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.