Daniel 5:31

And Darius the Median took the kingdom,.... This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after,

And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old. Darius the Median took the kingdom - i:e., Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, B.C. 569-536.

There were two of this name, one called the Mede, another Darius called Persian. This in the text was he that with Cyrus besieged and took Babylon; he gave himself the name Darius, being before called Nabonnedus. He was chief in the siege, and first in the quarrel against the Chaldees.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.Ver. 31. And Darius.] Called by Ctesias, Dαριαιος, which comes near to Dariaves, as the Chaldee here calleth him. He is thought to be the same with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, and uncle to Cyrus. Being about threescore and two years old.] Born the same year, say the Rabbis, wherein Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it. So Augustine was born the same day in Africa that Pelagius was in Wales, say chronologers, by a wise and watchful providence of God for the good of his Church. Sedar Olam.

(31) Darius the Median.—Note the LXX. variation: “And Artaxerxes of the Medes took the kingdom, and Darius, full of days and glorious in old age.” (See Excursus D.) Took—i.e., received it from the hands of a conqueror. (Comp. Daniel 9:1, where Darius is said to have been “made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.”) D: DARIUS THE MEDE (Daniel 5:31). It appears from the account given by Daniel that Darius the Mede was the sovereign appointed to rule over Babylonia after the death of Belshazzar. Cyrus, after the capture of Babylon, appointed a man named Gubaru (Gobryas) as his governor at Babylon. Can he and Darius the Mede be the same person? It is impossible to identify Darius with any personage mentioned in profane history, and hitherto no traces of any such name have been found in Babylonian inscriptions belonging to this period. Till time or circumstances shall give further information, we must maintain that a book like Daniel’s, which is correct on many minor points, cannot fail to be accurate upon the subject of Darius. Difficulties were experienced at a very early time in reference to this subject. The LXX., assuming that Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1) was Xerxes, identified him with Artaxerxes. The opinion of Josephus is that Darius (Antt. x. 11, § 4) and his kinsman Cyrus destroyed the supremacy of Babylon; and at the fall of the capital, this Darius, son of Astyages, took Daniel with him to Media, and placed him in an exalted situation. St. Jerome agrees to this relationship between Cyrus and Darius. St. Ephraim is silent; but Theodoret goes further, and identifies Darius with Cyaxares, son of Astyages. In modern times the identity of Darius with Cyaxares II. has been strongly maintained, though without paying sufficient attention to the very slight evidence in favour of the existence of the latter. The identification of Darius with Astyages has an obvious refutation, for in B.C. 536 Astyages would have exceeded the age ascribed to Darius by Daniel (Daniel 5:31). It is evident from history that Cyrus was the immediate conqueror of Babylon, and that no Median Empire came between the Babylonian and the Persian Empires. It is also clear that Daniel regards Darius as one who “received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31), and who “was made king” (Daniel 9:1). If the word Darius means “a maintainor,” all that is mentioned in this chapter amounts to no more than the statement that a Median governor took the kingdom.” How. ever, the use of the word (Daniel 9:1) requires the name of a person rather than an office.

Verse 31. Darius the Median took the kingdom] This is supposed to be the same as Cyaxares, son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus, to whom he gave the throne of Babylon, after himself had had the honour of taking the city. Daniel speaks nothing of the war that raged between the Babylonians and the Medes; but Isaiah speaks particularly of it, Isaiah 13, Isaiah 14, Isaiah 45, Isaiah 46, Isaiah 47; and so does Jeremiah, Jeremiah 50, Jeremiah 51. I need not add, that it is largely spoken of by profane authors. The Medes and Persians were confederates in the war; the former under Darius, the latter under Cyrus. Both princes are supposed to have been present at the taking of this city. Mandane, daughter of Astyages, was mother of Cyrus, and sister to Cyaxares.

31. And Darius the Median (or the Mede, as Daniel 11:1) received the kingdom] The idea of the writer appears to be that the Medes and Persians were acting in concert at the time of the capture of Babylon (Daniel 5:28); but that when the city was taken, ‘Darius the Mede,’ by a joint arrangement between the two peoples (or their rulers), ‘received’ the kingdom, or (Daniel 9:1) ‘was made king,’ and (ch. 6) took up his residence in Babylon as his capital. Darius, though bound by the laws of the two allied peoples, the ‘Medes and Persians’ (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15), clearly, in ch. 6, acts not as viceroy for another but as an independent king, organising his kingdom into satrapies (Daniel 6:1), otherwise both acting as king and receiving the title of ‘king’ (Daniel 6:3; Daniel 6:7-8, &c., 25): his reign, moreover, precedes, and is distinct from, that of Cyrus (Daniel 6:28 : see also Daniel 11:1-2, Daniel 11:1, as compared with Daniel 10:1; and cp. on Daniel 8:3). It is true, this representation does not agree with what is known from history, for though the Medes (see on Daniel 2:39) joined Cyrus in b.c. 549, and formed afterwards an important and influential element in the Persian empire[263], there is no trace of their exercising afterwards any independent rule; in the Inscriptions, Cyrus begins his reign in Babylon immediately after the close of that of Nabu-na’id. Contemporary monuments allow no room for a king, ‘Darius the Mede,’ between the entry of Babylon by Cyrus and the reign of Cyrus himself. The figure, it seems, must be the result of some historical confusion,—perhaps (see the Introd. p. liv) a combination of Gubaru, the ‘governor’ (peḥ ?âh), who first entered Babylon, and took command in it, at the time of Cyrus’ conquest, with (cf. Sayce, Monuments, pp. 528–30) Darius Hystaspis, father (not son) of ’Ãḥ ?ashwçrôsh = Xerxes (Daniel 9:1).[263] Under the Persian kings, Medes are repeatedly mentioned as holding high and responsible positions (Rawl. Herod. App. to Bk. i, Essay iii, § 2). On the large amount contributed by Media to the Persian revenue see Rawl., Anc. Mon.4 ii. 428.about threescore and two years old] We do not know upon what tradition, or chronological calculation, the age assigned to ‘Darius the Mede’ depends.

And Darius the Median took the kingdom - The city and kingdom were actually taken by Cyrus, though acting in the name and by the authority of Darius, or Cyaxares, who was his uncle.

30, 31. For the facts connected with the capture of Babylon see Introduction, III, 4. Took — Rather, “received” (R.V.).