Patterns of Evidence: Exodus (2014) Reviews

• An Alternative View of Egyptian and Israelite History Which Makes Too Many Leaps

  classicalsteve2015-10-12

  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.

  More

• What a Documentary!

  user-936-4677082015-01-20

  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.

  More

• A Futile, Apologetic Attempt

  MrKaya2017-09-15

  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)

  More

• Scientific?

  kwacka22015-01-22

  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.

  More

• Scientifically Irresponsible

  larsumms2015-01-20

  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.

  More