This Proves King David Was Real!  🔗 **Source:** [This Proves King David Was Real!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytiK5ipYDM) [00:00:00] Does the tell Dan Steelely demonstrate that King David was a historical person? Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion and this was the topic of a recent episode of Data Over Dogma. I wanted to share a portion of that discussion with you. Hope you enjoy. And if it fit for this video, it's been the tribe of Dan. >> Tell Dan is spelled T E L D A N. >> Correct. >> Uh and it's not about telling us something. What What What does that part mean? So, so tell Dan it just means a a hill. Uh, so it's a tell is usually what a way that archaeologists refer to the the remains of an ancient >> um city, town, village, something like [00:00:43] that where the accumulation of of ruins has created a a bump in the landscape. So >> a tell a tell and so Dan is at the very northern end of uh ancient Israel. So tell Dan is the tell that remains from this ancient city. >> Okay. >> Another place that is visitable when that area becomes fully visitable. Uh and they found a a mud brick city gate that dates back to around 2000 BCE. >> Wow. >> Uh they've found uh there's a uh there's a temple site there >> uh that had a fourhorned altar there. You can you can go see the layout of the [00:01:29] of the temple. >> What does forhorned mean? >> Uh so in ancient Israel their altars the corners would have kind of horned looking um accents on the on the corner. So >> okay >> but if so fourhorned altar is uh is a way to refer to these altars and you can see examples of that if you Google that. They you know they have them at Beer Shiva. They have them at a variety of different places. But, uh, there's a there's a city gate, the the old, um, bronze age mud brick one, and then there's an iron age one when when this was a part of ancient Israel. And they have like a a series of standing stones set up outside the gate, which is kind [00:02:13] of the standard. You have these uh these divine images that would be out there by the the city gate. >> Okay. uh just to kind of you know represent this liinal um passage from outside the city to inside the city. There's a there's a lot going on there. But anyway, uh excavations 33 years ago turned up uh three different pieces of stone that were they were discovered in in a variety of different uh circumstances. One of them, for instance, had been reused as parts of uh the rubble for for a wall. Uh and other parts were found in uh other areas, but [00:02:58] they they noticed there were inscriptions on them. And one of like when if you're on an excavation to find an inscription is the coolest thing ever. >> Yeah, that's got that's that is uh that's pay dirt right there. >> Yeah, that is the coolest thing in the in the world. And um but they they found these pieces and were able to put them together and recover a good chunk of an inscription that was written somewhere in the mid 9th century BCE. So like 8:40ish, 8:30ish. >> Wow. >> Somewhere around there. And it's written in a kind of Aramaic um that it was likely written by an Aramaan king. And the one that most people associate it with is an Aramaan king named Haziel, who's mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as [00:03:43] the Aramaan king who did battle with kings like Jehoram/Jorum or and Ahaziah. And as we're going to see those names get mentioned in this inscription, >> right? But the the most famous thing about this inscription and if you go check out the inscription uh you will see it is like white chalk has filled in this part of the inscription. these six letters that spell out Bates Davided, House of David. And that's what the inscription is is most well known for a reference to the House of David. >> I the and the white is is a modern application. >> Yeah, that that's what we've basically [00:04:25] done. It's that's the highlighter. Yeah, I was gonna say it because this I I looked it up and this is now in a in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem >> and it does look like they Yeah, somebody just did a highlighter on like right it it it feels funny that they did this but but yes, there it is. Uh the those like you say those six letters >> um and written in the way in the way that that we've described before where there's no spaces, there's no They have little dots um between the words. >> Oh, >> so those are those are that's as as good as we can uh as we can expect from um from this kind of inscription. [00:05:09] >> Okay. >> Um so if you if you're looking at a picture, you'll see like it and there it almost looks like just a a chip in the uh in the inscription, but those dots are separating out words. Now, they don't separate them out all perfectly the way we would do today in a printed version of the Hebrew Bible or something like that, but >> uh but they do do that. It's it's a very it's a very good inscription in terms of uh the the skill of the engraver. Uh it was part of a standing stone. And it's in the same kind of genre as the Misha inscription >> or the from the Moabitete stone where it's basically the king is going, I'm such and such and I'm so cool and these [00:05:51] are all the things that I did. So it's it's basically his uh you know the executive summary of his his resume. >> They should call them bragstones. >> Yeah. Um, and we don't have all the uh inscription, but basically this is this king probably Haziel talking about a bunch of people he defeated. And the the most important part is uh for our purposes today. Uh I I can read through the entire inscription. In fact, it's it's somewhat fragmentaryary. Uh the the first visible word, the highest line, it just says and cut. Uh and then my father went up against him when he fought at so [00:06:35] and so and my father lay down he went to his ancestors which which is the idiom for uh he died >> right >> and the king of Israel entered previously in my father's land and hadad this is the uh Aramaan storm deity in the Aramaan world where they speak Aramaic the storm deity is the head god of the pantheon okay and khadad is is that storm deity. Bal Hadad is is a conflation of Bal with Hadad. But he says, "Had made me king," which is, you know, you would expect um an Israelite to say, "Aonai made me king," >> right? [00:07:15] >> And Hadad went in front of me and I departed from the seven lakun. Uh and then we got, you know, we don't know what uh something's of my kingdom and I slew 70 kings. 70 obviously being the that nice large round number, right? >> Uh which would be the equivalent of somebody today saying, "Yeah, I killed a million kings, >> right?" >> Uh who harnessed thousands of chariots and thousands of horsemen. So, uh less than one chariot per king. >> Um no, a lot more. I was I had a million in my head. >> Okay. So, >> then I was like, "Wait a minute, they didn't they couldn't say a million back then." Um M so uh several several per [00:08:00] and he says he killed Jehoram son of Ahab king of Israel. Now this is kind of fragmentaryary like the name Ahab is not there but we can see the end of the name Jehoram and we can see son and then obviously that would have been Ahab king of Israel. King of Israel is very clearly legible. >> Okay. >> And I killed Ahaziah son of and then that would be a different Jehoram. Uh king of the house of David. And that's where we get House of David. >> Okay. >> Um and interestingly, so he claims to have have killed these two kings and it says, "I I set their towns into ruin and turn their land into desolation." Uh and then there's a reconstruction that imagines that there's a reference to Jahu. Uh cuz somebody else ruled over [00:08:45] Israel after that. And so we think that would have been Joo. >> Okay. >> Um and and that's and it basically tapers off from there. you know he he basically writes ah um no he doesn't write that um it's fragmentaryary >> I want to clarify one thing is before we go on too far which is uh are is this drawing a distinction between king of Israel and house of David like Israel and David are two different things >> they're two different entities but they're also it also seems like they're two different kinds of entities >> okay >> because Israel Israel is is the name of a nation, a kingdom that has a king. House of David is a dynastic [00:09:28] designation, >> right? >> And so what a lot of scholars think might be going on here is that the southern kingdom is not yet a kingdom. Judah is not a full-fledged kingdom. We just have this dynastic family that is camped out in Jerusalem that calls themselves kings. And so, uh, what, you know, they don't, maybe the kingdom doesn't have a name yet. They're just going by house of David. >> Okay. Uh but you also have other references to the the house of Omry as a reference to the northern kingdom of Israel. So uh it's it's not perfectly clear what's going on there, but yeah, it seems like we have the nation or the kingdom of Israel and then we have this dynastic reference to the house of David. But this this is widely [00:10:11] considered to be kind of indirect uh evidence data supporting the historicity of David. it's coming, you know, over a century after David would have lived. So, you know, there's still potential that it might not be historical, but I think most scholars would say, yeah, this leans us in the direction of concluding there there was a historical David who began this dynasty. >> Okay. And >> yeah, I mean, I remember us talking about that when we when we did a story about David and I asked you if David was a real person. Yeah. And we briefly mentioned this steely. So, interestingly, I guess before the '9s, [00:10:57] the answer to that question would have been different. Yeah, there were there were certainly scholars who thought there was a historical David, but that we didn't we didn't have enough data to really say anything about David. And and this is the closest we get to archaeological data confirming the existence of of a historical David. It almost certainly confirms the existence of of a Davidic dynasty. >> Right. >> So So yeah, that's I think that's what what it's doing there. >> Interesting. >> Now when we when we go to second Kings uh here's what we have in 2 Kings 12 17 and 18. At that time, King Hazael of Aram went up, fought against Gath, and [00:11:40] took it. But when Hazel set his face to go up against Jerusalem, King Jehoash of Judah took all the votive gifts that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his ancestors, the kings of Judah, had dedicated, as well as his own vote of gifts, all the gold that was found in the treasuries of the house of the Lord and of the king's house, and sent these to King Haziel of Aram. Then Hazel withdrew from Jerusalem. So there there's other intrigue related to uh the relationship between Hazel. Uh but if we go up a couple chapters to nine, 2 Kings 9, we have Joo. >> Okay. >> Um who is >> I remember that name popping up. [00:12:22] >> Yes. What what's funny is 2 Kings 9:20 I I know a guy who's in a band called I think it was called Drive Like Joo. >> Uhhuh. And the reason is 2 kings 9:20 says uh and again the sentinel reported he reached them but he is not coming back. It looks like the driving of Joo son of Nimshi driving a chariot >> for he drives like a maniac. >> So so Joo evidently had a reputation for uh for uh chariotering like a maniac. >> Yeah. Yeah. But um so Jahu actually comes out and is executing judgment on the house of Ahab according to the text. But uh King Jorum which is another uh spelling of Jehoram and uh Ahaziah. So [00:13:06] King Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah uh they come out each in his chariot and went to meet Jahoo. They met him at the property of Nabboth the Jezraelite and Joo kills both of them. >> Right? So, so what we have in the Bible and and this is a contradiction because we've got we've got another account in 1 Chronicles where uh Jahu kills both of them, Jorum and uh Aziah again, but the the manner of Aziah's death is entirely different. >> In in second Kings, he shoots uh Jorum in the chariot and Jorham's uh dies and then he says, "Shoot him too." And points at Ahaziah. So they shoot a Hziah and he flees to Megiddo and dies in [00:13:50] Megiddo, right? >> And then you you remember that one, right? >> Yeah, we talked about that one on an episode many moons ago. >> And then Aziah's own men take him to Jerusalem and bury him in Jerusalem, >> right? >> Uh in the first Chronicles account, uh they go looking for Aziah and they find him hiding out in Samaria. They bring him before Jahoo. They execute him and Joo's men say, "You know what? This guy was the, you know, a a descendant of Jehoshaphat who loved the Lord with all his heart. We're going to give him a decent burial." So Jahus's men after they have executed Aziah bury Aziah. But so we have two nonreconcilable [00:14:36] ways that Aza died. Uh and according to the Teldan stealing, neither of them are right. they're f they are further nonreci non uh what >> reconcilable reconcilable uh with this. So >> yeah, so we've got it's uh I understand it to be a a kind of standoff characterized by a certain ethnic group uh that the three of the the uh different accounts of Aziah's death are uh in conflict with uh with each other. So uh because according to tell Dan Steelely uh it was Hazel who did it. It was had nothing to do with with Joo because Joo would have been one of the [00:15:19] enemies of the Aramans as well. And what's funny is you can find apologetic attempts to be like well no Joo was probably allied with Hazel and so he was acting on his behalf. So, like you could say that uh and and it could be that Haziel was just, you know, uh got ye old five finger discount on uh on credit for killing these >> was just Yeah. taking credit for for Joo's uh fine workmanship. >> Yeah. He they may have shown up on the scene and found Aziah with the arrow through his chest and might have been like, "Hi, got it." and my he was already dead. He was he flinched. I had [00:16:05] to get him. Yeah. So, uh who knows if that's what's going on here, but but certainly the account that we that we find as as that narrative goes is is in conflict. But >> well, let me ask you this because obviously uh the tell Dan Steelely is going to have been contemporary contemporary with or roughly contemporary to the time that it's telling these stories about. >> Yes, it it probably was something that was erected uh at some point after obviously these events, but maybe many years. Maybe this was a kind of end of life. Uh, tell my story. Uh, put it on this piece of stone and so it could have [00:16:48] been years later. It could have been right after. >> But it seems likely that it's within the lifetime of a single guy. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So talk to me about when we think second Kings was written, when we think Chronicles was written. >> Well, the Chronicles is is taking earlier sources and is editing them together in the post- exilic period. Okay. So, like 500s, 400s BCE. Okay. >> Maybe maybe into the 300s. >> Um, I need to get a Chronicles expert on here to uh because this that's one of the uh Don't go near there, Betty. Stay away from there. Stay away from the river. Um, that's one of those places where where I don't uh I don't dip my toe into Chronicles nearly enough. So, [00:17:30] we need to have a Chronicles expert on here to uh to to give us the straight dope. But uh the traditions come from much earlier and and certainly the Chronicles editors are borrowing some from the books of Kings and and Samuel, but they they seem to have their own independent sources as well. >> Okay. >> Uh and and Samuel and Kings are probably based on accounts that were initially written down in the pre-exilic period and a lot of it probably came together in the pre-exilic period. So, for instance, we we've talked about uh the problem of whom who killed Goliath. Like that account of some dude named Alanan killing Goliath, that's got to come from [00:18:15] pretty early >> for it to predate the people who were trying to glaze David and were swiping these these feats of strength uh that were actually uh achieved by David's men. So it it that's probably more historically accurate. That's probably coming from an earlier layer of of these traditions that may go back, you know, maybe 800 BCE, maybe 700s BCE. So, some of these traditions probably go back pretty far, get pretty close to the historical, This Proves King David Was Real!, Dan McClellan, 01m3qedaeg033f3c99hefc2st5.