Although Daniel 6 is one of the most well-known stores in the Bible, it also has several historical details which are difficult to reconcile with history. Once problem is
The main problem is the identity of Darius the Mede. The problem is both the biblical and the extra-biblical sources identify Cyrus as the conqueror of Babylon. There is no room for the reign of another king named Darius who conquered Babylon organized the Persian Empire. Daniel 5:31 states Darius “received the kingdom” after when he was sixty-two years old. In 6:1 Darius organized the empire in 120 satrapies. The end of Daniel 6 states Cyrus the Persian ruled after Darius. In Daniel 9:1 Darius is identified as the son of Ahasuerus (not the same as Esther).
The in the Old Greek versions, the name of the king is “Artaxerxes the Mede” what was very old (rather that sixty-two years old). The second edition of the Lexham English Septuagint (2019) follows the Old Greek “full of days and glorious in old age” but retains the name Darius rather than Artaxerxes the Mede. This does not help much, but it does indicate the historical problems associated with Darius the Mede were known in antiquity.
The name Darius is common in Persian history, including Darius the Great (550–486 BC), sometimes called Darius I Hystaspes ruled over the Persian Empire and he did organize the empire into satrapies but he ruled 18 years after the fall of Babylon under Cyrus. If 6:1 refers to Darius I Hystaspes, then Daniel is very old, nearly 100. While this impossible, no mention of extraordinary age appears in the text. Daniel 6:1 Darius is reported to be sixty-two years old when he conquers Babylon, Darius I Hystaspes was in his thirties and he only organized the kingdom into twenty satrapies. Finally, Darius I Hystaspes was a Persian not a Mede.
Goldingay suggests the precise age sixty-two refers to the writing on the wall: the value of the “mena mena tekel parsin” is sixty two shekels. The years of Darius, according to Goldingay, indicate he is the one fulfilling the decree made against Belshazzar (Goldingay Daniel2, 294).
Because Darius the Mede is not found in other ancient histories, many try to explain the name on the analogy of Xerxes, who is called Ahasuerus in Esther. The most common suggestions for the identity of Darius are:
Astyages. The last king of Media (585-550 B.C.), and the king who immediately preceded Cyrus the Great. His daughter marred the Persian Cambyses, whose son was Cyrus II (“the Great”). Astyages was warned in a dream that if his grandson lived, he would overshadow him (Herodotus 1.110). Cyrus did in fact lead a Persian army against his Median grandfather, aided in part by a defection of some of Asyages’ army.
Cambyses II. Cambyses I was a Persian king of Anshan (600-559 B.C.) and was a vassal of Astyages. He married Astyages daughter Mandane, and their child was Cyrus the Great. Cyrus’ son Cambyses II (529-522). Babylonian court records describe him as overseeing affairs in Babylonia during Cyrus’ administration, although he may have been more interested in military excursions in to Egypt.
Gobryas. Gobryas or Gubaru was the Median military general in charge of the capture of Babylon described in Daniel 5. This has been the favored explanation among conservative scholars for many years, although H. H. Rowley argued strenuously against it (Darius the Mede, 21). Xenophon said Gobyras was “an Assyrian, a man well advanced in years” (Cyropaedia 4.6.1).
Several scholars have attempted to argue that Darius the Mede is another name for Cyrus the Persian, the king known from history as the conqueror of Babylon. A key argument supporting Cyrus as Darius is Wiseman’s translation of 6:29: “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This translation implies Darius and Cyrus are two different people. Wiseman suggests we ought to translate the waw-conjunction as “even” rather than and, on the analogy of 1 Chronicles 5:26, “Pul, even Tiglath Pilesar III was king of the Assyrians.” This solution is accepted in many conservative commentaries (Miller, Daniel, 189 for example).
Does it matter? For many interpreters of Daniel, the book was written in the Greek period and simply muddled Persian history. For conservative scholars with a faith-commitment to the truth of the Bible, there must be some explanation that preserves both the veracity of Scripture and accurate history.
It is very easy to get lost in the historical details trying to reconcile Daniel 6:1 and history and miss the point the book is actually making: The Most High God of the Judean Exiles sets up kingdoms and he brings them down. As Psalm 2:4-6 says, the one enthroned in heaven scoffs at the nations and the kings of the earth who rise up against him. This is true whether the empire is Persian, Greek, Rome, or America. Any arrogant modern empire which claims to be the greatest kingdom in the history of the world will be brought low by the One Enthroned in Heaven.