After Class Podcast 3.15 - Did the Exodus really happen?
Apr 13, 2020
The discussion dives into the tensions between archaeology and biblical texts. Hosts explore how fundamentalism has shaped expectations of archaeological evidence. They argue that while artifacts can illuminate history, they can't fully support all biblical narratives. The nature of the Exodus event is also reexamined, suggesting it may not have been as public as commonly believed. With an emphasis on reading the text on its own terms, they highlight the importance of understanding the spiritual and historical context beyond mere archaeology.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Archaeology Is Not A Silver Bullet
- Archaeology doesn't automatically confirm a literal reading of the Old Testament because both archaeology and biblical texts have perspectives and biases.
- Samuel C. Long warns that expecting archaeology to be a silver bullet for proving the Bible is misguided and unrealistic.
A Post-Liberal Approach To Scripture
- The hosts position themselves as post-liberal/post-fundamental, combining a high view of Scripture with critical historical methods.
- John C. Nugent says this approach accepts useful critiques from liberal scholarship while retaining belief in miracles and biblical authority.
The Tel Dan Hype And Small Evidence
- Samuel C. Long recounts the excitement over the Tel Dan inscription as if it would 'prove' David's historicity.
- He warns the claim loaded too much weight onto a single short inscription and notes similar New Testament controversies like the James Ossuary.