So, hi, guys.

Now I have in my studio someone who is one

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.