![]() ![]() The documentary discusses an archaeological dig that has uncovered a city that contained many, many Semites. I can’t possibly go into all of it here, but I want to briefly discuss one line of evidence regarding the initial part of the pattern – the presence of Joseph in Egypt. Overall, I thought that the documentary put forth a lot of good evidence. According to them, if standard Egyptian chronology is adjusted, the pattern of evidence could fit with the Biblical chronology. However, Mahoney suggests that standard Egyptian chronology needs to be revised, and some scholars (like David Rohl, a British Egyptologist who describes himself as an agnostic) agree. However, the pattern that Mahoney finds is much older than that, at least according to standard Egyptian chronology. Based on biblical chronology, most theologians say the Exodus occurred around 1450 BC. ![]() ![]() He finds that pattern, but it happened long before most archaeologists think it should have. Mahoney looks for the pattern of evidence rather than looking at the archaeological evidence associated with a specific time period. This is where the documentary gets its title. He says that if you look for the pattern of events discussed in the Bible (a large Semite settlement corresponding to the time of Joseph, a time of plenty for the Semites, a time of slavery for the Semites, and then a mass disappearance of Semites), you find that exact pattern, but much earlier than the time of Ramses II. In addition, in discussing the Exodus, Numbers 33:3 says that the Israelites “journeyed from Ramses.” Mahoney tries to make the case that the Exodus happened earlier than the reign of Rameses II, and the references to Rameses in the Bible were used because they would be more recognizable to the reader. Most archaeologists think that the Exodus was supposed to have occurred during the reign of Ramses II, because the Bible says that when the Israelites were slaves of Egypt, they built the cities Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). It suggests that archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time period. In the end, the documentary has a very interesting premise. Of course, he interviews other historians and archaeologists who do agree with him, but once again, he doesn’t use the video medium to portray them as any better than those who disagree with him. He lets them have their say and treats them with respect. He doesn’t argue with them, and he doesn’t use lighting or other effects to portray them in a negative way. Unlike many documentary directors, however, he doesn’t make those individuals look bad. ![]() While Mahoney believes the Exodus really did happen and the Bible accurately describes it, he interviews many archaeologists and historians (and even a rabbi) who don’t agree. As a result, he traveled around the world to interview archaeologists and historians to see what they thought and to look at the evidence for himself. Since the historical accuracy of the Bible is important to Mahoney (and many Christians throughout the world), he decided to see if historians and archaeologists like Dr. However, if the Exodus occurred as discussed in the Bible, one would think there would be archaeological evidence for it. The actual evidence concerning the Exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn. Many archaeologists say that such a search is fruitless, because there is no evidence that anything like the Exodus ever occurred in Egypt. The movie is about director Tim Mahoney’s search for archaeological evidence concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt as discussed in the Old Testament. I agreed, and overall, I am glad that I did. Nevertheless, a very dear friend of mine (who is a historian) asked me to watch the documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus with her. While written sources of information can be just as biased, the video medium adds more opportunity to slant things because you can manipulate lighting, sound, etc., to make people who disagree with you look bad while at the same time, making the people who agree with you look really good. It is clear that Stein had made up his mind before he made his film, and the film was shot in such a way as to present his view in the most positive light possible. For example, I enjoyed Ben Stein’s documentary ( Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed), but it was not objective in any way. The other reason is that documentaries are often incredibly biased. It is much easier to do so while reading. In addition, it is hard to check references and confirm facts while watching a video. I can learn more quickly by reading, and I tend to remember what I read better than what I watch. First, I think video is an inefficient way to learn. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |