BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA
173
(July-September
2016):
315-23
THE
REMEMBRANCE
OF
DANIEL'S
DARIUS
THE
MEDE
IN
BEROSSUS
AND HARPOCRATION
Steven D.
Anderson
and
Rodger
C.
Young
ABSTRACT
Modern
commentators
on
the book
of
Daniel
commonly
assert
that
there is no reference
in
ancient
extrabiblical literature
to
Daniel's
Darius
the Mede by the
name
"Darius,"
apart
from writ-
ers
such
as
Josephus
who were
dependent
on
Daniel. However,
the
ancient
writers Berossus
and
Valerius Harpocration were in-
dependent
of
the book
of
Daniel
and
yet referred to a
king
named
Darius
who reigned before the
king
who
is currently called
Darius
I.
These references
should
lead
modern
writers
to
reconsider the
assertion
that
Darius
the Mede
was
unknown
in
extant
ancient
extrabiblical literature.
M
ODERN
COMMENTATORS
ON
THE
BOOK
OF
DANIEL
largely
concur
that
"Darius
the
Mede"
was
unknown
in
extant
ancient
literature
except
in
Daniel's
text
and
sources
de-
rived
from
it.
In
a
commentary
that
generally
shows
the
highest
level
of
scholarship
in
citing
the
relevant
literature,
Andrew
Steinmann
wrote,
"No
person
mentioned
in
the
book of
Daniel
is
more
obscure
and
controversial
than
Darius
the
Mede. No
person
by
this
name
is
known
from
extrabiblical
records
as
having
taken
over
the
rule
of
Babylon
following
the
fall
of
Nabonidus
and
Bel-
shazzar
....
The
person
called
'Darius
the
Mede'
in
Daniel
(6:1 [ET
5:31]; 11:1) is
unknown
by
that
name
in
any
other
record."
1
Ed-
Steven
D.
Anderson
is
lead
content
creator
for
BiblePlaces,
Santa
Clarita,
Califor-
nia;
and
Rodger
C.
Young
is
an
independent
researcher
who
specializes
in
biblical
chronology
and
lives
in
St.
Louis,
Missouri.
Andrew
E.
Steinmann,
Daniel,
Concordia
Commentary
(Saint
Louis; Concordia,
2008), 290.
316
BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA
I
July-September
2016
ward
J.
Young
noted,
"The
identification
of
this
king
is
as
yet
un-
known,
since
secular
historical
sources
are
silent
concerning
him."
2
Mentioning
only
the
monuments,
H.
C.
Leupold
wrote,
"At
this
point
another
major
problem
crowds
into
the
forefront:
'Who
was
Darius
the
Mede?'
The
monuments
do
not
happen
to
know
him
by
that
name,
at
least
the
monuments
discovered
thus
far."
3
John
Whitcomb,
who
identified
Daniel's
Darius
with
Gubaru
of
cunei-
form
inscriptions,
wrote:
"Neither
the
Greek
nor
the
cuneiform
rec-
ords
mention
anything
that
can
be
connected
with
the
name
Dari-
us,
but
uniformly
employ
Gobryas
or
Gubaru
(Ugbaru)."
4
The
supposed
non-mention
of
Darius
the
Mede
outside
of
the
book
of
Daniel
is
generally
tied
by
commentators
to
the
larger
issue
of
the
historicity
or
authenticity
of
the
book
of
Daniel.
John
Collins
wrote,
"No
such
person
as
Darius
the
Mede
is
known
to
have
exist-
ed
apart
from
the
narrative
of
Daniel.
...
Conservative
scholars
have
labored
unceasingly
to
identify
Darius
the
Mede
with
some
figure
known
to
history
by
another
name."
5
George
Wesley
Bu-
chanan
stated:
"Darius
the
Mede
is
reported
only
here
[Daniel]
in
all
extant
literature.
. . .
Darius
the
Mede
never
existed.
. . .
Nothing
can
be
more
unfortunate
than
the
attempts
of
apologists
to
make
these
things
appear
probable."
6
In
a
commentary
published
in
2014,
Carol
A.
Newsom
wrote,
"Similar
to
the
case
of
the
Nabonidus
traditions
that
were
recast
as
Nebuchadnezzar
sto-
ries
in
chs.
3-4,
a
faint
historical
memory
of
Darius
the
Persian
can
be
discerned
behind
the
wholly
fictitious
character
of
Darius
the
Mede."
7
The
intent
of
the
present
article
is
to
revive
interest
in
the
mention
by
two
ancient
extrabiblical
sources
of
a
king
named
Da-
rius
who
preceded
Darius
(I)
Hystaspes
(522-486
BC).
According
to
one
of
these
sources,
this
Darius
ruled
at
exactly
the
time
that
2
Edward
J.
Young, The Prophecy
of
Daniel
(Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans,
1949), 131.
3
H.
C.
Leupold, Exposition
of
Daniel
(Columbus,
OH:
Wartburg,
1949), 238.
4
John
C.
Whitcomb
Jr.,
Darius
the Mede: A
Study
in
Historical Identification
(Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans,
1959), 26.
5
John
J.
Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary
on the Book
of
Daniel,
Hermeneia
(Minne-
apolis:
Fortress,
1993), 30.
6
George
Wesley
Buchanan,
The
Book
of
Daniel,
Mellen
Bible
Commentary:
Old
Testament
Series
(Lewiston, NY:
Edwin
Mellen, 1999), 149, 152.
Within
the
above
quotation,
Buchanan
quotes
A.
A.
Bean,
A
Short
Commentary
on
the
Book
of
Daniel
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1892), 108.
7
Carol
A.
Newsom
with
Brennan
W.
Breed,
Daniel: A
Commentary,
Old
Testament
Library
(Louisville:
Westminster
John
Knox, 2014), 192.
The Remembrance of Daniel's Darius the Mede
in
Berossus and Harpocration 317
Daniel
assigned
to
Darius
the
Mede.
Neither
source
derived
its
in-
formation
from
the
Bible
or
from
any
text
that
depends
on
the
Bi-
ble.
These
sources
and
their
importance
relative
to
Daniel's
Darius
were
noted
in
the
nineteenth
century
by
C. F. Keil.
8
They
were
also
noted
by
Otto
Zockler.
9
These
eminent
German
Protestant
com-
mentaries
are
still
in
print,
so
it
is
curious
that,
with
few excep-
tions,
modern
commentaries
on
the
book
of
Daniel
repeat
the
mis-
conception
that
there
is
no
mention
of
a
ruler
named
Darius
who
was
a
contemporary
of
Cyrus
the
Great
in
any
ancient
work
except
the
book
of
Daniel
and
works
that
rely
on
it,
such
as
Josephus.
10
KING
DARIUS
IN
BEROSSUS
The
Babylonian
historian
Berossus
wrote
during
the
reign
of
the
Seleucid
king
Antiochus
I
(281-261
BC) a
three-volume
history
of
Babylon
called
the
Babyloniaca.
Scholars
believe
that
Berossus
derived
his
information
primarily
from
Babylonian
sources,
such
as
cuneiform
records
stored
in
the
Esagila.
11
According
to
van
der
Spek,
"Not
only
the
content,
but
also
the
structure
and
focus
of
Berossus'
work,
remind
us
of
the
Babylonian
chronographic
texts."
12
The
Babyloniaca
survives
only
in
fragments
preserved
in
quotations
by
later
writers
such
as
Josephus
and
Eusebius
of
Caesarea,
who
themselves
were
quoting
abridgements
of
Berossus
8
C.
F.
Keil,
Biblical
Commentary
on the Book
of
Daniel,
trans.
M. G.
Easton,
Biblical
Commentary
on
the
Old
Testament
(Edinburgh:
T. & T.
Clark,
1877;
repr.,
Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans,
1955),
199-200.
The
material
that
Keil
attributed
to
Abydenus
and
Eusebius
is
considered
by
more
recent
scholarship
to
have
ultimately
been
derived
from
Berossus.
9
Otto
Ziickler, The Book
of
the Prophet Daniel: Theologically
and
Homiletically
Expounded,
trans.
and
ed.
by
James
Strong,
vol. 13
of
Commentary
on
the Holy
Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal
and
Homiletical,
with
Special Reference to Ministers
and
Students,
ed.
John
Peter
Lange
and
Philip
Schaff
(New
York:
Scribner,
Armstrong
& Co., 1876), 36.
Like
Keil, Ziickler
referenced
Eusebius
rather
than
Berossus
for
the
text
discussed
below.
Unlike
Keil,
he
wrote
that
the
remark
"need
not
be
applied
to
the
Darius
of
this
book."
10
Josephus,
Jewish
Antiquities
10.248/10.11.4.
11
Paul-Alain
Beaulieu,
The
Reign
of
Nabonidus,
King
of
Babylon
556-539
B.C.,
Yale
Near
Eastern
Researches
(New
Haven,
CT:
Yale
University
Press,
1989), 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.
12
R.
J.
van
der
Spek,
"Berossus
as
a
Babylonian
Chronicler
and
Greek
Historian,"
Studies
in
Ancient
Near
Eastern
World View
and
Society: Presented
to
Marten
Stal
on
the
Occasion
of
His
65th
Birthday,
ed.
R.
J.
van
der
Spek
et
al.
(Bethesda,
MD:
CDL, 2008), 293.
318
BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA
I
July-September
2016
by
Alexander
Polyhistor
and
Abydenus.
A
fragment
of
the
Babylo-
niaca
describing
the
conquest
of
Babylon
by
Cyrus
is
preserved
in
Josephus's
Against
Apion
(1.150-53/1.20).
In
it,
Berossus
dated
the
conquest
of
Babylon
to
the
seventeenth
year
of
Nabonidus.
This
date
agrees
with
Babylonian
contract
texts,
indicating
that
Beros-
sus
drew
his
information
from
a
reliable
historical
source.
Berossus
proceeded
to
state
that
after
Cyrus
captured
Babylon,
he
gave
Na-
bonidus
the
province
of
Carmania.
This
section
of
the
Babyloniaca
is
also
cited
in
the
first
volume
of
the
Chronicle
of
Eusebius,
a
work
that
survives
only
in
an
Ar-
menian
translation.
Eusebius's
citation
of
Berossus
agrees
with
Josephus,
but
it
adds
further
information
as
follows:
"Cyrus
at
first
treated
him
[Nabonidus]
kindly,
and,
giving
a
residence
to
him
in
Carmania,
sent
him
out
of
Babylonia.
(But)
Darius
the
king
took
away
some
of
his
province for himself."
13
The
additional
information
supplied
from
Berossus
via
Abydenus
is
in
italics.
Marquart
said
of
the
statement
concerning
King
Darius
that
it
"ist
ratselhaft"
(is
enigmatic).
14
Beaulieu
wondered
whether
the
statement
may
be
a gloss,
but
suggested
that
the
Darius
in
ques-
tion
could
be
Darius
Hystaspes.15
By
his
own
admission,
however,
Nabonidus
was
between
sixty-five
and
seventy
years
old
when
he
became
king
in
556
BC,16
which
means
that
he
would
have
been
between
99
and
104
years
old
when
Darius
Hystaspes
ascended
to
the
throne
in
522
BC,
if
he
were
still
alive
(possible,
but
unlikely).
In
addition,
the
mention
of
King
Darius
is
in
the
context
of
the
fall
of
Babylon
and
before
Berossus
concluded
his
account
of
the
reign
of
Cyrus,
or
even
of
the
career
of
Nabonidus.
Thus,
Berossus
seems
to
have
believed
that
there
was
a
King
Darius
who
reigned
concur-
13
Josef
Karst,
ed., Die
Chronik
aus
dem
Armenischen
ilbersetzt
mit
textkritischem
Commentar,
vol. 5 of
Eusebius
Werke,
Die
griechischen
christlichen
Schriftsteller
der
ersten
drei
Jahrhunderte,
vol.
20
(Leipzig:
J.
C.
Hinrichs,
1911), 246.
Karst
gives
an
alternative
translation
of
the
final
clause
that
emends
the
base
text
to
read
"(But)
Darius
the
king
kept
him
out
of
that
province."
If
this
alternative
reading
was
the
original,
it
would
still
preserve
the
idea
that
Darius
was
a
king
and
that
he
could
override
an
order
given by
Cyrus.
14
J.
Marquart,
"Untersuchung
zur
Geschichte
von
Eran
(II)," Philologus:
Zeitschrift fur
das
classische
Altertum:
Supplementband
X 1 (1905): 145.
15
Beaulieu,
Reign
of
Nabonidus,
231. H. H. Rowley also
maintained
that
the
Darius
mentioned
by
Berossus
"might
just
as
well
have
been
Darius
Hystaspis,
so
far
as
the
fragment
goes" (Darius the Mede
and
the Four World
Empires
in
the Book
of
Daniel: A Historical
Study
of
Contemporary Theories [Cardiff:
University
of
Wales
Press
Board,
1935], 46).
16
Beaulieu,
Reign
of
Nabonidus,
77, 83.
The Remembrance of Daniel's Darius the Mede
in
Berossus and Harpocration 319
rently
with
Cyrus
and
who
had
greater
authority
than
Cyrus
with-
in
the
Medo-Persian
Empire.
If
the
authenticity
of
this
text
in
Eusebius/Abydenus/Berossus
is
acknowledged,
several
points
may
be
inferred:
17
1)
there
was
an-
other
king
who
was
contemporaneous
with
Cyrus
and
Nabonidus;
2)
he
was
associated
with
these
two
kings
when
Babylon
was
con-
quered,
thus
also
making
him
a
contemporary
of
Belshazzar,
son
and
coregent
of
Nabonidus,
who
was
ruling
in
Babylon
at
the
time;
3)
this
king
was
named
Darius;
4)
he
somehow
had
authority
over
Cyrus,
since
he
was
able
to
overrule
Cyrus's
disposition
of
part
of
Carmania.
The
first
three
points
were
used
by
Keil
to
argue
that
the
Darius
of
the
book
of
Daniel
was
attested
in
an
ancient
source
that
was
independent
of
Daniel's
writing.
KING
DARIUS
IN
HARPOCRATION
Valerius
Harpocration
was
a
lexicographer
who
wrote
in
the
latter
half
of
the
second
century
AD
and
who
was
a
tutor
of
the
emperor
Verus
(reigned
AD
161-169).
He
was
associated
with
the
great
li-
brary
at
Alexandria
and
consequently
had
access
to
many
ancient
books
that
later
were
lost
when
the
library
was
destroyed.
His
only
surviving
work
is
Lexicon
of
the Ten Orators, a
glossary
to
termi-
nology
used
by
Greek
orators.
The
portion
of
Harpocration's
work
that
is
significant
for
the
issue
of
Darius
the
Mede
is
his
entry
for
the
word
"daric"
(8upEtK6i;).
Herodotus
claimed
that
Darius
Hystaspes
invented
the
daric
coin
as
a
memorial
to
himself
(Histories 4.166).
By
contrast,
in
Har-
pocration's
entry
for
"daric,"
he
wrote,
"But
darics
are
not
named,
as
most
suppose,
after
Darius
the
father
of
Xerxes,
but
after
acer-
tain
other
more
ancient
king."
18
This
is
the
second
reference
that
Keil
cited
as
evidence,
outside
of
the
book
of
Daniel,
for
the
exist-
ence
of
Daniel's
"Darius
the
Mede"
as
a
historical
figure.
19
Har-
17
For
a
much
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
text
critical
issues
in
Berossus
and
in
the
Chronicle
of
Eusebius,
including
an
analysis
of
this
important
disputed
line,
see
Steven
D.
Anderson,
Darius
the Mede: A
Reappraisal
(Amazon/CreateSpace,
2014),
105-111.
This
book
is
a
self-publication
of
the
author's
PhD
dissertation,
"Darius
the
Mede: A
Reappraisal"
(Dallas
Theological
Seminary,
2014).
18
Harpocration,
Lexeis
of
the Ten Orators
~
5,
~apEtK6s.
The
Greek
text
given
by
Keaney
is
EKAi]0ricruv
6€
~apEtKoi
oux
ws
oi
n/cdcrrnt
voµil;oucrtv,
ano
~updou
rnu
Stp~ou
nmpos,
UAA
0
acp'
crtpou nvos
JtUAmortpou
PacrtAtwi;
(John
J.
Keaney,
ed., Harpocration:
Lexeis
of
the Ten Orators
[Amsterdam:
Adolf M.
Hakkert,
1991], 66).
19
Keil,
Daniel,
200.
An
earlier
commentator
who
connected
the
reference
in
Har-
pocration
with
Darius
the
Mede
is
E. W.
Hengstenberg,
Dissertations on the
320
BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA
I
July-September
2016
pocration
nowhere
in
his
work
refers
to
the
Bible
or
to
any
biblical
subject,
which
makes
it
highly
unlikely
that
he
took
his
infor-
mation
from
the
book
of
Daniel;
besides,
the
book
of
Daniel
says
nothing
about
coins,
daric
or
otherwise.
Harpocration's
reference
is
independent
of,
but
supports,
the
book
of
Daniel
in
describing
a
Darius
who
preceded
Darius
Hystaspes.
Is
Harpocration's
reference
also
independent
of
the
reference
to
Darius
in
Berossus?
Certainly
Berossus,
who
was
widely
quoted
in
antiquity,
would
have
been
included
in
the
great
library
at
Alex-
andria.
Since
most
of
Berossus's
Babyloniaca
is
no
longer
extant,
it
could
be
speculated
that
Berossus
somewhere
stated
that
the
daric
was
named
after
the
early
"Darius"
who
is
mentioned
only
in
the
citation
of
Berossus
in
Eusebius's
Chronicle.
But
even
if
Harpocra-
tion
derived
his
information
from
some
now-lost
portion
of
Beros-
sus,
this
would
still
be
a
valuable
testimony
to
the
validity
of
Ber-
ossus's
affirmation
that
there
was
an
earlier
king
named
"Darius."
If,
on
the
other
hand,
Harpocration's
information
was
not
derived
from
Berossus
but
from
some
other
source,
then
it
has
significant
weight
because
of
its
independence
not
only
of
Daniel,
but
also
of
Berossus.
According
to
Harpocration,
the
Darius
after
whom
the
daric
coin
was
named
lived
before
Darius
(I)
Hystaspes.
Although
Bivar
claimed
that
the
daric
was
first
minted
in
515
BC,
Rogers
argued
that
Herodotus's
reference
to
millions
of
darics
in
existence
at
the
time
of
Xerxes's
invasion
of
Greece
in
480 BC
shows
that
darics
must
have
begun
to
be
minted
well
before
the
time
of
Darius
Hys-
taspes.20
Certainly
coinage
itself
was
invented
well
before
the
time
of
Darius
Hystaspes;
Greek
authors
attributed
the
invention
of
coinage
to
the
Lydians.
Kagan
advocates
dating
this
invention
as
early
as
700 BC,
based
on
a
thorough
study
of
archaeological,
liter-
ary,
and
numismatic
evidence.
21
Genuineness
of
Daniel
and
the
Integrity
of
Zechariah,
trans.
B. P.
Pratten
(Edin-
burgh:
T. & T.
Clark,
1847),
43.
20
Benjamin
Bickley Rogers, ed.,
The
Ecclesiazusae
of
Aristophanes
(London:
G.
Bell
and
Sons,
1917),
90;
A.
D. H.
Bivar,
"Achaemenid
Coins,
Weights
and
Measures,"
in
The
Median
and
Achaemenian
Periods, ed.
Ilya
Gershevitch,
vol. 2 of
The Cambridge History
of
Iran
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1985),
617.
See
Herodotus
7.27-30.
21
Donald
Kagan,
"The
Dates
of
the
Earliest
Coins,"
American
Journal
of
Archae-
ology
86
(1982):
343-60.
Xenophanes,
from
the
sixth
century
BC,
is
the
earliest
known
authority
for
the
Lydian
invention
of coinage
(James
H.
Lesher,
Xenophanes
of
Colophon: Fragments: A Text
and
Translation
with
a
Commentary,
Phoenix
Sup-
plementary
Volume
[Toronto:
University
of
Toronto
Press,
1992],
17, 65).
Herodotus
also
stated
that
the
Lydians
were
the
first
people
he
knew
of who
minted
and
used
The Remembrance of Daniel's Darius the Mede in Berossus and Harpocration
321
Both
Herodotus
(1.76-1.86)
and
Xenophon
(Cyropaedia
2.1.5-
4.2.33)
relate
that
the
Medo-Persian
army
subjugated
the
Lydian
kingdom
and
its
king,
Croesus,
early
in
the
career
of
Cyrus
the
Great.
Both
authors
recount
that
after
he
lost
his
kingdom,
Croe-
sus
became
an
advisor
to
Cyrus,
who
therefore
would
have
learned
about
the
advantage
of coinage
at
this
time,
if
not
well before.
Since
all
sources
describe
Cyrus
as
an
astute
statesman
and
em-
pire-builder,
the
advantages
of a
common
currency
and
coinage for
conducting
the
business
of
the
realm,
as
learned
from
the
Lydians,
would
not
have
been
lost
on
him.
Thus
it
is
logical
to
expect
that
the
Medes
and
Persians
would
have
emulated
the
Lydians
by
in-
troducing
coinage
in
the
lifetime
of
Cyrus,
if
not
earlier.
The
origin
of
the
daric
is,
however,
a
matter
of
secondary
im-
portance
for
the
issue
of
Darius
the
Mede.
What
is
significant
is
that
a
secular
Greek
writer
and
researcher
affirmed
the
existence
of a poorly
known
king
named
Darius
who
preceded
Darius
Hys-
taspes.
The
conventional
history
of
Media
and
Persia,
which
is
based
largely
on
the
Greek
historian
Herodotus,
does
not
know
of
any
such
king.
THE
USE
OF
"DARIUS"
AS A
THRONE
NAME
Berossus
and
Harpocration
refer
to
Darius
only
as
"Darius,"
and
not
as
"Darius
the
Mede,"
as
in
two of
the
eight
instances
where
Daniel
names
Darius
(Dan. 5:31[Eng.] I 6:1[MT]; 11:1). However,
"the
Mede"
was
not
part
of
Darius's
name
any
more
than
"the
Per-
sian"
was
part
of
Cyrus's
name.
It
is
regrettable
that
the
fragments
from
Berossus
and
Harpocration
do
not
state
the
ethnicity
of
the
Darius
whom
they
mention.
However,
the
name
"Darius"
(Old
Per-
sian
DiirayavauS)
is
a
word
formed
from
the
Median
and/or
Persian
language.
It
means
"holder
of
the
good" (from dar- "to hold"
and
vahu
"the
good").
22
Since
the
name
Darius
comes from
the
Median
or
Persian
language,
the
first
king
to
have
held
this
name
must
have
been
a
Mede
or
a
Persian.
Further,
it
is
not
unlikely
that
"Da-
rius"
was
a
throne
name,
since
it
was
a
standard
practice
for
kings
of
the
Persian
Empire
to
take
throne
names
in
addition
to
their
coins (1.94). A few
examples
of
early
Lydian
coins
survive
to
the
present
day.
22
See
R.
G.
Kent,
Old
Persian
Grammar,
Texts, Lexicon,
American
Oriental
Series
(New
Haven,
CT:
American
Oriental
Society, 1953), 189;
Chul-Hyun
Bae,
"Compar-
ative
Studies
of
King
Darius's
Bisitun
Inscription"
(PhD
diss.,
Harvard
University,
2001), 255.
Our
thanks
also
to
John
Makujina
for
his
help
in
analyzing
this
name
through
personal
correspondence.
322
BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA
I
July-September
2016
given
names.
23
It
is
reasonable
to
consider
that
the
Darius
remem-
bered
by
Daniel,
Berossus,
and
Harpocration
may
be
remembered
by
a
different
name
in
other
ancient
sources.
The
first
undisputed
king
to
be
named
"Darius"
was
a
usurper
who
overthrew
the
dynasty
of
Cyrus
and
who
therefore
had
no le-
gitimate
right
of
succession.
This
fact
"was
intended
to
be
con-
cealed
or
glossed
over
by
taking
another
name."
24
In
such
a
situa-
tion
it
is
unlikely
that
Darius
would
have
invented
a
throne
name
that
had
never
been
used
before,
and
it
is
logical
that
he
would
have
called
himself
by
the
name
of
a
king
from
the
Median
dynasty
that
Cyrus
superseded.
The
idea
that
Darius
(I)
Hystaspes
took
the
throne
name
"Da-
rius"
from a
Median
king
is
supported
by
the
use
of
the
throne
name
Xerxes
(=
Ahasuerus)
by
Darius's
son
and
heir.
Schmitt
re-
gards
it
as
"obvious"
that
Darius
Hystaspes
and
Xerxes
are
known
by
their
throne
names,
even
though
their
birth
names
are
not
at-
tested
in
any
extant
texts.
25
It
is logical
that
when
Xerxes
was
made
crown
prince,
his
father
would
have
given
him
the
throne
name
of
an
earlier
king
from
the
same
Median
dynasty
from
which
he
took
his
own
throne
name.
The
name
Xerxes
(OP
X8ayiirsan-)
includes
the
Median
consonant
cluster
-xs-
(compare
such
Median
names
as
Uvaxstra-
and
Xsathrita-).
26
The
presence
of
uniquely
Median
features
in
the
name
Xerxes
indicates
that
it
was
indeed
originally
the
throne
name
of
a
Median
king.
It
can
hardly
be
coin-
cidental
that
Daniel
identified
the
father
of
Darius
the
Mede
as
Ahasuerus,
the
Hebrew
equivalent
of
Xerxes
(Dan.
9:
1).
CONCLUSION
In
summary,
the
Babylonian
historian
Berossus
described, accord-
ing
to
Eusebius,
a
certain
King
Darius
who
had
authority
to
over-
23
Rudiger
Schmitt,
"Achaemenid
Throne-Names,"
Annali
dell' Istituto Orientale di
Napoli
42 (1982):
83-90.
According
to
Schmitt,
the
original
name
of
Artaxerxes
I
(465-425/4
BC)
was
Cyrus;
that
of
Darius
II
(424-405/4)
was
Ochus;
that
of
Arta-
xerxes
II
(405/4-359/8)
was
Arses;
and
that
of
Artaxerxes
III
(359/8-33817)
was
Ochus.
The
next
king,
Arses
(338/7-336/5),
may
have
taken
a
throne
name
during
his
brief
reign,
but
if
so
it
is
not
known.
The
last
king
of
Persia,
Darius
III
(336/5-
330),
was
originally
named
Artasat.
Most
of
these
name
changes
are
attested
by
both
Greco-Roman
writers
and
late
Babylonian
astronomical
texts,
which
refer, for
example,
to
"Ar8u called
Artaksatsu
the
king."
24
Ibid., 94.
25
Ibid.,
93-94.
26
Kent,
Old Persian Grammar, 182.
The Remembrance of Daniel's Darius the Mede
in
Berossus and Harpocration 323
ride
the
command
of
Cyrus
regarding
the
disposition
of
Nabonidus,
the
defeated
king
of
Babylon.
In
addition,
the
Greek
lexicographer
Harpocration
affirmed
that
there
was
a
king
named
Darius
who
preceded
the
king
who
is
today
known
as
Darius
I.
This
king,
ac-
cording
to
Berossus,
reigned
concurrently
with
Cyrus
and
Naboni-
dus,
and
hence
also
Belshazzar,
at
the
time
of
Babylon's
fall.
The
combined
testimony
of
Harpocration
and
Berossus
therefore
wit-
nesses
to
the
existence
of
a
Median
king
whose
role,
timing,
and
authority
correspond
exactly
to
the
role,
timing,
and
authority
of
Daniel's
Darius.
It
bears
repeating
that
the
testimony
regarding
this
Darius
of
Berossus
and
Harpocration
is
independent
of
any-
thing
written
about
Darius
the
Mede
in
the
book
of
Daniel,
even
though
both
Berossus
and
Harpocration
supply
the
same
name
to
this
individual
as
that
given
by
Daniel.
The
existence
of
these
two
references
should
lead
writers
to
reconsider
the
common
assertion
that
Darius
the
Mede
is
not
recognized
by
any
ancient
source
out-
side
of
the
book
of
Daniel
and
works
that
depend
on
it.
27
27
The
various
sources
mentioned
here
are
all
examined
and
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Anderson,
Darius
the Mede: A Reappraisal.
Although
the
present
authors
hold
to
the
thesis
that
Daniel's
Darius
the
Mede
is
to
be
identified
with
the
Cyaxar·
es
II
of
Xenophon's
Cyropaedia,
the
attempt
here
has
been
simply
to
focus
attention
on
what
seem
to
be
independent
ancient
traditions
of
Daniel's
Darius
and
to
revive
scholarly
interest
in
what
this
means
to
all
views
on
the
identification
and
existence
of
Darius
the
Mede.