Regarding William H. Shea’s valiant attempts to identify Darius the Mede

by Damien F. Mackey “A prominent feature of this theory is that the author supposed that there was a separate Median kingdom between the rule of the Babylonians and the Persians. Evidence for this comes in particular from the figure of Darius the Mede who is taken as ruler over an independent Median kingdom. Since no such kingdom is known—and hence no such ruler, either—the book of Daniel is seen as lacking historicity, a product of a late and geographically-removed author”. Dr. William H. Shea Articles that include mention of Darius the Mede tend to occupy themselves with the question: Who was Darius the Mede?, rather than to offer any viable solution to the problem. And a problem it has proven to be. Steven D. Anderson, in Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (2014), will begin with an Introduction to the Problem, as follows: The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31[E] / 6:1[MT]; cf. Dan 11:1). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, mainstream scholarship affirms that there never was such a person as Darius the Mede. The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions. …. [End of quote] William H. Shea will do his best to identify the elusive Darius the Mede in his article, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian setting” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1991, Vol. 29, No. 3, 235-257). Let us find out what he had to say. In his Introduction, Dr. Shea will recall a former view of his, that Darius the Mede was Gubaru the governor of Babylonia, and professor Lester L. Grabbe’s criticism of this: As an introduction to proposing his own theory about the unhistorical Darius the Mede, Grabbe has reviewed the various identifications proposed for Darius by various conservative interpreters. In concluding his review of J. C. Whitcomb's theory that Darius the Mede was Gubaru/ Gobryas, the governor of Babylonia from the middle of the reign of Cyrus to the middle of the reign of Cambyses, Grabbe affirms there is no evidence for it. In his review of my own work on this subject, Grabbe has also concluded, "Once it is recognized that Gubaru (the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus) did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates." 2 Il-ester L. Grabbe, " Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede'," CBQ 50 (April 1988): 198-213. Next, Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman is brought into the picture, again as the target of Lester Grabbe: Grabbe has reserved the most unkind cut of all for D. J. Wiseman, the distinguished Assyriologist who published the chronicles of the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar. …. Wiseman advanced the theory that Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus. He based this conclusion on an epexegetical or explicative translation of the waw in Dan 6:28, "the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Let us stop right here. D.J. Wiseman was perfectly correct, I believe, in his proposing that Darius the Mede was Cyrus ‘the Great’. If in doubt, bring in a Wise Man (Wiseman). D.J. and his father P.J. have made an enormous contribution to biblical studies. See also my article: Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP (7) Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP D.J. Wiseman’s is the identification that I, myself, have embraced. See for example my article: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (7) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' and, again: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue But Darius the Mede/Cyrus was also the Neriglissar of the neo-Babylonian king lists: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (3) Why "Darius the Mede" is like a needle in a haystack And was, I further suspect, King Nebuchednezzar’s “chief of court officials”, Ashpenaz: Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede With the removal out of the way of the major complication of: Who was Darius the Mede? we can now try to sort out those other significant characters, Gubaru and Cambyses, the former of whom Dr. Shea had once touted as a potential Darius the Mede. …. When new primary historical sources appear, the time comes to examine old historical theories. With the publication of additional neo-Babylonian contract tablets in the Cuneiform Text series from the British Museum … that is now the case with the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. What those tablets have now demonstrated precisely is where the Babylonian coregency of Cambyses should be located. They have done this by providing tablets whose dates overlap the end of Nabonidus' reign and the beginning of Persian rule dated in terms of the coregent year of Cambyses. … There could be no more convincing demonstration that the one (partial) year of Cambyses' coregency belongs in the first year of Cyrus' rule over Babylonia as "king of lands," beginning in the spring of 538 B.C. In past studies I have equivocated on this point … but with this new evidence in hand, there can be no question about it: Cambyses ruled Babylon with Cyrus from 1/1, in the spring of 538 B.C., until sometime between IX/25 and X/ 1 of that same year. At this time the contract tablets drop Cambyses' name and transfer his title, "king of Babylon," to Cyrus. …. …. Six of these tablets carry titularies with datelines which refer to the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses which I have discussed previously in connection with the subject of Darius the Mede. The dates and titles in question read as follows: Text Date CT 55:731 Xl/-/l Cambyses (no title), Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:142 Cambyses, King of Lands, Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:149 11/7/1 Cambyses, King of Babylon, Cyrus, King [broken} CT 56:294 [brokenl Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:345 11/18/1 Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:369 [broken] Cyrus, King [broken], Cambyses, [broken] …. Based on this evidence, Dr. Shea will now be able to rule out Gubaru (Ugbaru) as having any possible claim to being Darius the Mede, as, say, a sub-king to Cyrus. The conclusion that Cambyses ruled Babylon as coregent with his father in 538 B.C. eliminates the possibility that Gubaru (Ugbaru), Cyrus' general who captured Babylon, might have served as king or quasi-king of Babylon at that time. A coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus might be acceptable, but a tri-regency involves too many rulers of Babylon to be historically reasonable. Since dates in Darius the Mede's first year are given twice in Daniel (9:1 and 11:1), Gubaru no longer is a reasonable candidate for that identification. His place in history has shrunk to the point that his identification with Darius in Daniel can no longer be sustained. …. But before we take this any further, I must ask who was Gubaru (Ugbaru), whose governorship of Babylon under Cyrus was apparently extremely short – far too short for him to qualify as a Darius the Mede? Well, I have identified this Gubaru (Ugbaru) with Ubāru, the long-time governor of Babylon under King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, in the latter’s guise as Esarhaddon. And this Ubāru I have identified, in turn, as Daniel himself: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (3) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru Dr. Shea now found himself free to embrace D.J. Wiseman’s insightful identification of Darius the Mede: …. With these points firmly established from the cuneiform evidence, we may now return to the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. Where does this new information leave us? It rules out both [sic] of the Gubarus as potential candidates for Darius the Mede. In that case we should examine another candidate who had previously been rejected for reasons which were not altogether sound. I would like to suggest that the one suggested by D. J. Wiseman—Cyrus himself—is the most appropriate identification to propose here as the correct one. …. As a matter of fact, I would like to suggest that once this proposal is appreciated in the way it should be, the data from the biblical text and ancient Near Eastern historical sources fit together in a manner that is harmonious and consonant to a major degree. The identification of Cyrus as Darius the Mede explains difficulties in the biblical text which had never been previously explained. If convergence of data is the test for a theory, the convergence present here offers strong support for this proposal, first put forward by Wiseman. …. (1) Darius the Mede has been identified with King Cyrus (D.J. Wiseman and Dr. Shea), and (2) Gubaru (Ugbaru) has been identified as Daniel, in his rôle as (long-term) governor of Babylon, Ubāru (Mackey), under Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar). Daniel 2:48-49: Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. It remains to identify (3) the sub-king to Cyrus, Cambyses. The key to this situation, I think, is that, just before the demise of King Belshazzar, he made Daniel third in the kingdom. Why third?: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (4) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? King Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach, had already exalted Jehoiachin of Judah to second (2 Kings 25:27-30). While Daniel would shortly pass from the scene, “Jehoiachin the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17) would be exalted again under King Cyrus (Ahasuerus), as “Haman … the Captive” [my favoured translation] (Esther 3:1-2): After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. Haman’s name was actually Egyptian (Amon): Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (6) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name So I am presuming that his Medo-Persian given name, which he must have had, was Cambyses – not to be confused with the mighty king Cambyses, who conquered Egypt.