of the biggest scholars in biblical studies and archaeology, Bill Deever. Bill has written a number of books that have been widely read and circulated, and it's a great honor to have you in the studio with me, Bill. >> Thank you. >> Tell us a bit about some of the books that you've written in the past, Bill. >> Well, the last one was entitled now I'll see if I can remember the title - The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: Where Archaeology and the Bible Intersect. >> Yeah. >> And it deals with eighth century B.C.E. >> Yeah. >> And tries to show how those whose lives are not reflected in the text in the bible actually lived. >> Yeah. And the books before that there was some. >> I had written a book on God's wife. Did God have a wife. Archeology and folk religion. One on who were the earliest [UNKNOWN] and where did they come from. >> Yeah. >> And the one titled What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It. I like questions, not answers. >> And these books have all been widely read and distributed and translated into different languages. But the one book that you're working on now, now this is something that's never been attempted before. And I want you to tell them, my students a bit about it. What are you trying to do in this new book? >> Well the prosaic title of the new book, which is a 600 page book. >> 600. >> With full references is An Archaeological History of Ancient Israel and Judah. And the fact is nobody has ever attempted it. >> Meaning an archaeological history without any. >> Well based largely on the material culture evidence rather than the biblical text, not ignoring the text but argue that they're secondary. >> Yeah. >> That they're not primary sources and that archaeology is a superior source which means archaeologists won't like it, and textual scholars won't like it. >> So, you're going to make enemies on both sides. >> I'm going to confuse a lot of people. But for 25 years or more, scholars have been talking about the question of whether you could write a history of [INAUDIBLE]. >> Who was the guy you told me about recently, who [CROSSTALK] >> Well, Maxwell Miller, who taught here, raised the question in 1991. The article was entitled is it possible to write a history of Israel without the Bible. His answer was maybe but it wouldn't be desirable, and since then we have been arguing and no one thought to try it. But gradually, Biblical scholars have lost confidence in the text and we archeologists have gained confidence in the information archaeology provides. And I would have thought that if you were going to write a book about ancient Israel without any recourse to the biblical sources, without all the stories, retelling the story of King David, retelling the story of Moses, that your book would be about 100 pages, 50 pages, but 600 pages? How can you write so many pages without? >> Several scholars have argued with me. They said, well David you could write such a book, but it would be 10 pages long. No, it was actually fairly easy once I set my mind to it. What I did, was to pretend that I never heard of the bible, even though I'm trained classically as you are. And look at the archeological evidence, and then turn to the biblical text and see if there was a goodness of fit. >> It sounds like a methodologically really superior move to try to start with a narrative that it's really much of a story, of people telling that story but and then it has it's own purpose. But for the purpose of history and what the facts are on the ground, they kind of take that story out of the picture and then ask what did we know if we did not have the Bible? What would we know about Moab, for example because we know have the Bible about Moab. What would we know about Israel if we didn't have a Bible? >> Well, when I was a graduate student, we thought we knew a lot, but I would say today 50 years later, we know 20 times what we knew about the context of ancient Israel, the world in which the Bible came to be. So, the biblical text is limited. It tells us only what it wants to tell us. >> Yeah. >> And there will be no more new books. Archaeology is open-ended every day. So, our knowledge of a real Israel in the Iron Age has multiplied unbelievably in, in the 50 years I've been working. >> Now Israel, it's true, is one of the more researched areas in the world when it comes to archaeology. >> Absolutely. >> So there are a lot of finds, and you had to go through a lot of material, cultural finds and debate to deal with this, or? >> I had to read almost everything including a lot of rubbish. I tried to keep the controversies in the foot notes and allow the text to flow. >> Yeah, nice. >> So I would say 80% of my information on this 600 year history of ancient Israel and Judah comes from archaeology and perhaps 20% from the biblical test. >> Yeah. >> That's the balance. Not what I strove for, but what happened. >> Mm-hm. And, now give us kind of an example of an area of, let's say of the ninth century, of something you can, you can,. >> Okay, yeah. >> On the basis of the archaeological record, tell us something interesting, about [CROSSTALK] >> All right, in the ninth century Omri established a new dynasty in the northern kingdom and moved the capitol to Sumeria. Now the Book of Kings, the only source we have really, gives 7 verses to his whole life. >> Uh-huh. >> And all the biblical writers say basically is he was not a nice guy. Now I could write a full book on the Omri dynasty with ease, given the archaeological evidence about Sumeria and the Northern Kingdom, given the Neo-Assyrian texts that talk about him. >> You've got a stele, the Meshra Stele. >> So, yeah. Where are we going to turn for, for a rich source of information beyond the Bible? The answer is obviously archaeology. >> Yeah. Now, that's a, that some might say be an easy case because the Omride period is just so well documented. >> Yes. >> Within the Syrian records and with the neighbors of [UNKNOWN]. >> Yeah it is. >> And the archaeology and the architecture on the ground. But what about let's say do you, do you have anything to do with those periods where we know a lot about it from the Bible, but the archaeology is rather minimal and it tells a somewhat different story than what the Bible might tell? >> The Davidic Era is perhaps the most difficult because we have, of course as you know, extra biblical texts referring at least one of them, referring to David. But the biblical stories seem larger than life. The question is, who was David really assuming that he actually lived, and what did he actually do? So that was rather difficult. The later you come in time the, the more knowledgable the biblical writers are. So when they talk about the fall of Jerusalem in 586, they were there and their stories have the ring of truth. The farther back in time you go, the more difficult it is just to read the biblical stories at face value. I think they're not just reinvented out of old cloth but they're exaggerated and they're always moved in a certain direction. The bible is didactic literature, it wants to teach you a moral lesson. It isn't interested in exactly what happened. >> Yeah. >> But archaeology is an unedited source of information about the masses of ordinary people. >> And that's why you call it a primary resource. >> I think so. It's closer to the events in time. Primary because it's expanding exponentially. >> Yeah. >> Primary because the archeological record is not edited as the Biblical text is. >> Exactly, so it makes it a secondary source, the Bible. Yeah. >> Yeah, I think so. But, Biblical scholars won't like that idea. >> I think that, that at least some of them. I was trained in the continental Europe, and they. I was always taught that the bible is the secondary source. >> Yes. >> Archaeology and material culture is your primary source. >> To their credit, European scholars began saying that more than 25 years ago. >> Yeah. >> I'm hoping to create a dialog frankly between the archaeologists and biblical scholars. >> Yeah. >> It hasn't happened, but unless we work together, we're not going to get anywhere. >> I could imagine that biblical scholars speaking for myself and for my perspective of biblical studies, that it could be very fascinating to see what if we did not have the corporate structure that we've devoted our lives to? If we did not have that, what would we be able to say about this piece of land in, for a thousand years. >> Exactly. And I think we're at a dead end if we have only the biblical texts. There's not going to be any new information, at least in the ground breaking discoveries from re-reading the texts, taking the origins of Israel. >> Yeah. >> Where are we going to learn more about earliest Israel. Not from reading biblical earliest stories. >> That, that. Yeah. >> From archeology excavations. What about the rise of monotheism, almost every topic you choose, it's archeology now that's illuminating that. >> Yeah. The problems is we often don't speak to each other and, and we don't understand each other and we don't collaborate. >> So, Bill, thanks so much for coming by. I found this fascinating. I think my students did as well. And I encourage you all to go and read Dr. Deaver's books. >> Thank you. Pleasure to be here. >> The preceding program is copyrighted by Emory University.