Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle

I am very disappointed with Tim Mahoney's new documentary-- "Patterns Of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)."

According to the film, the Nuweiba crossing point is supposed to best fit the Biblical narrative; however, Mr. Mahoney and Co. throw out the Biblical narrative to get there!

What follows is the majority of my comment under Egyptologist David Rohl's 20/02/2020, public, open Letter to filmmaker Timorthy Mahoney. I hope that you will go to Mr. Rohl's Facebook page titled "A Test of Time, the New Chronology (Rohl)" and read his important letter in its entirety. David Rohl specifically mentions that filmmaker Mahoney "ignored the Jewish chronology, which celebrates the Miracle of the Sea exactly seven days after Passover when the festival of the unleavened bread comes to an end."

MY COMMENT: "Yes, when I heard Dr. Glen Fritz make a certain comment in Mr. Mahoney's 'The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1),' my reaction was (and still is): 'Some Hebrew Approach!' Here is Dr. Fritz's comment: 'Now, some people have said that the Bible stipulates that it took them 3 days or took 'em 7 days to reach the crossing; I don't see that in scripture--that there was any time frame to reach the encampment by the sea.' Well...that just makes me CRINGE. Any HEBREW approach based on the historicity of the Bible would naturally consider the time frame of the 6 DAYS DURING The Feast of Unleavened Bread and have the Israelites at the encampment by the sea before sundown at the end of Day 6 (with Israelites--and later the Egyptians--crossing the Yam Suph on Day 7). So...who is really a champion for a 'Hebrew Approach' here? (It does not look like Dr. Fritz.)

Shortly after 1:17:28 on my DVD, Mr. Mahoney makes mention that, for the Israelites, it was '...Around 50 days to Mount Sinai.' That would appear to indicate that Mr. Mahoney is well aware (and accepting) of the Hebrew tradition that the Israelites were at Mount Sinai and received The Law/Ten Commandments on the High Holy Day of Pentecost (Count 50)--Leviticus 23:15-21. (And, yes, I understand that a few extra days may be required because Pentecost is counted from the time of the wave sheaf offering). But, my point, here, is that Mr. Mahoney and others are more than happy to embrace Pentecost as the traditional day for the deliverance of The Law as per Exodus 20. This means that they are 'on board' for the fulfillment at the time of the Biblical Exodus of 1) The Passover, 2) The First Day of Unleavened Bread and, (I will say), 4) The Day of Pentecost/delivering of The Law. However, they seem perfectly satisfied to completely ignore any possible fulfillment of what may very well be # 3) The Last Day of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 13:6).

I believe you made a comment, Mr. Rohl, in your 'The David Rohl Lectures' along the lines that Exodus through Deuteronomy are essentially ABOUT Moses. If I understand you correctly, a later editor of the Hebrew Bible would have taken the accounts written earlier by Moses and edited them for a later Hebrew audience. I come from the school of thought that the later, edited, Exodus account was, indeed, written for/directed at a Hebrew audience--an audience which may very well have just naturally understood that the Miracle of the Sea took place on the Last Day of Unleavened Bread, since that is the most logical way to view the account.

I apologize if I have belabored this, but WHY should anyone buy into the fulfillment of MOST of the Spring Holy Days in the Exodus account (as those days are mentioned in Leviticus 23), while just ACCEPTING the GLARING exception of the Last Day of Unleavened Bread in that Exodus year? The Passover and other Spring Holy Days that Exodus year had their 'fireworks'...EXCEPT the Last Day of Unleavened Bread??? Is thinking that a reasonable 'Hebrew' approach??? For instance, Numbers 33:3 in conjunction with Exodus 12:41-42 appear to indicate that the Israelites went out from the land of Egypt on the night-time portion of the First Day of Unleavened Bread (v.42 'It is a NIGHT to be much observed unto the Lord....' And so forth; in fact, NIGHT is mentioned twice in that verse.) So...then...when, some days later, the Israelites go into the Yam Suph...lo and behold...it is after sunset, at night again. With the final 'take-down' of the Egyptians occurring the next morning,..well...why WOULDN'T the Hebrew audience naturally conclude that this also happened on a High Holy Day--THE LAST AND SEVENTH DAY OF UNLEAVENED BREAD? Significant things appear to be happening in these Scriptures on High Days (and, again, that includes in Joshua the 2 High Days involved with Jericho). So...Dr. Fritz is not able to see ANY possible time frame in Scripture for the Israelites to reach the encampment??

Obviously, I can understand why you were shaking your head in 'astonishment and disbelief' at Part 1 of 'The Red Sea Miracle,' Mr. Rohl!

I just want to add here that, according to the mileage--236--which you mention in your open letter (I agree with you), if the Israelites journeyed 6 days to the supposed Nuweiba Beach encampment, that is a WHOPPING @ 39.3 miles per day they would have to travel. And...they were supposed to travel those distances daily, and also make several camps (Succoth, Etham, Pihahiroth--where I presume they were cooking up with fires some of that unleavened bread)?? Yes, Psalm 105:37 states that none went out FEEBLE from Egypt; but, does that mean there were no very pregnant women and/or nursing babies and/or cranky kids who needed sleep, etc., and so on! And...while Ex 13:21 indicates that the pillar allowed them to go by (travel) day and/or night, it does not necessarily indicate that they WERE traveling every day and every night! Anyway...for a number of reasons, covering that kind of mileage to Nuweiba in 6 days does not appear feasible--or what the Biblical text is indicating! And...even if I take Dr. Fritz's proposed daily mileage of 20 to 25 miles per day, 6 days of travel certainly won't get me to Nuweiba--just 120 to 150 miles...on THE ROAD TO NOWHERE.

No, if you go with what is in the Biblical account--the historicity of the Bible--I do not see how Nuweiba Beach is even a prospect."



***** For the record, I would also like to mention that I really appreciated the first 2 films in the "Patterns of Evidence" series--"Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus" and "Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy." Those who know me are well aware that I have recommended both titles far and wide (with "The Moses Controversy," I especially suggested the "Director's Choice Edition" for more thorough coverage of the material). There have been so many terrific reasons to recommend the first 2 films in the series. Among them, "The Exodus" gave us the wonderful "wall of time" visual which enabled many to SEE how the Bible and the traditional Egyptian Chronology can be reconciled. Meanwhile, "The Moses Controversy" unequivocally made an excellent case for a drive towards universal literacy among the Israelites--certainly there was no reason to command the Israelites (as per Deuteronomy 6:9) to WRITE the commandments, statutes and judgments of God on the posts of their houses and gates if no one would be able to write...or read them!

And...hey...I am someone who purchased (ABR) Doug Petrovich's "The World's Oldest Alphabet" when it first came out--before I even knew that "The Moses Controversy" was going to be film #2 in the "Patterns of Evidence" series and touch on Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. So...you can bet I was happy about Timothy Mahoney's films! And...I have been very thankful that Mr. Mahoney brought a worthy profile to the subject matter covered in the first of his two documentaries.

However, at this point, I am completely crestfallen when it comes to the third film in the "Patterns of Evidence" series--"Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)." I was well aware that Mr. Mahoney had a prior relationship with those looking for a Red Sea crossing point at Nuweiba. However, given how Mr. Mahoney handled opposing viewpoints in his prior 2 films, I expected a FAIR handling of the debate regarding whether the Exodus crossing occurred to the west or east of the Sinai Peninsula.

Unfortunately, what I see in "Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)" is not an equitable presentation of the opposing viewpoints; rather, there is an established, prejudicial bias from the beginning of the documentary--where one side receives the pejorative label of "The Egyptian Approach" and the other is favorably deemed "The Hebrew Approach." Additional problems with the documentary follow from there. Thus, at this time, I can only concur with David Rohl regarding a majority of the points he mentioned/raised in his open letter to Timothy Mahoney dated 20/02/2020. Again, you can find Mr. Rohl's comprehensive letter on his "A Test of Time, the New Chronology (Rohl)" Facebook page.

I certainly hope that, going forward, Mr. Mahoney and his team will consider the legitimate objections raised with respect to "Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)."