JETS 64.2 (2021): 265–85

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES:

UNCLE OF CYRUS, FRIEND OF DANIEL

RODGER C. YOUNG

∗

Abstract:

The history of Cyrus the Great is mostly constructed from the Greek authors He-

rodotus and Xenophon. A major difference in their accounts is the existence or nonexistence of

a king named Cyaxares who ruled over the Medes at the same time that Cyrus led the Per-

sians. This king is not mentioned by Herodotus, whereas he plays a significant role in Xeno-

phon’s Cyropaedia. The present article shows that the narrative of the Cyropaedia for the time

of Cyrus is more consistent with the accounts in the biblical books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and

Daniel than the narrative derived from Herodotus. It also shows that the current consensus

that favors Herodotus is built on an insecure foundation, whereas accepting Xenophon’s ac-

count, in addition to its better agreement with Isaiah and Jeremiah, also provides an explana-

tion of some difficult passages in the book of Daniel.

Key words:

Cyrus the Great, Cyaxares II, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Book of Daniel,

Medes and Persians, Darius the Mede, Belshazzar

The history of Cyrus the Great, the Persian conqueror who allowed the Jews

to return from their Babylonian exile, is mostly constructed from the Greek authors

Herodotus and Xenophon. Their accounts differ significantly. One major differ-

ence is the existence or nonexistence of a king named Cyaxares who ruled over the

Medes at the same time that Cyrus led the Persians. This king is never mentioned in

the Histories of Herodotus, and indeed there is no room for him in the sequence of

events that Herodotus gives for the career of Cyrus. In contrast, Cyaxares plays a

significant role, second only to that of Cyrus, in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (“The Edu-

cation of Cyrus”). The present article will show that what Xenophon wrote about

the Persians, Medes, and Cyaxares for this time is more consistent with the ac-

counts in the biblical books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel than is the overall pic-

ture given by Herodotus. It will also present a theory about why Herodotus omit-

ted Cyaxares. In spite of this better agreement with the biblical texts, modern

scholarship generally favors Herodotus over Xenophon in reconstructing the histo-

ry of the Medes and Persians in the sixth century BC.

Herodotus lived from ca. 484 to ca. 425 BC. He wrote his Histories in about

430 BC. The alternate title, The Persian Wars, shows that he was primarily concerned

with the wars between the Greeks and the Persians, starting with events related to

the Trojan War and ending shortly after the Battles of Plataea and Mycale (479 BC).

Xenophon (ca. 428 – ca. 354 BC) completed his Cyropaedia in about 370 BC, ap-

proximately 60 years after the publication of Herodotus’s Histories. Xenophon’s

∗

Rodger C. Young resides at 1115 Basswood Lane, St. Louis, MO 63132. He may be contacted at

rcyoung8@yahoo.com.

266 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

knowledge of the times of Cyrus the Great came largely from the time he spent

with Greek mercenaries fighting on behalf of Cyrus the Younger in an unsuccessful

struggle against Artaxerxes II for the kingship of Persia, a struggle described in his

most famous composition, the Anabasis. As Xenophon explains in the introduction

to the Cyropaedia, his purpose in writing this later work was to examine the charac-

teristics of a great leader—the ideal king. It is widely recognized that in so doing

Xenophon idealized his portrait of Cyrus. Because of this acknowledged idealiza-

tion, modern historians tend to discount many of the historical details found in the

Cyropaedia.

I. THE EARLY YEARS OF CYRUS: CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS

IN HERODOTUS AND XENOPHON

One factor that weighs in favor of Xenophon’s account of Cyrus versus that

of Herodotus is that Herodotus’s story of the early years of Cyrus is clearly fabu-

lous. Among other difficulties he portrays Cyrus as the son of a common person

and not the son of a king, whereas there are cuneiform texts in which Cyrus claims

that his father Cambyses, grandfather Cyrus I, and great-grandfather Teispes were

all kings of Persia before him. An additional reason for rejecting Herodotus’s ac-

count of Cyrus’s origin and youth is his statement that “there are no less than three

other accounts of Cyrus which I could give” other than the one he presented (Hist.

1.95.1). The choice he made may have been because that version was the most en-

tertaining of the four.

In brief, Herodotus’s tale said that Cyrus’s grandfather Astyages, king of Me-

dia, was warned in dreams that his daughter Mandane would give birth to a child

who would eventually usurp his throne. In order to prevent this, Astyages had

Mandane marry a Persian commoner named Cambyses so that the child would not

be part of his royal house. Then, when his daughter was about to bear her son,

Astyages commissioned one of his servants to go to Mandane in Persia and slay the

child. The servant was unwilling to kill the child himself, and so he committed the

task to a certain herdsman. The herdsman’s wife was about to give birth, and when

she did the child was stillborn. The couple buried the stillborn child and pretended

they had carried out their commission, thereafter raising Cyrus themselves. When

Cyrus reached manhood and his true identity was revealed, Cyrus and the Persians

became inveterate enemies of Astyages, eventually defeating him in battle and con-

fining him to his palace. (This is unlikely in itself and casts doubt on Herodotus’s

whole scenario about Astyages; would a conqueror leave a conquered king in his

capital while the conqueror was involved in foreign campaigns?) After that, the

domination of the Persians over the Medes continued for several years before and

after the capture of Babylon. According to Herodotus, when Cyrus conquered As-

Perhaps more likely, the fabulous tale was chosen because it illustrated a recurring theme of He-

rodotus, that the fates always recompense in this life any evil deed, such as was supposedly perpetrated

by Astyages.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 267

tyages he made the Medes “slaves instead of masters and the Persians, who were

the slaves, are now the masters of the Medes” (1.129.4).

Xenophon agrees with Herodotus that Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daugh-

ter of Astyages king of Media, but Xenophon makes it clear that the Cambyses she

married was king of Persia, not a commoner. As mentioned above, this is in keep-

ing with the cuneiform evidence that Cyrus’s father Cambyses I was king of Persia.

Xenophon relates that when Cyrus was twelve or slightly older, Mandane took him

from Persia to Ecbatana, the Median capital, at the request of Astyages. The boy

and his grandfather immediately developed a liking for each other, and when Man-

dane wanted to return, Astyages requested that the boy remain with him in order to

complete his education. Cyrus agreed, saying he especially wanted to learn to ride a

horse, a skill at which the Medes excelled but that the Persians did not practice at

the time. The cordial relations between Astyages and his grandson continued dur-

ing the years while Cyrus grew to manhood, and in no instance does Xenophon

portray anything but affection between grandfather and grandson as long as Asty-

ages was alive.

Since Herodotus’s Histories was widely known among Greek literati, Xeno-

phon would have been acquainted with what Herodotus wrote regarding the Medes,

the Persians, and Cyrus the Great. According to Steven Hirsch, “Furthermore,

Xenophon’s story of the interview between Cyrus and Croesus, the captured king

of Lydia, virtually proves his familiarity with the Herodotean version, for his altera-

tion of the Herodotean account of these events amounts to an implicit criticism of

Herodotus’ treatment of the role of Delphi (Cyropaedia 7.2.9–28).”

It is significant that Xenophon’s account of the birth, family, and early up-

bringing of Cyrus bears no resemblance to Herodotus’s account that conflicts with

the royal birth of Cyrus. It was as if Xenophon saw no need to explicitly refute

such a fabulous tale because it was patently false. And yet one basic corollary of the

story line espoused by Herodotus is the majority opinion of historians today: That

is that there was a conflict between Cyrus and his grandfather Astyages that culmi-

nated in a battle in which Astyages was dethroned and Cyrus and his Persians took

the rule over the Medes, all of this happening approximately eleven years before the

capture of Babylon.

II. RELATIONS BETWEEN MEDES AND PERSIANS:

HOSTILE (HERODOTUS) OR AMICABLE (XENOPHON)?

It has been remarked that, according to Herodotus, Cyrus defeated the Medi-

an army and then dispossessed his grandfather as king of Media, keeping him cap-

tive for the rest of his life and making slaves of the Medes. In contrast, in the Cyro-

paedia the relations between Cyrus and Astyages were always affectionate. Further,

the Cyropaedia characterizes the interactions between the Medes and Persians as

Steven W. Hirsch, “1001 Iranian Nights: History and Fiction in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia,” in The

Greek Historians: Literature and History; Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek, ed. M. Jameson (Saratoga, CA:

ANMA Libri, 1985), 72.

268 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

generally harmonious, with Cyrus and the Persians subordinate to the Medes until

sometime after the fall of Babylon, after which the Persians were in the ascendancy.

Although Cyrus was recognized as a great leader because of his skill in leading the

army, in the Cyropaedia he is portrayed as always acting in accordance with the prin-

ciple that he was accountable to the Median king. This was true from the beginning

of his generalship over the combined forces of the Medes and Persians, and it was

still his practice when Babylon fell to the forces under his command.

1. Agreement of Medo-Persian relations in the Cyropaedia with the book of Daniel.

This state of affairs as taken from the Cyropaedia, with the Persians generally subor-

dinate to the Medes until after the capture of Babylon, is consistent with passages

in the book of Daniel. Significant in this regard is Daniel 5:28, where the writing on

the wall at Belshazzar’s banquet pronounces the judgment: “Your kingdom is di-

vided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Other mentions where the Medes are

named first when listed with the Persians, indicating that the Median king had su-

preme authority even after the capture of Babylon, are 6:8, 12, and 15.

Herodotus,

however, said the Medes were made slaves of the Persians several years earlier

(1.129.4).

2. Agreement of Medo-Persian relations in the Cyropaedia with the book of Isaiah. Isai-

ah has quite a bit to say about Babylon, and so we might expect that at least one of

the Isaianic passages would shed light on events related to the fall of Babylon to the

Medes and Persians. Sections dealing with Babylon are all of chapter 13, chapter

14:3–11 and 21–23, chapter 21:1–10, chapter 39, chapter 46:1–2 and 11, chapter 47,

and chapter 48:14, 15. In addition, the prophecies about Cyrus as the one who

would allow the Israelite captives to return and start rebuilding the Temple (44:28;

45:1–6, 13) are relevant to the situation in Babylon in 539 BC and shortly thereafter.

The difficulties in applying the Isaianic passages to specific events in the his-

tories of Babylon, the Medes, and the Persians are twofold. The first difficulty aris-

es because in Isaiah, and extending later into the book of Revelation, Babylon sym-

bolically stands for the great world-system that pridefully asserts its independence

of God. This is shown in Isaiah 13:2–13, where the calamities that were announced

against “Babylon” (v. 1) are best understood as referring to God’s final judgment

on the whole earth (ל ֵב ֵתּ, v. 11) before transitioning to a more restricted locale and

event in verses 14–16. Similarly, the taunt against Babylon in 14:3–11 is followed by

a prophecy of the pride and doom of an individual who is either the end-time anti-

christ or the devil himself instead of any historical Neo-Babylonian king. Isaiah’s

prophetic vision uses the historical Babylon as a type to illustrate more sweeping

and cosmic spiritual truths.

The second difficulty is that even in those passages that are best interpreted as

referring to localized, historical disasters coming to the city on the Euphrates River,

interpreters have varied widely on which of these calamities Isaiah is referring to in

his various pronouncements. Granted that Isaiah’s prophecies expand a specific

disaster or disasters coming to the city of Babylon so that they foreshadow more

Esther 1:19, describing a later time, mentions Persians and then Medes.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 269

cosmological warnings of God’s wrath, what are the historical types that foreshad-

ow the eschatological antitype? Gary Smith lists eight calamities befalling Babylon,

starting with the conquest of Babylon by Sargon II in 710 BC and ending with

Xerxes putting down two revolts of the city in 484 and 482 BC.

One of Smith’s

eight events is the fall of the city to the forces under Cyrus in 539 BC. Many inter-

preters take this event as Isaiah’s main historical type of temporal judgment. How-

ever, the cuneiform texts related to the final days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire

(discussed below) indicate that Cyrus by no means destroyed the city, even being

content to reign in it quite peacefully after his conquest. Further, Cyrus did not

destroy the idols of Babylon, as described in Isaiah 21:9; instead, according to the

declaration of the Cyrus Cylinder, he restored the idols that Nabonidus had re-

moved from their proper sanctuaries.

The takeover of the city by the Medes and

Persians was one of the more merciful victories of antiquity. In that event Belshaz-

zar and some others were killed, but the city was left intact and became one of the

three capitals used by Cyrus. In light of these considerations, Gary Smith has con-

vincingly argued that the main temporal judgment on Babylon, at least as described

in Isaiah 46 and 47, was fulfilled in the razing of the city by Sennacherib in 689

BC.

According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “The destructions brought about by Sen-

nacherib were the most tragic events in the history of Babylon.”

Sennacherib

boasted, “The city and its houses,—foundations and walls, I destroyed, I devastat-

ed, I burned with fire. The wall and the outer-wall, temples and gods, temple-

towers of brick and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into

the Arahtu canal … I flooded its site with water, and the very foundation thereof I

destroyed.”

The destructions wrought by Sennacherib therefore are the most fitting ful-

fillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of doom against temporal Babylon, but that does

not exclude other judgments referring to other time periods. Such other judgments

are hinted at in Isaiah 13. The chapter begins with the heading of an “oracle con-

cerning Babylon,” but, as mentioned above, verses 2–13 describe the more cosmic

judgment on “spiritual Babylon.” Verses 14–16 then transition to what appears to

be a temporal judgment of the specific city at a specific time, and this, as was dis-

cussed in the previous paragraph, would best fit the singular most devastating de-

struction of the city, that of Sennacherib in 689 BC. However, the city was rebuilt

after that, most notably by Nebuchadnezzar II, and so the utter and permanent

desolation described in the latter verses of Isaiah 13 cannot be taken as a conse-

quence of Sennacherib’s destruction. Instead, there is a transition to another judg-

ment, this time by the Medes: “Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them,

who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold. Their bows will slaughter

Gary V. Smith, “The Destruction of Babylon in Isaiah 46–47,” JETS 58.3 (2015): 531–37.

ANET, 316a, b.

Smith, “Destruction of Babylon,” 537–38, 544.

Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven: Yale Uni-

versity Press, 1989), 106.

Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 17.

270 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will

not pity children” (Isa 13:17–18, ESV). The remainder of the chapter, verses 19 to

22, describes the desolation of Babylon that began after the times of the Medes and

Persians: “It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations” (v. 20). By the

first century BC, the city had fallen into such ruin that Strabo wrote of it, “The

Great City is a great desert.”

Its desolation continues to the present time, all ef-

forts of Saddam Hussein notwithstanding. In Isaiah 13 the judgment on Babylon

that is intermediate between this final desolation and the earlier time of Sennacher-

ib is attributed, not to the Persians, but to the Medes.

This is consistent with

Xenophon’s portrayal of Medo-Persian relations at the time and is inconsistent

with Herodotus’s assertion that the Medes became slaves of the Persians some

years earlier.

3. Agreement of Medo-Persian relations in the Cyropaedia with the book of Jeremiah. By

the time of Jeremiah, the desolations that Isaiah had foretold for Babylon by the

hand of Sennacherib were past history and the city was experiencing a revival of its

fortunes under Nebuchadnezzar. The next calamity, however, was still future, and

as in Isaiah, Jeremiah’s two chapters (51 and 52) name the Medes as principal per-

petrators of that calamity. Jeremiah also names the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and

Ashkenaz as allies of the Medes (51:27). The Persians are not named but would be

included among “every land under their [the kings of the Medes] dominion” in

verse 28. Jeremiah echoes Isaiah: The city that was so great in his day “shall be a

perpetual waste” (Jer 51:26, ESV; also v. 29, “a desolation, without inhabitant”).

Jeremiah’s prophecies, as well as Daniel’s contemporaneous texts that name the

Medes before the Persians, are therefore compatible with Xenophon’s account that

has the Persians still under the authority of the Medes when Babylon was taken in

539 BC. In contrast, the modern consensus, following Herodotus, makes the

Medes subservient to the Persians several years before the conquest of Babylon.

Strabo, Geogr. 8.8.1, 16.1.5.

In Isaiah 21:2, Elam and Media are named as besiegers of Babylon. Some interpreters take Elam

in this verse as a more ancient name of Persia, and so this could refer to the combined forces of Media

and Persia taking Babylon in 539 BC. Others disagree with the identification of Elam as Persia. Another

argument against assigning the fulfillment of this prophecy to 539 BC is the incompatibility of the de-

struction of Babylon’s idols in verse 9 with the takeover by Cyrus. In his commentary on Isaiah, Smith

writes that 21:2 “probably relates to the Assyrian attack on Babylon around 689 BC. Babylon’s neigh-

bors [Elam, Media] are being encouraged to attack the Assyrian invading forces (21:2) to divert their

attention from Babylon.” Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, NAC 15A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007),

371.

When deciding between the histories of Xenophon and Herodotus regarding Cyrus, the French

historian Charles Rollin wrote, “But what decides this point unanswerably in favor of Xenophon, is the

conformity we find between his narrative and the Holy Scripture; where we see, that instead of Cyrus’s

having raised the Persian empire upon the ruins of that of the Medes, as Herodotus relates it, those two

nations attacked Babylon together, and united their forces to reduce the formidable power of the Baby-

lonian monarchy.” Charles Rollin, The Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians,

Medes and Persians, Macedonians and Grecians, 4 vols. (New York: John Wurtele Lovell, [1879]), 1:588.

Rollin’s French original was published in 12 volumes, 1730–1738. It is not to their credit when modern

critics place little weight on the testimony of Scripture in deciding historical issues.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 271

4. Agreement of Medo-Persian relations in the Cyropaedia with the Harran Stela. The

Harran Stela was commissioned by Nabonidus, last Babylonian king, as a testimony

of his devotion to “the Divine Crescent,” the moon-god Sin.

The stela is recog-

nized as a genuine text of Nabonidus, written, according to Beaulieu, in the latter

part of his reign, probably the fourteenth or fifteenth year, 542–540 BC.

This was

three years or less before Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar would see their king-

dom fall to the Medes, Persians, and their allies. In this text, Nabonidus mentions

in passing that his principal enemies at the time were “the king of Egypt, the Medes

and the land of the Arabs.”

There is no mention of a Persian king; Cyrus or his

father Cambyses I would have been included as part of the Median enemy. Nabo-

nidus, as ruler of the Babylonians, was surely well informed about who his enemies

were. In his view the Medes were the dominant force at that time, not the Persians.

The importance of this inscription in showing that, as late as the fall of Babylon,

the Medes still had the supremacy over the Persians, as implied in the books of

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel and as reported by Xenophon, can hardly be overstat-

ed.

III. CYAXARES II: NONPERSON (HERODOTUS)

OR KING OF THE MEDES (XENOPHON)?

1. The early years of Cyaxares. During the time of Cyrus’s education among the

Medes, Xenophon introduces his uncle, the crown prince Cyaxares, son of Astyag-

es and grandson of Cyaxares I, kings of Media. The interplay between these two is

a major subtheme in the Cyropaedia. According to Herodotus, Cyaxares II did not

exist; rather, Astyages was old and without a son when Cyrus was born (Hist.

1.109.3). The existence or nonexistence of Cyaxares II is thus a critical difference in

comparing the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon. The current consensus

among historians who follow Herodotus on the question of Medo-Persian succes-

sion allows no place for Xenophon’s Cyaxares II. According to Herodotus, Cyrus

the Great immediately replaced Astyages as king of Media and Persia. Cyaxares,

however, appears again and again at significant junctures in Xenophon’s narrative.

If, following the account of Herodotus, there was no such person, it is difficult to

understand why Xenophon would have invented him. He could well have devel-

oped the main themes of his book—the education and character of Cyrus, and his

digressions on the ideal ruler and military commander—without such a person.

Cyaxares’s grandfather who preceded Astyages on the throne of Media was

also named Cyaxares, so that according to the modern practice of assigning Roman

numerals, the subject of the present study should more properly be called Cyaxares

II. In the ancient Near East, it was often the custom that a ruler would take the

For translations of the Harran Stela, see ANET, 562a–563b, and Hanspeter Schaudig, Die In-

schriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen: Samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften;

Textausgabe und Grammatik, AOAT 256 (Münster: Ugarit, 2001), 486–99.

Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 32.

ANET, 562b.

272 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

name of an illustrious ancestor or predecessor. Cyrus himself was Cyrus II, son of

Cambyses I, son of Cyrus I. Cyrus the Great was therefore named after his grandfa-

ther Cyrus I, and his son, Cambyses II, was similarly named after his grandfather.

For Cyaxares II to have the same name as his grandfather was in keeping with the

customs of the time.

It was also the custom that when a king began to rule, he would be given a

throne name in addition to his given name. The original name of Artaxerxes I was

Cyrus; that of Darius II was Ochus; that of Artaxerxes II was Arses; that of Arta-

xerxes III was Ochus; and that of Darius III was Artashat.

Often it is this throne

name that was used in official records, and this is the name usually given in modern

histories. Xenophon, however, provides only the one name for Cyaxares II, and so

if there were a distinct throne name, it must be looked for in other sources. It will

be seen later that three such sources provide the throne name of Cyaxares II.

The first time that Cyaxares is mentioned is when Cyrus, as a youth of about

12, begged to go with his uncle on a hunt. During the hunt, Cyaxares was distressed

because his young charge was too impulsive and even reckless in pursuing the game

(Cyr. 1.4.5–9). In the next mention of Cyaxares (1.4.16–24), Cyrus was about 15

years of age when Cyaxares was commanded by his father Astyages to join him in

attacking some Babylonians troops who had made a foraging and hunting incursion

into Median territory. Cyrus accompanied them and, to the consternation of his

grandfather, drove his horse ahead of the detachment led by Cyaxares in a charge

against the Babylonian plunderers, “and Cyaxares did not fail to follow, partly per-

haps not to be shamed before his father” (1.4.22).

2. Beginning of the war against the Babylonians. The Cyropaedia then progresses to a

later time when Astyages had died and Cyaxares was now the king of the Medes,

and under him Cambyses I was king of the Persians. Cyaxares learned that the Bab-

ylonians were recruiting allies to attack the Medes, and he requested troops from

Cambyses to aid in facing the threat. Cyrus had now finished his education among

the young men of Persia, which means he was about 27 years of age (Cyr. 1.2.8, 9;

1.5.4). He had also learned the skills of generalship that Xenophon, himself one of

the ablest generals of antiquity, expounds upon at length in the Cyropaedia. Cyrus

was by this time less rash, and in preparation for the coming conflict he sought by

all means possible to determine the strength, disposition, and tactics of the enemy

before engaging them in battle.

Cyaxares requested that Cyrus lead the Persian forces, to which the Persian

Council of Elders assented. As the army set out, Cambyses gave his son much stra-

tegic and tactical advice as he accompanied him as far as the border of Media. After

the successful outcome of the initial battle, Cyrus found it wise, by a combination

of force and diplomacy, to add to the armies that would be on his side, since the

Babylonians and their allies outnumbered the forces of Cyaxares and Cyrus and

their allies. The Cyropaedia is woefully lacking in chronological markers for the years

Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 42 (1982):

83–86, 90.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 273

preceding the fall of Babylon, with the exception of those sentences that give Cy-

rus’s age as about 27 when he engaged in this first battle with the Babylonian con-

federacy. Although no strict chronology is given, the ensuing stratagems to increase

the fighting force seem to have taken about a year. During this time the Babyloni-

ans appointed Croesus, king of Lydia, to lead their forces in the anticipated struggle.

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus and his forces defeated Croesus and

took his capital, Sardis, in the ninth year of Nabonidus, 547 BC, in the month Aiaru

(Iyyar, April/May).

If this was a year after Cyrus’s assuming generalship of the

Medo-Persian coalition at age 27, it would make him about 36 years old when Bab-

ylon was taken in 539 BC and about 45 years old when he died in 530 BC.

That

he was about 28 when Sardis was taken is consistent with the “Dream Text” of

Nabonidus that calls Cyrus a “young servant” of Marduk when he became leader of

the Medes and Persians.

The Dream Text is recognized as a propaganda piece

that was created by the Persians after the fall of Babylon and which the authors

pretended was written by Nabonidus two years before the city was captured. But

even when the propagandistic nature of the text is acknowledged, falsifying the age

of Cyrus would serve no purpose, and so the Dream Text’s remark about Cyrus’s

youthfulness is evidence that Cyrus could not be identical to Darius the Mede, who

was about 62 years of age when the Medes and Persians captured Babylon (Dan

5:31 [6:1 MT]).

3. The character of Cyaxares, as portrayed in the Cyropaedia. Some caution should

be used in giving credence to all the details in the portrait of Cyaxares that Xeno-

phon gives because he may have used Cyaxares’s personality as a literary foil to the

idealized character of Cyrus. A significant contrast between the two is an account

of the importance that Cyaxares placed on an ostentatious show of his wealth and

the trappings of royalty, versus the plain garb and simpler lifestyle of Cyrus and the

Persians, who are portrayed as living in unaffected simplicity of dress and appetites

like the Spartans. Xenophon was an admirer of, and well acquainted with, the Spar-

tans, and modern commentators recognize that he projected much of what he

knew about them onto the Persians of Cyrus’s day. Nevertheless, the portrait given

of Cyaxares is consistent in showing his desire to accept admiration for his royal

status and his opulent costuming. He thus spends considerable time dressing in

ANET, 306a. See also Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, ed. Benjamin R. Forster

(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 237, and A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles,

TCS 5 (Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975), 107. Because of the difficulty in reading the toponym

that is usually restored as “Lydia,” various scholars have attempted to identify the defeated enemy as

someone other than the Lydians. For a refutation of these views, see Stefan Zawadzki, “The Portrait of

Nabonidus and Cyrus in Their (?) Chronicle: When and Why the Present Version was Composed,” in

Who Was King? Who Was Not King? The Rulers and the Ruled in the Ancient Near East, ed. Petr Charvát and

Petra Maříková Vlčková (Prague: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech

Republic, 2010), 146–47.

This would seem to be contradicted by the statement in Cyropaedia 8.7.1 that Cyrus “was now a

very old man” when he died. Because Xenophon does not give a more exact figure, he simply may have

assumed that Cyrus died of old age, since his passing is described as peaceful.

For a translation of the Dream Text, see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 107–8, 210–11, 14.

274 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

order to receive a delegation from the king of India and is distressed that Cyrus did

not do the same (2.4.1–5).

He had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable” (4.5.9); he was also

given to excessive euphoria. In the first battle against the Babylonian confederacy,

Cyrus and his Persians distinguished themselves, and the Babylonians and their

allies fled. In celebration of the victory, Cyaxares, who had not taken part in the

battle but who received spoils from it, was “busily engaged in making merry”

(4.1.13). Cyrus then urged that they press their advantage and send out a force to

cut off any stragglers from the Babylonians. Cyaxares grudgingly agreed, but al-

lowed only those Medes to go with Cyrus who willingly volunteered (4.1.19, 4.2.11).

The next day, when Cyaxares recovered from his drunkenness and saw that most

of his Medes had accompanied Cyrus, his mood changed. “In keeping with his

reputation for being violent and unreasonable” (4.5.9), he sent an emissary after

Cyrus, demanding that the Medes with Cyrus come back.

Cyrus delayed the emissary and pursued his goal of adding allies, after which

he asked Cyaxares to come join him on the border of the Babylonian territory “to

hold a council of war concerning the disposition to be made of the forts which they

had captured, and, after reviewing the army, to advise what steps he thought they

ought to take next for the future conduct of the war” (5.5.1). Cyrus ordered that

the finest tent be made available for his uncle, as well as singing girls and other

spoils of war. But when Cyaxares arrived and saw the army, which was now aug-

mented by the Hyrcanians and Armenians that Cyrus had gained to their side, and

compared those with the fewer number of troops that he himself was commanding,

he again became morose and jealous, so that he would not return Cyrus’s welcom-

ing kiss (5.5.6). After much diplomatic speaking on Cyrus’s part, in which Cyrus

pointed out that what was accomplished was entirely to Cyaxares’s benefit, Cyaxar-

es was appeased and retired to his splendid tent. Cyrus also requested that Cyaxares

prepare to announce on the morrow his decision about what the army should do

next.

They met the next day, after Cyaxares “came out in gorgeous attire and seated

himself on a Median throne” (6.1.6). For Cyaxares, outward show and obsequious

admiration from the people were essential prerogatives of his position as king, so

much so that his consequent shortsightedness in matters of policy could produce

undesirable results and disrupt relationships with those who were closest to him.

Cyrus, recognizing this, allowed Cyaxares to make the decision about whether the

army would continue the campaign or return to Ecbatana. Cyaxares announced

that the campaign should be continued, so that Cyrus achieved his goal without

losing the support of his uncle and overlord. This deference of Cyrus to Cyaxares is

an artfully developed theme of Xenophon, second in its artistry only to his several

discourses on the skills required to be a great general or leader of men. It will come

to the fore when considering Xenophon’s account of Cyrus’s wisdom in dealing

with his uncle after Babylon fell to the forces under the command of Cyrus.

The mood swings of Cyaxares characterize what is called in modern terms a

bipolar behavioral disorder. No ancient writer would have been aware of such a

diagnosis. This suggests that Xenophon’s informants in the time of Artaxerxes II

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 275

may have passed on a fairly true-to-life portrait of an individual who suffered from

this affliction.

IV. THE FINAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE BABYLONIANS

It was eight years from the defeat of the Babylonian coalition led by Croesus

and the takeover of his Lydian kingdom (547 BC) to the final assault on the city of

Babylon. During this time Cyrus was active in recruiting new allies, using strata-

gems of propaganda, force, and diplomacy that are well described by Xenophon.

Among the governors whom Cyrus persuaded to abandon their allegiance to the

Babylonians were Gadatas, governor of a province that is not named, and Gobryas

(Ugbaru), governor of the Gutians.

Both governors had been wronged by their

Babylonian overlord, and Cyrus skillfully used this to win them to his side. Alt-

hough the name of the king they rebelled against is not given, Cyrus describes him

as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (5.2.27). His name is given

in the book of Daniel: Belshazzar, son and coregent of Nabonidus. Nabonidus had

retreated to the desert to worship the moon-god, or possibly to conquer the Arab

kingdoms, while Belshazzar ruled in Babylon. The Cyropaedia calls Belshazzar a king

(4.6.3), as does the book of Daniel and a cuneiform text called “The Verse Account

of Nabonidus.”

Modern writers who follow Porphyry in claiming that the book

of Daniel, or at least its prophetic parts, were written in the second century BC are

therefore incorrect in their assertion that Daniel’s calling Belshazzar “king” is evi-

dence of a late-date composition of the book.

The correct use of this title indi-

cates just the opposite.

Xenophon and Herodotus agree that Babylon was taken when the besieging

army diverted the waters of the Euphrates and then entered the city via the riv-

erbed. According to the Cyropaedia, the invading army took advantage of the fact

that “a certain festival had come round in Babylon, during which all Babylon was

accustomed to drink and revel all night long” (Cyr. 7.5.15). Herodotus affirms that

it was the time of a festival (Hist. 1.191.6). In this regard both accounts are in

agreement with chapter 5 of Daniel that describes Belshazzar as participating in a

feast when the city was taken. Xenophon adds another detail that is lacking in He-

rodotus but that also agrees with Daniel: The king of Babylon was slain on that

very night (Cyr. 7.5.26–30). The Cyropaedia’s graphic account of the slaying of Bel-

Various scholars consider that the Gutians may be ancestors of the modern Kurds: Jamie Stokes,

ed., Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East (New York: Infobase, 2009), 380; Egon von

Eickstedt, Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1961), as reviewed by D.

P. Erdbrink in Central Asiatic Journal 12.1 (1968): 64–65; Alexander Prokhorov, “Guti,” in Great Soviet

Encyclopedia, 31 vols. (New York: McMillan, 1973), 7:498.

ANET, 313b: “He [Nabonidus] entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the first-born.… He let

(everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey.… And he,

himself, took his residence in [Te]ma.” To state that the book of Daniel is wrong in calling Belshazzar a

king (Dan 8:1) because Nabonidus only “entrusted the kingship to him” would be incorrect.

“The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar

was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.” John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book

of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 32, 33.

276 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

shazzar should be included in every commentary on Daniel. Other details found in

the Cyropaedia but not in Herodotus are the importance of Gobryas/Ugbaru in tak-

ing the city and in the preparations beforehand. Herodotus makes no mention of

this important figure, who, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, became gover-

nor of the city after the successful takeover.

Neither does Herodotus have any

mention of Belshazzar. As will be seen later, Herodotus’s failure to mention Bel-

shazzar in spite of his being the king in the city when Babylon was taken indicates

Herodotus was following the propaganda line promulgated by Cyrus and his suc-

cessors, which omitted individuals who would be an embarrassment to their narra-

tive on the capture of Babylon.

V. CYRUS INVITES CYAXARES TO BABYLON

The next events after the capture of Babylon form an interesting account that,

if true, reflects favorably on the character of Cyrus. According to the Nabonidus

Chronicle, seventeen days after the forces under Gadatas and Gobryas took control

of the city, Cyrus entered as conquering hero. He was now in a position to be de-

clared “King of the World,” and, what was important in that day, “King of Baby-

lon.” His popularity with the army must have been immense; this is a repeated

theme of the Cyropaedia that there is no reason to doubt. But, according to this

same source, he was still de jure under the authority of Cyaxares, who was king and

overlord of both the Medes and the Persians. Cyrus would have remembered the

trouble earlier when his uncle became jealous after Cyrus’s first victory. What

would Cyaxares’s attitude be now when all glory was going to Cyrus because of the

capture of Babylon?

Conscious of the possible antagonism from his uncle, Cyrus, after he had set-

tled affairs in the city, went to visit Cyaxares in Media. “And when they had ex-

changed greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been

selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a

residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many

splendid presents” (Cyr. 8.5.17). The diplomacy was successful: Cyaxares responded

by offering his daughter as wife to Cyrus, “and with her I offer you all Media as a

dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue” (8.5.19). The marriage of Cyaxares’s

daughter to Cyrus, with the dowry representing the handover of the kingship to

him, is therefore the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel chapter 8, where a ram rep-

resenting the kings of Media and Persia has two horns and the longer (Persian)

horn grew up later. After this it was “the Persians and the Medes,” as in the book

of Esther, rather than “the Medes and the Persians.”

Interestingly, Xenophon’s happy tale of Cyrus’s wisdom in dealing with his

problematic uncle has in its favor evidence from an ancient inscription. The “Na-

bonidus Chronicle” is characterized by many scholars as a propaganda piece that

pretended to come from the court of Nabonidus but was really the product of the

Persian rewriting of history after the fall of Babylon. In the propaganda, however,

ANET, 306b; Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 239.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 277

there would be no reason to falsify the chronology of the events related to the cap-

ture of the city and immediately following. Amélie Kuhrt relates that historians

derive from this source the “only chronologically fixed data” for dating events re-

lated to the reign of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians.

According to the Chronicle, Gobryas (Ugbaru) and the army entered the city on the

16th of Tashritu (Tishri), October 12, 539 BC.

On the third day of the next

month (Arahshamnu/Heshvan: October 29), Cyrus entered the city. On the elev-

enth day of the month (November 6), the old warrior Gobryas died. The next sen-

tence relates that the wife of the king died. Although the month in which she died

is no longer legible, the fact that mourning was from the 27th of Adar to the third

of Nisan indicates that she died earlier in Adar (February/March).

The king was

surely Cyrus, because the conquerors would be unlikely to mourn for the wife of

the defeated Belshazzar or Nabonidus. Although the first wife of Cyrus is never

mentioned in the Cyropaedia, there is some mention of his two sons, the elder of

whom, Cambyses II, was made coregent by Cyrus before he died. Given that the

king’s wife who was mourned was the first wife of Cyrus, insight is gained into why

Cyaxares gave his daughter in marriage to his recently widowed nephew. This no-

tice in the Nabonidus Chronicle about the king’s wife therefore adds plausibility to

the Cyropaedia’s anecdote about Cyaxares giving his daughter in marriage to Cyrus.

Herodotus also notes that Cyrus’s wife died while Cyrus was still alive, and Cyrus

“mourned deeply when she died before him, and had all his subjects mourn also”

(Hist. 2.1.1).

VI. THE THRONE NAME OF CYAXARES II

If the above scenario as derived from Xenophon is correct, with Cyaxares

coming to Babylon and reigning there for a little more than a year before his death,

then it is clear that his throne name was Darius. Daniel’s “Darius the Mede,” like

Xenophon’s Cyaxares, reigned in Babylon right after Belshazzar was slain and the

city was taken,

after which he was succeeded by Cyrus. Daniel’s Darius must have

been the highest authority in the empire, because no one of a lesser status would

have had the authority to issue a command against praying to any king or god for

thirty days except him (Dan 6:7, 12). This level of authority rules out any governor

such as Gobryas being Darius the Mede. Darius himself could not issue such an

edict if he were under the jurisdiction of Cyrus or any other king. The one scenario

that allows this kind of presumption on the part of Darius is that which is offered

by the Cyropaedia: Cyaxares/Darius was, until his death, still the overlord of Cyrus

and of all the Medes and Persians.

The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2007), 47.

ANET, 306b.

Regarding the month involved, the restorations and translations of Glassner (Mesopotamian Chroni-

cles, 239) and Grayson (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 110, 111) that give Adar are to be preferred over

the reading in ANET, 306b that gives Arahshamnu/Heshvan.

Dan 5:31 (6:1 MT).

278 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The command itself must be characterized as foolish, because even in a poly-

theistic society it would have had undesirable repercussions such as opposition

from the priestly caste, as well as from many of the common people who were used

to making supplications to their favorite gods or goddesses. How could Darius be

so shortsighted as to accede to a request like this from his counsellors? It would

seem that the counsellors were aware of a weakness in the character of their ruler:

When it came to his own importance and powers, he was prone to delusional

thoughts such as accompany, in modern terms, bipolar disorder. The thought of

himself as temporarily exercising the power of the gods might appeal to someone

afflicted with this malady. The counsellors could have recognized and taken ad-

vantage of these characteristics, even though they would not have had the modern

understanding of what produced such a weakness of character. In any event, the

counsellors were successful: Cyaxares/Darius issued the decree that would put him

in the manic state of the-god-who-answers-prayers for thirty days.

The character

of Cyaxares, as portrayed in the Cyropaedia, therefore provides insight into why the

Darius of Daniel chapter 6 would agree to such an irrational and shortsighted

scheme.

When Daniel survived his night in the lions’ den, another aspect of Darius’s

character—his temper—worked to the doom of the plotters. Here it would seem

sufficient that only the men who promoted the plot against Daniel would be sacri-

ficed to the lions, but Darius exceeded this by having their children and wives in-

cluded, and the lions “overpowered them and crushed all their bodies”

(Dan 6:24

[6:25 MT], author’s translation). The disproportionate anger exhibited by Daniel’s

Darius has its counterpart in the “violent and unreasonable” nature of Xenophon’s

Cyaxares. It could also be argued that Darius’s concern for his friend Daniel while

he was in the lions’ den has its counterpart in Cyaxares’s occasional display of

warmth toward his nephew in spite of their differences in judgment and personality,

although this is a less distinctive personality trait than the excessive desire for adula-

tion and lack of self-control exhibited by Cyaxares/Darius. Those more distinctive

characteristics, as delineated in the Cyropaedia for Cyaxares, help explain the actions

Andrew Steinmann writes, “This decree would make sense if the thirty days are during the time

when the images of the gods, which had earlier been removed from their temples and brought to Baby-

lon, are being returned. During this period, the priests are not able to offer prayers or sacrifices in the

temples. The decree makes Darius the high priest, through whom all prayers are brought to the gods.

This proposed decree not only allows worship to continue while the gods are absent from their temples,

it also appeals to Darius’ ego.” Daniel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 315. Nabo-

nidus had brought the images from the surrounding cities to Babylon. According to the Nabonidus

Chronicle, Cyrus had them restored to their cities, the restoration taking place between Kislev 539 and

the end of Adar 538 (November 25, 539 to March 23, 538 BC). This timeframe agrees with the chronol-

ogy advocated here for Cyaxares reigning in Babylon.

Aramaic . ַגּןֺוהי ֵמ ְר For ם ֶר ֶגּ, Gesenius gives the meanings “(1) a bone … (2) body, as in Arabic.” Alt-

hough Gesenius has been criticized as placing too much emphasis on Arabic cognates, the meaning

“body” fits better in this verse than the usual translation as “bone.” We would not expect that all two-

hundred-plus bones in a human body were crushed (וּק ִדּ ַה) in all of the individuals involved. The usual

interpretation that this is hyperbole is not necessary if Gesenius’s second definition is allowed, although

such a rendering is not favored in recent lexicons.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 279

of Darius when he is flattered to give in to a plot of his counsellors that could only

bring trouble to his kingdom. In short, the personality of Xenophon’s Cyaxares

helps us understand what seems like an improbable, and certainly irrational, course

of action taken by Darius in Daniel 6.

That Darius was the throne name of Cyaxares is also supported by references

in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century

AD). It is thought that the source of Berossus’s information was the cuneiform

trove of records found in the Esaglia temple of Babylon,

while Harpocration was

associated with the great library at Alexandria and thus would have had access to

many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. Berossus’s work

survives only in extracts by later authors, who themselves were quoting abridge-

ments by Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus. The relevant passage from Berossus

is found in Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.153/1.20) and in a passage that survives only in the

Armenian translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle. The Josephus passage deals with the

defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by

Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his resi-

dence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it:

“(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”

The

timeframe is the time of the defeat of Nabonidus, not the time of Darius I Hys-

tapses (522–486 BC). The Darius who took some of the province of Carmania for

himself, thus overriding the disposition of Cyrus, must have had authority over

Cyrus at this time (539 BC), which agrees with the relationship between Cyaxares II

and Cyrus in the Cyropaedia, but which finds no counterpart in Herodotus and the

standard narrative of Cyrus’s status and career.

In his commentary on the book of Daniel, C. F. Keil wrote, “Finally, the Dar-

ics also give evidence for Darius the Mede, since of all explanations of the name of

this gold coin (the Daric) its derivation from a king Darius is the most probable.”

Keil then cites Harpocration, who wrote regarding the daric, “But darics are not

named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes [Darius I Hystapses],

but after a certain other more ancient king.”

The current consensus, following

Herodotus, maintains that there was no king named Darius before Darius Hys-

tapses. The information given in Berossus and Harpocration, however, is con-

sistent with the existence of the king named Darius in Daniel 6, and both sources

are consistent with the name “Darius” being the throne name of Xenophon’s Cy-

Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 88; Gerald P. Verbrugghe and John M. Wickersham, eds., Berossos and

Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press, 1996), 15–24.

Josef Karst, ed., Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar, vol. 5 of Eu-

sebius Werke (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.

C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans.

M. G. Easton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 200.

Harpocration, Lexeis of the Ten Orators Δ 5, Δαρεικός.

280 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

axares II.

Both sources indicate that Darius had the authority to issue coinage or

to countermand a decree from Cyrus.

There remains a major problem: Why do we not have any contract texts that

are dated to a year of Cyaxares II? A part of this answer might be that many con-

tract texts have never been translated, thousands of them in the British Museum

alone, and so it may be that some will yet come to light. But it is also possible that

some have already been found. Suppose such a tablet were found with the inscrip-

tion dating it simply to a year of “Darius, King of Babylon.” Given the current

consensus, there is virtually no chance that this would be considered as coming

from the time of Cyaxares II, who eminent scholars for centuries maintained had

the alternate name of Darius. It would be assigned instead to Darius I or another of

the two Dariuses who bore that name. Until a tablet is found that has other infor-

mation on it that rules out these other Dariuses, it should be expected that any con-

tract text from the time of Cyaxares II/Darius “0” will automatically be incorrectly

identified.

VII. CYAXARES IS EXPUNGED FROM HISTORY

1. Early scholarly acceptance of Xenophon’s account. The identification of Xeno-

phon’s Cyaxares II with Daniel’s Darius the Mede is an idea that is neither novel

nor of fringe status. It was advocated by Josephus in the first century AD

and was

favored by Jerome in the third century.

Later scholars who held this opinion were

John Calvin in the sixteenth century, James Ussher in the seventeenth, and Charles

Rollin and William Lowth in the eighteenth.

Nineteenth-century advocates in-

A more extended treatment of these passages in Berossus and Harpocration may be found in

Steven D. Anderson and Rodger C. Young, “The Remembrance of Daniel’s Darius the Mede in Beros-

sus and Harpocration,” BSac 173.691 (2016): 315–23.

The references in the following section to 1,800 years of scholarship that accepted the identifica-

tion of Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II are taken largely from the research of Steven D. Anderson,

whose Ph.D. dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary (“Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal,” 2014)

investigated the historical and archaeological arguments supporting this identification. The dissertation

was expanded by Anderson into a self-published book. A recent commentary on the book of Daniel

finds Anderson’s arguments compelling: J. Paul Tanner, Daniel, ed. H. Wayne House and William D.

Barrick, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 45–60. It is hoped that

researchers and writers will be open to the insights that Anderson’s research provides for understanding

the book of Daniel and historical circumstances related to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Ant. 10.248/10.11.4: “Darius, who with his relative Cyrus put an end to the Babylonian sover-

eignty, was in his sixty-second year when he took Babylon; he was a son of Astyages but was called by

another name among the Greeks.” The only Greek historian who is known to refer explicitly to a son of

Astyages is Xenophon, so the “other name” that Josephus did not supply was very likely Cyaxares. Had

Josephus filled in the name it would have done much to lessen the assurance of those who confidently

assert that both Darius the Mede and Cyaxares II are fictitious characters.

Jerome, S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera: Pars I: Opera exegetica 5: Commentariorum in Danielem libri

III<IV>, Corpus Christianorum: Series latina, vol. 75A (London: Typographi Brepols Editores Pon-

tificii, 1964), 820–21, 829.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. Thomas Myers, 2 vols., in Calvin’s

Commentaries, 45 vols. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1948), 1:347–48; James Ussher, The Annals of the World, Revised and Updated by Larry and Marion Pierce

(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003), 117a, originally published in 1658; Rollin, Ancient History, 1:588;

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 281

cluded Adam Clarke, Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey

Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary,

and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.

These eminent writers were not mind-

lessly quoting each other regarding the identification of Cyaxares II with Darius.

They had observed the striking similarity of circumstances and personality for the

two characters, so that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding

Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede,

that, as Hitzig confesses, ‘the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.’”

2. The cuneiform texts. In the late 1800s several cuneiform texts dealing with the

end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire were found and translated. These included the

Cyrus Cylinder,

the Verse Account of Nabonidus,

the Nabonidus Chronicle,

and the Dream Text (Sippar Cylinder) of Nabonidus.

None of these texts named

Cyaxares II, and, more than that, most of them had Cyrus taking over the kingship

of Media and Persia directly from Astyages, with no room for an intervening Medi-

an king. The conclusion seemed obvious: historians must put aside 1800 years of

scholarship that favored Xenophon over Herodotus. It was now understood that

Cyrus became king of both Media and Persia by defeating the Medes, including his

grandfather Astyages, several years before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, just as

Herodotus said.

3. More recent scholarship on the texts. Later scholarship, however, began pointing

out some problems with the cuneiform texts. If the supposed coup of Cyrus was

such a definitive act, why could these texts not agree on when it happened and the

circumstances of the coup? The Dream Text of Nabonidus said that Cyrus and the

Persians defeated the Medes in the third year of Nabonidus (553/552 BC);

the

William Lowth, A Commentary upon the Prophecy of Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2 vols. (London:

William Mears, 1726), 1:52.

Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols. (repr., New York: Ab-

ingdon, n.d.; originally published 1810–1826), 4:586b; Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the

Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., 4 vols. (Edinburgh: W. Blackwell and Sons, 1839;

repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 4:213. Wilhelm Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae hebraeae et

chaldaeae veteris testamenti, 2d ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig: F. C. G. Vogelii, 1835), 1:349–50; Humphrey Prideaux,

An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments: Comprising the History of the Jews and Neighboring Nations,

from the Decline of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel to the Time of Christ, ed. J. Talboys Wheeler, 3rd ed. (Lon-

don: William Tegg & Co., 1877), 1:106–12; E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel

and the Integrity of Zechariah, trans. B. P. Pratten (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1848), 40–43; Keil, Commentary

on the Book of Daniel, 192–200; Otto Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically

Expounded, trans. and ed. by James Strong, in John Peter Lange, ed., Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:

Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical, ed. and trans. Philip Schaff, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960;

German original published 1870), 7:35–36.

Keil, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 198.

Translations: ANET, 315b–316b; Irving Finkel, “The Cyrus Cylinder: The Babylonian Perspec-

tive,” in The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon, ed. Irving Finkel (London:

I. B. Tauris, 2013), 4–7; Hanspeter Schaudig, “The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder,” in Cyrus the Great: Life

and Lore, ed. M. Rahim Shayegan, Ilex Series 21 (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2019), 21–25.

ANET, 312b–315a.

ANET, 305b–307a. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 232–39.

Translation in Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 108, 211, 214.

Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 108.

282 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Nabonidus Chronicle seems to place this defeat in Nabonidus’s sixth year

(550/549);

and Herodotus, by giving Cyrus 29 years of reign, would place it in

559 BC (Hist. 1.214.3). The Cyrus Cylinder, which is apparently the earliest of these

documents, does not say that Cyrus defeated the Medes in war, claiming only that

Marduk “made the land of Guti and all the Median troops prostrate themselves at

his [Cyrus’s] feet.”

According to the Cyropaedia (4.6.1–11), the Gutians were not

conquered militarily by Cyrus. Their governor Gobryas/Ugbaru submitted volun-

tarily because of the wrongs done to him by Belshazzar. The submission of the

Medes to Cyrus could be similar, so that Hirsch comments:

But what is often overlooked is that Cyrus, in the Cyropaedia, does effectively ex-

ecute a coup against his Median overlord.… When he receives an order from

the angry Cyaxares demanding that he return (4.5.10), Cyrus persuades the

Medes and other allies to stay with him (5.1.19–29). Perhaps this incident is to

be connected with the tradition, found in Herodotus and the Nabonidus Chron-

icle, that Astyages’ Median troops rebelled against him and went over to Cyrus.

Such a reinterpretation of events in order to serve a current political need is

consistent with the advice that Xenophon has Cambyses giving to his son Cyrus

regarding the necessity of a general (or statesman) to use deceit: “The man who

proposes to do that must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a

robber” (1.6.27). The Cyropaedia has examples of Cyrus’s use of deceit to achieve his

ends. Further, the cuneiform texts mentioned as supporting Herodotus’s version of

Medo-Persian relations are increasingly recognized as propaganda created by Cyrus

and later Persians to provide a narrative in which the Medes, instead of being

friends of the Persians (Xenophon), were their enemies (Herodotus). Hirsch repre-

sents the caution of more recent scholarship in accepting the testimonies of the

cuneiform texts when he observes: “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as

can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’

fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt

propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”

What would be the purpose of this propaganda, if the picture provided by

Xenophon represented the true state of affairs? The answer can be found, in part,

in the Harran Stela, which is also propaganda, but this time from a Babylonian per-

spective, that of Nabonidus. It will be recalled that Nabonidus named as his princi-

pal three enemies the Egyptians, the Medes, and the Arabs, with no mention of the

Persians. For the Babylonians in the years immediately preceding the capture of

Babylon, the Medes were the hated enemy. Cyrus could take advantage of this by

making clear that he was not a Mede, and even further advantage if he could twist

the facts a little to say that he had made the Medes “bow in submission,” as he

ANET, 305b; Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 235.

Finkel, “Cyrus Cylinder,” 5.

Steven W. Hirsch, The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire (Hanover, NH:

University Press of New England, 1985), 81.

Hirsch, The Friendship of the Barbarians, 177n69. Hirsch is summarizing Max Mallowan, “Cyrus the

Great (558–529 B.C.),” Iran 10 (1972): 10–11.

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 283

states in the Cyrus Cylinder. Later Persian propaganda could make this stronger by

claiming a military conquest, until Herodotus, a century later, received a version in

which the Persians not only conquered the Medes militarily but also made slaves of

them. For Cyrus, starting the rewrite of history in this way would be consistent with

the advice he received from his father. The cuneiform texts, particularly the Cyrus

Cylinder that was composed at his command, show that the Cyropaedia was report-

ing an aspect of Cyrus’s policy that is true to the contemporary inscriptional evi-

dence.

How does this affect the question of the existence or non-existence of Cyax-

ares II? Taking into consideration the enmity of the Babylonians toward the Medes,

it would not have looked good for Cyrus to admit that he was under the authority

of a Median king when his forces captured Babylon and Cyrus entered into the city

17 days later “without any battle, … as a friend” according to the rewrite of history

contained in the Cyrus Cylinder. Any “friendship” with the Babylonians would not

be convincing if Cyrus was perceived as acting under the authority of the hated

Medians and their king. The way to resolve this would be to omit altogether, in the

accounts designed for mass consumption, any mention of Cyrus’s Median overlord.

If it seems hard to believe that Cyrus could have omitted an important histor-

ical figure from the account of the taking of Babylon, then it should be remem-

bered that Belshazzar is also missing entirely from the Cyrus Cylinder, unless he,

and not Nabonidus, is the “weakling” or “low and unworthy man” referred to in

the opening lines.

It would be expected that some reference would be made to

Belshazzar in the Cylinder’s narration of events surrounding the capture of Babylon,

but only Nabonidus is mentioned there. The reason for passing over the person of

Belshazzar is clear: according to the Cyrus Cylinder and subsequent Persian propa-

ganda, Marduk replaced Nabonidus with Cyrus as king of Babylon because Nabo-

nidus, in his worship of the moon-god, neglected the homage due to Marduk. But

this narrative does not fit the fact that Belshazzar was an avid and faithful wor-

shiper of Marduk. The solution: expunge Belshazzar from what would become the

standard narrative, a narrative that was perpetrated in the cuneiform texts and, after

their discovery in the late nineteenth century, continues to our own day. Belshazzar,

long absent as a distinct person from that narrative, was restored to his rightful

place when, beginning in the 1860s, texts were deciphered showing his name.

These discoveries vindicated Daniel’s account and its authorship in the sixth centu-

ry BC. By the second century, all knowledge of Belshazzar had apparently been lost,

except as found in the book of Daniel and writings derived from it, implying that

the book of Daniel must be dated before the second century.

Both Schaudig and Cogan think the reference is to Nabonidus, while van der Spek and Finkel in-

terpret it as a reference to Belshazzar. Schaudig, “Text of the Cyrus Cylinder,” 21; Mordechai Cogan,

“Achaemenid Inscriptions: Cyrus: Cyrus Cylinder,” COS II, 315; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great,

Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in Ex-

traction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. Michael Kozuh et al., SAOC 68 (Chicago:

University of Chicago, 2014), 252; Finkel, “Cyrus Cylinder,” 4.

284 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Belshazzar has now been restored, but the Persian rewrite has been more suc-

cessful for Cyaxares II. According to the prevailing consensus that bases much of

its support on the Persian propaganda texts produced by Cyrus and his successors,

Cyaxares II remains just as much a nonentity as that curiously similar biblical char-

acter, Darius the Mede.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Cyaxares II, according to

Xenophon’s Cyropaedia

Darius the Mede, according to

the book of Daniel

• Current consensus among conven-

tional historians is that he did not

exist. However, no adequate mo-

tive is given for why Xenophon

created this supposedly imaginary

figure.

• A contemporary of Cyrus the

Great—his uncle.

• King of the Medes (Cyr. 4.5.8).

• Also had authority over the Per-

sians as late as shortly after the cap-

ture of Babylon in 539 BC (Cyr.

8.5.17).

• Died within two years after the

capture of Babylon. Succeeded by

Cyrus (Cyr. 8.6.22).

• Only one name given, although

Josephus said that Darius “was

called by another name among the

Greeks” (Ant. 10.248/10.11.4).

• A “reputation for being violent and

unreasonable” (Cyr. 4.5.9).

• Vainglorious. Cyrus could change

his course of action if offered

something that would bring him

greater praise and wealth (Cyr.

4.5.51–53; 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17).

•

Current consensus among non-

conservative Bible critics is that

Darius did not exist. However, no

adequate motive is given for why

the author of Daniel would create

him.

• A contemporary of Cyrus the

Great.

• King of the Medes (Dan. 5:31).

• Also had authority over the Per-

sians shortly after the capture of

Babylon in 539 BC, as evidenced by

his decree of Dan 6:6–9.

• Died not long after the capture of

Babylon. Succeeded by Cyrus (Dan

10:1, 11:1).

• Only one name given, although

other kings during this time had a

given name as well as a throne

name (Dan 5:31).

• Unreasonable and disproportionate

anger (Dan 6:24).

• Vainglorious. His counsellors rec-

ognized this, persuading him to is-

sue an edict that would make him

the focus of everyone’s prayers

(Dan 6:6–9).

Stepping back and looking at the issue from a distance, it seems strange that

ancient sources give us two individuals, supposedly separate, who nevertheless oc-

cupied the same place at the same time. More importantly, these individuals, ac-

cording to their respective sources, shared a unique characteristic: They were simul-

taneously, in 539 BC, the supreme authority over Babylon, the Medes, and the Per-

sians. This in itself indicates they were the same person. The alternative is that they

were both fictitious. It could not be that just one was fictitious (whether Xeno-

phon’s Cyaxares or Daniel’s Darius), because if it is accepted that one was a real

person, the similarity of characteristics (place, time, authority) guarantees the exist-

XENOPHON’S CYAXARES 285

ence of the other, and that they were the same real person. If both are assumed

fictitious then it should be asked why Xenophon and the author of Daniel inde-

pendently created imaginary figures that either of their accounts could do without,

and why these two independent authors also gave their supposedly imaginary fig-

ures similar characteristics of nationality, royal status, and temperament.

Until those who hold to the nonexistence of Xenophon’s Cyaxares and the

corresponding nonexistence of Daniel’s Darius find a better explanation, these

circumstances are best understood by accepting the reality of the one individual

who is the basis of both accounts, one written in Greek and the other in Aramaic

and Hebrew. Accepting that Cyaxares/Darius was a real person not only makes the

best sense of the existing data, but it also affords new understandings of circum-

stances related in the Cyropaedia and the book of Daniel. For biblical scholars, an

example of such an insight is how the idiosyncrasies of Xenophon’s Cyaxares—his

apparent bipolar disorder and need for adoration by his subjects—explain why the

Darius of Daniel 6 could be persuaded to issue a self-glorifying edict that could

only have negative consequences. Xenophon’s picture of Cyrus’s subordination to

his uncle also explains Darius’s authority to issue such a command. For classical

scholars, the obvious independence of Xenophon’s writings about Cyaxares II and

the author of the book of Daniel’s narrative of Darius the Mede, and yet the strik-

ing similarities of the two (supposedly distinct) individuals, should give a new ap-

preciation that Cyrus was in reality the master of propaganda that the Cyropaedia

claims for him. In van der Spek’s words, “Cyrus was very successful in his propa-

ganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”

Cyrus’s propaganda is

perpetuated to the present day in scholarship that denies the existence of Cyrus’s

uncle as portrayed in the Cyropaedia or of Daniel’s king and friend as portrayed in

the book of Daniel, despite the obvious affinities between the two portraits and the

independence of the sources presenting them.

Van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great,” 260.