A Review of Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

On Monday evening I went to see the much anticipated documentary film, Patterns of Evidence: Exodus by filmmaker Tim Mahoney and Thinking Man Films.

Filmaker Tim Mahoney in Luxor, Egypt

Filmaker Tim Mahoney in Luxor, Egypt

Overall, I very much liked the film and my impression is that it was very well produced and thought out. In short, it was a very high quality production and has great potential to be effective for those on the fence about the historical account of the Exodus in the Bible.

I offer the following thoughts to those who watched it on the night of its release, and for those who plan to watch it in the future, perhaps on the History Channel or on DVD.

First I would like to state what I liked about the film and offer some positive comments. Secondly, I will point out where I think Mahoney missed a couple of valuable opportunities apologetically, historically and archaeologically.

Yesterday I posted an article titled Navigating “Patterns of Evidence for the Biblical Exodus which essentially outlined where the film would focus most of its attention. That focus was on the dating of the Exodus or the chronology (or when it happened), and that was correct. More on this in a moment, but first some positive observations of the film.

THE GOOD

Production Quality

One of the first things that impressed me about the film was its very high production quality. It had the feel of a National Geographic special. Throughout the film there was extensive use of computer graphics and 3D animation which was very helpful. In addition, Mahoney traveled to some amazing places in Egypt (Luxor), Israel and Europe to shoot the interviews. The shots were well crafted and well edited. The cinematography was top rate.

Soundtrack

The next thing might seem like a rather silly thing to comment on, but I think that it is also an important part of any film – was the music. The film score was epic, adventurous, mysterious (in places), and just well done. The music was performed by the Budapest Film Orchestra, and the Budapest Film Choir.

The Question of the Historical Exodus: Back on the Table

The film does an excellent job of putting the question of the historical exodus back on the table and in the thoughts among those in the general public, and perhaps even some scholars who are open minded. Most liberal leaning scholars and archaeologists are highly dismissive of a historical exodus (including scholars such as William Dever, Israel Finkelstein, et. al.).

Evangelical Scholars Front & Center

It was very good to see such conservative Christian scholars, such as James K. Hoffmeier, Charles Ailing, Bryant Wood & John Bimson given some air time to make the case for a historical exodus. Rarely does the general public hear a conservative give a scholarly response on a historical documentary, and some of the evidence they presented was formidable and compelling.

Historical/Archaeological Evidence for the Biblical Exodus

There was some great archeological evidence that WAS presented. Much of it was amazing!

  • The Ipuwer Papyrus
  • The Berlin Fragment
  • The Joseph Statue & Tomb
  • The Semitic Ruler’s Palace with Twelve Pillars in Avaris
  • The Walls of Jericho & the Burnt Grain of Jericho
  • The Merneptah Stele
  • The Amarna Letters

THE NOT SO GOOD (or, the not so clear)

The Argument: Which date/time? Which Pharaoh?

I’ve seen and heard some of my fellow apologists lament the fact that Mahoney didn’t cover questions like the route of the Exodus or how many Hebrew slaves came out of Egypt. I’m not saying that these are not important questions, they certainly are, but they really don’t help us pinpoint the Exodus in the historical record. Perhaps he may explore these questions in a future documentary.

As I stated in my earlier blog on the film, the focus of attention was on the dating of the Exodus. This is where things got a little fuzzy for me, and I suspect the viewers as well.

Essentially three main dating options were presented in the film. The reasoning and the evidence for each dating option, however, was not clearly explained. In my view, that was really the crux of the matter. That is what people came to see and wanted to know.

It’s one thing to state that the historical exodus might have around two hundred years earlier (say, around 1450 B.C.), but it is quite another thing to give the reasoning as to why this was the case. This wasn’t made clear, and it certainly could have been.

Mahoney presented three dating options for consideration:

  • The late date (1230 B.C.) – Israel Finkelstein, James K. Hoffmeier
  • The early date (1446 B.C.) – Bryant Wood, Charles Ailing
  • The New Revised Egyptian Chronology – David Rohl

The documentary did a good job of explaining the different views and opinions that scholars have on the biblical Exodus. But, as I’ve pointed out earlier it was unclear if any clear and defninitive answer was arrived at for when the Exodus actually occurred.

Near the end of the film, Mahoney made a statement along the lines of “Scholars disagree about the dating and the evidence for the biblical Exodus, but we do have evidence for it.”

The problem is that the evidence that was presented as supporting the Exodus was conflicting. My concern is that Christians may walk away from the film being even more agnostic about the Exodus than certain that it happened.

But perhaps that was Mahoney’s point. We do have evidence for the historical Exodus, but there is not a consensus among conservative scholars on the exact nature of that evidence and which evidence is most reliable for defending a historical Exodus. Christians should consider the evidence for themselves and decide.

I did not, however, like the fact that Rohl and his revised Egyptian chronology, seemed to play a central role in Mahoney’s film, which is unfortunate. The reason why that is unfortunate, is that there are better arguments for the Exodus which Mahoney did not give proper credit to.

I’ve known about, and been intrigued by the work of David Rohl for quite some time. I first heard about Rohl’s work when I read a review of his book, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (originally published in the UK as A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History) some years ago. I now have the book and have read Rohl’s arguments for revising Egyptian chronology.

In the film Rohl states that the Egyptian chronology and history is in need of major revision (shifted two centuries!). Rohl’s main argument centers on the uncertainty surrounding Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (called a “dark age” in the film).

The ancient Egyptians kept a pretty good records of their kings. In addition to temple ruins and palace walls in Egypt, we also historical sources for Egyptian history. The work (Aegyptiaca, or “History of Egypt”) by an Egyptian priest named Manetho who served under Ptolemy Philadelphius 285-246 B.C., survives in fragments in (Jewish Antiquities) Flavius Josephus (First Cent. A.D.), Africanus (A.D. c. 221), and G. Syncellus (A.D. c.800). Manetho gives a fairly accurate account of Egyptian history, although there are some obvious gaps in it.

In ancient Egyptian history, are three “Intermediate Periods” in which foreign rulers (i.e. or non-Egyptians) would rule over Egypt. The third intermediate period begins in 1070 B.C. and ends in 664 B.C. with the expulsion of the Nubian dynasty under Psamtik I – a time span covering approximately 406 years!

To complicate things – much of the history of other nations in the Ancient Near East (Phoenicia, Assyria, Babylonia, Palestine, Canaan etc..) is LINKED to Egyptian history. So, if the dates assigned to Egyptian history and chronology are off, then consequently, so are the dates of these other nations.

Rohl is certainly correct to point out that Egyptian history is in need of revision. But the question at hand is, HOW MUCH is it off? And what reasons does he give for adjusting the Egyptian chronology 200 years? In the film we don’t get a clear answer, but Rohl’s book provides one.

In Chapter Six of the book titled “Towards a New Chronology” Rohl gives his main argument, which stems from a genealogy of Egypt’s Royal Architects discovered in Wadi Hammamat.

In a summary of the argument Rohl states:

The Genealogy of the Royal Architects, discovered in the Wadi Hammamat, confirms that the era known as the TIP (Third Intermediate Period) has been overstretched. Furthermore, all three key genealogies linking back to the New Kingdom indicate that over a century must be removed from the chronology of the transition period between the late 19th Dynasty and the Third Intermediate Period.[1]

There are numerous problems with Rohl’s Revised Egyptian Chronology. Among the several problems, archaeologist, Bryant Wood points out that,

A revised Egyptian chronology would directly affect the dating of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Palestine since the dating of those periods is dependent upon synchronisms with Egyptian history. Biblical chronology, on the other hand, remains unchanged since it is derived from synchronisms with Assyria in the Divided Kingdom period and then calculated backwards using the internal chronological data of the Bible.[2]

For further information and a more in-depth critique of Rohl’s Revised Egyptian Chronology see Wood’s entire article here.

As I’ve admitted in my previous article, I believe that the evidence and arguments put forth for the early date (1446 B.C.), as articulated by Dr. Bryant Wood make the most sense and solve the most problems for reconciling the biblical Exodus and the archaeological and historical record.

For those interested here are three articles which may be of interest.

The Case for the 1446 B.C. date for Exodus and Conquest – T. Wright

Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh – D. Petrovich

The Conquest of Jericho – B. Wood

I only wish that Mahoney had allowed Dr. Bryant Wood & Dr. Ailing more time to lay out the case for the early Exodus-Conquest model which is based on good archaeology and good scholarship.

THE BOTTOM LINE

My complaints, notwithstanding, I think the film was excellent and worth seeing again. I would even use it in my seminary class on Biblical Archaeology to show the different views which one might have on the Exodus.

I would encourage others, who were not able to see the film on the release date, to watch it and purchase the DVD when it comes out.

Perhaps on a future episode Mahoney will explore these questions further. I commend Tim on an excellent film which explores a subject and story that is very near and dear to my heart. The Christian community owes Mahoney a huge thanks for bringing such a vitally important event in biblical history in the spotlight, and he did it with excellence!

When you get a chance – go see it!

 

[1] David Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown Publishers, 1995, pg. 143.

[2]http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/05/23/David-Rohls-Revised-Egyptian-Chronology-A-View-From-Palestine.aspx#Article

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
32 replies
  1. jk miles says:

    Thanks for this review. I’m glad the film isn’t simply a venue for Rohl’s theory. I wonder about Rohl’s reputation as a scholar. He seems to have some strong critics in the evangelical community. Is there an evangelical scholar that main stream archeology does respect even though they advocate for an early exodus (or indeed, an exodus at all) ?

    Reply
  2. Kevin Woodruff says:

    I think you meant “two centuries” instead of “two decades” in the paragraph, “In the film Rohl states that the Egyptian chronology and history is in need of major revision (shifted two decades!). Rohl’s main argument centers on the uncertainty surrounding Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (called a “dark age” in the film).

    Reply
  3. Sweet says:

    Isn’t the only true fact of creation, existance? Why does existance have to have a creator? What if there is an existance in the universe other than ours that we are unaware of? How does a creator know death if it has never experienced death per day before the son how can it know it is a jelous creator. How can a creator have any knowledge if nothing existed before creation?

    Reply
    • CB500 says:

      Q -Isn’t the only true fact of creation, existence?
      A -Why would you ask that?

      Q -Why does existence have to have a creator?
      A – The scientific evidence shows the universe had a beginning, the “big bang” shows we had a starting place. The Universe is also winding down, so it could not have existed forever, otherwise it would have already expanded to nothing. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been “wound up” and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have self-created without a cause, because we know that in our universe whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe’s origin.

      Q -What if there is an existence in the universe other than ours that we are unaware of?
      A -We have no scientific evidence of any other universe. You can postulate anything thing you like but that is totally blind faith. What we cannot know does not help us deal with what we do know. We do know that the God of the Bible created the Universe we are in.

      Q -How does a creator know death if it has never experienced death per day before the son how can it know it is a jelous creator.
      A –You have several questions here and I am not sure where you are going. The God of the Bible does not know death if you think of death as being non-existence. Death from this world is life in the next be it near or far away from God.

      Q -How can a creator have any knowledge if nothing existed before creation?
      A- God has always existed, which something we cannot really comprehend. He created our universe and everything in it. Since God has been around way long than humans His knowledge and abilities are way beyond our ability to understand.

      Reply
        • CB500 says:

          Since God created the Universe, He exists outside of the universe. So it is plausible that God has always existed. God created the immaterial laws that govern the universe we are in. Since God created us, what is your point, or the value proposition, to know how God came to us?

          Reply
          • toby says:

            I don’t even know what existing outside of the universe means and neither do you. This is just flat out speculation with no support. You have no way to know if a god doesn’t have it’s own time and space it dwells in. you have no way to know if it is “eternal”. And worst of all you’re proposing a kind of causation that has never been demonstrated to even be possible, so you’re special pleading.

  4. Louie says:

    Sweet- Perhaps it does not have to have a creator, but it had to start somehow. Perhaps there is a universe other than ours, but also perhaps there is not; and we have proof of ours existing and no proof of the other. How could a creator create without knowledge(which is immaterial)?

    Reply
  5. Heather M says:

    Well, I came away from the film with hope and excitement, not agnosticism – as, apparently, did the panelists. When the film ended, you could have heard a pin drop – I can’t say what fellow patrons were thinking but I’d be surprised if they were not similarly impressed.

    I’m a scientist by training, although my field is biology, not archaeology. My take-aways were: the accepted chronology of Egypt has a flimsy basis and there are scholars with a vested interest in this not being challenged; furthermore, like the theory of Evolution and the earlier epicycle theory of planetary motion, it requires a lot of propping up and exceptions to sustain it. By contrast, if you start with the Bible and the pattern of events recorded there, it is possible to fit the evidence together in a way that coheres better than the existing schema.

    I am not sure why this review did not address Mahoney’s “pattern of evidence” motif because that was integral to his approach and it dominated the narrative. To me, it was a very powerful image – and, as the panel host said, kept you on the edge of your seat as you waited for evidence of each of the 6 phases in the pattern. Mahoney also explained at the beginning of the film why he did not address the route of the Exodus (he ran into the fact that scholars doubted that Israelites were ever in Egypt in the first place, and so it was necessary to do that first). To be fair (to this reviewer), I was a little surprised that there wasn’t definitive evidence to lock down the pattern into a specific time – but, after seeing the film, I appreciate the scope of the task. On balance, I would say there is great merit in taking Rohl ‘s and Mahoney’s hypotheses seriously. At least seriously enough to ask new questions.

    Mahoney was also at pains to point out that he wanted to allow people to make their own decisions – I think laymen can be given a little more credit than experts imagine: it is clear that the field is in flux and that the easy dismissals of the historicity of the Exodus by the experts is open to challenge. I think ordinary people will find Mahoney’s honesty about the unresolved nature of things refreshing – a nice change from the pompous elitism of academia.

    Reply
  6. Steve Law says:

    Thank you for your thoughtful review of the Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus. I wanted to respond to a couple of the points you brought up. First, I believe the film firmly landed on an Exodus date around 1450 BC as opposed to an approximately 1250 BC Ramesses Exodus date. This was the first of the two big wall shifts featured, when Mahoney decided to leave the Ramesses Exodus Theory behind and search earlier. After seeing more evidence against Ramesses and the reviewing 1 Kings 6:1, the biblical date shifted back to 1450 BC and never moved again. Many people who argue against David Rohl’s ideas do not realize that he uses a rather orthodox Exodus date.

    Another point that is consistent with many rebuttals to the general idea of chronological revisionism (for the timeline of ancient Egypt) is that the pattern of evidence is never addressed. Rather, appeals to the majority and circular reasoning are employed. The quote given by Bryant Wood seems to follow these lines of thinking – you can’t change Egypt’s timeline because that would change the timeline of the ancient world and that is what everybody uses. Not only is the pattern typically passed over, but the glaring problems the standard system causes for the Bible are frequently ignored. At the same time apparent problems with a revision scenario are exaggerated. In Wood’s critique, his main point rests on an assertion that the dates for the Philistines can’t be shifted because the archaeology shows that the Philistines only entered Canaan at the transition to the Iron Age after 1200 BC. But a revised view would call this a second wave of Mediterranean migration and the Philistines of the judges, Saul and David were the earlier Late Bronze Age inhabitants of coastal Canaan. This would agree with Genesis that has Egypt as ‘the father of the Philistines’ who were in Canaan at the time of Abraham. Are Bible believers such as Wood really prepared to reject this aspect of the biblical narrative in order to hang on to the conventional system?

    A film cannot function like a term paper and can only serve to be an introduction to these important issues. More depth will be found in the upcoming book. Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus presents one intriguing explanation for the pattern of evidence that exists earlier than expected. In my opinion this is an underreported proposal that deserves much stronger attention and research, especially by supporters of the Bible. Hopefully, many will be as open to considering these ideas as the reviewer in this article.

    Reply
    • Robert P Wise says:

      Correct. On the issue of the Philistines of David’s time as an earlier migration and also the reference in Genesis see the work of John J. Bimson in “files” link at groups.yahoo.com/new chronology

      Reply
  7. JA Moore says:

    “…. the accepted chronology of Egypt has a flimsy basis and there are scholars with a vested interest in this not being challenged”

    Indeed!!

    Scholars and archaeologists cannot afford to “go against the flow” of their peers; grants, speaking engagements and publication of their works would be sharply curtailed, resulting in a significant loss of their livelihood. This is the case ……..but hopefully alternate viewpoints such as this film will “grease the skids” for the bolder truthseekers among them. ~

    Reply
    • boggymankiller says:

      Ja Moore,
      This is something I have noticed in academia for a long time. I’m hoping that is what begins to happen.
      I am an engineer by trade but it relate the concept to tolerance stack up. when you create a drawing you want to dimension all of your parts off of a consistent origin point. this is because each dimension has intrinsic error. as you reference more and more dimensions, this error builds up, and what was originally an insignificant .01 of an inch deviation for one component pushed across 10 dimensions deviation easily can become a significant .1″ deviation for the entire assembly causing one of you components to “not fit”. In the academia world, you have hundreds of scholars that are basing their chronological findings off the results of other studies. That has the making of a massive chronological error! and is worth further investigation.

      Reply
      • JaxonH says:

        As someone who works in metrology with dimensioning and tolerancing prints, you make a great comparison with tolerance stack up analysis. Set the base alignment to zero (Bible) and measure from there for accurate results. Alignment from any other source, which is aligned from another source, aligned from another source, compounds the error as you said.

        Reply
  8. CB500 says:

    I found it fascinating that the interviews of most of the detracting expert archeologist showed their incredible arrogant nonbelief of the Biblical Exodus. As more evidence comes to light I think many of these doubters will look back with embarrassment at the strong stand they took against the truth.

    I like that Mr. Mahoney did not say we have proof that the Biblical Exodus occurred, but just presented a bunch of the evidence, and let the viewing audience draw their own conclusion.

    The apparent strong archaeological evidence which appeared as a solid dam of doubt for the Exodus now has substantial holes in it. Thanks to Mr. Mahoney’s work the truth is coming to light. Mr. Mahoney is only showing us scientific archaeological evidence. As more evidence is discovered I predict the dam of doubt will fall.

    Reply
  9. Marc says:

    I’m not a biblical scholar nor an archeologist, but for many years I had only heard that the exodus event, if it happened, took place around 1500 BCE. Then in recent years I started hearing that it was around 1250 or 1200 BCE. The difference didn’t bother me, and it actually made sense because I thought that the Sea People (the Philistine group not the Phoenicians) were in the Gaza area before Moses/Joshua got to Canaan. And I have understood that the timing of the Philistines arrival was about 1250 BCE.

    But if the arrival of the Hebrews was 1500 it would mean that the Moses Hebrews pre-dated the Philistines by couple of hundred year.however, I don’t think the evidence supports this.

    Reply
  10. Theodore Turner says:

    Another area that needs to be addressed is the biblical chronology itself. The work of Edwin Thiele, which is the accepted chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel, is 45 years shorter than the biblical chronology. Also, most commentators assume that the 479 years between the Israelites leaving the land of Egypt and the laying of the foundation of Solomon’s temple, as mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1, is marking the span from the Exodus. My research shows that this marks the span from the end of the 40 years wandering and not the beginning. All of the evidence points to a date for the Exodus of 1532 BC (not the 1446 BC suggested in the film). The work of Gerard Gertoux, A Scientific Approach to Biblical Chronology, is a must read.

    Reply
  11. Mark/Mary Franklin says:

    Timothy Mahoney –

    !. Please look at all the evidence that Ron Wyatt and Jack and Penny Caldwell have regarding:

    A. Chariot Wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea

    B. Iodized metal fragments on the shores of the red sea where the Israelites crossed – thrown up there when God parted the waters

    C. Seashells thrown up on the banks from the parting of the Red Sea

    D. Pottery, mortor & pestal, etc. from the Israelites camping in the wilderness

    E. Gravestones where 3000 were buried in a short time period a mile or two from the Israelite camp

    F. Arrowheads from a fighting encounter spoken of in scripture

    G. Elizah’s cave on the mountain side

    H. The split rock of Rephadim from which flowed water for the Israelies with evidence of water erosion

    I. The Nuweiba beach where the Children of Israelies gathered before crossing the Red Sea described exactly as it is seen in nature

    J. Horse hoofs on the bottom of the red sea – horses not being native to this area

    K. Pillars with inscriptions put up on both sides of the Red Sea that Solomon put up to commemorate the Red Sea Crossing – can be seen from Google Earth – Saudia Arabia has since taken it down

    L. Animal pens below Mt. Sinai to corral the animals for sacrifice can be seen from ariel views

    M. Evidence in a quarry up the mountain to show where the pillars at the Red Sea where quarried from

    N. The blackened rock from Mt. Sinai is blackened rock – not volcanic – exactly as described in scripture – burned by God

    Please do research and put out a documentary regarding all this evidence that supports the Bible as not only God’s Word and absolute truth – but a historical document.

    Very exciting!! Would love to see you produce this for the world.

    Respectfully Submitted

    Reply
    • Robert says:

      I was shocked that at the end of the documentary where he stated there was “NO EVIDENCE” for the Red Sea Crossing?? I just recently did an extensive research study on Ron Wyatt’s findings as well as others who have indeed found Numerous Evidence as you stated above, so I’m honestly clueless as to how he says there’s no evidence. Either he didn’t do enough research, or didn’t want to open that can of worms, but I believe the evidence would make for a great Part 2.

      Reply
  12. gerald lade says:

    Overall,great film. Tim stated at end of film that there was no evidence of exodus. Ron Wyatt saw evidence in red sea, chariot wheels, etc. There are markers at each side of sea showing the crossing site. On East side (Arabia) there is physical evidence of Israel camps, etc.Tim needs to check history at the sea area.

    Reply
  13. Howard says:

    I watched the film last night, and was really blessed to see it confirm, in my opinion, the Biblical account. Faith believes God and what He says. The Biblical record about anything will always be found to be true. Unbelief will always seek to ignore or to disprove what God and the Bible say. Sin is a powerful deceiver in the hearts and minds of men. Whether it be about the truth of the Exodus, or about the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, lies and deceit will be the enemy’s means to keep people from being set free by the truth.

    Thanks to God for Tim Mahoney’s research and well-done film!

    Reply
  14. Robert says:

    A poem that greatly resembled a psalm of David was found in King Tuts tomb. Archaeologists and skeptics use this as proof that David plagiarized his Psalms and that Tuts father Akenaten was a major influence on the formation of the Jewish religion. Rohl’s chronology makes the heretic Akenhaten and Saul/David contemporaries thus making it possible that the poem in Tuts tomb to be written by David. I don’t know why you disparage Rohl. He is a very well respected and learned Egyptologist. Don’t be influenced by the people who try to to discredit him. Every country in the middle east has dark ages because the Egyptian chronology is too long. Rohl.s chronology is backed by astronomical archaeological programs that can trace eclipses and comet appearances back millineium. He is on very solid ground.

    Reply
  15. Allan says:

    It sounds like your main complain with the film is that they argue that the Exodus happened “around 1450 BC”, whereas you are more convinced by Dr. Bryant Wood who felt the Exodus actually occurred at 1446 BC… aren’t you splitting hairs here? If you agree with B. Woods, then you would also agree with the film. To put that another way, I don’t understand your criticism of the film if you seemingly agree with the premises by all other accounts.

    Reply
  16. Frank de Ruyter says:

    Haven’t any of you guys read “Following Moses” by Frank de Ruyter.
    Gets way on top of this topic, and more or less substantiates what this documentary also stumbles on.

    Reply
  17. baria says:

    in reply to January 21, 2015/26 Comments//by Ted Wright : Tim Mahoney stated from beginning: He didn’t
    want to confront the giant in archaeologists, historians, politicians. His job is to confirm that the exodus was actually happen he had evidence of the events since the beginning of Joseph son of Jacob , The Twelve families, the multiply of the semitics…till the disappear of the semitics and the fall of Jericho and so on. His job is done. He had proved that the Exodus was true why had he would spent lots more troubles to fight with gigantic system that had date time wrongly, when he had spent 12 years and financialy near empty end. The cost to follow the main three quests mention by Ted.will not be pursuit by an individual as Tim. It will need tremendous in finance and physical and mental possible. These huge resource required could only be acquired by an orgarnisation probably led by Ted if you are realy interested in.

    Reply
  18. J says:

    I thought the film was clear (based on the scientific evidence) that the time period needed to be shifted in Chronology and that the evidence stacked up to shift it, any details as to what date were left to the scholars, the film was clear that the Middle Kingdom, was the period that made clear scientifc sense, if Tim Mahoney had pushed for a date, it is unlikely that change would occur since he is typically in their field of profession and typically experts look to other ling standing experts for answers in education. The Scholars needed to look at this /his patterns of evidence and work together rather than remaining true to the the other time periods that they were /are stuck in a rut with.
    I think this was the point of the film in the end and given the habit forming rut the scholars were stuck in, it would take some persuasion to not be concerned about previous dating and to look at all the evidence and work together on it to make a chronological change in history books. I mean they could be re-published with amendments and the existing ones in Libraries and teaching institutions, stamped with a sticker to ammend previous dating theories.
    The previous and future hard work of all concerned would not be wasted. It is worth looking at.

    It would be great to see the experts get together and work at setting a new date, that works with this pattern of evidence. I always knew that Exodus was a factual account, because I prayed when I read the bible, and interestingly due to God’s answers, I knew that Rameses was a common point of recognition for people of the time when I read the bible, and I was excited to see Tim Mahoney point this out in the film Although no historian , it is exciting to see this information, as some people need to have a little proof to bolster their faith. Such as Thomas, Jesus’s disciple.

    It is wonderful to see the details that are all there, in the remains, including the Walls of Jericho.
    Such a well done an thorough film.

    Reply
    • J says:

      Sorry I meant Tim Mahoney is ‘NOT” typically in their field of profession. (First paragraph above). And I meant although “I” am no historian.

      Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] that deletes about three hundred years from the standard Egyptian chronology.  This New Chronology is controversial.  It allows for some conclusions that may strike people as pretty odd: According to this article, […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *