# Dan Tells Dan About Tel Dan  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Dan Tells Dan About Tel Dan - Show: Data Over Dogma - Owner / Host: Daniel McClellan and Daniel Beecher - Episode publish date: 2026-09-21 - Episode AI description: Paul’s courtroom saga takes a chaotic turn: a resurrection dispute erupts, a deadly conspiracy forms, and a midnight military escort sends him to Caesarea. Then, an ancient victory inscription at Tel Dan enters the spotlight, revealing an early reference to the House of David and a sharply different account of two royal deaths. Along the way: Roman citizenship, archaeological clues, and the Steely Dan connection. - Mentioned books: [Acts](https://share.snipd.com/book/487b8ebe-6c35-4038-8903-1b7b31b74a78) by [Peter](https://share.snipd.com/person/db91a873-aff8-43f4-9a33-f1c33f987730), [Exodus](https://share.snipd.com/book/931ef48a-d41c-419e-8ac1-99f4df5bb741) by [Moses](https://share.snipd.com/person/58abab2f-888c-4724-932b-178212d389b7), [Genesis](https://share.snipd.com/book/9705adaa-e1e7-4ebf-9ed5-4a94ec97a663) by [Moses (trad.)](https://share.snipd.com/person/195355b2-cda7-4a39-9c2f-a710fe92a253), [2 Kings](https://share.snipd.com/book/60d36050-b970-4bc7-9044-ca8916a16e63) by [Unknown (traditionally attributed to Jeremiah)](https://share.snipd.com/person/3882805f-b1c1-4193-822e-4fe6dce974e5), [First Chronicles](https://share.snipd.com/book/4686ee78-273f-40b2-87e5-2e4b5f56a686) by [Unknown (Traditionally attributed to Ezra)](https://share.snipd.com/person/95050f8c-548d-4397-bad3-66a639c5687e), [Judges](https://share.snipd.com/book/b815f7e5-1b97-45a2-a061-5b041eb1ce16) by [Traditionally attributed to Samuel](https://share.snipd.com/person/0f51f1b3-923c-4cd7-8f79-245dfe34ce22) - Duration: 01:01:07 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/7d2d66f1-1c5a-49ba-b095-756015f26f11) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/8153b1cc-d781-49fd-92d5-a4bef70d1be5) - Export date: 2026-09-21T12:07:37 ## Snips ### [Paul Uses Religion And Citizenship As Legal Leverage](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5d0959f5-fcc5-4aed-96ff-dd8892d8ac7e) 🎧 05:59 - 08:28 (02:29) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/09679d25-e480-44fa-b1b7-1223abdb61a0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul combines Pharisaic identity with Roman citizenship, giving him religious credibility and legal protection. - His citizenship repeatedly lets him challenge shackling and avoid harsher treatment from Roman authorities. #### 💬 Quote > He was born a citizen, which is not necessarily incommensurate with being a Pharisee. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Paul’s overlapping identities #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** So starts off **Dan McClellan:** talking mainly about Peter and then is like, but you don't want to hear about Peter. You want to hear about Paul. And so. Well, wait, there's **Dan Beecher:** more. Act now and we'll throw in Paul. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** The real Mark Hamill. Um, that's a deep That's, that's going be a deep cut for some folks, but, uh, uh, but yeah, this, uh, well, the, the, the most immediate context is he's to Jerusalem, and there are some accusations waiting there for him of teaching against the temple, against the Torah, against the Jewish people. The temple is still standing in this time period. And he's nearly killed by a crowd. So he's having a rough time of a lot of this. Yeah. **Dan Beecher:** As I was reading these chapters, I'm going to take us back a little further because I kept learning things about Paul. And then I was like, oh, wait, he's a what? Oh, wait, he's a what? at one point he's a Pharisee. And I'm like, oh, he's a Pharisee. And then at another point he's a Roman. And I'm like, oh, he's a Roman? So we have a Roman citizen, a born Roman citizen. Is that right? Right. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. He was born a citizen, which is not necessarily incommensurate with being a Pharisee. He can be both. And so this is what gets him out of trouble is when there are times when he's going to be, you know, shackled for causing a riot. And he says, is this how you treat a Roman citizen? Yeah. He's got cards to play in the sky. What? So this is, he's got plenty of cards up his sleeve and he's been traveling around. He's been starting up congregations. He's been teaching the good word. And now he's in trouble with the the Sanhedrin. And what is the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin is the council, the Jewish council that is kind of their highest legal body in the Roman period when they don't have an awful lot of authority. So the council is, you know, in kind of a love-hate relationship with the Roman authorities because they get a lot of their power from the Roman authorities, but also they don't like the Roman authorities. --- ### [Paul Turns Resurrection Into A Rhetorical Grenade](https://share.snipd.com/snip/806a11aa-2c44-47c9-90af-d4e6e2e892bf) 🎧 08:59 - 13:09 (04:10) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/8dddaac3-e960-40c4-85e2-435bf172247f" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul calls himself a Pharisee and invokes resurrection, splitting Pharisees and Sadducees into a violent dispute. - Roman soldiers remove him when the council’s argument threatens to tear him apart. #### 💬 Quote > He basically hurls this rhetorical bomb into the middle of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Paul’s courtroom strategy #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And, uh, and that's how we, that's where our scene is laid at the beginning of Acts 23.1, where he basically is given the floor. And he starts off by saying, up to this day, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God. And then the high priest says, **Dan Beecher:** hey, smack him. Which is a pretty, like, that's pretty funny. Like, I mean, I guess he just said not guilty really. And then they're like, Oh yeah, well, what if we hit **Dan McClellan:** you now? How that taste? Yeah. I can, I can just, uh, I, I would love to see Monty Python do this and have somebody up there going smite him. And, uh, yeah, or maybe, maybe that's more a, uh, it's always sunny in Philadelphia kind of vibe. But, um, and, and then Paul says, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, which is kind of as, as salty as Paul gets. Uh, but yeah, you, you, I would love to see that dramatized where Paul is just like, how very dare you? Yeah. Excuse much, rude or anything? Yeah. And he says, are you sitting there to judge me according to the law yet in violation of the law, you order me to be struck? And then the people standing by who were ordered to strike him were like, how dare you insult God's high priest? And this is where Paul kind of does a mea culpa and is like, I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest. Word is written, you shall not speak evil of a leader of your people. So he's kind of like backs down off of his bravado. Right. But then he... **Dan Beecher:** Everybody needs to take a bit of a chill pill at this point. There's a lot of striking talk happening. **Dan McClellan:** And then, and then according to verse six, Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees where, and so you can kind of see the dramatization where he's like, my bad, my bad. But, uh, about this? And basically just hurls this rhetorical bomb into the middle of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He says, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead. And then because the Pharisees believe in the resurrection of the dead, the Sadducees do not. They, you know, you get the raised fists at each other in the council. And he basically starts a squabble, an internal squabble in the Sanhedrin as his, as that card that he has up his sleeve. And is the idea **Dan Beecher:** here that he's sort of, I mean, it sounds like he's pulling a bit of a fast **Dan McClellan:** one. Yeah. This is like what Jesus would do, where he was like, oh, the one among you who is free from sin cast the first, like, you know, he's. Right. Because **Dan Beecher:** he's not actually there because of his belief in resurrection. He's there because of his belief in all resurrection, right? In Jesus's resurrection specifically. Well, **Dan McClellan:** he's there. Yeah. They understand his preaching to be counterproductive and to be preaching against the Jewish institutions, the temple, the Torah, the Jewish identity. And so he basically, he starts this squabble and the certain scribes of the Pharisees group stood up and contended, we find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him? Because they believe in spirits and angels and they believe in the resurrection. And so now that he started the fight, they've got to take his side. And then the dissension becomes violent. So you wonder how they get anything done when all anybody has to do is go, resurrection! And then the fistfights break out. And then the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks. --- ### [Paul Escapes A Forty-Man Assassination Plot](https://share.snipd.com/snip/bee6a511-810f-4df3-99f5-56b9036bddb7) 🎧 13:55 - 18:26 (04:30) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/8632c712-31f1-4f16-9596-23c17834a06b" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - More than forty conspirators swear not to eat or drink until they kill Paul, then openly disclose their ambush plan. - Paul’s nephew hears about it, enabling a nighttime escort of 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen. #### 💬 Quote > They have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the conspiracy against Paul #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And then obviously there's a conspiracy and a bunch of his enemies have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul, you know that's how things go when you you get together with your buddies and you're like we're not going to eat or drink until we have done this stupid thing yeah **Dan Beecher:** it was like yeah it was like they they they cursed themselves if they if they were going to eat or drink before **Dan McClellan:** they killed which **Dan Beecher:** by the way did they starve to death I we don't get it we don't-up on that, but I feel **Dan McClellan:** like we should. It seems like they probably broke their oath. I would like to know if the Oath Keepers have ever said, we are not going to eat or drink until we have done the thing. **Dan Beecher:** By the way, this was like over 40, who to kill him. 40 **Dan McClellan:** they went straight to the chief priests and said, Hey, just so you know, we took an oath. We bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul. And then they're like, so you and the council must notify the tribune to bring him down to you on the pretext that you want to make a more thorough examination of this case. And we are ready to do away with him before he arrives it's it's not really a secret combination here it's a it's a quite public combination yeah where they they go to the high priest and he's like so here's our scheme yeah uh to illegally murder the guy that you're trying um and the son of paul's sister? Evidently, Paul's got family in the area, heard about the ambush. So he went and gained entrance to the barracks and told Paul. And here's why you got to keep your secret combination secret. When you go announce on the street, yeah, we're going to march down there and we took an oath, oath not to you to drink anything until we've killed Paul. So yeah, we're going to go down there. Hey, none of you are his nephew, **Dan Beecher:** right? Nobody here is his nephew, right? Because that would ruin the whole thing. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Keep this on the DL, everybody, just because we're shouting it from the rooftops. And so they get word to Paul and he calls one of the centurions and says, take this young man to the tribune for he has something to report to him. So he took him and brought him to the tribune and said, the prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you. He has something to tell you. The tribune took him by the hand, drew him aside privately and asked, what is it that you have to report to me? And here you can envision the tribune getting down on one knee so he can be eye level with the kid. Evidently he's a kid if he's taking him by the hand. And he's like, all right, young man, what is it? And the Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow as though they were going to inquire more thoroughly into his case, but do not be persuaded by them for more than 40 of their men are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They're ready now and are waiting for your consents. And then the tribune's like, uh, okay, well be on your way, young man. Tell no one you have informed me of this. Be a little more discreet than they were. Yeah. So he grabs two centurions and is basically going to abscond with Paul in the night, as one does, for Caesarea, which is a lovely coastal city. This is where Herod basically built his summer home. A coastal city **Dan Beecher:** in what is now modern day Israel. Is that right? Correct. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. Right on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Okay. And gets 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen just to ensure that those 40 wackadoos are not able to chase him down. **Dan Beecher:** That seems sufficient to me. Yeah. That's a 200 against 40. **Dan McClellan:** Maybe even overkill. Yeah. Yeah. Plenty. More than enough. And he also provides mounts for Paul to ride. Yeah. And take him safely to Felix, the governor, and wrote a letter, Claudius Lysias, to His Excellency, the Governor Felix. Greetings. And then basically says, this man was seized by the Jews, was about to be killed by them. But when I learned that he was a Roman, I came with the guard and rescued him. And I want to know what the charge is. I brought him to their council. I found that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but was charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. --- ### [Paul’s Trial Blurs Religious Dispute And Criminal Charge](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d64781c0-0380-473c-9359-ba32370898f7) 🎧 26:40 - 30:53 (04:13) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b859b97b-90df-49fe-beb5-2165fa3b8624" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul’s accusers describe him as a “pestilent fellow” and leader of the Nazarenes, revealing political language rather than a precise criminal charge. - Paul frames the dispute as a resurrection controversy rooted in Jewish law and prophecy. #### 💬 Quote > I admit to you that according to the way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan quoting Paul’s defense #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Five days later, the high priest Ananias shows up with some elders and an attorney. I got my representation here. And they go and they report their case against Paul to the governor. And then they summon Paul. And then Tertullus or Tertullus begins to, Tertullus, that would be. He was part of the entourage, but began to accuse him, saying, because of you, most excellent Felix, we have long enjoyed peace and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. In every way and everywhere, we welcome this with utmost gratitude. But to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness, with the butt kissing out of the way. We have in fact found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple. So we seized him. By examining him yourself, you be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him, which sounds kind of funny. He's like, he did some bad stuff. You ask him, he'll tell you all the bad stuff he did. Right. **Dan Beecher:** Because I can't imagine that there was a law on the books against being a pestilent fellow. Fellow, yeah. That feels like that's a tough one to to nail down. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, this is not Judean code section 10.303 paragraph a subsection one. And then the governor. But I **Dan Beecher:** do want to stop and just say, well, the Nazarenes is, so he was also a Nazarene? Well, **Dan McClellan:** Nazarene just means somebody from Nazareth, but it seems like that took on significance as a way to refer to followers of Jesus. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. are ones, because we... The sect of **Dan Beecher:** the Nazarenes is just, is Christians, but we don't have that word yet. **Dan McClellan:** Right, right. So this is, this is the weirdos who follow the Nazarene. Right. That guy from Nazareth. **Dan Beecher:** And he tried to profane the temple. How did he try to do that? Do we know? Yes. It's much earlier in Acts. It's way overblown. **Dan McClellan:** But yeah, he is basically, he, uh, was talking about Jesus and, uh, yeah, it's, I haven't read that chapter in a while. Okay. Um, sorry. I do like it. I do like **Dan Beecher:** it when I get to stump you sometimes. **Dan McClellan:** Well, and yeah, it happens. It's fun on the lives I do on YouTube if I can get through an entire like two and a half hour live without getting stumped. But it's rare these days because they're getting pretty, they've got all kinds of questions. Governor motions for Paul to speak. He does the pleasantries. It is not more than 12 days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city. Neither can they prove to you the charge that they now bring against me. But this I admit to you, that according to the way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. And he basically is testifying now that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore, I do my best always to have a clear conscience towards God and all people. I came to bring alms to my people and to offer sacrifices. While I was doing this, they found me in the temple completing the rite of purification without any crowd or disturbance. But there were some Jews from Asia. They ought to be here before you to make an accusation if they have anything against me. Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I stood before the council. Unless it was this one sentence that I called out while standing before them, it is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today. --- ### [Paul’s Appeal Creates The Detour To Rome](https://share.snipd.com/snip/90ee1ca7-e352-4346-be9d-d48c5236f180) 🎧 34:10 - 37:46 (03:36) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/bd9576dd-e8d8-4acb-9cb7-0abc84eb1149" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Felix delays Paul’s case for years, repeatedly summoning him while hoping for a bribe. - Paul’s appeal to the emperor ultimately sends him toward Rome, even though Agrippa says he might otherwise have been released. #### 💬 Quote > If this guy hadn't appealed to the emperor, we would have freed him. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Agrippa’s assessment of Paul’s case #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And so the guy wants to delay things a little bit and delays things for a couple of years. **Dan Beecher:** Sure. Why not? **Dan McClellan:** What's a couple of years between friends? Right. And you have, so some days later when Felix came with his wife, Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak concerning faith in Christ Jesus. So he's kind of, he's, he's kind of like a party favor. He's like, my wife wants to see the Jewish guy, bring him out. What's the thing you say about Jesus? Do that thing you do where you talk about that guy, because that's always fun. Yeah, and then it says, and as he discussed justice, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, go away for the present. When I have an opportunity, I will send for you. And it says at the same time, he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. And for that reason, he used to send him very often and converse with him. So it sounds like Paul is Felix's little play thing there in prison in Caesarea. And then Felix is like replaced by Portius Festus. And it says since he wanted to grant the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison. So, yeah, they didn't have a lot of, the due process seems like it's being kind of stymied a little bit here. **Dan Beecher:** I mean, we don't know yet. we do know is that the right to a speedy trial was not one that was afforded to him. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, we were still a little ways off from Madison penning the rights that would later become part of the, what was it? Was it the Ten Commandments? No. Yes, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Commandments, that's right. The Bill of the Ten Commandments. We need to press on. **Dan Beecher:** We're running out of time here. **Dan McClellan:** Oh, it's just, there's so many cool details in here. Paul appeals to the emperor. Paul is like, look, I know my rights. There are very few of them. Right. And they are being trampled on. But I want to go before the emperor. I've done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. Acts 25, 10. Now, if, and then Festus says, you have appealed to the emperor, to the emperor, you will go. And **Dan Beecher:** that's the emperor of Rome in Rome? Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And I think that's what results in Paul having to go to Rome. Lots of speed bumps, lots of side quests along the way. But Festus consults with King Agrippa, who comes to Caesarea, and Paul is brought before Agrippa. You'll love this guy. Get the guy out here. This is our favorite prisoner. He is wacky. You're going to love him. And then Paul defends himself before Agrippa. And then we have this famous thing where Paul, you know, tells his story, tells of his conversion and goes on to preach. And then he gets Agrippa to say, you've almost convinced me to become a Christian. Yeah. Close, but no cigar there, Paul. Yeah. And then Agrippa says to Festus, the end of Acts 26, Agrippa kind of goes, you know what? If this guy hadn't appealed to the emperor, we would have freed him. Yeah. So you get a little more. I like, ah, you sucker. --- ### [Tel Dan Is An Archaeological City Mound](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7216aa36-9efb-4d58-8dba-e1ca9ad3be45) 🎧 39:57 - 43:05 (03:08) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/10d26018-c52b-40ea-8219-cbeac5824bfc" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Tel Dan means the mound preserving the remains of the ancient city of Dan, including Bronze Age gates and an Iron Age temple site. - Archaeologists reconstructed its ninth-century BCE inscription from three reused stone fragments. #### 💬 Quote > Tel Dan just means a hill. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining the name Tel Dan #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Okay, so Tel Dan is spelled T-E Correct. And it's not about telling us something. What does that part mean? So Tel **Dan McClellan:** Dan just means a hill. So Tel is usually what a way that archaeologists refer to the remains of an ancient city, town, village, something like that, where the accumulation of ruins has created a bump in the landscape. A tell. A tell, yeah. And so Dan is at the very northern end of ancient Israel. So Tel Dan is the tell that remains from this ancient city. Another place that is visitable when that area becomes fully visitable. And they found a mud brick city gate that dates back to around 2000 BCE. They found there's a temple site there that had a four-horned altar there. You can go see the layout of the temple. What does four-horned **Dan Beecher:** mean? **Dan McClellan:** So in ancient Israel, their altars, the corners, would have kind of horned-looking accents on the corners Okay. But if, so four horned altar is, 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 Beersheba. They have them at a variety of different places, but there's a, there's a city gates, the, the old bronze age mud brick one. And then there's an Iron Age one when this was a part of ancient Israel. And have like a series of standing stones set up outside the gate, which is kind of the standard. these divine images that would be out there by the city gate. Okay. Just to kind of, you know, represent this liminal passage from outside the city to inside the city. There's a lot going on there. But anyway, excavations 33 years ago turned up three different pieces of stone that were discovered in a variety of different circumstances. One of them, for instance, had been reused as part of the rubble for a wall and other parts that were found in other areas. But they noticed there were inscriptions on them. And if you're on an excavation, to find an inscription is the coolest thing ever. Yeah, that's **Dan Beecher:** paydirt right there. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, that is the coolest thing in the world. But 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. --- ### [The Tel Dan Stele Names The House Of David](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5bf43601-85d1-47d4-b475-0732bfd65373) 🎧 43:09 - 45:34 (02:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b3a6436a-914f-4e46-aa80-615040564fcf" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Tel Dan Stele contains the earliest extrabiblical reference to the “House of David.” - Its royal bragging format resembles the Mesha inscription, presenting military victories as a king’s public résumé. #### 💬 Quote > The most famous thing about this inscription [...] spell out Bates David, House of David. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the stele’s famous inscription #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And it's written in a kind of Aramaic that it was likely written by an Aramaic king. And the one that most people associate it with is an Aramaic king named Hazael, who's mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the Aramaic king who did battle with kings like Jehoram slash Joram and Ahaziah. And as we're going to see, those names get mentioned in this inscription. Right. The most famous thing about this inscription, and if you go check out the inscription, you will see it is like white chalk has filled in this part of the inscription, these six letters that spell out Bates David, House of David. And that's what the inscription is most well known for, a reference to the House **Dan Beecher:** of David. And the white is, is a modern application. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we've basically done. It's that's the highlighter. Yeah. I was going to say it, cause this, 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 white. It, it, it feels funny that they did this but but yes there it is uh those those like you say those six letters yeah and written in the way in the way that that we've described before where there's no spaces there's no they **Dan McClellan:** they have little dots um between the words. Oh, okay. So that's as good as we can expect from this kind of inscription. Okay. So if you're looking at a picture, you'll see like it almost looks like just a chip 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 they do do that. It's a very good inscription in terms of the skill of the engraver. It was part of a standing stone. It's in the same kind of genre as the Masha inscription from the Moabite stone, where it's basically the king is going, I'm such and such and I'm so cool and these are all the things that I did. --- ### [House Of David Names A Dynasty Not A Nation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/dffcd00f-9f5e-4ddf-89a9-18e649c8743d) 🎧 50:46 - 53:06 (02:20) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/5ea7911f-92ca-435b-84ca-3f483b6dc355" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - “King of Israel” names a nation, while “House of David” identifies a dynasty centered in the southern region. - The inscription strongly supports a historical Davidic dynasty, though it cannot by itself prove every biblical David tradition. #### 💬 Quote > House of David is a dynastic designation. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan distinguishing Israel from the House of David #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** I want to clarify one thing before we go on too far, which is, is this drawing a distinction between King of Israel and House of David? Like Israel and David are two different things? **Dan McClellan:** They're two different entities, but it also seems like they're two different of entities. Because Israel is the name of a nation, a kingdom that has a king. House of David is a dynastic designation. 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, you know, maybe the kingdom doesn't have a name yet. They're just going by House of David. other references to the house of Omri as a reference to the northern kingdom of Israel. So 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 is widely considered to be kind of indirect 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 was a historical David who began this dynasty. Okay. Yeah, **Dan Beecher:** I mean, I remember us talking about that when we did a 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 90s, the answer to that question would have been different. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, there were certainly scholars who thought there was a historical David, but that we didn't have enough data to really say anything about David. And this is the closest we get to archaeological data confirming the existence of a historical David. It almost certainly confirms the existence of a Davidic dynasty. --- ### [Tel Dan Contradicts Three Biblical Death Accounts](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a3804522-05b4-40c7-8d8b-8fd8d282e7c5) 🎧 53:12 - 57:51 (04:39) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/77b11d2c-31ae-465a-be07-58f9d5912b2a" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Kings and Chronicles disagree about how Ahaziah died, while the Tel Dan Stele attributes his death to Hazael. - The competing accounts show that biblical narratives preserve conflicting political traditions rather than one harmonized history. #### 💬 Quote > According to the Tel Dan Stele, neither of them are right. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan comparing Tel Dan with Kings and Chronicles #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Interesting. Now, when we go to 2 Kings, here's what we have in 2 Kings 12, verses 17 and 18. At that time, King Hazael of Aram went up, fought against Gath, and took it. But when Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem, King Jehoash of Judah took all the vote of 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 Hazael of Aram. Then Hazael withdrew from Jerusalem. So there, there's other intrigue related to, uh, the relationship between Hazael. Uh, but if we go up a couple of chapters to nine, second Kings nine, we have Jehu, um, who is remember that name popping yes what's funny is second kings 920 i i know a guy who's in a band called i think it was called drive like jehu uh-huh and the reason is second kings 920 says uh and again the sentinel reported he reached them but he is not coming back it looks like the driving of Jehu, son of Nimshi, driving a chariot for he drives like a maniac. So, so Jehu evidently had a reputation for, uh, for, uh, charioteering like a maniac. But, um, so Jehu actually comes out and is executing judgment on the house of Ahab, according to the text. But King Joram, which is another spelling of Jehoram, and Ahaziah, so King Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, they come out each in his chariot and went to meet Jehu. They met him at property of Naboth, the Jezreelite, and Jehu kills both of them. Right. So what we have in the Bible, and this is a contradiction. Right. Because we've got another account in 1 Chronicles where Jehu kills both of them, Joram and Ahaziah again. But the manner of Ahaziah's death is entirely different. In 2 Kings, he shoots Joram in the chariot, and Joram dies. And then he says, shoot him too, and points at Ahaziah. So they shoot Ahaziah, and he flees to Megiddo and dies in Megiddo. And then you remember that one, right? **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, we talked about that one on an episode many moons ago. **Dan McClellan:** And then Ahaziah's own men take him to Jerusalem and bury him in Jerusalem. Right. In the First Chronicles account, they go looking for Ahaziah and they find him hiding out in Samaria. They bring him before Jehu. They execute him. Jehu's men say, you know what, this guy was a descendant of Jehoshaphat who loved the Lord with all his heart. We're going to give him a decent burial. So Jehu's men, after they have executed Ahaziah, bury Ahaziah. But so we have two non-reconcilable ways that Ahaziah died. And according to the Tel Dan stealing, neither of them are right. They are further non-reconcilable **Dan Beecher:** with this. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, so we've got, I understand it to be a kind of standoff characterized by a certain ethnic group, uh, that the three of the, the, uh, different accounts of Ahaziah's death are, uh, in conflict with, uh, with each other. Yeah. So, uh, because according to tell Dan Steely, uh, it was Hazael who did it. It was, it nothing to do with, with Jehu because Jehu would have been one of the enemies of the Aramans as well. And what's funny is you can find apologetic attempts to be like, well, no, Jehu was probably allied with Hazael. And so he was acting on his behalf. So you could say that. And it could be that hazael was just you know uh got ye old five finger discount on uh on credit for killing these **Dan Beecher:** was just yeah taking credit for yeah j who's uh fine workmanship **Dan McClellan:** yeah he they may have shown up on the scene and found uh hazaya with the arrow through his chest and might've been like, hi, yeah, got it. And he was already dead. He flinched. I had to get him. Yeah. --- ### [Ancient History Began As Poetry Before Prose](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4a1708b1-d79d-4c4b-ab44-440b8b915390) 🎧 58:40 - 01:02:22 (03:42) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/bd63fb43-36c5-449c-8b05-fe3d084e91b8" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Monumental inscriptions such as Tel Dan and the Mesha inscription mark an early stage of alphabetic historical prose. - Earlier biblical traditions may have circulated as poetry, including the Song of Deborah and the Song of the Sea. #### 💬 Quote > The historical narratives that we find in the Bible probably do not date any earlier than this inscription. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the development of historical narrative #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** So talk to me about when we think Second Kings was written, when we think Chronicles was written. Well, **Dan McClellan:** the Chronicles is taking earlier sources and is editing them together in the post-exilic period. Okay. So like 500s, 400s BCE. Okay. Maybe into the 300s. I need to get a Chronicles expert on here because that's one of the, don't go near there, but Betty, stay away from there, stay away from the river. That's one of those places where I don't dip my toe into Chronicles nearly enough. So we need to have a Chronicles expert on here to give us the straight dope. But the traditions come from much earlier. And certainly the Chronicles editors are borrowing some from the books of Kings and Samuel, but they seem to have their own independent sources as well. 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've talked about the problem of who killed Goliath. Like that account of some dude named Elchanan killing Goliath, that's got to come from pretty early for it to predate the people who were trying to glaze David and were swiping these these feats of strength that were actually achieved by David's men. So that's probably more historically accurate. That's probably coming from an earlier layer of these traditions that may go back maybe 800 BCE, maybe 700 BCE. So some of these traditions probably go back pretty far, get pretty close to the historical David. But another interesting thing to note is the Tel Dan Stele. I mentioned that it's kind of in the same genre as the Moabite stone, the Masha inscription. These are what they call monumental inscriptions because they're intended to be set up as something that's going to be publicly on display. But these are some of the earliest examples of historical narrative prose in an alphabetic script from this region. So you have the Moabite one written in Moabite, you have this Aramaean one written a version of Aramaic. There are scholars who have pointed out, we don't have any historical narrative prose prior to these monumental inscriptions. And so that's probably where the historical narrative prose begins, is in these monumental inscriptions. That's kind of a logical evolution of things. We go from, you know, I am such and such to I am such and such, and here's what I did. I got to tell you my story of what I did. And then that later goes on to like historical annals where people are copying down, here's what they did. And so the historical narratives that we find in the Bible probably do not date any earlier than this inscription. So the Masha inscription and the Tel Dan Steele probably represent the terminus post quim, the point after which for any historical narrative prose we find in the Hebrew Bible. Okay. So the traditions, anything that came from before these monumental inscriptions probably would have been poetic. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts # Snips updated after 2026-09-15T07:39:17 ### [Paul Uses Religion And Citizenship As Legal Leverage](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5d0959f5-fcc5-4aed-96ff-dd8892d8ac7e) 🎧 05:59 - 08:28 (02:29) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/09679d25-e480-44fa-b1b7-1223abdb61a0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul combines Pharisaic identity with Roman citizenship, giving him religious credibility and legal protection. - His citizenship repeatedly lets him challenge shackling and avoid harsher treatment from Roman authorities. #### 💬 Quote > He was born a citizen, which is not necessarily incommensurate with being a Pharisee. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Paul’s overlapping identities #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Acts starts off **Dan McClellan:** talking mainly about Peter and then is like, but you don't want to hear about Peter. You want to hear about Paul. And so. Well, wait, there's **Dan Beecher:** more. Act now and we'll throw in Paul. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** The real Mark Hamill. Um, that's a cut. That's, that's going to a deep cut for some folks, but, uh, uh, but yeah, this, uh, well, the, the, the most immediate context is he's to Jerusalem, and there are some accusations waiting there for him of teaching against the temple, against the Torah, against the Jewish people. The temple is still standing in this time period. And he's nearly killed by a crowd. So he's having a rough time of a lot of this. Yeah. **Dan Beecher:** As I was reading these chapters, I'm going to take us back a little further because I kept learning things about Paul. And then I was like, oh, wait, he's a what? Oh, wait, he's a what? Because one point he's a Pharisee. And I'm like, oh, he's a Pharisee. And then at another point he's a Roman. And I'm like, oh, he's a Roman? So we have a Roman citizen, a born Roman citizen. Is that right? Right. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. He was born a citizen, which is not necessarily incommensurate with being a Pharisee. He can be both. And so this is what gets him out of trouble is when there are times when he's going to be, you know, shackled for causing a riot. And he says, is this how you treat a Roman citizen? Yeah. He's got cards to play in the sky. What? So this is, he's got plenty of cards up his sleeve and he's been traveling around. He's been starting up congregations. He's been teaching the good word. And now he's in trouble with the the Sanhedrin. And what is the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin is the council, the Jewish council that is kind of their highest legal body in the Roman period when they don't have an awful lot of authority. So the council is, you know, in kind of a love-hate relationship with the Roman authorities because they get a lot of their power from the Roman authorities, but also they don't like the Roman authorities. --- ### [Paul Turns Resurrection Into A Rhetorical Grenade](https://share.snipd.com/snip/806a11aa-2c44-47c9-90af-d4e6e2e892bf) 🎧 08:59 - 13:09 (04:10) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/8dddaac3-e960-40c4-85e2-435bf172247f" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul calls himself a Pharisee and invokes resurrection, splitting Pharisees and Sadducees into a violent dispute. - Roman soldiers remove him when the council’s argument threatens to tear him apart. #### 💬 Quote > He basically hurls this rhetorical bomb into the middle of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Paul’s courtroom strategy #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And, uh, and that's how we, that's where our scene is laid at the beginning of Acts 23.1, where he basically is given the floor. And he starts off by saying, up to this day, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God. And then the high priest says, **Dan Beecher:** hey, smack him. Which is a pretty, like, that's pretty funny. Like, I mean, I guess he just said not guilty really. And then they're like, Oh yeah, well, what if we hit **Dan McClellan:** you now? How does taste? Yeah. I can, I can just, uh, I, I would love to see Monty Python do this and have somebody up there going smite him. And, uh, yeah, or maybe, maybe that's more a, uh, it's always sunny in Philadelphia kind of vibe. But, um, and, and then Paul says, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, which is kind of as, as salty as Paul gets. Uh, but yeah, you, you, I would love to see that dramatized where Paul is just like, how very dare you? Yeah. Excuse much, rude or anything? Yeah. And he says, are you sitting there to judge me according to the law yet in violation of the law, you order me to be struck? And then the people standing by who were ordered to strike him were like, how dare you insult God's high priest? And this is where Paul kind of does a mea culpa and is like, I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest. Word is written, you shall not speak evil of a leader of your people. So he's kind of like backs down off of his bravado. Right. But then he... **Dan Beecher:** Everybody needs to take a bit of a chill pill at this point. There's a lot of striking talk happening. **Dan McClellan:** And then, and then according to verse six, Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees where, and so you can kind of see the dramatization where he's like, my bad, my bad. But, uh, about this? And basically just hurls this rhetorical bomb into the middle of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He says, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead. And then because the Pharisees believe in the resurrection of the dead, the Sadducees do not. They, you know, you get the raised fists at each other in the council. And he basically starts a squabble, an internal squabble in the Sanhedrin as his, as that card that he has up his sleeve. And is the idea **Dan Beecher:** here that he's sort of, I mean, it sounds like he's pulling a bit of a fast **Dan McClellan:** one. Yeah. This is like what Jesus would do, where he was like, oh, the one among you who is free from sin cast the first, like, you know, he's. Right. Because **Dan Beecher:** he's not actually there because of his belief in resurrection. He's there because of his belief in all resurrection, right? In Jesus's resurrection specifically. Well, **Dan McClellan:** he's there. Yeah. They understand his preaching to be counterproductive and to be preaching against the Jewish institutions, the temple, the Torah, the Jewish identity. And so he basically, he starts this squabble and the certain scribes of the Pharisees group stood up and contended, we find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him? Because they believe in spirits and angels and they believe in the resurrection. And so now that he started the fight, they've got to take his side. And then the dissension becomes violent. So you wonder how they get anything done when all anybody has to do is go, resurrection! And then the fistfights break out. And then the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks. --- ### [Paul Escapes A Forty-Man Assassination Plot](https://share.snipd.com/snip/bee6a511-810f-4df3-99f5-56b9036bddb7) 🎧 13:55 - 18:26 (04:30) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/8632c712-31f1-4f16-9596-23c17834a06b" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - More than forty conspirators swear not to eat or drink until they kill Paul, then openly disclose their ambush plan. - Paul’s nephew hears about it, enabling a nighttime escort of 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen. #### 💬 Quote > They have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the conspiracy against Paul #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And then obviously there's a conspiracy and a bunch of his enemies have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul, you know that's how things go when you you get together with your buddies and you're like we're not going to eat or drink until we have done this stupid thing yeah **Dan Beecher:** it was like yeah it was like they they they cursed themselves if they if they were going to eat or drink before **Dan McClellan:** they killed which **Dan Beecher:** by the way did they starve to death I we don't get it we don't-up on that, but I feel **Dan McClellan:** like we should. It seems like they probably broke their oath. I would like to know if the Oath Keepers have ever said, we are not going to eat or drink until we have done the thing. **Dan Beecher:** By the way, this was like over 40, who to kill him. 40 **Dan McClellan:** And went straight to the chief priests and said, Hey, just so you know, we took an oath. We bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul. And then they're like, so you and the council must notify the tribune to bring him down to you on the pretext that you want to make a more thorough examination of this case. And we are ready to do away with him before he arrives it's it's not really a secret combination here it's a it's a quite public combination yeah where they they go to the high priest and he's like so here's our scheme yeah uh to illegally murder the guy that you're trying um and the son of paul's sister? Evidently, Paul's got family in the area, heard about the ambush. So he went and gained entrance to the barracks and told Paul. And here's why you got to keep your secret combination secret. When you go announce on the street, yeah, we're going to march down there and we took an oath, oath not to you to drink anything until we've killed Paul. So yeah, we're going to go down there. Hey, none of you are his nephew, **Dan Beecher:** right? Nobody here is his nephew, right? Because that would ruin the whole thing. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Keep this on the DL, everybody, just because we're shouting it from the rooftops. And so they get word to Paul and he calls one of the centurions and says, take this young man to the tribune for he has something to report to him. So he took him and brought him to the tribune and said, the prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you. He has something to tell you. The tribune took him by the hand, drew him aside privately and asked, what is it that you have to report to me? And here you can envision the tribune getting down on one knee so he can be eye level with the kid. Evidently he's a kid if he's taking him by the hand. And he's like, all right, young man, what is it? And the Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow as though they were going to inquire more thoroughly into his case, but do not be persuaded by them for more than 40 of their men are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath, neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They're ready now and are waiting for your consents. And then the tribune's like, uh, okay, well be on your way, young man. Tell no one you have informed me of this. Be a little more discreet than they were. Yeah. So he grabs two centurions and is basically going to abscond with Paul in the night, as one does, for Caesarea, which is a lovely coastal city. This is where Herod basically built his summer home. A coastal city **Dan Beecher:** in what is now modern day Israel. Is that right? Correct. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. Right on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Okay. And gets 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen just to ensure that those 40 wackadoos are not able to chase him down. **Dan Beecher:** That seems sufficient to me. Yeah. That's a 200 against 40. **Dan McClellan:** Maybe even overkill. Yeah. Yeah. Plenty. More than enough. And he also provides mounts for Paul to ride. Yeah. And take him safely to Felix, the governor, and wrote a letter, Claudius Lysias, to His Excellency, the Governor Felix. Greetings. And then basically says, this man was seized by the Jews, was about to be killed by them. But when I learned that he was a Roman, I came with the guard and rescued him. And I want to know what the charge is. I brought him to their council. I found that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but was charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. --- ### [Paul’s Trial Blurs Religious Dispute And Criminal Charge](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d64781c0-0380-473c-9359-ba32370898f7) 🎧 26:40 - 30:53 (04:13) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b859b97b-90df-49fe-beb5-2165fa3b8624" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Paul’s accusers describe him as a “pestilent fellow” and leader of the Nazarenes, revealing political language rather than a precise criminal charge. - Paul frames the dispute as a resurrection controversy rooted in Jewish law and prophecy. #### 💬 Quote > I admit to you that according to the way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan quoting Paul’s defense #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Five days later, the high priest Ananias shows up with some elders and an attorney. I got my representation here. And they go and they report their case against Paul to the governor. And then they summon Paul. And then Tertullus or Tertullus begins to, Tertullus, that would be. He was part of the entourage, but began to accuse him, saying, because of you, most excellent Felix, we have long enjoyed peace and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. In every way and everywhere, we welcome this with utmost gratitude. But to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness, with the butt kissing out of the way. We have in fact found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple. So we seized him. By examining him yourself, you be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him, which sounds kind of funny. He's like, he did some bad stuff. You ask him, he'll tell you all the bad stuff he did. Right. **Dan Beecher:** Because I can't imagine that there was a law on the books against being a pestilent fellow. Fellow, yeah. That feels like that's a tough one to to nail down. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, this is not Judean code section 10.303 paragraph a subsection one. And then the governor. But I **Dan Beecher:** do want to stop and just say, well, the Nazarenes is, so he was also a Nazarene? Well, **Dan McClellan:** Nazarene just means somebody from Nazareth, but it seems like that took on significance as a way to refer to followers of Jesus. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. the ones, because we... The sect of **Dan Beecher:** the Nazarenes is just, is Christians, but we don't have that word yet. **Dan McClellan:** Right, right. So this is, this is the weirdos who follow the Nazarene. Right. That guy from Nazareth. **Dan Beecher:** And he tried to profane the temple. How did he try to do that? Do we know? Yes. It's much earlier in Acts. It's way overblown. **Dan McClellan:** But yeah, he is basically, he, uh, was talking about Jesus and, uh, yeah, it's, I haven't read that chapter in a while. Okay. Um, sorry. I do like it. I do like **Dan Beecher:** it when I get to stump you sometimes. **Dan McClellan:** Well, and yeah, it happens. It's fun on the lives I do on YouTube if I can get through an entire like two and a half hour live without getting stumped. But it's rare these days because they're getting pretty, they've got all kinds of questions. Governor motions for Paul to speak. He does the pleasantries. It is not more than 12 days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city. Neither can they prove to you the charge that they now bring against me. But this I admit to you, that according to the way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. And he basically is testifying now that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore, I do my best always to have a clear conscience towards God and all people. I came to bring alms to my people and to offer sacrifices. While I was doing this, they found me in the temple completing the rite of purification without any crowd or disturbance. But there were some Jews from Asia. They ought to be here before you to make an accusation if they have anything against me. Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I stood before the council. Unless it was this one sentence that I called out while standing before them, it is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today. --- ### [Paul’s Appeal Creates The Detour To Rome](https://share.snipd.com/snip/90ee1ca7-e352-4346-be9d-d48c5236f180) 🎧 34:10 - 37:46 (03:36) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/bd9576dd-e8d8-4acb-9cb7-0abc84eb1149" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Felix delays Paul’s case for years, repeatedly summoning him while hoping for a bribe. - Paul’s appeal to the emperor ultimately sends him toward Rome, even though Agrippa says he might otherwise have been released. #### 💬 Quote > If this guy hadn't appealed to the emperor, we would have freed him. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Agrippa’s assessment of Paul’s case #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And so the guy wants to delay things a little bit and delays things for a couple of years. **Dan Beecher:** Sure. Why not? **Dan McClellan:** What's a couple of years between friends? Right. And you have, so some days later when Felix came with his wife, Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak concerning faith in Christ Jesus. So he's kind of, he's, he's kind of like a party favor. He's like, my wife wants to see the Jewish guy, bring him out. What's the thing you say about Jesus? Do that thing you do where you talk about that guy, because that's always fun. Yeah, and then it says, and as he discussed justice, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, go away for the present. When I have an opportunity, I will send for you. And it says at the same time, he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. And for that reason, he used to send him very often and converse with him. So it sounds like Paul is Felix's little play thing there in prison in Caesarea. And then Felix is like replaced by Portius Festus. And it says since he wanted to grant the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison. So, yeah, they didn't have a lot of, the due process seems like it's being kind of stymied a little bit here. **Dan Beecher:** I mean, we don't know yet. we do know is that the right to a speedy trial was not one that was afforded to him. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, we were still a little ways off from Madison penning the rights that would later become part of the, what was it? Was it the Ten Commandments? No. Yes, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Commandments, that's right. The Bill of the Ten Commandments. We need to press on. **Dan Beecher:** We're running out of time here. **Dan McClellan:** Oh, it's just, there's so many cool details in here. Paul appeals to the emperor. Paul is like, look, I know my rights. There are very few of them. Right. And they are being trampled on. But I want to go before the emperor. I've done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. Acts 25, 10. Now, if, and then Festus says, you have appealed to the emperor, to the emperor, you will go. And **Dan Beecher:** that's the emperor of Rome in Rome? Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And I think that's what results in Paul having to go to Rome. Lots of speed bumps, lots of side quests along the way. But Festus consults with King Agrippa, who comes to Caesarea, and Paul is brought before Agrippa. You'll love this guy. Get the guy out here. This is our favorite prisoner. He is wacky. You're going to love him. And then Paul defends himself before Agrippa. And then we have this famous thing where Paul, you know, tells his story, tells of his conversion and goes on to preach. And then he gets Agrippa to say, you've almost convinced me to become a Christian. Yeah. Close, but no cigar there, Paul. Yeah. And then Agrippa says to Festus, the end of Acts 26, Agrippa kind of goes, you know what? If this guy hadn't appealed to the emperor, we would have freed him. Yeah. So you get a little more. I like, ah, you sucker. --- ### [Tel Dan Is An Archaeological City Mound](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7216aa36-9efb-4d58-8dba-e1ca9ad3be45) 🎧 39:57 - 43:05 (03:08) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/10d26018-c52b-40ea-8219-cbeac5824bfc" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Tel Dan means the mound preserving the remains of the ancient city of Dan, including Bronze Age gates and an Iron Age temple site. - Archaeologists reconstructed its ninth-century BCE inscription from three reused stone fragments. #### 💬 Quote > Tel Dan just means a hill. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining the name Tel Dan #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Okay, so Tel Dan is spelled T-E Correct. And it's not about telling us something. What does that part mean? So Tel **Dan McClellan:** Dan just means a hill. So Tel is usually what a way that archaeologists refer to the remains of an ancient city, town, village, something like that, where the accumulation of ruins has created a bump in the landscape. A tell. A tell, yeah. And so Dan is at the very northern end of ancient Israel. So Tel Dan is the tell that remains from this ancient city. Another place that is visitable when that area becomes fully visitable. And they found a mud brick city gate that dates back to around 2000 BCE. They found there's a temple site there that had a four-horned altar there. You can go see the layout of the temple. What does four-horned **Dan Beecher:** mean? **Dan McClellan:** So in ancient Israel, their altars, the corners, would have kind of horned-looking accents on the corners Okay. But if, so four horned altar is, 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 Beersheba. They have them at a variety of different places, but there's a, there's a city gates, the, the old bronze age mud brick one. And then there's an Iron Age one when this was a part of ancient Israel. And have like a series of standing stones set up outside the gate, which is kind of the standard. these divine images that would be out there by the city gate. Okay. Just to kind of, you know, represent this liminal passage from outside the city to inside the city. There's a lot going on there. But anyway, excavations 33 years ago turned up three different pieces of stone that were discovered in a variety of different circumstances. One of them, for instance, had been reused as part of the rubble for a wall and other parts that were found in other areas. But they noticed there were inscriptions on them. And if you're on an excavation, to find an inscription is the coolest thing ever. Yeah, that's **Dan Beecher:** paydirt right there. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, that is the coolest thing in the world. But 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. --- ### [The Tel Dan Stele Names The House Of David](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5bf43601-85d1-47d4-b475-0732bfd65373) 🎧 43:09 - 45:34 (02:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b3a6436a-914f-4e46-aa80-615040564fcf" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Tel Dan Stele contains the earliest extrabiblical reference to the “House of David.” - Its royal bragging format resembles the Mesha inscription, presenting military victories as a king’s public résumé. #### 💬 Quote > The most famous thing about this inscription [...] spell out Bates David, House of David. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the stele’s famous inscription #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And it's written in a kind of Aramaic that it was likely written by an Aramaic king. And the one that most people associate it with is an Aramaic king named Hazael, who's mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the Aramaic king who did battle with kings like Jehoram slash Joram and Ahaziah. And as we're going to see, those names get mentioned in this inscription. Right. The most famous thing about this inscription, and if you go check out the inscription, you will see it is like white chalk has filled in this part of the inscription, these six letters that spell out Bates David, House of David. And that's what the inscription is most well known for, a reference to the House **Dan Beecher:** of David. And the white is, is a modern application. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we've basically done. It's that's the highlighter. Yeah. I was going to say it, cause this, 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 white. It, it, it feels funny that they did this but but yes there it is uh those those like you say those six letters yeah and written in the way in the way that that we've described before where there's no spaces there's no they **Dan McClellan:** they have little dots um between the words. Oh, okay. So that's as good as we can expect from this kind of inscription. Okay. So if you're looking at a picture, you'll see like it almost looks like just a chip 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 they do do that. It's a very good inscription in terms of the skill of the engraver. It was part of a standing stone. It's in the same kind of genre as the Masha inscription from the Moabite stone, where it's basically the king is going, I'm such and such and I'm so cool and these are all the things that I did. --- ### [House Of David Names A Dynasty Not A Nation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/dffcd00f-9f5e-4ddf-89a9-18e649c8743d) 🎧 50:46 - 53:06 (02:20) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/5ea7911f-92ca-435b-84ca-3f483b6dc355" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - “King of Israel” names a nation, while “House of David” identifies a dynasty centered in the southern region. - The inscription strongly supports a historical Davidic dynasty, though it cannot by itself prove every biblical David tradition. #### 💬 Quote > House of David is a dynastic designation. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan distinguishing Israel from the House of David #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** I want to clarify one thing before we go on too far, which is, is this drawing a distinction between King of Israel and House of David? Like Israel and David are two different things? **Dan McClellan:** They're two different entities, but it also seems like they're two different of entities. Because Israel is the name of a nation, a kingdom that has a king. House of David is a dynastic designation. 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, you know, maybe the kingdom doesn't have a name yet. They're just going by House of David. other references to the house of Omri as a reference to the northern kingdom of Israel. So 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 is widely considered to be kind of indirect 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 was a historical David who began this dynasty. Okay. Yeah, **Dan Beecher:** I mean, I remember us talking about that when we did a story David, and I asked you if David was a real person. Yeah. And we briefly mentioned this steely. So interestingly, I guess before the 90s, the answer to that question would have been different. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, there were certainly scholars who thought there was a historical David, but that we didn't have enough data to really say anything about David. And this is the closest we get to archaeological data confirming the existence of a historical David. It almost certainly confirms the existence of a Davidic dynasty. --- ### [Tel Dan Contradicts Three Biblical Death Accounts](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a3804522-05b4-40c7-8d8b-8fd8d282e7c5) 🎧 53:12 - 57:51 (04:39) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/77b11d2c-31ae-465a-be07-58f9d5912b2a" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Kings and Chronicles disagree about how Ahaziah died, while the Tel Dan Stele attributes his death to Hazael. - The competing accounts show that biblical narratives preserve conflicting political traditions rather than one harmonized history. #### 💬 Quote > According to the Tel Dan Stele, neither of them are right. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan comparing Tel Dan with Kings and Chronicles #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Interesting. Now, when we go to 2 Kings, here's what we have in 2 Kings 12, verses 17 and 18. At that time, King Hazael of Aram went up, fought against Gath, and took it. But when Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem, King Jehoash of Judah took all the vote of 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 Hazael of Aram. Then Hazael withdrew from Jerusalem. So there, there's other intrigue related to, uh, the relationship between Hazael. Uh, but if we go up a couple of chapters to nine, second Kings nine, we have Jehu, um, who is remember that name popping yes what's funny is second kings 920 i i know a guy who's in a band called i think it was called drive like jehu uh-huh and the reason is second kings 920 says uh and again the sentinel reported he reached them but he is not coming back it looks like the driving of Jehu, son of Nimshi, driving a chariot for he drives like a maniac. So, so Jehu evidently had a reputation for, uh, for, uh, charioteering like a maniac. But, um, so Jehu actually comes out and is executing judgment on the house of Ahab, according to the text. But King Joram, which is another spelling of Jehoram, and Ahaziah, so King Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, they come out each in his chariot and went to meet Jehu. They met him at the of Naboth, the Jezreelite, and Jehu kills both of them. Right. So what we have in the Bible, and this is a contradiction. Right. Because we've got another account in 1 Chronicles where Jehu kills both of them, Joram and Ahaziah again. But the manner of Ahaziah's death is entirely different. In 2 Kings, he shoots Joram in the chariot, and Joram dies. And then he says, shoot him too, and points at Ahaziah. So they shoot Ahaziah, and he flees to Megiddo and dies in Megiddo. And then you remember that one, right? **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, we talked about that one on an episode many moons ago. **Dan McClellan:** And then Ahaziah's own men take him to Jerusalem and bury him in Jerusalem. Right. In the First Chronicles account, they go looking for Ahaziah and they find him hiding out in Samaria. They bring him before Jehu. They execute him. Jehu's men say, you know what, this guy was a descendant of Jehoshaphat who loved the Lord with all his heart. We're going to give him a decent burial. So Jehu's men, after they have executed Ahaziah, bury Ahaziah. But so we have two non-reconcilable ways that Ahaziah died. And according to the Tel Dan stealing, neither of them are right. They are further non-reconcilable **Dan Beecher:** with this. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, so we've got, I understand it to be a kind of standoff characterized by a certain ethnic group, uh, that the three of the, the, uh, different accounts of Ahaziah's death are, uh, in conflict with, uh, with each other. Yeah. So, uh, because according to tell Dan Steely, uh, it was Hazael who did it. It was, it nothing to do with, with Jehu because Jehu would have been one of the enemies of the Aramans as well. And what's funny is you can find apologetic attempts to be like, well, no, Jehu was probably allied with Hazael. And so he was acting on his behalf. So you could say that. And it could be that hazael was just you know uh got ye old five finger discount on uh on credit for killing these **Dan Beecher:** was just yeah taking credit for yeah j who's uh fine workmanship **Dan McClellan:** yeah he they may have shown up on the scene and found uh hazaya with the arrow through his chest and might've been like, hi, yeah, got it. And he was already dead. He flinched. I had to get him. Yeah. --- ### [Ancient History Began As Poetry Before Prose](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4a1708b1-d79d-4c4b-ab44-440b8b915390) 🎧 58:40 - 01:02:22 (03:42) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/bd63fb43-36c5-449c-8b05-fe3d084e91b8" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Monumental inscriptions such as Tel Dan and the Mesha inscription mark an early stage of alphabetic historical prose. - Earlier biblical traditions may have circulated as poetry, including the Song of Deborah and the Song of the Sea. #### 💬 Quote > The historical narratives that we find in the Bible probably do not date any earlier than this inscription. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the development of historical narrative #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** So talk to me about when we think Second Kings was written, when we think Chronicles was written. Well, **Dan McClellan:** the Chronicles is taking earlier sources and is editing them together in the post-exilic period. Okay. So like 500s, 400s BCE. Okay. Maybe into the 300s. I need to get a Chronicles expert on here because that's one of the, don't go near there, but Betty, stay away from there, stay away from the river. That's one of those places where I don't dip my toe into Chronicles nearly enough. So we need to have a Chronicles expert on here to give us the straight dope. But the traditions come from much earlier. And certainly the Chronicles editors are borrowing some from the books of Kings and Samuel, but they seem to have their own independent sources as well. 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've talked about the problem of who killed Goliath. Like that account of some dude named Elchanan killing Goliath, that's got to come from pretty early for it to predate the people who were trying to glaze David and were swiping these these feats of strength that were actually achieved by David's men. So that's probably more historically accurate. That's probably coming from an earlier layer of these traditions that may go back maybe 800 BCE, maybe 700 BCE. So some of these traditions probably go back pretty far, get pretty close to the historical David. But another interesting thing to note is the Tel Dan Stele. I mentioned that it's kind of in the same genre as the Moabite stone, the Masha inscription. These are what they call monumental inscriptions because they're intended to be set up as something that's going to be publicly on display. But these are some of the earliest examples of historical narrative prose in an alphabetic script from this region. So you have the Moabite one written in Moabite, you have this Aramaean one written a version of Aramaic. There are scholars who have pointed out, we don't have any historical narrative prose prior to these monumental inscriptions. And so that's probably where the historical narrative prose begins, is in these monumental inscriptions. That's kind of a logical evolution of things. We go from, you know, I am such and such to I am such and such, and here's what I did. I got to tell you my story of what I did. And then that later goes on to like historical annals where people are copying down, here's what they did. And so the historical narratives that we find in the Bible probably do not date any earlier than this inscription. So the Masha inscription and the Tel Dan Steele probably represent the terminus post quim, the point after which for any historical narrative prose we find in the Hebrew Bible. Okay. So the traditions, anything that came from before these monumental inscriptions probably would have been poetic. ---