Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel

Abstract

1. 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’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.