The book is here.
To sum it up, Dr. Anderson argues that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II and against and he gives a summary of his arguments as follows.
To sum it up, Dr. Anderson argues that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II and against and he gives a summary of his arguments as follows.
Major Supporting Arguments Made in This Work
1. The historical reliability of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was found to be much higher than
scholarly consensus currently holds. (One scholar of Xenophon, Steven W. Hirsch, also
argues for a much higher view of the historical reliability of the Cyropaedia.) Xenophon
was found to be historically credible, and superior to Herodotus, with regard to his
accounts of the royal upbringing of Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of
Gobryas, and the marriage of Cyrus to Cyaxares’ daughter.
2. The Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes states that two Medians who launched
rebellions against Darius at separate times did so on the basis of (allegedly) false claims
to be of the family of Cyaxares. The fact that they claimed a relation to Cyaxares, rather
than to Astyages, is evidence that Cyaxares II did indeed exist and was the last Median
king.
3. The adoption of “Darius” and “Ahasuerus” (= Xerxes) as throne names of the first two
Persian kings in the dynasty which followed that of Cyrus is evidence that they were used
as throne names by kings of an earlier dynasty. This is indirect evidence that there indeed
was a Median king named “Darius,” and another named “Ahasuerus,” as the book of
Daniel presents them (Dan 9:1). The use of throne names by Persian kings also gives
plausibility to the suggestion that the given name of Darius the Mede was “Cyaxares.”
4. There are strong historical evidences that the Medes and the Persians had formed a
confederated government, and that Herodotus’ story of Cyrus subjugating the Medes and
deposing the last Median king is therefore historically inaccurate. Xenophon and
Herodotus agree that the Median king Astyages gave his daughter Mandane in marriage
to Cambyses I, who was king of the Persians. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such
marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made
just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. A
passage in the Persae of Aeschylus is noted in chapter 4 which presents Astyages as the
founder of the alliance, though without naming him directly. Chapter 3 noted biblical
texts which describe the Medes and Persians governing their empire jointly, and also
noted abundant archeological evidence which presents the Medes as senior partners and
equals with the Persians, rather than their vassals.
5. The Harran Stele, which is an inscription of Nabonidus, mentions a certain “king of the
land of the Medes” alongside the kings of Egypt and Arabia as Babylon’s leading
enemies. This inscription was produced well after the supposed conquest of Media by
Cyrus, and therefore seems to indicate that Cyrus did not depose the last Median king.
6. The historian Berossus, whose history of Neo-Babylonia is well respected but poorly
preserved, refers to the actions of an unspecified “King Darius” shortly after the fall of
Babylon. The conventional version of the history of the period does not recognize any
such “King Darius.”
7. Valerius Harpocration, a professional researcher and lexicographer at the library of
Alexandria, affirms in a lexical work that there was a king of the Medo-Persian Empire
named “Darius” who reigned sometime before Darius Hystaspes. Once again, the
conventional version of the history of the period has no explanation for this “Darius.”
8. The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus, who wrote before Herodotus, describes two
Median kings who preceded Cyrus as rulers of Medo-Persia. Although Aeschylus does
not name these two kings, he presents the first as the founder of the dynasty, the second
as his son and the king who was on the throne when Babylon fell, and the third, Cyrus, as
the natural successor of the second king. The conventional history of the period does not
recognize this second Median king
1. The historical reliability of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was found to be much higher than
scholarly consensus currently holds. (One scholar of Xenophon, Steven W. Hirsch, also
argues for a much higher view of the historical reliability of the Cyropaedia.) Xenophon
was found to be historically credible, and superior to Herodotus, with regard to his
accounts of the royal upbringing of Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of
Gobryas, and the marriage of Cyrus to Cyaxares’ daughter.
2. The Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes states that two Medians who launched
rebellions against Darius at separate times did so on the basis of (allegedly) false claims
to be of the family of Cyaxares. The fact that they claimed a relation to Cyaxares, rather
than to Astyages, is evidence that Cyaxares II did indeed exist and was the last Median
king.
3. The adoption of “Darius” and “Ahasuerus” (= Xerxes) as throne names of the first two
Persian kings in the dynasty which followed that of Cyrus is evidence that they were used
as throne names by kings of an earlier dynasty. This is indirect evidence that there indeed
was a Median king named “Darius,” and another named “Ahasuerus,” as the book of
Daniel presents them (Dan 9:1). The use of throne names by Persian kings also gives
plausibility to the suggestion that the given name of Darius the Mede was “Cyaxares.”
4. There are strong historical evidences that the Medes and the Persians had formed a
confederated government, and that Herodotus’ story of Cyrus subjugating the Medes and
deposing the last Median king is therefore historically inaccurate. Xenophon and
Herodotus agree that the Median king Astyages gave his daughter Mandane in marriage
to Cambyses I, who was king of the Persians. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such
marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made
just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. A
passage in the Persae of Aeschylus is noted in chapter 4 which presents Astyages as the
founder of the alliance, though without naming him directly. Chapter 3 noted biblical
texts which describe the Medes and Persians governing their empire jointly, and also
noted abundant archeological evidence which presents the Medes as senior partners and
equals with the Persians, rather than their vassals.
5. The Harran Stele, which is an inscription of Nabonidus, mentions a certain “king of the
land of the Medes” alongside the kings of Egypt and Arabia as Babylon’s leading
enemies. This inscription was produced well after the supposed conquest of Media by
Cyrus, and therefore seems to indicate that Cyrus did not depose the last Median king.
6. The historian Berossus, whose history of Neo-Babylonia is well respected but poorly
preserved, refers to the actions of an unspecified “King Darius” shortly after the fall of
Babylon. The conventional version of the history of the period does not recognize any
such “King Darius.”
7. Valerius Harpocration, a professional researcher and lexicographer at the library of
Alexandria, affirms in a lexical work that there was a king of the Medo-Persian Empire
named “Darius” who reigned sometime before Darius Hystaspes. Once again, the
conventional version of the history of the period has no explanation for this “Darius.”
8. The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus, who wrote before Herodotus, describes two
Median kings who preceded Cyrus as rulers of Medo-Persia. Although Aeschylus does
not name these two kings, he presents the first as the founder of the dynasty, the second
as his son and the king who was on the throne when Babylon fell, and the third, Cyrus, as
the natural successor of the second king. The conventional history of the period does not
recognize this second Median king
Comment