Larsguy47

Per the Bible, Darius the Mede was the king of the Medes who ruled over Babylon immediately after it was overthrown by he and Cyrus. He ruled for six years before Cyrus became king over all of Persia and there became one person only with the title of "king", all other former kings being called "governor."

Darius the Mede as also, however, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar through a state marriage between the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the king of the Medes, "Ahasuerus" who was also the father of Astyages. Thus Darius the Mede and Astyages were brothers, and Cyrus, who was married to the daughter of Astyages was thus the nephew-in-law of Darius the Mede. The Medes were stronger than the Persians, dynastically, but with no male heir from the Medes at this time, the royal line went through the daughter of Astyages who was married to Cyrus so the children of Cyrus were the royal line for the Medes now. Thus Darius abdictated to Cyrus so that the royal lines of the Medes and the Persians would become one. Apparently, though, Darius continued as governor ruling over Babylon for the next 8 years until he died, Cambyses succeeding him for one year as co-ruler with Cyrus, until Cyrus died the next year.

During the six-year rule of Darius, the Mede, the Jews were still in bondage. It was not until the rule of Cyrus over the entire kingdom that the Jews were released to return to their homeland and rebuild their city and temple, events specifically associated with Cyrus and not Darius, the Mede.

Isa 44:28 the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’”

70 years ending Neo-Babylonian Empire:
Since Darius, the Mede was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and thus the legitimate heir to the Babylonian throne, in addition to Nabonidus still away at Borsippa, the Neo-Babylonian kingship was not considered to have ended until Cyrus himself began to rule over Babylon. Thus the 70 years prophesied that the last deportees would remain off their land was not fulfilled when Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians, but only when Cyrus began to rule. Thus the Bible specifically states it is only when the "royalty of PERSIA" begins to rule that the 70 years are up. The "royalty of PERSIA" excludes, Darius, the "MEDE".

2 Chronicles 36:20 "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."


"Those remaining from the sword" is a reference to those who escaped from the sword of Nebuchadnezzar that came against those who had run down to Egypt and refused to leave. (Jer 44:14,28). The 70-year interval from the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last deportation (Jer. 52:30) to the 1st of Cyrus is a key Biblical chronological interval for connecting the Bible's timeline into the secular timeline during the time of Nebuchadnezzar, a rather well-documented period archaeologically speaking.

DARIUS THE MEDE IN SECULAR RECORDS:
Darius the Mede does not appear directly as a named king in secular records, but he is implied by his activities. For instance, in the Cyrus Cylinder there is a mention of Ugbaru and Gubaru; one conquering Babylon with Cyrus then dying and the other organizing the empire into satrapies. In the Bible both deeds are ascribed to Darius, the Mede.

Further, while his rulership years were always considered a focus of debate, that he was an actual person hasn't been questioned until very late, as evidenced by his historical actions and presence in a timeline published by none other than Sir Isaac Newton himself in his "A Short Chronicle."

Interesting that the "DARICS" are considered to be an invention of Darius the Mede, the king of Babylon. That certainly links him up with being a real person and a king.



"These critics correctly assert that the daric was a coin of the Persian Empire (probably derived from Darius the Mede)." Origin of Daric


This is a "daric" likely coined by Darius I, the Persian -- notice the beard and crown type.



This is likely the original "daric" coined by Darius, the Mede, King of Babylon. There is no distinctive beard and the crown not the usual Persian crown.


Two schools of thought about the "daric" but it seems possible the first darics were an extension of Lydian coins by Darius, the Mede and then later more minting during the reign of Darius I. Again, obviously, the existence of these coins attests to the reality of Darius, the Mede at one time and also that he must have been king and more significant at first than Cyrus to have this money coined as the primary monarch of the empire.



LG47

Nanocyborg

Sounds more like Daniel got confused about the order of Persian kings. Darius was a Persian king whose rule followed Cyrus. He wasn't a Mede king who ruled Babylon because the Medes were already thoroughly defeated by Cyrus by the time the Persian Empire annexed Babylon. The Medes thereafter functioned as an aristocratic ethnic group within the Persian Empire, but their king was the same as the Persian king.

Larsguy47

Daniel/the Bible are not confused. There were two "Darius" kings, one was "Darius, the Mede" who ruled immediately after Cyrus and he overthrew Babylon. Then Cyrus abdicated to DARIUS THE MEDE as you see in Sir Isaac Newton's chronology above. Cyrus ruled for 9 years, followed by a 7-year rule by his son Cambyses. An imposter king Bardiya/Smerdis was on the throne for a short while when DARIUS I, THE GREAT came to the throne. The two Dariuses are separated by clear historical reference. Remember Daniel and the Lion's Den? That happened during the reign of Darius, the Mede. Daniel was a youth when he was first taken to Babylon in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. He was a very old man at the time, c. 97. He certainly wouldn't have still been around by the time of Darius I.

So, no, the Bible is not confused. Daniel wasn't alive during the reign of Darius, the Great but he was still in bondage at Babylon during the reign of Darius, the Mede.

When Babylon was conquered they were conquered by the coalition between the "MEDES and the Persians" with the Medes the more dominant empire. In fact, the Greeks called the Persians the "Medes" primarily. But then the empire of the Medes and the Persians were consolidated under one major king, the first being Cyrus and the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians came under a united Persian empire with the first great king being Cyrus, who was considered by now like a god and great conquerer. The Medes didn't mind since the royal line of the Medes came through the children of Cyrus, who was married to the daughter of Astyages, the king of the Medes and brother to Darius, the Mede.

LG47

Sauron

No, Darius the Mede (DTM) is an error in the bible, a conflagration of different personalities and transposition of another ruler's name. There is not evidence that any such actual person ever existed.

Impossible, since he didn't exist. Temporary administration of the Babylonian empire was managed through - among others - Ugbaru and Gubaru, neither of whom are Darius the Mede (DTM).

It is impossible for a non-existent person to be "implied by his activities".

Yes.

Yes, and the bible is mistaken in doing so.

1. Newton is not a historical source - you've already been told that several times;

2. The existence of Darius the Mede has been in question for quite a long time.

An invention of Darius the Mede? Quite impossible, since Darius the Mede never existed.

Your solitary source wanting to try and connect the coinage to the fictional DTM is - what? - a solitary minister writing an article for an apologetics website. Here is what an actual source looks like:

Britannica:

Moreover, even your Wikipedia source backfires in your face:

Except he wasn't a real person, and your sources are rather bogus.

Sauron

You've merely repeated your previous claim, without addressing the flaws already noted.

1. Newton is not a historical source.

"Daniel in the Lion's Den" is not a "clear historical reference." You seem to be confused about what counts as a reference, historical or otherwise.

Factually incorrect on several levels.

The Persians were always the senior power. Media was always the junior partner in the military and political relationship; Persia was the clear senior. Describing a partnership by its junior member would be confusing and inaccurate. It was always Persia who ultimately held the reins of power – recall that Cyrus had conquered the Medes in 550 BCE and made them subject to Persia. The most accurate description of the invasion of Babylon would be “Invasion of the Persians”. The second most accurate would be to call it “invasion of the Persians and Medes”. The least accurate, and actually misleading, way to refer to it would be “invasion of the Medes”. Yet that is the description we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

And by the time of Darius, the Medians’ special status as co-equals in the empire had already evaporated, and they were subjects like other conquered peoples. Like most such relationships, it existed only at the whim of the senior partner, and was never meant to last. The Median equality ended several years later, when Darius I usurped the throne. The Medes rose unsuccessfully in revolt (522-521 BCE), were crushed, and then lost such privileged status as they had enjoyed.

Larsguy47

There are no flaws. Your chronology is based on outdated chronology. For instance experts in astronomy claimed it was not possible for Thales to predict a solar eclipse but that is clearly not true now and the predicted eclipse, specific by location in Ionia based on an eclipse seen in Egypt where Thales did his astronomy apprenticeship confirms the 2nd of Nabonidus in 479/478BCE. If Cyrus overthrew Astyages in the 6th year of Nabonidus and didn't become king in Babylon until 20 years later, that means Nabonidus would have ruled for 25 years. The records don't support that. Instead, if we insert the 6-year rule of Darius, the Mede, then Nabonidus would rule for 19 years.

Further, the VAT4956 forces the expansion of the Neo-Babylonian Period by 26 years as well. The Cyrus Cylinder, Nabonidus Chronicle and Babylonian Chronicle are known to be late Persian documents (copies) and so are presumed to have revisions. There is no way you can overcome the astronomical data, so the old chronology is dismissed and you have 26 years of NB history to now fill in.

A cryptic reference by Josephus is made where he mentions a 54-year period in association with Cyrus. This is a tip off he was referring to the beginning of the 20-year rulership of Cyrus that occurred before he became king in Babylon. Josephus' reference to the fall of "Tyre" is considered an actual cryptic reference to the fall of Babylon in relation to the 20-year rule of Cyrus. The 54 years are significant since Cyrus began his 20-year rule over Persia before becoming king over all of Persia including Babylon 54 years after the fall of Jerusalem. Thus there are two intervals of desolation years involved with Cyrus, one 50 years and one 70 years, both of which are mentioned by Josephus in his last work, Against Apion (1:19, 1:21), thus he is playing with the numbers.

Here's how the numbers "coincidentally" line up when comparing the seige of Tyre for 13 years beginning the 7th year of "Nebuchadnezzar" compared to the fall of Babylon after 13 years when it begins instead in the 7th year of Nabonidus. That is, if Cyrus begins his rule in the 6th of Nabonidus for 20 years, you have a period of 25 years. If you begin a 13-year seige of Babylon in the 7th year of Nabonidus, with the fall of Babylon at the end of the 13-year period, then that removes 14 years from the 25, leaving 11 years. When you subtract the first 5 years from the 11, you still have six years left before Cyrus comes to the throne. Those six years are confirmed as the rule of Darius the Mede.



I wasn't using him as a historical source for whether or not Darius the Mede actually existed, but only that certain historical activities were associated with him and understood of him by persons such as Newton who considered him a real person, including, of interest, that they understood he invented the "Daric". Of the two darics displayed, the one with the large crown and no beard would not be representative of Darius I who was known to have a large beard and prided that image.


It is so a clear historical reference in the Bible, which is the more accurate history. You must not be familiar with the Biblical reference or the reference by Josephus.

From your perspective, using revised historical information that is now out of date because of the advanced astronomical discoveries of the double-dating in the VAT4956 and the SK400. Are you familiar at all with these texts? Basically once computerized astronomy programs were invented and these texts were recharted the "errors" were found that pointed to the original chronology. These cryptic references were thus hidden in "diaries" to try to preserve a secret reference to the revised chronology. The NB Period was reduced by 26 years and since Cyrus and Darius the Mede conquered Babylon together, his entire rule was simply suppressed, though, as noted, some of things he did was attributed historically to others, e.g. "Ugbaru" and "Gubaru." Spliting historical characters was a common means of covering up a revision.

That's certainly not true. The Medes were originally the more prominent. Check your history of interaction with Babylon and the Mede during the time of Nebuchadnezzar. King Cyaxares of the Medes then Astyages were quite prominent. The Greeks knew them as "Medes". When conquering Babylon, the dual-empire are listed as the "MEDES and the Persians" not the other way around.


Not correct. Do you have a reference for your incorrect claim?

I totally agree. But that's why the Bible calls them the "MEDES and the Persians" and why they were known anciently in Greece more as "Medes" than Persians. In fact, when the Persians conquered anything the Greeks often used the term "medized": "The Greeks rejoiced by besieging Thebes, capturing it and killing everyone who'd "medized," for now they were free to do whatever democracy demanded."

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320His...rs/02HEROD.htm


Interesting, but I don't think it will be difficult to establish that the Medes were first the more dominant influence. I'll try to find a quote to that effect for you to summarily dismiss.

Thanks for the outdated history lesson, though, much appreciated. Post the double-dated discoveries in the VAT4956, all the old history has to be updated. The rule of Darius the Mede was suppressed when 26 years of Neo-Babylonian kings were removed to use to expand the rulerships of some of the Persian kings.

LG47

Larsguy47

DARIUS, THE MEDE:

Sauron

No, the chronology is correct. Your attempts to re-order history to rescue your favorite bible interpretation do not work. Several people have already patiently pointed out the flaws. Therefore, until you address the flaws already identified, I won't be wasting any time on working out the kinks in your creative history, nor will I be permitting you to try and sneak it into the argument.

Yes you were. Here are your words:

Further, while his rulership years were always considered a focus of debate, that he was an actual person hasn't been questioned until very late, as evidenced by his historical actions and presence in a timeline published by none other than Sir Isaac Newton himself

You'll find that I am the *last* person that you want to be dishonest or sloppy with.

1. No, he did not invent the daric; see my previous post.
2. You have no historical source that says he did. All you have is Newton (not a historical source) and a minister writing an apologetics article who - like you - assumed his conclusion.

I am familiar with both. But I am also aware that the bible makes many historical mistakes. Same with Josephus, who is only repeating what he learned from his own religion. That means Josephus is not an independent source.

No, from the standpoint of history and the records supporting these events.

You've often claimed that, but you've presented exactly ZERO confirmed cases of it. Instead, you've tried to invoke it as part of your argument, whic -- of course -- is circular reasoning.

No, they were not. Had that been the case, then the records wouldn't show that the Persians conquered the Medes and made them subject to them.

A lot changes in 30 years. At the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Medes were still an independent kingdom. That changed when they got their asses conquered. Britannica:

By the victory in 550 of the Persian chief Cyrus II the Great over his suzerain, Astyages of Media, the Medes were made subject to the Persians. In the new Achaemenian Empire they retained a prominent position; in honour and war they stood next to the Persians, and their court ceremonial was adopted by the new sovereigns, who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana.

Note the clear power shift to Persia. The Medes' favored status would last less than 30 years.

1. In the first place, that's a pretty flimsy peg to try and hang your argument upon. Whether someone speaking or writing puts one term before, or after, the other hardly indicates a level of importance. It may refer to any number of things: chronological first contact, for example.

2. In the second place, you've only presented one source that uses both nationality terms together - and that source is the bible. But as indicated, there are mistakes in bible chronology, so trying to use the bible to prove the bible won't work here;

3. In the third place, you're flat-out wrong in your claim that these terms always appear in the order "Medes and Persians" -- and apparently don't know your own bible:

EST 1:19 If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.

Some tin-pot messiah you are.

1. Absolutely correct. Persia was senior. That's what the word "subjugate" means, poptart.
2. I already gave you the source: Britannica.

1. In point of fact, the bible uses both arrangement of terms.
2. Not that it matters, because the bible's history on this point is wrong anyhow.

Except that isn't what your source says. Once again, your own source backfires on you:

Note the above confirms what I said about Persians being the senior partner. Now, on to the part of your source that backfires on you:
So your source plainly states that the Greeks were making a mistake in calling the Persians by the name "Medes", and that they did so only because Media was geographically closer to Greece. See, Larsguy? This is what happens when you don't know the material and don't take the time to even read your own sources before posting your claims. :rolling:

You're confused. That bold text isn't an opinion above; that comes directly from:

“Medes”, The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 1993. Page 507.

Sauron

Who cares?

The bible has historical mistakes in it. Therefore, using the bible to try and prove the bible is a waste of time.

Larsguy47

ROFL! You have no rebuttal, because there is none. All you can do is allude to lots of people who successfully rebutted somethhing. All I've seen are people who totally don't understand what a double-dated astronomical text does. Do you? Didn't think so. There is no rebuttal. Either the "errors" fit 511BCE or they don't. If they do, you're in big historical trouble. They do; so you are. No rebuttal.

Great. So where is your personal comment/rebuttal about Line 3 and line 14 matching 511BCE dating, but mismatched to 568BCE, previously thought to be "errors"? Is it your opinion that these are just inventions of some scribe copying the text who just happened to guess the precise locations of the moon in two different months for the same year? Is that your position? Do you have an astronomy program to check this out yourself?

The Bible makes no mistakes. If it does, why not just, off your head, list five absolute historical mistakes. I haven't found any.


Just "for the record", have you heard of "The Delian Problem" where Plato is consulted in 431 BCE to assist with a problem relating to the plague? He wasn't born until 428BCE. My take on this is that the discrepancy is a result of revisionism. What's your take on it? (Just look up "Delian Problem, Plato").


Thanks, I appreciate this. But if Asytages was the king of the MEDES and he was the grandfather of Cyrus per Herodotus/Xenophon. He is the son-in-law per Ctesias. Where would you stand on this. What Cyrus himself part Mede?


You're the one who commented on it. I was just using your line...

There are ZERO mistakes and you have shown me none as an example. Care to just list THREE of your favorites? Usually what people believe are "mistakes" are their own error or misinterpretation of the scripture.

The Book of Esther is not inspired and not an official part of the Bible. ESTHER, SONG OF SOLOMON and ECCLESIASTES were not cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers and so are excluded. So please, you have to come up with another comparison. And besides that, this is AFTER the fact. The LXX version of Esther has her married to Artaxerxes when, indeed, Persia was the primary influence after Cyrus. I was speaking of prior to this, when they first started out. Even the Bible indicates that the Persians would out scale the Medes in the latter times.

Thanks for your comments!

Now about your THREE FAVORITE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY MISTAKES? I'm curious where your mindset is on this. ?? Well?

Thanks!

LG47