Joseph Horner.

Daniel, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Great; online

. (page 1 of 10)
Online LibraryJoseph HornerDaniel, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Great; → online text (page 1 of 10)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


3Fnim t\^t SItbraro of

Srqu0atl|fb bg l|tm to

tl|F iCtbrary of

Prinreton ®l|eol0gtral S>^mittarQ

BSi i97
J. H8I




A Chronologico- Historical Study

Based on Results of Recent Researches, and from
Sources Hebrew, Greek, Cuneiform, etc.

/ BY

Rev. Joseph Horner, D.D., LL.D,

Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology
London, England

Pittsburgh, Pa.

EATON & mains: - - NEW YORK

Copyright, Joseph Horner



Preface 5

Preliminary 7

I. The Story of Daniel 9

II. War of Cyrus with Astyages, and Date of His Over-
throw 42

III. The Persons and Other Matters Pertaining to the

Taking of Babylon and the Extinction of the

Babylono-Chaldean Empire 61

IV. Identification of Darius the Median 74

V. Matters Subsidiary , 114


It was at first proposed to give a title-page to this
work which would present a general view of its con-
tents. That could be done, it was thought, somewhat
after this manner: "Daniel, Darius the Median, and
Cyrus the Great; an authentication of Daniel's book,-
an identification of the Median, an elucidation, in part,
of the story of the Great King, and parts of the books
of Jeremiah and Ezra ; aiming, by information derived
from recent researches, and from sources Hebrew,
Greek, Cuneiform, etc., to bring more clearly into
view the general and singular accuracy of the Biblical
historical notes, for the period from the fall of Nineveh,
B. C. 607, to the reign of Darius the Persian, son of
Hystaspes, B. C. 521 ; with tabulated chronology and
related suggestions, geographical, exegetical, etc. ; the
whole intended as an effort, in its sphere, corrective of
some of the errors, oversights, misinterpretations, etc.,
of former writers, and of the later destructive criti-
cism." The references to authorities need only the
statement that R. P. refers to the first series of Records
of the Past, and R. P. N. S. to the new or second series,
both edited by Professor Sayce.

What was begun simply as a magazine or review
article largely outgrew the space usually allotted in
such publications. Therefore, being submitted to cer-

6 Preface

tain persons who seemed to be competent to judge of
its merits, and their verdict indicating that it is, for the
most part, a new, original setting of its subject, an in-
teresting and vakiable contribution to its Hterature, the
author felt it to be a duty to make this his first venture
in book form, and thus issue some part of the results of
study and investigations which have been his luxury
through many otherwise very busy and laborious
years. It will opportunely follow the sumptuous vol-
umes of Assyrian and Babylonian history by Dr.

He ventures, also, to dedicate this book to the min-
isters and people of the territory covered by the Pitts-
burgh, Erie, West Virginia and East Ohio Confer-
ences, as a respectful indication of his appreciation of
favors received during the long period of his associa-
tion with them.

Pittsburgh, Pa., January i, 1901.


A Chronologico-Historical Study


It is the purpose of this paper, in the light afforded
by such sources of information as may be indicated,
to propose, tentatively, a solution, or solutions, within
the range of certainty or probability, of apparent his-
torical difficulties. These arise, it is thought, in whole
or in part, from methods heretofore pursued in the
treatment of the history as read in, or into, the Biblical,
the secular, and the cuneiform accounts brought to
light by the recent researches and exhumations in
western Asia.

The substantial accuracy of the several sources of
information thus described, and to which reference is
made, will be assumed without much questioning, other
than that which may arise in the process of endeavor-
ing to secure a satisfactory interpretation. In cases of
positive or inexplicable disagreement or demonstrable
error in secular writers, whether classical or monu-
mental, the inscriptions on the latter will be esteemed
as of superior authority, when their several narratives
are not incompatible one with another.

8 Daniel, Darius the Median, and C)rrus

It may be here frankly confessed that it is thought
that the statements of the Biblical writers, including
Daniel, to whom special attention and regard will be
given, when properly interpreted and understood, will
be found to be remarkably free from inaccuracy when
brought to the test of other reliable sources of infor-
mation; and that they are rather supplementary than
either in disagreement or contradiction. When these
two sources agree in matters actually stated or set
forth, to neither can an omission or omissions of other
matters or of more extensive detail be charged as con-
tradictory, nor be justly used to discredit what is writ-
ten. The period covered will embrace substantially the
times of Daniel, the reign of the "Great King," Cyrus
the Second, and will be extended to the usurpation of
the Persian throne by Darius, the son of Hystaspes,
a period of somewhat less than a century and ending
B. C 521.

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

L The Story of Daniel

The story of Daniel begins with the twentieth year

of Nabopolassar, for a time viceroy or governor of

Babylon under the suzerainty of Assyria,

, , . ,. , , 1 • 1 Nineveh

and afterward kine: of the later kingdom fallen, em-

pire passed

of the Chaldeans. This was the year B. C. to Babylon

-^ and Media.

606, the third of Jehoiakim's reign, when

Nebuchadnezzar, conjointly with his father, king of
the Chaldeans, laid siege to Jerusalem, which in fourth
Jehoiakim (605) was surrendered. At the suggestion
of the conqueror a selection of youths of noble lineage
was made, and Daniel, among others, was selected
and taken to Babylon by the "Great King's" son and
copartner in the kingdom, who in B. C. 604, by the
death of his aged father, became sole king of the
Babylonian and Chaldean kingdom. Three years
previously Nineveh had fallen a prey to the combined
forces: the Babylonians, under the joint command of
Nabopolassar and his son as co-rex, and the Medes,
with their more or less fierce allies, under Cyaxeres I
(Ahasuerus I, Tobit xiv, 15), who dominated and
was strengthened by the tributary "Manda," or bar-
barous or nomad tribes from the north-northwest to-
ward the river Halys, and northeast of Assyria, to-
ward the Caspian Sea ; he being at that time in about
the thirtieth year of an eventful reign. During these
three years the indications are that the "Great King"

10 Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

Nabopolassar, being much in war, had followed the
example of Esar-haddon, and what seemed to be the
Oriental custom, when the father was absent or infirm
or busily engaged with other affairs, as building and
improving his cities or temples or palaces, that his son
should be declared co-rex, and thus were delegated
to him the kingly title and functions. It is thus that
he is proleptically called (Dan. i, i) "Nebuchadnez-
zar,-'' king of Babylon."

Eastward, and probably in the time of Gudea north-
ward, of Nineveh, and southward toward the Persian
Gulf, including the kingdom of Susa, or Shushan,
stretched the mountainous kingdom of Elam, when,
at its greatest expansion, dominating Parsuas, the
ancient Persia, which, when it first appears in the in-
scriptions,! seems to have lain to the north and east of
Elam between the Caspian and Lake Urmiah, and north-

* Otherwise, and perhaps more correctly, written "Nebuchadrezzar." the
change being in all likelihood owing to a simple and more or less common dialectic
interchange of the liquids 'n " and " r,'' both forms being used in Holy Writ. So
likewise were the liquids " 1 " and " r " in " Pul " and " Poros," interchanged, and
now claimed to be one and the same person. The name does not seem to have
absolute uniformity in the inscriptions, and in the Greek forms we have for the
"r," in some cases "l"and in others '' n.*' This, therefore, militates nothing
against Daniel, not more at most than it does against Jeremiah, who uses both

+ So Schrader's map (with Keilenschri/ten und GescAi'cts/crschun^) places
" Barsuas," which according to Professor Sayce is the Vannic form of Parsuas, or
the ''Classic Persia," our Persia (/?. P. N. .S".,vol. iv, p. 46, note; vol. v, p. 149).
As to Media, Professor Sayce's note is : " It must be remembered that the Medes,
spoken of by Sennacherib did not as yet inhabit the district of which Ekbatana
subsequently became the capital. Hence the title of 'far off' applies to them
here''' (R. P. N. S., vol. vi,p. 87). Schrader, however, thinks ft " unlikely " that
" Barsuas " is to be identified with Parsuas, or Persia. But the finding of the Per-
sians in this locality at their first appearance in history makes St much less
difficult to understand how they first appear as subordinates, and so soon afterward
as conquerors of the Mcdcs; results in both cases much more easily and likely to

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus 11

west of ancient Media and its ancient capital, Ekbatana
(now Takht-i-Sulayman).

Over both Elam and Persia the Medes seem to
have gained such an ascendency as to have made
them feudatories, or established over them Eiam and

Parsuas sub-

a suzerainty. How and when this suze- jectto Media,
rainty had been secured are not certainly known,
but whenever it occurred Elam seems to have been so
absorbed by its conquerors as to have almost ceased
to have a separate national identity, and so merged in
the empire of the Medes that, when somewhat suddenly
their power was wrested from the Medes by the
Persians, Elam, as a part of the possessions of the
king of Media, passed into the hands of Cyrus the
Second, without any special mention of its having
come under his power, or of its having been conquered

be attained as friendly states and neighbors, with no intervening nationality to be
passed over or through, and which are nowhere claimed as having been first con-
quered, or indeed, as having in any way been concerned in these operations. In the
southern location, Elam, Susa and Karmanias in part would seem to have occu-
pied the position of "buffer states," whose consent must in some way have been
gained either for active co-operation, or passively to have suffered the invading
hosts to pass through their dominions. It is further possible, as suggested above,
that the Elam of Gudea's time may have covered a territory much more extensive,
stretching out farther north than that to which it was later confined, so that the
Anzan of the Cyrus branch of the Achaemenians may have been farther north than
the later Elam, and contiguous to both Media and Persia. That in later years the
names Parsua, or Persia, and of the Median capital Ekbatana should be found
farther south, may be easily and satisfactorily .accounted for on the theory that as
the Aryan tribes or clans, both Median and Persian, migrated southward, they
carried with them their own distinctive names, just as colonists from Europe have
done in this western hemisphere, in some cases prefixing a distinctive term, as.
New England, Ne'w York, Neiv Orleans ; but far more frequently using the old
names pure and simple, as London, Paris, Edinburgh, etc. Indeed, at this very
time in their migrations from the older to the newer settlements the same process
is going on, and names are carried with them by the emigrants and given to their
new settlements to be perpetual memorials of their former places of abode.

12 Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

by this descendant of that Achaemenes who seems to
have been the first of his race to have attained to the
regal title or authority. In the inscriptions Cyrus first
Ori • and ^PP^^^^ as "king of Anzan," a place or do-
Cy"rus^the ^lain whose exact locality has not, as yet,
Great. hetn certainly determined. It is supposed

by some that a city of this name may have existed in
Persia; by others, that it was somewhere in Elam, or
that this was another name for Elam, or that it was a
province of Elam. It is also suggested that Persia may
have had two places occupied as seats of government,
each of them having rulers, who, as in the scheme
which follows, claimed the title of king, on the one
hand, of Persia, and, on the other, of Anzan.

His own account of himself and his genealogy is
thus given : '*I am Cyrus, the King of Multitudes, the
Great King, the powerful King, the King of Babylon,
the King of Sumer and Accad, the King of the four
zones, the son of Cambyses, the Great King, the King
of the City of Anzan, the great grandson of Teispes,
the Great King, the King of the City of Anzan, of the
ancient seed royal whose rule Bel and Nebo love"
(R. P. N. S., vol. V, p. i66, lines 20-22; H. C. and M.,
p. 505). In lines preceding he speaks of himself as
**king of Anzan," and as such is first introduced by
Nabonidos. The "seed royal" can be none other than
that of the Persian family of the Achaemenians, whose
original seat was Persia. The Behistun inscription of
Darius, son of Hystaspes, supplements that of Cyrus,
and completes the genealogy as follows;

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus 13

"I am Darius, the Great King, the King of Kings,
the King of Persia, the King of the Provinces, the son
of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achae-
menian; of Arsames the father was Ariamnes; of
Ariamnes the father was Teispes ; of Teispes the father
was Achaemenes. Says Darius the King, on that ac-
count we are called Achaemenians ; from antiquity
those of our race have been Kings. Says Darius the
King, there are eight of my race who have been Kings
before me. I am the ninth ; for a very long time [or,
better, 'in a double line'] we have been Kings" (R.
P., vol. i, p. 113, etc. ; R. P. N. S., vol. iii, p. 150).

The family line, or "tree," may therefore be thus
constructed :


1. Achaemenes, King of Persia.

2. Teispes, King of Anzan,

3. Cyrus I, King of Anzan. 4. Ariamnes, King of Persia.

5. Cambyses I, King of Anzan. 6. Arsames, King of Persia.

Hystaspes superseded by

7. Cyrus II, King of Anzan, of Persia, of Babylon, of the Medo-Persian empire.

8. Cambyses II, King of the Medo-Persian empire.

9. Darius, son of Hystaspes, King of Persia, and its provinces or satrapies.

Hystaspes, the father of Darius, may, possibly, at
the death of his father have been very young, or in-
capable of resisting the rising power and vaulting
ambition of Cyrus II, who was, failing the posterity
of Arsames, the next heir, or next of kin of the
collateral branch, and may have asserted his claim
with such force that resistance would be worse than
useless, and thus the throne passed from that branch,
to be reclaimed, on the failure of the house of Cyrus,
by the son of Hystaspes.

14 Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

As no mention of Persia is made in connection with
Teispes, and yet both Cyrus and Darius seem to go
back to him to legitimate their claim and action, the
query properly arises as to whether Teispes had not
made a conquest of the adjoining Elamite province of
Anzan, and, consolidating it with his patrimonial king-
dom of Persia, had during his own lifetime compre-
hended both under the one name and assumed the
title of king of Anzan, dividing it afterward so that
each of his two sons might have, by his gift or their
inheritance, a throne.

It will be seen that Cyrus traces his ancestry no
further than to Teispes, king of Anzan, and then
claims in general terms to be of the "seed royal ;" this
being, indeed, sufficient and yet necessary to establish
a show of legitimacy in his claim to succeed, or of
his actual succession to the Persian throne after the
death of Arsames of the other line ; since it goes back
to the ruler whose reign began before the division
was made in the persons of his two sons, and thus
completes the chain of title. No inscription is quoted
in which Cyrus is styled king of Persia until the ninth
year of the reign of Nabonidos (cir. B. C. 547) ; but
the death of Arsames may have occurred some two or
three years previously. Thus also is established the
legitimacy of the seizure of the throne by Darius, the
son of Hystaspes, after the line of Cyrus had become
extinct by the death of Cambyses II and his brother

This entry upon the "monuments" in the ninth year

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus 15

of Nabonidos, the last Chaldean king, abundantly
justifies and avouches the accuracy of the BibUcai ti-

Ue "Cyrus,

Biblical writers in erivuie: to Cyrus the title king of Per-

*^ *^ -^ SI a," vindi-

of "king of Persia;" and "the Persian" cated.
nationality is proved by the twice-told genealogy.
They are thus protected from the charge of being
simply "reflectors" from the times of Darius Hystaspes.
The date of every Biblical writer who entitles him
"king of Persia" is later than this ninth year of Na-
bonidos; later, indeed, than the taking of Babylon,
which occurred in the seventeenth year of this Chaldean
king. Nor is this statement contravened by the oc-
currence of this name in the book of Isaiah, whatever
may be the date of the writer. For when the name
Cyrus occurs in Isaiah it is without territorial or
national designation, he probably being known only to
Isaiah and to his time simply by revelation, or to
prophetic foresight, as a coming ruler. That is cer-
tainly the interpretation which would most naturally
present itself to a believer in the prophetic endowment,
in connection with the emphatic conspicuousness of the
expressions, "I have called thee by thy name ;" "I have
surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me" (Isa.
xliii, i; xlv, 4). But for our purpose it matters not
whether it is prophecy or history, before or after his
coming. The pregnant fact to be emphasized is that
there is no contradiction or disagreement in the state-
ments of the Biblical writers and the inscriptions in the
matter of his kingship of Persia ; for both agree that
at the time of which the writing gives its account

16 Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

Cyrus was king of Persia, the inscriptions giving him
this title at a date earlier than when it was given him
in the Bible. That, therefore, must be placed to the
credit of the Biblical writers, as in so far sustaining
and confirming their accuracy and "unforgetfulness,"
against the statement of Professor Sayce that the
writers of Greece and Rome, like those of the later
books of the Old Testament (?) itself, have agreed
with Darius in forgetting who Cyrus really was. 'The
sole record of the fact which remained before the
discovery of the cuneiform texts was a single passage
in the book of Isaiah. The conqueror of Babylon was
an Elamite prince" (//. C. and M., p. 518).

It is not, however, by any means certain that Isa.
xxi, i-io, refers to Cyrus and the Persian invasion.
It is against this view that Elam is first named. For
if that is for Persia the order is different from the
usage of both Biblical and secular histories, which at
the rise of the empire of Cyrus put the Medes first,
"Medes and Persians," not ''Persians and Medes."
Again, the expression, "Besiege, O Media," does not,
at all events, accord with Professor Sayce's declara-
tion that "we now know that the siege never took
place" (p. 523). Then, too, the description of the
result of the "going up" and the "besieging," the taking
of Babylon, does not at all correspond with the course
which the monuments ascribe to Cyrus after the cap-
ture of the city. The result is given by Isaiah thus:
"Babylon is fallen, is fallen ; and all the graven images
of her gods he hath broken unto the ground" (verse

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus 17

9). Surely this hardly would be expected of a dynasty
"whose rule Bel and Nebo love." This same Cyrus
makes it his boast that **all the gods of Sumer and
Accad, whom Nabonidos, to the anger of (Merodach)
the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon, by
the command of Merodach the great lord I settled
peacefully in their sanctuaries in seats which their
hearts desired. May all the gods whom I have brought
into their own cities intercede daily before Bel and
Nebo that my days be long, may they pronounce bless-
ings upon me, and may they say to Merodach my lord :
'Let Cyrus the king, thy worshiper, and Cambyses his
son [accomplish the desire] of their hearts ; [let them
enjoy length] of days' " (//. C. and M., pp. 506, 507).
These can scarcely be the words of an iconoclast such
as the result in Isaiah seems to demand.

In truth, this "burden of the desert [or wilderness]
of the sea" reads much more like a description or
anticipation of a sudden raid or irruption, such as was
characteristic of the age of Isaiah and Sennacherib,
wherein Elam and its more than a score of confederates
or allies, among whom the Medes, as probably at that
time the most numerous and powerful, are named by
the prophet as representative of the allies, many of
them perhaps already Median feudaries. We now know
from the inscriptions that for several campaigns there
was almost constant warfare between Sennacherib, on
the one part, and Elam and its allies, on the other
part, largely on both sides in contention for the posses-
sion of Babylon, and that Elam and its allies conjointly

18 Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus

with the Chaldeans had possession of Babylon more
than once (R. P., vol. i, p. 48, etc.). The incident of
the destruction of the "graven images," peculiar in the
Babylonish idolatry, is not at all incredible, as it was
doubtless intended to install in their places the gods
of their own country, and thus to escape or counter-
balance the malign influence of a hostile worship. And
there are not wanting indications in the recorded dis-
affection of the hierarchy that something had occurred
offensive to the gods of Babylon and their worshipers
prior to the coming of Cyrus, as may be detected in the
account just quoted as to the redistribution of the
gods of the cities and provinces, evidently their images
having been brought in by the Elamites and others to
take the places vacated by the destruction of the local
images. It is not known what, if any, connection this
"burden" may have had with or to the expedition made
by Sennacherib, to the sea at the mouth of the river
Ulai, during which Suzub the Chaldean "raised a force
in the rear of Sennacherib, and the king of Elam,
who had hitherto only given secret help to the Baby-
lonians, now marched his army into Babylon. The
Elamite and Chaldean forces captured Babylon"
(Smith, Bab., p. 131; Assyr., p. 125; cf. R. P. as

As to the "forgetfulness" of the Biblical and classical

writers, both records show that his being also "king

Forgetful- ^^ Persia" was well remembered by both

cafwrPters Hebrews and Babylonians, and also by

disclaimed, ^^^^.j^^ Hystaspes, who says: "Thus I re-

Daniel, Darius the Median, and Cyrus 19

covered the empire which had been taken away from
my family [i. e., his Hne or branch by the Cyrus
branch, especially by the usurper pseudo-Smerdes] ;
I established it in its place as it had been before"
(Behistun Inscription, Col. I, lines 10-14; Bible Edu-
cator, vol, ii, p. 135). So, too, the Biblical accounts
connect Elam with the Medes, and if it is true that he
was also king of Elam, there is still further agreement
between the Biblical and cuneiform authority. The
omission of the king's name by the former constitutes
no necessary contradiction of the latter, nor gives any
room for the charge of unreliability. In what is actu-
ally written and so far as it goes, if Professor Sayce
is right, their agreement and accuracy are maintained.
Elam was one of the parties which participated in the
conquest of Babylon, at whatever time the conquest al-
luded to in Isa. xxi, 8, was made, or whether it was in
possession for a long or a short time, so says the Bible,
and so say the inscriptions, if rightly read and under-
stood. For the Medes were doubtless feudatories or
allies, probably the most numerous and reliable of
these, in the day of Elam's supremacy, when it so often
raided Babylonia and more than once seized the capital ;
and in this Professor Sayce is understood substantially
to concur.

Thankful to this learned and unwearied Oriental
and Biblical scholar, that largely through his labors
so much has been discovered and estab- ,, , „


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Online LibraryJoseph HornerDaniel, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Great; → online text (page 1 of 10)