Tim Mahoney had a pretty good argument about revising the time line of Exodus, and had some archaeological pieces I hadn't seen yet. The only thing that absolutely ruined the movie was the HORRIBLE Fox News panel at the end. My God man, what were you thinking?! 5 smug TV personalities joking about how you had to be an idiot to not 100% buy into it- I almost walked out. Another thing Mahoney LOVES to do is stare thoughtfully into the camera. Stroke the chin...squint the eyes...look away... I believe a good 20 minutes of this extraordinarily long film was devoted to such. Good thing there was a break! All that soul searching made me in much need of snacks. Anyway, if you skip the very last segment it's a pretty good film.
42 Reviews
Fair. Balanced. Compelling.
Jxfiles29 March 2016
Insightful, even handed, restrained, and yet utterly compelling, Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus is an intelligent documentary and mature treatment of a very sensitive subject. It's a film that values exploration and questioning, rather than hand wringing and partisanship. It's a film of value, a film of questions, and one that can serve to better inform. As the documentary relates, the establishment view is that the Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible, or is entirely fictional. This criticism seems to revolve around the established timeline for the Exodus. The documentary challenges this assumption, and does so convincingly. Experts of every stripe are shown, yet the film gives a notable voice to those who point to startling evidence of exactly what the Bible describes, just earlier than accepted.
Director Tim Mahoney navigates the ensuing web well, keeping the viewer anchored with excellent visuals and a concise yet intelligent description off the correlation of events, and how they may fit from an archaeological standpoint.
It's not perfect, some of the dramatization is unnecessary and the narration uneven, yet the questions poignant, and the execution striking.
4/5 Stars
Director Tim Mahoney navigates the ensuing web well, keeping the viewer anchored with excellent visuals and a concise yet intelligent description off the correlation of events, and how they may fit from an archaeological standpoint.
It's not perfect, some of the dramatization is unnecessary and the narration uneven, yet the questions poignant, and the execution striking.
4/5 Stars
Compelling and faith empowering
Seraphion1 November 2015
I am Christian to begin with, and I'm proud to say that my faith is strong in The Lord. But I'm not a scientist, though I am curious and often times seek the truth. It's very much faith empowering how this film elaborates on the story of Exodus, at the same time comparing it with coherent scientific evidence. Yet this movie also still nicely leaves room for faith. As faith is the basis of things we can't see, one needs faith to understand the reasoning this movie presented, while the evidence itself still gets debated by scientists. I for one at prior to this movie wasn't aware of the gap of date settings between scientists, or even the whole counter-idea of the Exodus itself, as being a myth. At a skeptic's perspective this may prove that ignorance is bliss. But I see it as the fact that faith in God can't be distinguished by mere scientists' wisdom, which base their findings on mere rags and tatters.
What a Documentary!
user-936-46770820 January 2015
I had yet to see a documentary, until now, that gave both sides of the argument an equal shot. This also felt like a movie with the music and effects that demonstrated certain pivotal points that the Director was making in his search for the truth about the evidence for the Exodus. The exposition is not over the top, and the interviews are concise, to the point. Not your typical documentary that is for sure, and a ground breaking one at that. I believe this documentary re-opens a debate that many considered closed for decades now. One of the reviews that I agree with said that, "After watching this documentary, any open minded individual would say to himself/herself, 'This makes sense'; consequently, at the very least, incline him or her to do more research for themselves." I highly recommend this to everyone, be you religious or not.
Mind blown!
joy-other20 January 2015
As an engineer who has been working in high-tech industry since 1996, I appreciate Tim Mahoney's pursuit of truth through facts, evidence, and logic. This documentary re-writes the human history as we know it, and affirms the Biblical events to be true. I liked that he not only interviewed those who believed in the Bible stories, but also those who do not. He gave a good balance of arguments from both sides, presented all the facts and findings, and allowed the viewers to be their own judge on what is true based on the proof presented to them. I got goosebumps throughout the film when archaeologists and historians confirmed the stories and patterns of Exodus. I'm so glad I watched this and can't wait to own this documentary on DVD.
Excellent Documentary. Highly Recommended!
statlerbrothersadvertisi19 January 2015
After you watch the first few minutes of this film, during which a myriad of Egyptologists and religious experts offer their opposing stance on the factuality of the Biblical Exodus, you will understand the enormous scope of the objective this film sets for itself. In a very bold move this film sets the bar extremely high immediately. So high in fact that if the evidence presented were not at this supreme level the whole film would have fallen on its face. Fortunately for all of us, Patters of Evidence: The Exodus delivers to the utmost.
Experts from all related fields, especially opposing views, are given their full time and respect. I was personally impressed with the no-expense-spared feel of the film. For example, Tim (the filmmaker) travels all over the world, speaks to an enormous number of experts, and shows more than enough evidence for all points made. In many documentaries I have watched I have been left with feelings of disappointment because the topic, or a specific point, was not explored thoroughly enough. I was not left with that feeling to any degree here.
This subject is so critical to ancient history and religion with much contemporary relevance. This film should be viewed by everyone, highly recommended.
Experts from all related fields, especially opposing views, are given their full time and respect. I was personally impressed with the no-expense-spared feel of the film. For example, Tim (the filmmaker) travels all over the world, speaks to an enormous number of experts, and shows more than enough evidence for all points made. In many documentaries I have watched I have been left with feelings of disappointment because the topic, or a specific point, was not explored thoroughly enough. I was not left with that feeling to any degree here.
This subject is so critical to ancient history and religion with much contemporary relevance. This film should be viewed by everyone, highly recommended.
A terrific you-are-there experience!
sbraed200420 January 2015
Went to see Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus last night. Was excited to go see this film when I first heard about it, and I was not disappointed. Mr. Mahoney has a gentle touch and deeply driven enthusiasm for the subject matter. Facts were placed before the audience in a manner that was easily understood, making a lot of sense. Grateful for the opinions of the professionals and for the panel discussion at the end, with all of my favorite commentators. Hope believers and nonbelievers alike will see this film and decide for themselves. Great film for young people as they begin to form their own opinions. For me, the facts were clear. Grateful to all those archaeologists who have made it their life's work to uncover the details of past generations. Grateful to Mr. Mahoney for taking this important moment of biblical history and making it come alive.
An Alternative View of Egyptian and Israelite History Which Makes Too Many Leaps
classicalsteve12 October 2015
As an amateur historian, I know when there is sufficient grounds to make an historical claim from evidence and when the claim is "reaching", drawing conclusions to fit preconceived notions. In other words, when "historians" try to prove something they already believe in advance, we should gently question whether their conclusions may be colored by bias. There's a difference between an historian who attempts to find out how Ancient Egyptians lived versus trying to prove the biblical accounts regarding the Hebrews and the Egyptians are true. If they find evidence which might "fit" into their overall perspective, and they make claims which rely mostly upon interpretation of the evidence rather than what the evidence itself suggests, this is regarded as borderline or even bad scholarship, also called "confirmation bias".
The documentary "Patterns of Evidence" seeks to prove whether the Exodus of the Bible is a true event, since the Bible must be taken literally, or so the central figure/narrator claims. (The reading of biblical texts as factual accounts is a gross misunderstanding of the texts.) At the beginning of the documentary, devout Christian filmmaker Tim Mahoney decides to find out if there is evidence to prove the historicity of the Exodus. In the first few minutes, Mahoney travels to the Eastern Mediterranean and meets Manfred Beitak, an Austrian Egyptologist and archaeologist who is excavating an ancient Semite town, Avaris. Mahoney, upon examining the excavation hypothesizes this could be the Israelite settlement given the Pharaoh's blessing in passages relating the life of the Patriarch Joseph of the "Coat of Many Colors". Mahoney makes this suggestion to Beitak, and the archaeologist responds that to connect this village with the biblical account is a "very weak affair". In other words, Beitak cannot conclude the town is the same one as depicted in the Bible. Mahoney becomes disappointed, and the whole experience puts into question his faith, because, as he sees it, the Bible must be true history otherwise his own faith might be based on a "lie".
He returns to the United States and then decides to take up the quest again at a more involved level. He begins by finding historians who have alternative theories which match his own beliefs. This is the first major problem with the documentary. Certainly, anyone can find "historians" and/or "scholars" who have views which contradict mainstream scholarship. While certainly there is nothing wrong with interviewing people who disagree with the larger academic and scholarly community and who voice their disagreements with a different rationale, I felt the documentary was completely unbalanced after Beitak's skepticism. Mahoney only seems to be interested with those scholars on the outside of modern scholarship who wish to make the case that current Egyptian scholarship is "flawed" and that the Bible and Egyptian chronology do in fact match but requires a complete rethinking Egyptian history, known as the "New Chronology".
Shortly thereafter, Mahoney interviews David Rohl, a highly controversial figure in Ancient Egyptian studies. Rohl has proposed a so-called "New Chronology", an alternative view of the chronological events and dates of Ancient Egypt. He claims the town of Avaris is called "The Land of Ramses" in the Bible, and the confusion comes because a biblical editor at some time used the term "Land of Ramses" to depict Avaris. He believes mainstream scholarship is completely incorrect in terms of Egyptian Chronology. While, I have no problem with hearing Rohl's rationale (which would at face value put into question the idea of the Bible as unerring history), there is no counter figure who explains the mainstream view. The only words we get from Beitak at the beginning is that the hypothesis is a "weak affair", but we don't hear the rest of the interview as to why he questions Rohl and others who work on the "outside".
At Avaris, there has been found the remains of a large statue inside a small pyramid structure of a prominent person, probably a great leader. Now, I do agree, the evidence does suggest the prominent person is a Semite and not an Egyptian because of the hairstyle. However, the documentary wants to prove that this may be in fact Joseph of "The Coat of Many Colours" fame from the Bible. They point to some faded paint on the remains of the statue's shoulder which they claim are remains of a depiction of a colored coat! This is really reaching. Some flecks of paint are not enough to jump to the conclusion this is the Coat of Many Colours and therefore Joseph! It could simply be the remains of the depiction of royal robes, since red as a royal color goes back millennium. Also, the documentary says that 12 graves were found near the statue, which could be the 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, it could be, but again, to conclude the existence of twelve graves means that these represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel as fact is a huge leap. If there were Hebrew inscriptions attesting to such, then that would be compelling evidence. As it stands, what we have are the remains of a statue and the remains of twelve graves, which would not be enough to compel academia to concur with Mahoney's hypotheses.
The statue remains at Avaris and the conclusions drawn are just a few of the problems with how this documentary is making its claims. It takes some evidence, then looks at the Bible, sees if they match, and then draws conclusions. There was no evidence outside of interpretation Avaris was an Israelite town once having been led by the Biblical Joseph. What they needed were other scholars to explain why some of the conclusions drawn were not accepted by mainstream historians. I am sure people who believe the world is flat could also find a few convincing "scholars" who make very convincing arguments about their views. Much of what is presented as "fact" is really simply "opinion" disguised as fact.
The documentary "Patterns of Evidence" seeks to prove whether the Exodus of the Bible is a true event, since the Bible must be taken literally, or so the central figure/narrator claims. (The reading of biblical texts as factual accounts is a gross misunderstanding of the texts.) At the beginning of the documentary, devout Christian filmmaker Tim Mahoney decides to find out if there is evidence to prove the historicity of the Exodus. In the first few minutes, Mahoney travels to the Eastern Mediterranean and meets Manfred Beitak, an Austrian Egyptologist and archaeologist who is excavating an ancient Semite town, Avaris. Mahoney, upon examining the excavation hypothesizes this could be the Israelite settlement given the Pharaoh's blessing in passages relating the life of the Patriarch Joseph of the "Coat of Many Colors". Mahoney makes this suggestion to Beitak, and the archaeologist responds that to connect this village with the biblical account is a "very weak affair". In other words, Beitak cannot conclude the town is the same one as depicted in the Bible. Mahoney becomes disappointed, and the whole experience puts into question his faith, because, as he sees it, the Bible must be true history otherwise his own faith might be based on a "lie".
He returns to the United States and then decides to take up the quest again at a more involved level. He begins by finding historians who have alternative theories which match his own beliefs. This is the first major problem with the documentary. Certainly, anyone can find "historians" and/or "scholars" who have views which contradict mainstream scholarship. While certainly there is nothing wrong with interviewing people who disagree with the larger academic and scholarly community and who voice their disagreements with a different rationale, I felt the documentary was completely unbalanced after Beitak's skepticism. Mahoney only seems to be interested with those scholars on the outside of modern scholarship who wish to make the case that current Egyptian scholarship is "flawed" and that the Bible and Egyptian chronology do in fact match but requires a complete rethinking Egyptian history, known as the "New Chronology".
Shortly thereafter, Mahoney interviews David Rohl, a highly controversial figure in Ancient Egyptian studies. Rohl has proposed a so-called "New Chronology", an alternative view of the chronological events and dates of Ancient Egypt. He claims the town of Avaris is called "The Land of Ramses" in the Bible, and the confusion comes because a biblical editor at some time used the term "Land of Ramses" to depict Avaris. He believes mainstream scholarship is completely incorrect in terms of Egyptian Chronology. While, I have no problem with hearing Rohl's rationale (which would at face value put into question the idea of the Bible as unerring history), there is no counter figure who explains the mainstream view. The only words we get from Beitak at the beginning is that the hypothesis is a "weak affair", but we don't hear the rest of the interview as to why he questions Rohl and others who work on the "outside".
At Avaris, there has been found the remains of a large statue inside a small pyramid structure of a prominent person, probably a great leader. Now, I do agree, the evidence does suggest the prominent person is a Semite and not an Egyptian because of the hairstyle. However, the documentary wants to prove that this may be in fact Joseph of "The Coat of Many Colours" fame from the Bible. They point to some faded paint on the remains of the statue's shoulder which they claim are remains of a depiction of a colored coat! This is really reaching. Some flecks of paint are not enough to jump to the conclusion this is the Coat of Many Colours and therefore Joseph! It could simply be the remains of the depiction of royal robes, since red as a royal color goes back millennium. Also, the documentary says that 12 graves were found near the statue, which could be the 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, it could be, but again, to conclude the existence of twelve graves means that these represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel as fact is a huge leap. If there were Hebrew inscriptions attesting to such, then that would be compelling evidence. As it stands, what we have are the remains of a statue and the remains of twelve graves, which would not be enough to compel academia to concur with Mahoney's hypotheses.
The statue remains at Avaris and the conclusions drawn are just a few of the problems with how this documentary is making its claims. It takes some evidence, then looks at the Bible, sees if they match, and then draws conclusions. There was no evidence outside of interpretation Avaris was an Israelite town once having been led by the Biblical Joseph. What they needed were other scholars to explain why some of the conclusions drawn were not accepted by mainstream historians. I am sure people who believe the world is flat could also find a few convincing "scholars" who make very convincing arguments about their views. Much of what is presented as "fact" is really simply "opinion" disguised as fact.
Scientific?
kwacka222 January 2015
I took a look at this, but sad to say, this is anything but scientific.
The scientific method - formulate a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. Falsifiabilty is a cornerstone of the scientific method, and always beware of anybody who claims to have 'proved' something.
The non-scientific method (used here) formulate a hypothesis and attempt to prove it.
If you tried hard enough you could 'prove' that werewolves are real, or that Barak Obama is a Muslim.
The Biblical account MAY be true, but this contributes nothing to the story of Exodus.
The scientific method - formulate a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. Falsifiabilty is a cornerstone of the scientific method, and always beware of anybody who claims to have 'proved' something.
The non-scientific method (used here) formulate a hypothesis and attempt to prove it.
If you tried hard enough you could 'prove' that werewolves are real, or that Barak Obama is a Muslim.
The Biblical account MAY be true, but this contributes nothing to the story of Exodus.
Excellent
SpiritMechanic20 January 2015
I give this movie/documentary 10 stars because of what it is and what it is supposed to accomplish. And it does so with no flaws. If anyone seeking evidence of truth in the bible as it actually happened, then this is where to find it. At least in the part of Exodus. I can say many many things about the topic but i will keep my comments few because I'm afraid they will fall on deaf ears. People who are actually seeking truth will find it, others will always find fault or a way out because they don't want REAL truth, they just want to debate or not be held accountable for anything so they will turn the truth into a lie even though its presented as fact. This movie presents the truth and the facts that cant be denied. Sad to say, many will still not believe.
A Futile, Apologetic Attempt
MrKaya15 September 2017
In 2001, archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published a seminal book titled The Bible Unearthed. Citing both textual and archaeological evidence, the authors demonstrated the inaccuracies of the historical accounts in the Old Testament. Four years later, the eponymous documentary visualized the contents of the book. In interviews that took place in some of the actual excavation sites, the authors mentioned the capabilities of modern exploration technologies, and explained to the viewers the breadth of existing evidence against Biblical narratives.
About a decade later, Tim Mahoney's Patterns of Evidence (2014) is released. The documentary attempts to counter Finkelstein and Silberman's arguments. However, it neither presents any new evidence nor proposes an alternative framework that would allow us to view the existing evidence through new lenses. Instead, it follows a quite common but utterly unscientific method: it refuses to hear what a large body of literature almost unanimously tells us, and tries to confirm the Biblical narratives by putting together bits and pieces of evidence that is circumstantial at best.
In the end, we are left with a production that is a typical example of dogmatic thinking. Scientific thinking is simple: "I want an answer to my question. Let's see what the evidence indicates." In contrast, dogmatic thinking puts the cart before the horse: "I already have the answer, and now I must find some evidence that supports it." Sadly, many people are not sufficiently equipped to notice the invalidity of the latter way of thinking, and conclude that this an ongoing debate. Some others are happy, as such apologetic works reaffirm their beliefs - if not by the "evidence" they put together, then by underlining the possibility that some new findings in the future may prove the Biblical account correct.
Nothing new here... "If you hold a belief because you think you should, over time you'll convince yourself it's true." (Peter Boghossian)
About a decade later, Tim Mahoney's Patterns of Evidence (2014) is released. The documentary attempts to counter Finkelstein and Silberman's arguments. However, it neither presents any new evidence nor proposes an alternative framework that would allow us to view the existing evidence through new lenses. Instead, it follows a quite common but utterly unscientific method: it refuses to hear what a large body of literature almost unanimously tells us, and tries to confirm the Biblical narratives by putting together bits and pieces of evidence that is circumstantial at best.
In the end, we are left with a production that is a typical example of dogmatic thinking. Scientific thinking is simple: "I want an answer to my question. Let's see what the evidence indicates." In contrast, dogmatic thinking puts the cart before the horse: "I already have the answer, and now I must find some evidence that supports it." Sadly, many people are not sufficiently equipped to notice the invalidity of the latter way of thinking, and conclude that this an ongoing debate. Some others are happy, as such apologetic works reaffirm their beliefs - if not by the "evidence" they put together, then by underlining the possibility that some new findings in the future may prove the Biblical account correct.
Nothing new here... "If you hold a belief because you think you should, over time you'll convince yourself it's true." (Peter Boghossian)
Groundbreaking, World-changing!
plindbrg21 January 2015
The real hero of this movie is David Rohl, a British archaeologist and Egyptologist. He uses the Bible, not as anything inspirational or even divinely inspired, but simply as one of the best ancient documents to aid his archaeology. He has spent half a lifetime wrestling with the FACT that the Third Intermediate Period in Egyptian history is extremely confusing and poorly understood by modern archaeology, and the FACT that nothing in Egypt's New Kingdom (the Kingdom of the Rameses Pharaohs) matches the Bible story of the Exodus. He has developed a "New Chronology" for the history of Egypt and the Bible story in which things do line up, stunningly so, way back in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Dynasty XIII). Tim Mahoney in his movie simply looks at the evidence and lets the audience draw their own conclusions.
The only criticism I have of the movie is that so much is left out. It cries out for a sequel, showing the evidence found for the Red Sea crossing, the Hyksos, the Amarna period during the Kingdoms of Saul and David, King Solomon and his Egyptian princess... and showing the breathtaking correlations with the ancient Hittites, Babylonians, Syrians, Assyrians... even the later Persians, Greeks, and Romans. It all lines up once you get the chronology right! This ought to stun the world and get everyone started on re-writing the history books!
The only criticism I have of the movie is that so much is left out. It cries out for a sequel, showing the evidence found for the Red Sea crossing, the Hyksos, the Amarna period during the Kingdoms of Saul and David, King Solomon and his Egyptian princess... and showing the breathtaking correlations with the ancient Hittites, Babylonians, Syrians, Assyrians... even the later Persians, Greeks, and Romans. It all lines up once you get the chronology right! This ought to stun the world and get everyone started on re-writing the history books!
Wondering why I hadn't heard most of this before
cthaun22 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The question of whether or not there is a God beyond the world who has sufficient interest in our world to occasionally intervene into human history is quite possibly the most profound question that we wrestle with. Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus is a documentary about one man's attempt to wrestle with this. Tim Mahoney is the name of that man. He comes across as a rather ordinary person. He's not an Indiana Jones with a pistol, a bull-whip, and a PhD in archeology. He's not a professor of history who needs to compete with his peers. He's not one of the sensationalist pundits of alternative history who talks about lost civilizations led by extraterrestrial beings. He comes across as a normal fellow. For me this is a plus to the documentary. He's ratable. He reminds me of me and hundreds of others I have met. Maybe the film is a bit slow at first--but this serves to build up rapport. It's easy to empathize and sympathize with his plight. The film starts of making it clear that Tim grew up believing that the amazing stories in the book titled Exodus were true. There is a God and that God isn't averse to embarrassing the mythological gods to make it clear that He is there, he's serious, and he has purposes for the people he created. This worldview of course created a lot of meaning in life for Tim. And all that gets shaken by the fact that there seems to be no evidence for these stories. Tim isn't just a fideist who can just believe something blindly just because he grew up with it. He really cares about what the leading voices in the scholarly disciplines of Egyptology and ancient near-eastern history have to say. The film starts with Tim's faith in a God-who-cares-and-acts being shaken. And this is not just for dramatic effect. The sincerity shines through in various ways. The very fact that he interviews scholars who have views that are hostile to his faith is one such way. Tim's quest begins not for evidence to prop up his wobbly faith but for truth. That shines through too and seems admirable. Also impressive to me is how Tim doesn't just collecting books by experts. He travels to those experts, interviews them in person, and tapes them! This film is very rich in interviews with some very fascinating people. He collects opinions from a variety of knowledgeable people and attempts to find out if there really is (or isn't) any persuasive evidence of Jews flourishing in Egypt, of Jews becoming slaves in Egypt, of Egypt suffering calamities, of Jews leaving Egypt en masse suddenly, and of city-states in Canaan being conquered and destroyed. Early into the film I was depressed as I began to hear so many respectable scholars say that there is no evidence whatsoever. But as the story unfolds it begins to become clear why so many scholars do not see evidence for these things. I was repeatedly impressed by how Tim's team interviewed the scholars who say the Exodus didn't happen as Moses wrote it, how they interviewed at least four Christian historians who agree that Exodus is true history but who don't agree with one another on all the details and dating, and how the main scholar they interviewed and paid the most attention to (David Rohl) was surprisingly an agnostic (unsure if there is a God) who happens to see that the Exodus account has a tremendous amount of evidence going for it--evidence that most of us have never heard of. As the plot thickens and the details and dates began to become too cumbersome for my mind to juggle, some color-coded, computer-animated timelines come to the rescue. They attempt to show different patterns of evidence that they found and attempt to see if the different patterns can possibly be lined up in a way the corroborative rather than conflicting way. The computer animation was extremely helpful for making the complex sensible and for helping to visualize what the archaeological digs prove. The quality of the CGI was very good. Thumbs up there. This film doesn't pretend to solve the problems of evidence patterns and problems in the standard system of dating. But it provides a very tantalizing and persuasive case that there really are a few different patterns of evidence that are very significant, overlooked, and likely able to be harmonized in the future. It serves as an encouragement and challenge to the scholars to look at the patterns again, rethink things, and not rest on their assumptions. It may also serve as an encouragement and challenge to the rest of us non-scholars to not be afraid to learn from the scholars (keeping in mind there is wisdom in having a multitude of counselors) and take part in the process of the seeking of the truth. I love how an ordinary guy with questions, cameras, and film editing software can care about a question enough to invest a decade of his life and savings into pursuing it. And I appreciate how he shared his tantalizing findings!
Exodus, My Belief
agenda-nra320 January 2015
The movie asked the basic question - was there an exodus? And, if so, when did it take place? The movie offered the opinions of several noted Egyptologists. Of course, based on what has been uncovered over the years in Egypt, opinions vary widely as to whether there was an indeed an exodus from Egypt. The widely held belief is that the exodus, if it did occur, took place during Egypt's New Kingdom age when Ramses was pharaoh; however, diggings do not support this time line. Based on additional evidence presented, the movie attempted to demonstrate that it took place during Egypt's Middle Kingdom. In the end, it was left up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.
For myself, the movie renewed my faith in the Bible.
For myself, the movie renewed my faith in the Bible.
Proves Secular Archeologists Don't Want To Find Evidence of Exodus
cheryl-meril19 January 2015
This film pretty much blew the frauds in archeology out of the water as having bias in maintaining falsehoods while overlooking facts. In other words, we can't trust the scholars to provide us with the entire picture because their life works are invested in it.
There's nothing wrong with Christians wanting to dig into the past to discover ancient truths confirmed in the Bible. As falsehoods have been maintained for so long now, it's uncomfortable for the secular establishment to even consider the real Mt. Sinai spoken of in the Bible isn't the tourist attraction mountain they set up as a decoy, but has been located in Saudi Arabia that has it under lock and key. A few brave souls have ventured there and brought back photos of the evidence of Exodus including the split rock and evidence of water erosion at the base.
There's nothing wrong with Christians wanting to dig into the past to discover ancient truths confirmed in the Bible. As falsehoods have been maintained for so long now, it's uncomfortable for the secular establishment to even consider the real Mt. Sinai spoken of in the Bible isn't the tourist attraction mountain they set up as a decoy, but has been located in Saudi Arabia that has it under lock and key. A few brave souls have ventured there and brought back photos of the evidence of Exodus including the split rock and evidence of water erosion at the base.
Scientifically Irresponsible
larsumms20 January 2015
The movie was well done and entertaining. In terms of science, it was horrible. The premise is that since we have not found any evidence of Biblical history in the Late Bronze period, let's look in the Middle period. The Late Bronze period was used for 1000 years because the Bible states the Pharoah's name as Ramases. The movie offers no reason against this, and just looks centuries earlier than Ramases anyway.
The movie visits an archaeological dig on Avaris Egypt. They interview a European Professor that has worked this dig for 20 years. The Professor says that there is absolutely no evidence for the Bible history at this site. Then the movie shows computer graphics of overwhelming evidence of not just Isrealites, but Joseph of Egypt himself. There is no live video or pictures when they do this. It is all HD computer graphics, meaning that it is artwork, not evidence. I was shocked that he had done this.
The only thing credible in this movie is Jericho. They show live video, and quote the British Kenyon findings. Jericho does appear to have happened as described in the Bible, but centuries earlier than described in the Bible.
The final statement of the movie is that the Egyptian calendar needs to be shifted to match the Bible Calendar. This is not going to happen because the Egyptian calendar is based on scientific findings. So nothing new is said in this movie.
The lies presented as archaeological evidence are new. This isn't the first time a Christian has provided fabricated evidence of Bible History, and he will make money and fame for awhile. Shame on him.
The movie visits an archaeological dig on Avaris Egypt. They interview a European Professor that has worked this dig for 20 years. The Professor says that there is absolutely no evidence for the Bible history at this site. Then the movie shows computer graphics of overwhelming evidence of not just Isrealites, but Joseph of Egypt himself. There is no live video or pictures when they do this. It is all HD computer graphics, meaning that it is artwork, not evidence. I was shocked that he had done this.
The only thing credible in this movie is Jericho. They show live video, and quote the British Kenyon findings. Jericho does appear to have happened as described in the Bible, but centuries earlier than described in the Bible.
The final statement of the movie is that the Egyptian calendar needs to be shifted to match the Bible Calendar. This is not going to happen because the Egyptian calendar is based on scientific findings. So nothing new is said in this movie.
The lies presented as archaeological evidence are new. This isn't the first time a Christian has provided fabricated evidence of Bible History, and he will make money and fame for awhile. Shame on him.
Great Overview of the Evidence for the Exodus and Alternative Theories
scott-dix20 January 2015
This film provides an engaging introduction and overview of the evidence for the entry of Joseph into Egypt, the 14 years of plenty and famine, the fruitful multiplication of Jacob's descendants (Israel), their subsequent slavery, the 10 plagues, including detailed evidence of the 10th plague, the exodus from Egypt into Canaan and Israel's conquest of Canaan. It demonstrates the difficulty with dating ancient events, but also the patterns of evidence that line up with the Biblical record and also lines up against the Egyptian historical sequence, but is generally panned today since it does not match up with the modern dating of Egyptian history. This evidence calls for an objective review.
A very weak affair
kontakt-6848126 July 2017
This is either religious propaganda disguised as a scientific documentary or moneymaking by the use of spectacular titles and themes. Don't get me wrong, technically, this film is pretty well made and you will probably only see the big problems with the theories shown in this film, if you have some experience in science and/or archaeology.
If you have, you will have a hard time sitting through this. To not make this review too long, I'll concentrate on the problems I was offended by the most.
First off, the filmmaker and the scientists he interviews and bases his views on are highly biased. They want to find evidence of the exodus in the first place and then find it by ignoring context. This is not only openly admitted by the filmmaker speaking off screen, it is also very sloppy scientific work - if you can call it scientific at all.
An example: They find Semitic ruins in Egypt and say it cannot be proved that these were inhabited by Hebrews, only that these people seem to come from Syria and Canaan. But this was irrelevant, because we couldn't distinguish them from the Egyptians culturally anyway. So, by ignoring the fact you can't say they were Hebrews they spin it to "it might be Hebrews", which is scientifically very sloppy.
I also literally face-palmed when David Rohl explains why there was no corpse in the supposed tomb of Joseph. The biblical answer would be that the Jews took the mummy/corpse and brought it to the "Holy Land" - as it was written in the bible. So, this must be it, Rohl says. When the filmmaker asks what about grave robbers, Rohl answers no grave robber would be interested in mummies at all. They would take the jewelry, but not the bones as those would be worth nothing.
This is just wrong. Mummies and their bones were used as medicine during European medieval times, f.e. which is part of why we don't have the mummies of many famous Pharaoes despite having found their tombs. Grave robbers could have made good money with the corpse and this might be the reason it is not there. Sadly, nothing else is said about this in the documentary: Were there signs of grave robbers at all? If so, do we know when they broke into the tomb? This would be interesting.
But sadly, no real other views than those of the defenders of this "theory" are given much room in this film... And why should the? To falsify the weak statements made in this film?
My opinion on this film is: Just watch the beginning, when Manfred Beitak says: "It's a very weak affair." Because that basically sums up this film.
4 stars for good editing and the overall interesting topic. Only watch it if you've made up your mind about it anyway and believe in this. Or watch it while being highly critical and do some additional research as hobby detective work to debunk it. Everything else is a waste of time.
My advice for the filmmakers: read the bible as what it was supposed to be: a religious text. Not a historical one. (And no, Moses was not the first historian as proposed in this film.)
If you have, you will have a hard time sitting through this. To not make this review too long, I'll concentrate on the problems I was offended by the most.
First off, the filmmaker and the scientists he interviews and bases his views on are highly biased. They want to find evidence of the exodus in the first place and then find it by ignoring context. This is not only openly admitted by the filmmaker speaking off screen, it is also very sloppy scientific work - if you can call it scientific at all.
An example: They find Semitic ruins in Egypt and say it cannot be proved that these were inhabited by Hebrews, only that these people seem to come from Syria and Canaan. But this was irrelevant, because we couldn't distinguish them from the Egyptians culturally anyway. So, by ignoring the fact you can't say they were Hebrews they spin it to "it might be Hebrews", which is scientifically very sloppy.
I also literally face-palmed when David Rohl explains why there was no corpse in the supposed tomb of Joseph. The biblical answer would be that the Jews took the mummy/corpse and brought it to the "Holy Land" - as it was written in the bible. So, this must be it, Rohl says. When the filmmaker asks what about grave robbers, Rohl answers no grave robber would be interested in mummies at all. They would take the jewelry, but not the bones as those would be worth nothing.
This is just wrong. Mummies and their bones were used as medicine during European medieval times, f.e. which is part of why we don't have the mummies of many famous Pharaoes despite having found their tombs. Grave robbers could have made good money with the corpse and this might be the reason it is not there. Sadly, nothing else is said about this in the documentary: Were there signs of grave robbers at all? If so, do we know when they broke into the tomb? This would be interesting.
But sadly, no real other views than those of the defenders of this "theory" are given much room in this film... And why should the? To falsify the weak statements made in this film?
My opinion on this film is: Just watch the beginning, when Manfred Beitak says: "It's a very weak affair." Because that basically sums up this film.
4 stars for good editing and the overall interesting topic. Only watch it if you've made up your mind about it anyway and believe in this. Or watch it while being highly critical and do some additional research as hobby detective work to debunk it. Everything else is a waste of time.
My advice for the filmmakers: read the bible as what it was supposed to be: a religious text. Not a historical one. (And no, Moses was not the first historian as proposed in this film.)
Great Documentary
mrichmon-0105527 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
First off, I am not a big fan of documentaries. I have never been. This is the first one I have seen that gave some really convincing evidence and it was well researched. The guy who did the documentary was non-biased while doing this research. It took him 12 years! What was amazing, he researched the patterns between between the events that happened in the bible and Egypt's history. The things he found was really intriguing.
Don't listen to the other people here that are giving bad reviews, they say that there is no evidence when in reality, there is plenty of evidence that is in the video. It's almost as if they watched the video and picked out bits and pieces without listening to the whole movie which would have answered the questions they had. One person complained that *spoiler alert* the statue of Joseph was just a 3d version made on the computer. However, they showed the 3d version of what it would have looked like back when it was made and then they showed the actual statue.
My advice is to go into it with an open mind and let the evidence speak for itself. Then go out and research yourself if you want.
I really enjoyed this movie and would watch it again.
Don't listen to the other people here that are giving bad reviews, they say that there is no evidence when in reality, there is plenty of evidence that is in the video. It's almost as if they watched the video and picked out bits and pieces without listening to the whole movie which would have answered the questions they had. One person complained that *spoiler alert* the statue of Joseph was just a 3d version made on the computer. However, they showed the 3d version of what it would have looked like back when it was made and then they showed the actual statue.
My advice is to go into it with an open mind and let the evidence speak for itself. Then go out and research yourself if you want.
I really enjoyed this movie and would watch it again.
Critical yet obvious error
scoutandus22 January 2015
New York was known as New Amsterdam when the Dutch were there however when the English took it over they changed the name to New York, if I were write a blog and in it, made reference to New Amsterdam, most people would have no idea what city I was referring to! Likewise Ramses was known as Avaris, when the Jews were there however when Egyptians took it over they changed the name to Ramses!! Duh!! What an obvious and blatant mistake! How on earth could such renowned, educated and intelligent men and women in the field of archeology possibly be so stupid?? Furthermore it infuriates me when such individuals who have PhDs and are trained in the sciences to be professionals, act as if no one can point out there mistakes to them! And God forbid an amateur might actually know something that they don't! One should never let their persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance. Sorry for hyperventilating but this is ridicules!
Fantastic Overview of Evidence for the Exodus
puellaincognita26 August 2015
This documentary provides astounding evidence of the events described in the book of Exodus, as well as key events in Genesis. Key events substantiated include:
The existence of Joseph: -A canal which bears his name to this day which was a major achievement of agricultural planning and engineering; -A palatial residence in Goshen, belonging to a high ranking Egyptian official, built over a large Syrian-style home, in a district inhabited by Asiatic/Semitic people; -Joseph's tomb: adjacent to the palatial home, topped with a pyramid, surrounded by 11 other tombs in the same complex. The "Joseph tomb" features architecture reserved for pharaohs, queens, and other extremely high ranking Egyptian officials, contains no Egyptian religious objects, but does have a larger-than-life statue of a man who is portrayed as a northerner/Semitic man with distinct hairstyle and clothing, including the painted remnants of a "coat of many colors."
The existence of a large population of Semitic persons in Egypt, populating the Delta region as the Bible specifies, apparently authorized directly by the pharaoh and/or his administration, comprising a distinct Semitic material culture, presence of herd animals in abundance (shepherd culture), which multiplied rapidly and was initially characterized by prosperity.
Descent of Semitic population into poverty, impoverishment and short life expectancy, consistent with forced servitude.
The occurrence of the Biblical plagues in Egypt, characterized by the sudden decline in Egypt's ability to defend itself, culminating in an effortless takeover by the "Hyksos" or "shepherd kings." An Egyptian document named the Ipuwer Papyrus details, with starting convergence to the Biblical account, a time in which Egypt suffered terrible plagues at the hands of "God" (singular), including thirst due to the Nile becoming "as blood," hunger and destitution in every social class in Egypt, death in every home, lamentation throughout the entire land, AND slaves plundering their former masters, with gold and jewels being worn around the necks of female slaves.
Mahoney then cites archaeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan, in which all the cities claimed to have been destroyed in the book of Joshua, were in fact destroyed in the same exact manner. One striking piece of evidence is a tablet recovered from the ruins of Hazor, which references a king named Jabin--the exact name attributed to the king of Hazor (Jaban) by the book of Exodus! Other amazing correlations are found in the details of the destruction of the city of Jericho.
All of this evidence taken in sum adds up to an exhaustively evidenced and coherent picture of major events described in Genesis, Exodus and the book of Joshua. The evidence is extremely compelling.
The biggest impediment to a complete corroboration of the Biblical accounts is the discrepancies in dating that have plagued modern archaeological attempts to harmonize these events. These issues are complex and knotty, and well over the heads of most viewers, not to mention, very time-consuming to survey. In a rather understated way, Mahoney suggests that his own position is to agree with researchers like David Rohl that what is needed is a radical reassessment of Egyptian chronology. In my own reading and that of my husband, this view is well founded.
Mahoney's goal at the end, it seems to me, is not to champion his own view of the harmonization of biblical accounts, history, and chronology, but to reveal the depth of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, give a brief introduction to varying views on how and where to place this event chronologically, and hope that his film will stimulate further interest, awareness and scholarship on the issue.
I personally support, to my current knowledge on the subject, the redating route. To read more on this, I would recommend the works of Emmanuel Velikovsky: Ramses II and His Time (brilliantly illustrates a lot of the absurdities of conventional Egyptian chronology and dating) and Peoples of the Sea, in which he probes the question of who the Hyksos were. Another great work on the subject of chronological reassessment is Centuries of Darkness by Peter James.
To conclude, I was highly impressed with this film and I can only hope Mahoney will direct a follow-up or even a series of films further probing issues of dating and other side issues of the Exodus. The end of the film was a bit disappointing just because of the lingering uncertainty as to dating with which Mahoney concluded, but I believe this was a very careful and reasonable tone to take with the subject matter. His main points were that there is a plethora of evidence archaeologically for these events occurring as described and that there are many and strong reasons to reassess conventional scholarship in terms of dating these events and even the wider chronologies of Egypt and the Near East. The first point was illustrated very brilliantly and persuasively; the second, I felt, a little less so, mostly due, I believe, to the heady nature of the evidence there and the lack of time to adequately cover such a subject. If this intrigues you, do your own reading!
I also highly recommend the online articles of scholar Alan Montgomery, who has done absolutely brilliant work on Biblical, Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology. His view is that Kenyon's Jericho date of 1550 is indeed valid and that that is when the Conquest occurred, following a 1590 Exodus.
I am thrilled that this documentary was produced and fervently hope that it will spark further debate, scholarship, and confidence on the part of believers of the Biblical accounts!
The existence of Joseph: -A canal which bears his name to this day which was a major achievement of agricultural planning and engineering; -A palatial residence in Goshen, belonging to a high ranking Egyptian official, built over a large Syrian-style home, in a district inhabited by Asiatic/Semitic people; -Joseph's tomb: adjacent to the palatial home, topped with a pyramid, surrounded by 11 other tombs in the same complex. The "Joseph tomb" features architecture reserved for pharaohs, queens, and other extremely high ranking Egyptian officials, contains no Egyptian religious objects, but does have a larger-than-life statue of a man who is portrayed as a northerner/Semitic man with distinct hairstyle and clothing, including the painted remnants of a "coat of many colors."
The existence of a large population of Semitic persons in Egypt, populating the Delta region as the Bible specifies, apparently authorized directly by the pharaoh and/or his administration, comprising a distinct Semitic material culture, presence of herd animals in abundance (shepherd culture), which multiplied rapidly and was initially characterized by prosperity.
Descent of Semitic population into poverty, impoverishment and short life expectancy, consistent with forced servitude.
The occurrence of the Biblical plagues in Egypt, characterized by the sudden decline in Egypt's ability to defend itself, culminating in an effortless takeover by the "Hyksos" or "shepherd kings." An Egyptian document named the Ipuwer Papyrus details, with starting convergence to the Biblical account, a time in which Egypt suffered terrible plagues at the hands of "God" (singular), including thirst due to the Nile becoming "as blood," hunger and destitution in every social class in Egypt, death in every home, lamentation throughout the entire land, AND slaves plundering their former masters, with gold and jewels being worn around the necks of female slaves.
Mahoney then cites archaeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan, in which all the cities claimed to have been destroyed in the book of Joshua, were in fact destroyed in the same exact manner. One striking piece of evidence is a tablet recovered from the ruins of Hazor, which references a king named Jabin--the exact name attributed to the king of Hazor (Jaban) by the book of Exodus! Other amazing correlations are found in the details of the destruction of the city of Jericho.
All of this evidence taken in sum adds up to an exhaustively evidenced and coherent picture of major events described in Genesis, Exodus and the book of Joshua. The evidence is extremely compelling.
The biggest impediment to a complete corroboration of the Biblical accounts is the discrepancies in dating that have plagued modern archaeological attempts to harmonize these events. These issues are complex and knotty, and well over the heads of most viewers, not to mention, very time-consuming to survey. In a rather understated way, Mahoney suggests that his own position is to agree with researchers like David Rohl that what is needed is a radical reassessment of Egyptian chronology. In my own reading and that of my husband, this view is well founded.
Mahoney's goal at the end, it seems to me, is not to champion his own view of the harmonization of biblical accounts, history, and chronology, but to reveal the depth of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, give a brief introduction to varying views on how and where to place this event chronologically, and hope that his film will stimulate further interest, awareness and scholarship on the issue.
I personally support, to my current knowledge on the subject, the redating route. To read more on this, I would recommend the works of Emmanuel Velikovsky: Ramses II and His Time (brilliantly illustrates a lot of the absurdities of conventional Egyptian chronology and dating) and Peoples of the Sea, in which he probes the question of who the Hyksos were. Another great work on the subject of chronological reassessment is Centuries of Darkness by Peter James.
To conclude, I was highly impressed with this film and I can only hope Mahoney will direct a follow-up or even a series of films further probing issues of dating and other side issues of the Exodus. The end of the film was a bit disappointing just because of the lingering uncertainty as to dating with which Mahoney concluded, but I believe this was a very careful and reasonable tone to take with the subject matter. His main points were that there is a plethora of evidence archaeologically for these events occurring as described and that there are many and strong reasons to reassess conventional scholarship in terms of dating these events and even the wider chronologies of Egypt and the Near East. The first point was illustrated very brilliantly and persuasively; the second, I felt, a little less so, mostly due, I believe, to the heady nature of the evidence there and the lack of time to adequately cover such a subject. If this intrigues you, do your own reading!
I also highly recommend the online articles of scholar Alan Montgomery, who has done absolutely brilliant work on Biblical, Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology. His view is that Kenyon's Jericho date of 1550 is indeed valid and that that is when the Conquest occurred, following a 1590 Exodus.
I am thrilled that this documentary was produced and fervently hope that it will spark further debate, scholarship, and confidence on the part of believers of the Biblical accounts!
The correct timeframe and evidence align perfectly with the Bible
doffygx12 April 2020
This documentary provides an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Exodus and many other parts of the Bible have been proven again and again, it shows that everyone is looking at the same clues and it's all about how people interpret them, either by following the word of god that is always reliable or the word of secular foolishness that keeps changing and in the end also leads to God. Moreover the entire egyptian traditional timeline has been messed up by secular archaeologians and they admitted it themselves, when it is aligned correctly with the Bible and the other calendars the date and evidence match correctly. It is sad that a lot of people have been manipulated into worshiping false religions of naturalism and materialisms and believing that they are actually true and that their existense is a random accident with no meaning despite being proven wrong, along with many other mistakes. The Bible keeps being proven correct all the time.
As the prophets said in the past, people will be corrupted by pride, thinking that they become intelligent and try to make themselves gods but in reality they are becoming foolish, full of unreasonable hatred and despair and turn away from their Creator. The Amazon website which is mainstream has a lot more reviews and they are all overwhelmingly positive in favor of the truth of the Bible but here on imdb which is less populated it has some sad people that unreasonably hate everything including themselves and give low reviews to desperately try and lie to their own hearts but in the end it is all in vain. The Word of God will always be the only truth.
As the prophets said in the past, people will be corrupted by pride, thinking that they become intelligent and try to make themselves gods but in reality they are becoming foolish, full of unreasonable hatred and despair and turn away from their Creator. The Amazon website which is mainstream has a lot more reviews and they are all overwhelmingly positive in favor of the truth of the Bible but here on imdb which is less populated it has some sad people that unreasonably hate everything including themselves and give low reviews to desperately try and lie to their own hearts but in the end it is all in vain. The Word of God will always be the only truth.
Yet another attempt at evangelical propaganda
ifeito5 July 2017
This title was recommended to me by Netflix so I gave it a shot.
The "documentary" presents itself as a serious attempt to study the Exodus in an historical way; but suddenly you realize what is happening.
The serious testimonies from archaeologists and historians that deny the historicity of the biblical narration presented first are contrasted against nut jobs who "can prove" that the exodus really happened.
Historic revisionism trying to justify myths.
Another piece of evangelical propaganda, don't waste your time watching it.
The "documentary" presents itself as a serious attempt to study the Exodus in an historical way; but suddenly you realize what is happening.
The serious testimonies from archaeologists and historians that deny the historicity of the biblical narration presented first are contrasted against nut jobs who "can prove" that the exodus really happened.
Historic revisionism trying to justify myths.
Another piece of evangelical propaganda, don't waste your time watching it.
One of the best documentaries
rhed12021 January 2015
The documentaries was long but all worth it, including the panel at the end. The film builds a great and compelling case for the historicity of the Exodus. I was shocked when hearing reputable skeptics, such as Israel Finkelstein, opinions about the early date and why they would not accept it. It was mostly because the evidence they had for the arrival of Semitic people, the multiplying the Semitic people, the slavery of the Semitic people, and an Exodus of the Semitic people WAS TOO EARLY! They had the evidence, but since it happened in the "wrong" time period, it never happened. I'm not sure what logic they were using, but it wasn't common sense.
A Bible Believer's Poor Patterns of Evidence
PeaceAndLongLife18 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Unless you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of a god and must be 100 percent accurate, it's going to read like a collection of myths. The story of the Exodus is no exception. That's what worries Tim Mahoney. Under close scrutiny, the Exodus and other stories don't hold up when subjected to the rigors of scientific and historical analysis. Mahoney is trying to throw out a life line to prevent the Exodus from being treated as fiction.
The trouble for Mahoney is that, under the basic rule of scientific inquiry, if the evidence doesn't support a theory, the theory has to be modified or discarded. Throughout the film, Tim Mahoney sticks to his assertion that the Exodus took place and provides just enough evidence to support his position. However, while he provides clips of archeologists who disagree with him, he doesn't elaborate on the evidence they would use to support their positions and go against his theory.
For instance, he notes that the ruins at Avaris show that it was occupied by Semitic peoples. What he doesn't mention is that Avaris was the capital of Egypt when it was ruled by the Hyskos, a people from western Asia, from about 1650 to 1550 BCE. The so-called "Statue of Joseph", originally highly decorated, found at Avaris could be a statue of any high-ranking Hyskos. The house discovered at Avaris could have belonged to anyone. Saying it was the house of Jacob is like saying that any log cabin found in Illinois might have been the home of Abraham Lincoln. Mahoney doesn't elaborate on that information, and barely mentions the Hyskos at all in the film.
Mahoney also points to a long canal built by built during the time of the Pharaoh Amenemhat III (ruled 1860-1814 BCE) and claims that it has always been called the "Waterway of Joseph." In fact, the canal's name in ancient times was Mer-Wer, meaning "Grand Canal." The name "Waterway of Joseph" is from the Arabic name Bahr Yussef, which wasn't applied to the canal until after the Arab conquest of Egypt in the 7th century CE.
Traditionally, the Exodus is believed to have occurred during the time of Rameses II (ruled 1279-1213 BCE). Mahoney concedes that the ruins at Avaris and the Waterway are too old to place the Exodus during that time period. So, he concludes that the rise of the Hebrews in Egypt and the Exodus occurred sometime during the Middle Kingdom period (2050 to 1710 BCE). He also moves up the destruction of Jericho by Joshua to not long after this time period, since the archeological evidence shows that Jericho was still a standing city towards the end of Egypt's Middle Kingdom period.
Mahoney also refers to the Merneptah Stele, which has been interpreted to read "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not," and is the oldest record to mention the term "Israel." The stele describes Pharaoh Merneptah's (ruled 1213-1203 BCE) victories over Libyan and Canaanite peoples. However, there is much uncertainty as to who this Israel is or where they were located.
Mahoney focuses heavily in the film on the theory of David Rohl, who has asserted that the Bible should be treated as a reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. That's like saying the Iliad should be treated as a reliable historical source on the history of Troy until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. Using the Bible's timeline of events, Rohl proceeds to move up the entire chronology of Egyptian and other Middle East history by 350 years. (Rohl insists he's an agnostic. His reliance on the Bible as an accurate source of history reminds me of Kirk Cameron saying he was an atheist before becoming a Christian fundamentalist.)
Mahoney doesn't discuss the number of Hebrews who left Egypt during the Exodus. The book of Numbers puts it at anywhere from 600,000 to 2 million. If that were true, they probably could have easily overwhelmed their Egyptian masters. He also doesn't discuss the story for their 40 years wandering in the desert, for which no supporting archeological evidence has been found. Was he concerned that discussing these alleged events might weaken his arguments on the Exodus?
In summary, Mahoney picks and chooses evidence that supports his position that the Exodus took place, and ignores any that doesn't support it. He wants to believe it happened, and this bias is evident throughout the film.
I highly recommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman for anyone looking for a history of Israel from a scientific perspective. It treats the Bible with the same skepticism as an accurate source of history that anyone today would treat the Iliad as an accurate source. Too often, archeology about ancient Israel is conducted with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other.
The trouble for Mahoney is that, under the basic rule of scientific inquiry, if the evidence doesn't support a theory, the theory has to be modified or discarded. Throughout the film, Tim Mahoney sticks to his assertion that the Exodus took place and provides just enough evidence to support his position. However, while he provides clips of archeologists who disagree with him, he doesn't elaborate on the evidence they would use to support their positions and go against his theory.
For instance, he notes that the ruins at Avaris show that it was occupied by Semitic peoples. What he doesn't mention is that Avaris was the capital of Egypt when it was ruled by the Hyskos, a people from western Asia, from about 1650 to 1550 BCE. The so-called "Statue of Joseph", originally highly decorated, found at Avaris could be a statue of any high-ranking Hyskos. The house discovered at Avaris could have belonged to anyone. Saying it was the house of Jacob is like saying that any log cabin found in Illinois might have been the home of Abraham Lincoln. Mahoney doesn't elaborate on that information, and barely mentions the Hyskos at all in the film.
Mahoney also points to a long canal built by built during the time of the Pharaoh Amenemhat III (ruled 1860-1814 BCE) and claims that it has always been called the "Waterway of Joseph." In fact, the canal's name in ancient times was Mer-Wer, meaning "Grand Canal." The name "Waterway of Joseph" is from the Arabic name Bahr Yussef, which wasn't applied to the canal until after the Arab conquest of Egypt in the 7th century CE.
Traditionally, the Exodus is believed to have occurred during the time of Rameses II (ruled 1279-1213 BCE). Mahoney concedes that the ruins at Avaris and the Waterway are too old to place the Exodus during that time period. So, he concludes that the rise of the Hebrews in Egypt and the Exodus occurred sometime during the Middle Kingdom period (2050 to 1710 BCE). He also moves up the destruction of Jericho by Joshua to not long after this time period, since the archeological evidence shows that Jericho was still a standing city towards the end of Egypt's Middle Kingdom period.
Mahoney also refers to the Merneptah Stele, which has been interpreted to read "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not," and is the oldest record to mention the term "Israel." The stele describes Pharaoh Merneptah's (ruled 1213-1203 BCE) victories over Libyan and Canaanite peoples. However, there is much uncertainty as to who this Israel is or where they were located.
Mahoney focuses heavily in the film on the theory of David Rohl, who has asserted that the Bible should be treated as a reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. That's like saying the Iliad should be treated as a reliable historical source on the history of Troy until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. Using the Bible's timeline of events, Rohl proceeds to move up the entire chronology of Egyptian and other Middle East history by 350 years. (Rohl insists he's an agnostic. His reliance on the Bible as an accurate source of history reminds me of Kirk Cameron saying he was an atheist before becoming a Christian fundamentalist.)
Mahoney doesn't discuss the number of Hebrews who left Egypt during the Exodus. The book of Numbers puts it at anywhere from 600,000 to 2 million. If that were true, they probably could have easily overwhelmed their Egyptian masters. He also doesn't discuss the story for their 40 years wandering in the desert, for which no supporting archeological evidence has been found. Was he concerned that discussing these alleged events might weaken his arguments on the Exodus?
In summary, Mahoney picks and chooses evidence that supports his position that the Exodus took place, and ignores any that doesn't support it. He wants to believe it happened, and this bias is evident throughout the film.
I highly recommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman for anyone looking for a history of Israel from a scientific perspective. It treats the Bible with the same skepticism as an accurate source of history that anyone today would treat the Iliad as an accurate source. Too often, archeology about ancient Israel is conducted with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
