Who Was Darius the Mede?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Here's the link to the Ten Minute Bible Hour Podcast where we talked about your comments and theories: thetenminutebi...
Thanks to everyone who supports at / tmbh
Darius the Mede is a historical Bible mystery. Daniel says he was the king who threw him in with the lions, but history doesn't have any space for someone by the name of Darius the Mede. Something's gotta give.
Man, the production value on your videos is always right where it needs to be. You don't over-do it with unnecessary visuals, you don't under-inform with them either. The custom goofy music brings a fun element into the video with little effort demanded of the viewer. Your videos are sick man, keep it up.
Straight up, this is one of my favorite comments I've ever heard from anyone in the seven years I've been doing this. I've put a lot of thought into how fancy I want my videos to look, and there is a specific thing I'm going for, and you just nailed it. Thanks for watching with care, and for the insightful comment.
@@MattWhitmanTMBH -- I am a very new viewer, but what TBJ Media said, except for the goofy music thing; not a fan, but I can live with it. In Bob Ross' words, "it's your channel, that music can exist wherever you want....wherever you want!"
I also really like the goofy music; but then I also liked the old goofy *bang*bang*bang*bang*s and pop culture references in your old videos too and was sad to see them go.
I guess this way of doing it is more appealing to people who like a 'polished' video style though.
Yeah it's funny as an ex-atheist who reviewed all the problems I thought the Bible had after encountering God, I spent the whole video thinking exactly what you said at the end. Jericho, Pilate's office, lots of seeming inconsistencies made much of by skeptics have been proven in favour of the Biblical narrative as more evidence is uncovered, while none has gone against it. That trend is impossibly unlikely if the authors weren't reporting in good faith.
The moder archeological knowledge about Jericho is still against the Bible.
@@Mavors1099 only because secular chronological dating is based of Egyptian hieroglyphs and is 200-300years out of date. So when looking for evidence of biblical events, they are being searched for in the wrong century strata.
Check out the work of Egyptologist Professor Rohl. He did a documentary on RUclips, from Eden to Exile.
(I've also watched his BBC series and read 2 of his books.)
He's documented the discovery of Joseph Tomb in Egypt, as well as the patriarchal family home and graves.
The real walls of Jericho with massive destruction and king David's Palace construction.
@@Mavors1099 NOPE. At a minimum it was NOT attacked by an army. The huge wall would have been pushed inwards, NOT outwards or straight down. The archeology for an entire generation and at least THREE digs proves NOT an army, definitely the walls fell down and inward. (different sections). Not a simple earthquake either. Catch up.
@@suzannehartmann946
You must be an expert archeologist who spent many years studying the ruins of Jericho... Right?
@@The-Mstr-Pook
Secular chronology? You mean the chronology accepted by most experts. You hold on marginal and controversial theories only because they apparently back up your religious beliefs.
I have always found Daniel to be a companion book to John's Revelations. I found understanding Revelations a lot easier after reading Daniel. Both books are more prewriting history. Together they give God's arc of history. So, if nonbelievers scoff because of lack of archeological evidence, they are missing the point of the book. It is to give calm and confidence to the faithful that these things are going to happen, but God is in control. Still hoping you do a video on Modern Day Eucharistic Miracles. Love you Matt.
Ezekiel is, Daniel has a more minor role in Revelation.
@@christiankalafut5572 i agree Ezekiel is part of the foretelling of human history, i always look at Ezekiel as the book between Daniel, and Revelations. However, I still think reading Daniel first gives more insight into both Ezekiel, and Revelations. The bigger part of all three books though, is God has a plan, and He is control, though these things must come to pass.
Except, why should one believe that Daniel didn’t actually get taken to Babylon? Why doubt the inherency of the Scripture?
@@jakeschwartz2514 no doubts here. Think that was the point of the video :).
Agreed. I did a deep study of Revelation and it helped me understand Daniel and vice versa.
Daniel called him "Darius the Mede" while the others referred to him as King Darius. I believe Daniel was making a point here. If we remember the dream of Nebuchadnezzar about the statue whose head was of gold, arms of silver, etc. we realize Daniel is referring to the divided kingdom that would defeat Babylon. Cyrus is mentioned by name as the Persian king who would allow the Jews to go home and rebuild the Temple, but Daniel does not refer to Darius as a king, but as a Mede.
Daniel 6:21. Daniel calls him king.
@@bwevemuzk Correct, but only after coming out of the lion's den. Perhaps God commanded him to respect his authority, even though he would not be king of Babylon. Still, Darius held the place of the king until Cyrus was able to take over.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 Wow... What are the chances I'd run into you again after just finding this channel? God is great! I should of known you made videos from you name, I'll be checking them out. It's nice to see you again Friend of Narnia.
@@thegreenknight8423 I don't always give the best presence, but since I work at a library and my daughter and I became Doctor Who fans for a while, I call myself The Library Doctor. That video is a little different from my others. I'd like to put stuff up about Narnia or the Lord of the Rings, but the books are far better than the movies. Maybe I can do a Bible study series based on the Lord of the Rings, but no accompanying video. Pray for me Friend of Narnia.
Good job 👍
I like the Air Bud theory at the end. I checked the rules and nothing says a dog can’t be in power over Babylon
🤣
I mean, Nebuchadnezzar was basically a cow for a while, so....
What a guy- this is just about as close to perfect as it can get. Information transmission is hard, but you do it right
King Cyrus the Persian and King Darius the Mede are mentioned simultaneously as well as the law of the Medes and the law of the Persians, so it seems Darius is a King of the Medes put in place by his alliance with King Cyrus of Persia. Not an uncommon thing in history. Two different kingdoms, with Persia possibly as the head kingdom in the alliance.
Agreed. 👍✅
I read the same thing in a Old Testament Survey textbook I have. It proposed that Darius was a subordinate king under Cyrus.
@@Steve-wg3cr It just makes logical sense in the biblical and historical context. I don't like to complicate things more than they are. Lol.
Daniel 6:28 KJV
[28] So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
@@Mandarintoenail1 yes, he prospered under the rule of both Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus came to where Daniel was later on, so my statement was that Darius was a proxy King over Babylon for a time, and that being of the Medes was placed there by Cyrus to rule in his stead for however long Cyrus decreed it. The details are lost to time, but the overall picture seems clear enough.
I absolutely love this kind of stuff. Looking forward to more historical deep dives in the future!
I believe that Darius the Mede is Darius the Mede. There are so many people who have perished as unknowns but used mightily by God. If this man is only recorded in this one instance for the sake of OUR faith thousands of years later then this is consistent with the God I know. I think this man would be honored by this ONE significant mention in history.
Amen!
You are correct. וּבְמַלְכ֖וּת is conjunctive and not concurrent. Darius the Mede was a real person. We don't need to know much of his back story. All we need to know is that he "received" the kingdom for a short time - so short that no one deemed it necessary to record his name on a clay pot or we haven't dug up the evidence yet like Belshazzar.
I remember reading a few years ago that there was a thought that Darius the Mede was actually either the Father-in-Law or Brother-in-Law of Cyrus and if I remember correctly, the evidence for this had to do with the ambush and killing of Cyrus by the Medes and that those who led him to his death were related to him through one of his wives. What's interesting is that these were two different studies that came together to put forward this idea. I do remember that the murder of Cyrus (death by ambush) was a discussion in one of my history classes years ago and then years later I came across this hypothesis concerning Darius the Mede that actually used that incident that had started the debate in my history class. WIll try to find it, I know it's around here somewhere because I had asked my pastor what he thought.
Why do I like the TMBH channel ,simply coz I always learn something new . Today i learnt about the "Daniel Double chiasm" .
Great work as usual Matt! I always especially appreciate your videos on the historical topics. You do a great job breaking down theories and reasonings in an approachable way but your research and study shows! Thanks!!
P.S. I love Jeff’s work, I’ve definitely had “who was Darius the Mede” stuck in my head since I watched this yesterday.
Really interesting interpretations here. Persia was at one point a region within the Median Empire, which Cyrus overthrew when the Achaemenids (the Persian Empire) was formed. As you've said they were ethnically and linguistically related, and given the Achaemenid policy of Satrapies (sub-kings that ruled a region of the empire with the Shahanshah's blessing), it's quite possible for this "Mede" to have been an administrator or satrap within that system.
It's possible? Yes, everything is possible... Is it probable? No, it's not... What's most probable? That the guy who wrote Daniel simply made a mistake.
@dux657
The Persian Empire was huge, and Babylon was not the capital. The Medes and Persians were separate peoples in what became the Persian Empire. Each province and each major city had its own ruler as part of the greater empire. Most of those regional and local authorities are not now known.
The most probable is that the ruler of Babylon as part of the Persian Empire was a Mede named Darius.
Ha ha ha, that final image.
My husband started watching this, and he was listening to the music and said, "I don't think that's a real song," and I thought to myself with a superior thought, "Ahhhh, he doesn't know there is custom made music for the episodes," and enjoyed my superior knowledge rather than sharing it and being a nice wife.
Great video, thoroughly enjoyed the research and the ideas as per usual.
Here's a potential solution that ties in to #4. We don't know all the satraps, governors or kings of the regions in the area at the time. Darius the mede could've been like a cousin of Cyrus or uncle(like claimed by Josephus) that was trusted enough by Cyrus to rule Babylon but no threat politically to attempt a coup. The reason we don't know him from external sources is because they're usually incomplete and sometimes they disagree with one another(See 'secret histories' vs 'wars of Justinian' and those are written by the same guy).
Would Cambyses the 2nd be one of those region kings and maybe had former title of Daruis the Mede? The Persians tried to cover up about his army losing a battle in an Egyptian desert as being lost in a sandstorm.
@@jesseparker2656 many rulers of the region and time had appellatives like Caesar. So the overlapping of some of the names is quite likely
@@Mandarintoenail1 , interesting, i like the name, "Cambyses"
Love the channel. Love the vibe. There aren't a lot of people that I connect with but your topps Brother. If this was a class..... I'd pull up a chair, oh wait, I kinda did. Thanks! Can't wait for the next one. May The LORD bless you and yours! JESUS is King!
Cyaxares II is definitely my preferred theory for Darius the Mede. However, there is enough evidence for a medo-persian civil war shortly before the war with Lydia that I find it fairly probable that there was some sort of falling out between Cyrus and Artaxerxes, and that this would result in a war where Darius would choose the side of Cyrus, against his father, possibly because there was a dispute between Darius and a potential second heir of Artaxerxes that was lost to history because he died in the war. Essentially, Cyrus & Darius vs. Artaxerxes and the heir apparent of the medes.
I'm so glad Jeff is contributing to the videos now too!
The audio segments are incredible. The video is incredibly thought provoking, but the music gives a certain 90’s punk curiosity that ought to be included with every bible in order to remind everyone that this is a journey, and sanctification is a relevant word because none of us are finished products so far
This was fascinating! Thanks, man! Definitely going to look into these for more info.
I personally find the forgotten person theory the most compelling. There are a lot of times in history where records are lost either through negligence or intentional destruction. If Darius the Persian was worried about rebellions based on historical genealogy it would make sense for him to order the destruction of those records.
It was called the Medo Persian empire. And the great statue/image prophecy says the head is Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, and the following kingdom is the upperbody with 2 arms. 2 arms due to the fact Medo Persian empire had Cyrus as the greater king and Darius as a lower status king. The animal prophecy also says the following kingdom is liken to a bear, which is raised up on one side, meaning two kingdoms but one of the kings have greater power than the other. That would be Cyrus... So the prophecy is very consistent.
Even more remarkable about Daniel is the 70. Weeks prophecy, how it ties together with Jesus coming. After the decree of Antaxerxes. Read the book The Coming Prince by fmr Scotland Yard chief Sir Robert Anderson. Amazing knowledge. ✅✅👍
I llllike it! Nice show/format. Great attitude!
Awesome video! Thank you for all the time you invest in this. But also, we are still waiting for another Ironwood Rhino episode!
Just watched an interesting press conference yesterday on this channel about how the lions finally lost, and the victim survived 😃
People didn't think the Hittites existed, now they are one of the most known about cultures of the ancient world.
Also I remember a time when King David was problematic, there was no independent verification of him, until the sands shifted and Egypt had written documentation about a Pharaoh that slayed a king from the house of David.
Yep.
Waiting for the sands to shift sounds good to me
I particularly hold to Cyaxerxes II after reading Dr. Stephen Anderson's thesis of DTS (Dallas Theological School)
Love the bumper music! 🎤🎸
It could also be a name for a ruler that was used by a particular culture, but not by another. Or, it could be a replacement name. Perhaps some of the people that did follow under this leader would be upset about the content of a book being written about him, so the name was just changed to another name. There are lots of reasons why this may not add up logically. It is fun to think about though. Very well done.
Thanks Matt! I really enjoy your videos. It seems to me that James Ussuer had information about this in his Annals of the World. He quoted Xenophon and was solid on the Cyaxarus II being the solution. If I remember correctly Ussuer claimed Darius was Cyrus's father-in-law.
Ok, I grabbed my ten pound copy of Annals of the World and looked it up. According to Ussuer, Cyaxarus II, King of the Medes, was Darius the king over the provence of Baylon. He gave his daughter (his only hieress) to Cyrus as a wife. He also gave Cyrus a dowry, the whole kingdom of the Medes. I am not sure if he is right but I found it to be the most compelling explanation.
Thank you for taking the time to break this down! PS AirBud ?!? 😂
I like the way you do your videos with good academic content combined with faith and a down-home style of narration. I am inclined to support the Gobryas theory. He was was a general and satrap governor for the Babylonians prior to employment by Cyrus. Babylon fell in a single night. That miracle of God is much easier to explain if the former Babylonian general had an insiders understanding of how the defenses were set up. Gobryas would have been important enough to deserve a mention, even if by another name.
I always thought Darius the Mede wasn’t a universal ruler but more just a ruler of the city Daniel was in, sort of like a governor I suppose.
Really awesome video! I love the history dives.
Thanks Matt.
#ndq #tmbhpodcast
Hi Matt. I propose, for ourselves and our future generations, that you absolutely MUST start writing a commentary of the scriptures; you articulate and package your thoughts on the bible (and its constituent parts) so well that it just makes so much sense, even if someone doesn't fully land where you land in your conclusions. I'm sitting here watching your video, and I'm honestly thinking of my kids and future grandkids, and wondering if they will be able to have someone like you who can help them work out the scriptures for themselves in a reasonable way (rather than have their guide to the scriptures being some roommate in college).
As a variation on you last suggestion: is it possible that leaders who came after him expunged his name from history?
It happened to at least one Egyptian Pharaoh. Could the same thing have happened in Persia?
I live in Wales 🏴 which is one of the home countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is a tiny "self governing" nation of 3 million. I bet no one outside of the UK has heard of Rhodri Morgan.
He was the First Minister of Wales at the time of devolution.
History won't know who he is, because to the World, London and the Queen and Boris Johnson or current British Prime Minister are the seat of Power.
I bet most people heard of Tony Blair. Who was ruling at the time of Devolution. So I get it why some tiny guy like Darius the Meade can dissappear from history.
Man, I want a bookshelf tour xD
Powerful!
I love this song
Great video. Thank you for presenting this. I did a deep study of Daniel and I concluded that Darius the Mede was probably the Persian or Hebrew name for Cyaxares II, the last King of the Medes. In Daniel 10:1,2 it states that it was the 3rd year of Cyrus and Daniel had been in mourning for 3 weeks. My question was "what happened to Darius the Mede?" and I wonder if that was who Daniel was mourning for which would explain the use of Cyrus as ruler. It's speculative, but think it has merit. Thoughts?
Love the history around the Bible stuff.
Love the Civ leaders👍
Is the chiastic diagram available to print?
Josephus says he's an uncle of Cyrus by marriage. Apparently they shared a coregency.
Josephus isn't drawing on any sources at all at that point, and he's talking about something 600 years before his time. What he says might be the case, but it's a highly unreliable source from way after the fact.
Perhaps Darius the Mede was the choice alcoholic drink of the time.
On a serious note, the passage about Daniel thriving "under Darius and Cyrus", it is possible in linguistics to say the same thing twice, -especially common in Hebrew. In fact, the end of the Hatikvah (Israeli National Anthem) there is a line, "Our hope is not dead, it is two thousand years old: to be a people free in Zion and Jerusalem."
We know that Zion and Jerusalem are just two separate names for the same city, but this passage says they want to be free in "Zion and Jerusalem." This is not them saying they want to be free in both cities, but one city given two names. So Daniel thriving "under Darius and Cyrus" could be the same thing.
P.S. I have not done any deep study on the historicity of Daniel and am not making an argument for the Cyrus the Great. That was just something I noticed in the video.
1) Most historical documents of the early antiquity empires, prior to Rome and Greece, are incredibly sketchy at best. Especially considering that, if anyone knows anything about the Assyrians in Biblical History, they're quite literally a footnote. Their biggest contribution is their being YHWH's judgement on the Northern Kingdom (Israel) after nearly 700 years of open rebellion, refusal to repent and turn to YHWH, and waging war against the Prophets and the Southern Kingdom (Judah).
The bits we do have, are an incredible treasure of a find. Like the "Holy Grail" of historical documentation.
2) Darius the Mede may very well be a sub-commander or second in command under Cyrus the Persian. Which may be an immense contribution as to why he's not noted in contemporary, secular history like that of Cyrus. More so, being that it is governorship (under Cyrus), and his age, it may be that Babylonia, and the Empire that once resided in that land, was a gift for honorable servitude, friendship, and excellence of command, upon successful conquest.
Darius the Mede may be an unsung "Mighty Man" to Cyrus the Persian, like Uriah the Hittite was to King David of Israel. Or as David, son of Jesse, was to King Saul.
3) History has a bad habit of overshadowing a lot of the lower leadership in favor of the Big Wigs. And it even shows with that of WW2 as a GREAT example of how history can get watered down for ease of palatable consumption. Everyone knows General Dwight D. Eisenhower, McArthur, Patton, Bradley and Montgomery.
But hardly anyone knows of Lieutenant General Taylor of the 101st Airborne Division, or that of Brigadier General MacAuliffe, 101st Airborne Division Artillery (DivArty), who had his 15 minutes of fame in the Defense of Bastogne 16th-26th December 1944. Or General Gavin of the 82nd Airborne Division.
Even people like 1st Lieutenant Audie Murphy, the most decorated American Soldier in US history, is overshadowed by men who commanded in their tens of thousands, whereas Murphy led platoons and companies of men into war at the sharpest point of the spear.
So, in three ways, there's a good reason why Darius the Mede may not be a well-known historical figure:
A) Insufficient discovery of historical documentation/artifacts due to the procession of time (as time tends to make it harder to figure the truth and fiction of history)
B) He's not a King, but a Mighty Man and Governor by merit and reward for service, under the sovereign that was Cyrus the Persian.
C) What history we might discover about him will have him in footnote pages and side notaries of who he was and his importance to the grand schemes under Cyrus the Persian, who will be the "Big Wig" attracting the historical attention.
Cool music!
Loved this.
(Not sure why Air Bud showed up in the closing credits🤔😂)
7:54 is that where that phrase comes from?
I would like to hear the whole song. 😄
Epic sound track bro! Where can get it??
Very interesting. I've been looking into the emptiness. That is why I can't find anything. And historians don't remember anybody with the name King Nebuchadnezzar.
Hi Matt. You don't know me, and so you'll be happy to know I know that well enough to not be alarming if I seem too familiar. I'm just a once time fan of the No Dumb Questions podcast. Nothing about the podcast made me not be a listener anymore, I just changed and started doing other things. Destin and you were good role models for me during the time I listened to podcasts so much you'd think I was trying to make up for lost time because I maybe grew up socially retarded or something? But then discovered I was an Einstein of learning the truth that if you just love others the world becomes a better place? I don't know. I'm just spit balling here. Anyway, I'm writing because I just wanted to say thank you for being one of the great many people that had a positive impact on my life. When I started listening to the show due to learning of it when it was newly announced on Smarter Every Day, I didn't know I'd suddenly find myself one day so thankful to have such a Herculean Christlike figure imprinted onto my heart while I look upon my old life from the vantage point of a new man who wished hard enough to have a better heart, so hard in fact that it simply became so. But here we are. My father, whom I love very much, used to be a pastor for the WELLS synod. Yes, saying synod is redundant. He wasn't a pastor for many years before he realized it wasn't his calling in life. He wasn't pulled by any desire for some other particular kind of profession, he just didn't think this one was for him. He has remained extremely devout his entire life. I have not. And yet his fatherly love for me has never waned. I'm lucky enough right now to be young enough and lucky enough where both my parents are alive and love me. I'm all but guaranteed at least a goodly number of years more of their lives to be better at loving them back everyday. But I know it's a mistake to take that kind of thinking for granted. So I don't. What's that got to do with you, you must be wondering. Surely, if there is a truth in this world, it's the knowledge that Matthew Whitaker is sitting there right now asking the question, "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" Hold your horses, retired pastor (you're never tried they won't let you); we're getting there. The reason why I think the way I do which you are seeing carefully constructed in the form of basically a letter is because my life was filled with good examples of how to be the right kind of love in this world. You are one of those examples. The wisdom that somehow got itself into your brain because the Universe looked at you and said, "Yup. This is one we can trust with our secrets. Fill him in on what he needs to know, boys." worked in the way it was intended. Because now that idea is taking hold in me. I didn't know it was possible to be PhD in patience and understanding and kindness and love, but there you are: living proof. Finding that that was true was a shock to me as I listened to you perform amazing mental feats of navigating conversations in which challenging issues were raised, made challenging for the heated debate they tend to cause, and yet somehow finding a way to say the thing that is "love thine enemies" and actually make it really really really compelling... I plum didn't even know that was theoretically impossible. I had no idea I could be using my intellect in this way. I'm very, shall we say, gifted. More special than gifted, if we're being honest, but that's neither here nor there. But I'm aiming for the Moon when I say I'm going to become the best me I can be and only put greatness inside me that, by it, I am made greater still in accordance with how great I make others. And so I know I am incredibly lucky to have been able to find an example such as you to add to that holy host in my heart made up of the best of us. Made so by their acceptance of the truth: the better angels of our nature are what make the human project possible, or even desirable. Knowledge was our gift, not our punishment. Knowing more means you can, in theory, know more about how to love. Forever and ever. You learned that and showed everyone the truth you found. And everyone saw it. Everyone. Even me. An atheist. A puny speck of consciousness in a Cosmos of God knows what who dared to believe itself capable of knowing it at least didn't know everything. It really is possible to be a light that shines so brightly that there just is no place for darkness to live any longer. You are that light. And it made this little light to shine just a bit brighter in the hope of something more. Something better. Thank you.
I know this kind of appreciation for a person I've never met can be taken as a weird thing. It isn't, but if there is a flaw, it's in its being too wordy a thank you. And maybe too pleased with thinking it cleverly written. I hope one day there is a culture that defines its own greatness by how good they are at finding the most clever ways to celebrate the ones they love. I may be an atheist, but I still know even someone like me can be saved. I don't need the Bible to tell me that Christ is real. There's a whole world full of men and women that are Him walking among us everyday: Olympians in Agape love. It's just chance that you were the one who happened across my conscious awareness. Far from belittling its worth, it means that Giants such as you are so commonplace amongst us you can rightly say you've simply won. If even someone like me would say I don't just feel grateful for the fact that people like you have won but that I would fight (with love, not violence) to make sure it never becomes not true in the future, then you know this change of peace on Earth coming to all mankind is inevitable. If slow. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for being one of the great many who showed me the way.
I won't make this weird by saying the word love in a too familiar way, so I'll say it in a way I know you'll understand is the kind of "personal" you're wanting more of in the world: I love that your mom knew what she was doing. And I love that you know that. God bless you, stranger and friend. Friend to love and trust itself.
I think you might have actually explained it pretty well. We are used to thinking, in our centralized country structures, that it was always like that - one ruler to rule over everything. While in fact the empires of old were more of a patchwork of nations and leaders. There was this central ruler but underneath that guy were many other people ruling over their parts of empire or even their nations. Thus, this Darius of the Mead people might have been one of the rulers under Cyrus and he was ruling Babylon after conquering it, since he might have been promised that position if he succeeded. So, lastly, we might be thinking Darius, the ruler of the Empire, while we should be thinking Darius one of the rulers in the Empire.
im gonna go with the BIBLE
Ok, I haven't seen the whole video, but I'm going to write my theory right away before forgetting it.
The emperor Nebuchadnezzar that is described in the book of Daniel is an amalgamation of many babilonian emperors from that time (Nebuchadnezzar himself was no longer alive). Having that in mind, it's natural to think that Darius the Mede was also an amalgamation of many persian emperors. Probably Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius I the Great.
Btw, Cyrus was from a dinasty of kings of Media, I guess that's where "the Mede" comes from in the title "Darius the Mede".
EDIT: ok, I watched the whole video, and my understanding shifted a little bit. I kind of remembered that the book of Daniel impplies that Darius the Mede was the persian emperor, but if there is a room for being a lower authority, then I think it matchs better the whole picture (not just because I _want_ te scripture to be as precise as possible, but also because the Book of Daniel refers to Cyrus by name later).
Btw, Cyrus conquered Media (the Medians previously dominated Persia), so I wouldn't describe the relationship between Media and Persia as an alliance.
Well I think to simplify the problem: Either there is a Darius the Mede and we don't have a clear record of him or he didn't exist.
Interestingly I found some interesting links in wikipedia not by Darius but by the mention of his father Ahasuerus to not just Daniel but also to Ester, Ezra, and Tobit.
While these would all be different Ahasuerus' I think this is an interesting link as all of these books both deal with that Persian empire and, except for Ezra, all have deuterocanonical edits (or in Tobit's case in entirely deuterocanonical).
I think it's worth noting that while Darius the Mede is apparently noted as fictional there seems to be more support for evidence or at least links to identifying his father so maybe that'd an avenue to look at in the future that could help identify Darius if he exists.
Another thought is that confusion reigns sometimes because of naming conventions. We use LAST names for family names. Sometimes in the past it was "first names" So Herod the Great, Herod the grandson of Herod the Great. The Herods alone as a dynasty are difficult to parse. Which is why some people get confused trying to date Jesus' birth if they do not take ALL of the clues into account such as Quirinius being governor, the census which was a rare event.
Darius "the Huckster"
Could be possibility 5. God mentions him through Daniel for posterity like he does with other people in the bible. I can't see God making a mistake when it comes to history.
God does not make mistakes when it comes to history, people who wrote the bible does.
Does God mention people in the bible for the sake of posterity though?
I feel like if God did things like that with scripture, he might have given us the name of the pharaoh of the exodus instead of leaving it for us to guess.
The bible mentions historical figures because they are relevant; not, I think, for posterity.
@@IamGrimalkin I agree, posterity wasn't a good word to describe it, relevant is better. As for Pharaoh, I too wondered why and have researched it and like with Darius the Mead there are various theories.
I think it is excellent to study the Bible in light of history science, they are complementary. It seems that Daniel was compiled and edited under Ezra. What say ye?
Nice! Using Civilization 6 for the leader pics 🤣
Nebuchadnezzar had to be a prophet. Daniel said he listened to God. His empire helped form our faith, He ruled powerfully yet treated his conquered people fairly, and the astronomy and mathematics he helped create still affect us. He is the reason there are 60 seconds in a minute and sixty minutes in an hour as well as 360 degrees in a circle. Babylonian math was base 60.
It's so great Daniel have an Agenda and gives his contemporaries like others, but poor secular Historians didn't gives mico details on History in relation to Bible writing and writers like Daniel
The author (s) of Daniel, may have read Xenophon or known about it to incorporate it into his book
Didn't the Medes leave no written records of their existence? The only way we know of them is from writings by other groups. The Book of Daniel is where we get the phrase, "Read the writing on the wall," meaning to face facts ahead of something happening at a later time.
anyone who says that something doesn't exist because we have found no evidence of it is either ignorant of statistics, lying to themself... or has a hidden agenda.. kathleen kenyon comes to mind.
Babylon, of Babylon, in Babylon.
This does indeed seem to be the current Nineveh problem. Waiting seems to be a wise choice here, TBH, given the Bible's track record.
Will you do a video on the exodus?
"Pretty weird" doesn't challenge the fact that the book contains specific details from the second century; and that it was common to write books and attribute them to earlier revered figures. We have, from even later, a book whose author was supposed to be King Solomon.
Any book or resources on history from the Bible that in time proven to be true?
WOW...I totally don't know what to think, but I believe ya! p.s.- Darius is pronounced Dah-rye-us not Dare-re-us
Not sponsored by JBL…but by RVCA
Hacksaw Jim Duggan??
Interesting theory 😉
Now is the time to start a merch store and sell Bluetooth speakers that look like the cylinder of Cyrus! When you first turn them on you could hear a lion's roar, but when you turn them off you hear a kitten's mew. Accurate cuneiform would be the speaker grill.
Darius… a title like pharaoh. Darius the Mede was astyages… husband of Esther and father of Cyrus ( Dan 5:31 6:1-28 9:1 11:1)
Cyrus laid down the law in Babylon that anyone could have any religion.This Darius violated this law.And this was against the order of Cyrus.Daniel also served in Cyrus' own palace.This Darius had 120 representatives and only the emperor also had power.This Darius is very similar to Darius the Great. Babylon was also one of the four capitals of the Achaemenids.
Perhaps Darius the Great was in the capital of Babylon at that time because he alone had the power to change the law.So this story can be modeled on Darius the Great but not that person.Because this story was written years later by someone other than Daniel himself.
I think he was Gobryas/Gubaru
The king Darius, son of Ahasuerus or whatever- mentioned in chapter 9. Is the same “Darius the mede” is it Darius the great? which Darius is this
It isn't Darius the Great. Timeline isn't close.
@@MattWhitmanTMBH thanks, i wasn’t thinking straight on this haha
@@MattWhitmanTMBHwhat more did you find out about Darius the Mede? Thank you
Daniel wasn't the only one who talked about Darius the Medes
Ezra 4:5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Ezra 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. Nehemiah 12:22 The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian. Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
Shared via Bible KJV
Darius the mede was really an angel my guess
The you summarized the points Daniel makes: even when human empires oppress the people of God, they come and go, God reigns supreme, and one day all human kingdoms will be replaced by the Kingdom of God.
There's no need for Danny to be historical to achieve this purpose. It could be utilizing historical figures and incidents as a means to achieve its aims, but could equally be using fiction based on these figures. The exaggerations in story of the furnace for example present it more like fiction than fact. Likewise King Nebby's proclamation about Israel's God.
I thought the evidence that Daniel was late was linguistic, the mention of the desecration of the temple, and how it fits the Macky revolt. When Cyrus allowed the Jews to return, there was no need to write an apocalyptic account of God's kingdom supplanting human empire - but there very much was a need during Anty's reign of oppression. When you say it was around before then, what was around? The book's final form, or tales that could be drawn on to produce it?
Therefore there is no "problem". Darius does not need to be a historical figure for the book to make sense. Of course there's the intriguing question of whether Darius was historical and if so his identity, but even if he was fictional, it doesn't change the book's message. Given the other rulers mentioned are drawn from history, it's possible that Darius was too. As you say we might find out one day, and perhaps that might even deepen our appreciation of his role in the stories in which he occurs.
PS I can't spell big names.
Your timeline show Darius the great and then Darius the third. So... There was a prior Darius. Several reasons for the seeming lack of documentation have been listed by previous commenters and I agree with two 1) he did nothing worth recording or 2) his records were expunged because of something shameful (putting it nicely). The old Hebrew records have at least two names for the Egyptians so it would be unsurprising if other alliances could labeled as Persian just because of documentation
940 Annals of the World "Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus (or Cyaxares, son of Hystages), took over the Mingdom which Cyrus had conquered and given to him... so his alternate name in history was Cyaxares.
The only solution I like best is the truth.
Hey Matt sorry that this isn’t really related to the video but I have been contemplating this question for a while and I really want your perspective. Why come to earth? I mean if we are just going to leave God and then hope we choose to accept Christ’s sacrifice and come back why not just stay with God in the first place?
I'd be interested in hearing Matt's take on this, but I think there's an issue with the premise: where are you getting the idea that we exist, consciously, with God before conception?
@@cuthalionxvi is that not the common belief? What is your understanding of before this life?
@@davidkleinman4920 it’s actually I’d say heretical pre existence has never been a big belief in the church. The best proponent of this is Origen honestly I’d say Origens exegesis of the Bible is just bad in many points and this is one of them.
@@davidkleinman4920 My context is as a Protestant who mostly learned theology from Baptists. The idea that humans exist as souls in heaven before conception always seemed like a superstition or folk belief rather than a standard theological one. It was something I'd encounter in pop culture but not in church or (religious) school, at least not as a thing that our branch believed. However, it might be popular in other denominations or religions.
I've always believed that we start existing at fertilization, although senses, thought, and so on take time to develop. Then, we continue to exist from then on, although my beliefs about what exactly the afterlife looks like have shifted over time. Different perspectives I've heard on the beginning of the soul are that they all were created ahead of time (perhaps all at once, long ago) by God -- which I disagree with, and I think was unusual in our context -- or are created by divine action at some point in gestation, or are created from the parents' in a way analogous to the body, or are created at the same time the body begins (i.e. fertilization) just as the way God designed us to work. I find the latter two more convincing. Which one depends on how concerned I am about covering edge cases like identical twins with a single explanation.
(A bit off topic, but there are also some Christians who make what I think is a decent argument that the immortality of the soul is conditional and doesn't apply automatically by nature -- that is, hell is a fading away or destruction rather than a place of eternal consciousness. Not totally decided whether I buy that interpretation.)
I don't know if this makes things more clear or less clear, but it occupies the same space in my mind as angels being the souls of dead humans -- an idea that shows up in movies but which we didn't really take very seriously.
Belshazzar was never king. He was at best a steward. After the return of Nabonidus he lost this rank forever. It is also not clear whether Belshazzar was killed in this night or was even in Babylon.
Darius Mede was from the Medes . was not Persian.
日本から見てます
Where are the Medes now ? I mean who are their descendants ?
Kurds are their descendants
@@Eyyubid_Kurdishinteresting theory but plz expand on how that was arrived at. To educate. Thank you
Writing rearview history as a series of prophecies . The Book of Daniel has more than one author with redactions. In two different distinct languages. Aramaic became the lingua franca and Hebrew was a dead language. So the Book was written in different periods.
Josiah’s sudden discovery of the Book of the Law was also a convenient find.
Perhaps you don’t know that the Persian kings had only had one name. The George analogy is therefore wrong. Only a descendant of a king would take the name of a king. Nobody could just take the name of Darius will nilly.
Comment for algorithm.
God is sovereign so Im pretty sure it wasn't option 1. I doubt God would allow mistakes in the word.
Considering most time lines are based on secular views, it's no surprise the Bible is a more accurate source.
Daniel wrote at points in History and it might not be in alphabetical order, but like a teacher is interrupted in his lectures, so like the News the outline of some of the Bible images !!!
Can you understand the radio 📻 jumping all over the place 🤔 ???
You just have to find Truth in the midst of it all, salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven now and its lifestyle and its here and the past, present and future too
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Shared via Bible KJV
History
The vision of the ressurected glorified Jesus Christ
The church Age and the Rapture a word that's not in the Bible, but means taking from one place to the next as implied in Revelation chapters 4:1
And the things which shall be hereafter, the History of Israel, the rest of the world and different characters of spirits and God Jesus and Man in relation to the Different environments and Eternity, Revelation gives a summary outline, picking up things from the Old Testament to Jesus and his programs or intended purposes, because God is intentional !!!
I thought Darius was King Xerxes and Queen Esther's son?
That's a different Darius
History Books 📚 and writing ✍ and writers today write what they want and not everything , too much information 😀
In the original languages these would be like Eminem and Shakespeare. The Bible is a collection of the hits of history and Jesus is the Greatest M.C. per rapper KJ52.
Just watch the videos about Eminem's wordplay.
This is another reason why Jesus was called The Word by His best friend John.
Nobody spits fire like Yeshua. Dude has a sword in His mouth. He came on to the scene that He created before Abraham was.
Word on the streets.
Dude living on 8 mile and Nazareth?? What kinda thugs and riff raff is coming out there? They dont call Him King of the Jews because they liked Him. We created the criterion for embarrassment when God picked Israel, like Darwin's finches of humanity, not because they are a group of BMFs but because they are stubborn and stiff necked.
He knows they will deny Him and that will be to the gain of the unchosen races. Criteron of embarrassment like Eminem at the end of 8 mile.
The Word becomes flesh, God manifested, Bible lyrics influence and create, think about it. Then re read these books and understand these people are just like you and trying to convey the truth across history and time and they get inventive and creative like their Lord. Nature even testifies to that. The Bible hyperlinks and samples and remixes but it always stay true to the Word.
I especially appreciated your conclusion at the end. The fact that a biblical figure cannot be found in surviving records outside the Bible does not mean he didn't exist. Coincidentally, I am currently reading through Daniel at evening prayer, having completed Ezekiel several days ago. So this came at the right time. Thanks.
Right time for me also.
These historical videos are fantastic! I feel like I remember you mentioning something about the Sea Peoples in passing once (maybe in an old NDQ) and I've been dying to hear more about that if you are ever running low on historical video ideas.