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)