant of the defeated people’s customs and religions. He often assimilated other peoples and their cultures and cities into his own kingdom. It was this policy of tolerance that made him famous in the ancient world. It also made it easier for Cyrus to rule over a diverse group of people as they had less reason to revolt.

The rise of Cyrus and Persia did not go unnoticed by neighbouring empires Lydia and Babylon. These two empires saw Cyrus as an usurper of the Median throne. But it was Lydia who first attacked Media-Persia and they lost. Cyrus assimilated the region as a new province in his empire. He also gained the coastal Greek provinces that Lydia ruled over. The Lydian king whose name was Croesus eventually joined Cyrus as Astyages had done earlier and became one of his closest advisors.

The next empire to conquer was Babylon. This was Cyrus’s most famous conquest. History records that the city was taken without battle. This appears to agree with the biblical account where the Babylonians were unprepared for battle and captured. Cyrus not only assimilated Babylon into his own empire, but also her subjected peoples too. It was at this time that Cyrus famously freed the Jews who were under Babylonian captivity. He even helped the Jews to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem.

Ezra 1:1-3

1 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:

2 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

“‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3 Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them.

[Proclaimer]

Placing King Darius into recorded history

Darius is first mentioned in the story of Belshazzar’s feast (Daniel 5). Belshazzar, king of Babylon, holds a great feast, during which a hand appears and writes on the wall:

“MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN” (מנא מנא תקל ופרסין‎).

Daniel interprets the words: Belshazzar has been weighed and found wanting, and his kingdom is to be divided between the Medes and Persians. The story concludes: “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean (Babylonian) king was killed, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom.”

So does this fit with known history. First thing to consider is that history around this time is very sketchy. Historians often contradict one another too. Besides that, it seems that Darius can mean ‘King’, thus it could be one of the kings that Cyrus conquered and then made part of his entourage and as one of his advisors and rulers. Such a person would fit Astyages for example.

According to Bible Study Tools dictionary, it says the following:

Darius the Mede ( Daniel 11:1 ), “the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes” ( 9:1 ). On the death of Belshazzar the Chaldean he “received the kingdom” of Babylon as viceroy from Cyrus. During his brief reign (B.C. 538-536) Daniel was promoted to the highest dignity ( Daniel 6:1 Daniel 6:2 ); but on account of the malice of his enemies he was cast into the den of lions. After his miraculous escape, a decree was issued by Darius enjoining “reverence for the God of Daniel” ( 6:26 ). This king was probably the “Astyages” of the Greek historians. Nothing can, however, be with certainty affirmed regarding him. Some are of opinion that the name “Darius” is simply a name of office, equivalent to “governor,” and that the “Gobryas” of the inscriptions was the person intended by the name. 
Darius, king of Persia, was the son of Hystaspes, of the royal family of the Achaemenidae. He did not immediately succeed Cyrus on the throne. There were two intermediate kings, viz., Cambyses (the Ahasuerus of Ezra), the son of Cyrus, who reigned from B.C. 529-522, and was succeeded by a usurper named Smerdis, who occupied the throne only ten months, and was succeeded by this Darius (B.C. 521-486). Smerdis was a Margian, and therefore had no sympathy with Cyrus and Cambyses in the manner in which they had treated the Jews. He issued a decree prohibiting the restoration of the temple and of Jerusalem ( Ezra 4:17-22 ). But soon after his death and the accession of Darius, the Jews resumed their work, thinking that the edict of Smerdis would be now null and void, as Darius was in known harmony with the religious policy of Cyrus. The enemies of the Jews lost no time in bringing the matter under the notice of Darius, who caused search to be made for the decree of Cyrus (q.v.). It was not found at Babylon, but at Achmetha ( Ezra 6:2 ); and Darius forthwith issued a new decree, giving the Jews full liberty to prosecute their work, at the same time requiring the Syrian satrap and his subordinates to give them all needed help. It was with the army of this king that the Greeks fought the famous battle of Marathon (B.C. 490). During his reign the Jews enjoyed much peace and prosperity. He was succeeded by Ahasuerus, known to the Greeks as Xerxes, who reigned for twenty-one years. 
Darius the Persian ( Nehemiah 12:22 ) was probably the Darius II. (Ochus or Nothus) of profane history, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was the son and successor of Ahasuerus (Xerxes).

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/darius/

[gadam123]

[Proclaimer]

Proof that the Medes and the Persians were one kingdom

Daniel 5:25-28

“Now this is the inscription that was written out: ‘MENĒ, MENĒ, TEKĒL, UPHARSIN.’
This is the interpretation of the message:
‘MENĒ’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it.
‘TEKĒL’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient.
‘PERĒS’—your kingdom has been divided and given over to:
the Medes and Persians.”

So the kingdom of Babylon was given over to the Medes and the Persians. The Medes were not one kingdom followed by Persia.

[Proclaimer]

Cyrus the Great

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire and the king of Persia from 559 to 530 BC. He is best known for his role in ending the Babylonian captivity and allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. He is considered a hero in Jewish and persian history. His empire, at its height, was the largest empire the world had yet seen.
– He was the Persian king who founded the Achaemenid Empire.
– He allowed the various cultures within his empire to maintain their religions, laws, and customs.
– He freed the Jews that had been held in captivity by the Babylonians.
– He was a benevolent conqueror who honored and cared for his subjects.
– He was a skilled military leader who was able to move his armies quickly and strike before his enemies could prepare.
– He was a tolerant and ideal monarch who was called the father of his people.
– He was born between 590 and 580 BCE in either Media or Persis.
– He died in 529 BCE after being wounded in battle.
– He was succeeded by his son, Cambyses II, who expanded the empire even further.

[Author]

Posts