User reviews

Tim Mahoney had a pretty good argument about revising the time line of Exodus, and had some archaeological pieces I hadn't seen yet. The only thing that absolutely ruined the movie was the HORRIBLE Fox News panel at the end. My God man, what were you thinking?! 5 smug TV personalities joking about how you had to be an idiot to not 100% buy into it- I almost walked out. Another thing Mahoney LOVES to do is stare thoughtfully into the camera. Stroke the chin...squint the eyes...look away... I believe a good 20 minutes of this extraordinarily long film was devoted to such. Good thing there was a break! All that soul searching made me in much need of snacks. Anyway, if you skip the very last segment it's a pretty good film.

Insightful, even handed, restrained, and yet utterly compelling, Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus is an intelligent documentary and mature treatment of a very sensitive subject. It's a film that values exploration and questioning, rather than hand wringing and partisanship. It's a film of value, a film of questions, and one that can serve to better inform. As the documentary relates, the establishment view is that the Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible, or is entirely fictional. This criticism seems to revolve around the established timeline for the Exodus. The documentary challenges this assumption, and does so convincingly. Experts of every stripe are shown, yet the film gives a notable voice to those who point to startling evidence of exactly what the Bible describes, just earlier than accepted.

Director Tim Mahoney navigates the ensuing web well, keeping the viewer anchored with excellent visuals and a concise yet intelligent description off the correlation of events, and how they may fit from an archaeological standpoint.

It's not perfect, some of the dramatization is unnecessary and the narration uneven, yet the questions poignant, and the execution striking.

4/5 Stars

I am Christian to begin with, and I'm proud to say that my faith is strong in The Lord. But I'm not a scientist, though I am curious and often times seek the truth. It's very much faith empowering how this film elaborates on the story of Exodus, at the same time comparing it with coherent scientific evidence. Yet this movie also still nicely leaves room for faith. As faith is the basis of things we can't see, one needs faith to understand the reasoning this movie presented, while the evidence itself still gets debated by scientists. I for one at prior to this movie wasn't aware of the gap of date settings between scientists, or even the whole counter-idea of the Exodus itself, as being a myth. At a skeptic's perspective this may prove that ignorance is bliss. But I see it as the fact that faith in God can't be distinguished by mere scientists' wisdom, which base their findings on mere rags and tatters.

I had yet to see a documentary, until now, that gave both sides of the argument an equal shot. This also felt like a movie with the music and effects that demonstrated certain pivotal points that the Director was making in his search for the truth about the evidence for the Exodus. The exposition is not over the top, and the interviews are concise, to the point. Not your typical documentary that is for sure, and a ground breaking one at that. I believe this documentary re-opens a debate that many considered closed for decades now. One of the reviews that I agree with said that, "After watching this documentary, any open minded individual would say to himself/herself, 'This makes sense'; consequently, at the very least, incline him or her to do more research for themselves." I highly recommend this to everyone, be you religious or not.

As an engineer who has been working in high-tech industry since 1996, I appreciate Tim Mahoney's pursuit of truth through facts, evidence, and logic. This documentary re-writes the human history as we know it, and affirms the Biblical events to be true. I liked that he not only interviewed those who believed in the Bible stories, but also those who do not. He gave a good balance of arguments from both sides, presented all the facts and findings, and allowed the viewers to be their own judge on what is true based on the proof presented to them. I got goosebumps throughout the film when archaeologists and historians confirmed the stories and patterns of Exodus. I'm so glad I watched this and can't wait to own this documentary on DVD.

After you watch the first few minutes of this film, during which a myriad of Egyptologists and religious experts offer their opposing stance on the factuality of the Biblical Exodus, you will understand the enormous scope of the objective this film sets for itself. In a very bold move this film sets the bar extremely high immediately. So high in fact that if the evidence presented were not at this supreme level the whole film would have fallen on its face. Fortunately for all of us, Patters of Evidence: The Exodus delivers to the utmost.

Experts from all related fields, especially opposing views, are given their full time and respect. I was personally impressed with the no-expense-spared feel of the film. For example, Tim (the filmmaker) travels all over the world, speaks to an enormous number of experts, and shows more than enough evidence for all points made. In many documentaries I have watched I have been left with feelings of disappointment because the topic, or a specific point, was not explored thoroughly enough. I was not left with that feeling to any degree here.

This subject is so critical to ancient history and religion with much contemporary relevance. This film should be viewed by everyone, highly recommended.

Went to see Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus last night. Was excited to go see this film when I first heard about it, and I was not disappointed. Mr. Mahoney has a gentle touch and deeply driven enthusiasm for the subject matter. Facts were placed before the audience in a manner that was easily understood, making a lot of sense. Grateful for the opinions of the professionals and for the panel discussion at the end, with all of my favorite commentators. Hope believers and nonbelievers alike will see this film and decide for themselves. Great film for young people as they begin to form their own opinions. For me, the facts were clear. Grateful to all those archaeologists who have made it their life's work to uncover the details of past generations. Grateful to Mr. Mahoney for taking this important moment of biblical history and making it come alive.

As an amateur historian, I know when there is sufficient grounds to make an historical claim from evidence and when the claim is "reaching", drawing conclusions to fit preconceived notions. In other words, when "historians" try to prove something they already believe in advance, we should gently question whether their conclusions may be colored by bias. There's a difference between an historian who attempts to find out how Ancient Egyptians lived versus trying to prove the biblical accounts regarding the Hebrews and the Egyptians are true. If they find evidence which might "fit" into their overall perspective, and they make claims which rely mostly upon interpretation of the evidence rather than what the evidence itself suggests, this is regarded as borderline or even bad scholarship, also called "confirmation bias".

The documentary "Patterns of Evidence" seeks to prove whether the Exodus of the Bible is a true event, since the Bible must be taken literally, or so the central figure/narrator claims. (The reading of biblical texts as factual accounts is a gross misunderstanding of the texts.) At the beginning of the documentary, devout Christian filmmaker Tim Mahoney decides to find out if there is evidence to prove the historicity of the Exodus. In the first few minutes, Mahoney travels to the Eastern Mediterranean and meets Manfred Beitak, an Austrian Egyptologist and archaeologist who is excavating an ancient Semite town, Avaris. Mahoney, upon examining the excavation hypothesizes this could be the Israelite settlement given the Pharaoh's blessing in passages relating the life of the Patriarch Joseph of the "Coat of Many Colors". Mahoney makes this suggestion to Beitak, and the archaeologist responds that to connect this village with the biblical account is a "very weak affair". In other words, Beitak cannot conclude the town is the same one as depicted in the Bible. Mahoney becomes disappointed, and the whole experience puts into question his faith, because, as he sees it, the Bible must be true history otherwise his own faith might be based on a "lie".

He returns to the United States and then decides to take up the quest again at a more involved level. He begins by finding historians who have alternative theories which match his own beliefs. This is the first major problem with the documentary. Certainly, anyone can find "historians" and/or "scholars" who have views which contradict mainstream scholarship. While certainly there is nothing wrong with interviewing people who disagree with the larger academic and scholarly community and who voice their disagreements with a different rationale, I felt the documentary was completely unbalanced after Beitak's skepticism. Mahoney only seems to be interested with those scholars on the outside of modern scholarship who wish to make the case that current Egyptian scholarship is "flawed" and that the Bible and Egyptian chronology do in fact match but requires a complete rethinking Egyptian history, known as the "New Chronology".

Shortly thereafter, Mahoney interviews David Rohl, a highly controversial figure in Ancient Egyptian studies. Rohl has proposed a so-called "New Chronology", an alternative view of the chronological events and dates of Ancient Egypt. He claims the town of Avaris is called "The Land of Ramses" in the Bible, and the confusion comes because a biblical editor at some time used the term "Land of Ramses" to depict Avaris. He believes mainstream scholarship is completely incorrect in terms of Egyptian Chronology. While, I have no problem with hearing Rohl's rationale (which would at face value put into question the idea of the Bible as unerring history), there is no counter figure who explains the mainstream view. The only words we get from Beitak at the beginning is that the hypothesis is a "weak affair", but we don't hear the rest of the interview as to why he questions Rohl and others who work on the "outside".

At Avaris, there has been found the remains of a large statue inside a small pyramid structure of a prominent person, probably a great leader. Now, I do agree, the evidence does suggest the prominent person is a Semite and not an Egyptian because of the hairstyle. However, the documentary wants to prove that this may be in fact Joseph of "The Coat of Many Colours" fame from the Bible. They point to some faded paint on the remains of the statue's shoulder which they claim are remains of a depiction of a colored coat! This is really reaching. Some flecks of paint are not enough to jump to the conclusion this is the Coat of Many Colours and therefore Joseph! It could simply be the remains of the depiction of royal robes, since red as a royal color goes back millennium. Also, the documentary says that 12 graves were found near the statue, which could be the 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, it could be, but again, to conclude the existence of twelve graves means that these represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel as fact is a huge leap. If there were Hebrew inscriptions attesting to such, then that would be compelling evidence. As it stands, what we have are the remains of a statue and the remains of twelve graves, which would not be enough to compel academia to concur with Mahoney's hypotheses.

The statue remains at Avaris and the conclusions drawn are just a few of the problems with how this documentary is making its claims. It takes some evidence, then looks at the Bible, sees if they match, and then draws conclusions. There was no evidence outside of interpretation Avaris was an Israelite town once having been led by the Biblical Joseph. What they needed were other scholars to explain why some of the conclusions drawn were not accepted by mainstream historians. I am sure people who believe the world is flat could also find a few convincing "scholars" who make very convincing arguments about their views. Much of what is presented as "fact" is really simply "opinion" disguised as fact.

I took a look at this, but sad to say, this is anything but scientific.

The scientific method - formulate a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. Falsifiabilty is a cornerstone of the scientific method, and always beware of anybody who claims to have 'proved' something.

The non-scientific method (used here) formulate a hypothesis and attempt to prove it.

If you tried hard enough you could 'prove' that werewolves are real, or that Barak Obama is a Muslim.

The Biblical account MAY be true, but this contributes nothing to the story of Exodus.

I give this movie/documentary 10 stars because of what it is and what it is supposed to accomplish. And it does so with no flaws. If anyone seeking evidence of truth in the bible as it actually happened, then this is where to find it. At least in the part of Exodus. I can say many many things about the topic but i will keep my comments few because I'm afraid they will fall on deaf ears. People who are actually seeking truth will find it, others will always find fault or a way out because they don't want REAL truth, they just want to debate or not be held accountable for anything so they will turn the truth into a lie even though its presented as fact. This movie presents the truth and the facts that cant be denied. Sad to say, many will still not believe.

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)

The real hero of this movie is David Rohl, a British archaeologist and Egyptologist. He uses the Bible, not as anything inspirational or even divinely inspired, but simply as one of the best ancient documents to aid his archaeology. He has spent half a lifetime wrestling with the FACT that the Third Intermediate Period in Egyptian history is extremely confusing and poorly understood by modern archaeology, and the FACT that nothing in Egypt's New Kingdom (the Kingdom of the Rameses Pharaohs) matches the Bible story of the Exodus. He has developed a "New Chronology" for the history of Egypt and the Bible story in which things do line up, stunningly so, way back in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Dynasty XIII). Tim Mahoney in his movie simply looks at the evidence and lets the audience draw their own conclusions.

The only criticism I have of the movie is that so much is left out. It cries out for a sequel, showing the evidence found for the Red Sea crossing, the Hyksos, the Amarna period during the Kingdoms of Saul and David, King Solomon and his Egyptian princess... and showing the breathtaking correlations with the ancient Hittites, Babylonians, Syrians, Assyrians... even the later Persians, Greeks, and Romans. It all lines up once you get the chronology right! This ought to stun the world and get everyone started on re-writing the history books!

The movie asked the basic question - was there an exodus? And, if so, when did it take place? The movie offered the opinions of several noted Egyptologists. Of course, based on what has been uncovered over the years in Egypt, opinions vary widely as to whether there was an indeed an exodus from Egypt. The widely held belief is that the exodus, if it did occur, took place during Egypt's New Kingdom age when Ramses was pharaoh; however, diggings do not support this time line. Based on additional evidence presented, the movie attempted to demonstrate that it took place during Egypt's Middle Kingdom. In the end, it was left up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

For myself, the movie renewed my faith in the Bible.

This film pretty much blew the frauds in archeology out of the water as having bias in maintaining falsehoods while overlooking facts. In other words, we can't trust the scholars to provide us with the entire picture because their life works are invested in it.

There's nothing wrong with Christians wanting to dig into the past to discover ancient truths confirmed in the Bible. As falsehoods have been maintained for so long now, it's uncomfortable for the secular establishment to even consider the real Mt. Sinai spoken of in the Bible isn't the tourist attraction mountain they set up as a decoy, but has been located in Saudi Arabia that has it under lock and key. A few brave souls have ventured there and brought back photos of the evidence of Exodus including the split rock and evidence of water erosion at the base.

The movie was well done and entertaining. In terms of science, it was horrible. The premise is that since we have not found any evidence of Biblical history in the Late Bronze period, let's look in the Middle period. The Late Bronze period was used for 1000 years because the Bible states the Pharoah's name as Ramases. The movie offers no reason against this, and just looks centuries earlier than Ramases anyway.

The movie visits an archaeological dig on Avaris Egypt. They interview a European Professor that has worked this dig for 20 years. The Professor says that there is absolutely no evidence for the Bible history at this site. Then the movie shows computer graphics of overwhelming evidence of not just Isrealites, but Joseph of Egypt himself. There is no live video or pictures when they do this. It is all HD computer graphics, meaning that it is artwork, not evidence. I was shocked that he had done this.

The only thing credible in this movie is Jericho. They show live video, and quote the British Kenyon findings. Jericho does appear to have happened as described in the Bible, but centuries earlier than described in the Bible.

The final statement of the movie is that the Egyptian calendar needs to be shifted to match the Bible Calendar. This is not going to happen because the Egyptian calendar is based on scientific findings. So nothing new is said in this movie.

The lies presented as archaeological evidence are new. This isn't the first time a Christian has provided fabricated evidence of Bible History, and he will make money and fame for awhile. Shame on him.

This film provides an engaging introduction and overview of the evidence for the entry of Joseph into Egypt, the 14 years of plenty and famine, the fruitful multiplication of Jacob's descendants (Israel), their subsequent slavery, the 10 plagues, including detailed evidence of the 10th plague, the exodus from Egypt into Canaan and Israel's conquest of Canaan. It demonstrates the difficulty with dating ancient events, but also the patterns of evidence that line up with the Biblical record and also lines up against the Egyptian historical sequence, but is generally panned today since it does not match up with the modern dating of Egyptian history. This evidence calls for an objective review.

This is either religious propaganda disguised as a scientific documentary or moneymaking by the use of spectacular titles and themes. Don't get me wrong, technically, this film is pretty well made and you will probably only see the big problems with the theories shown in this film, if you have some experience in science and/or archaeology.

If you have, you will have a hard time sitting through this. To not make this review too long, I'll concentrate on the problems I was offended by the most.

First off, the filmmaker and the scientists he interviews and bases his views on are highly biased. They want to find evidence of the exodus in the first place and then find it by ignoring context. This is not only openly admitted by the filmmaker speaking off screen, it is also very sloppy scientific work - if you can call it scientific at all.

An example: They find Semitic ruins in Egypt and say it cannot be proved that these were inhabited by Hebrews, only that these people seem to come from Syria and Canaan. But this was irrelevant, because we couldn't distinguish them from the Egyptians culturally anyway. So, by ignoring the fact you can't say they were Hebrews they spin it to "it might be Hebrews", which is scientifically very sloppy.

I also literally face-palmed when David Rohl explains why there was no corpse in the supposed tomb of Joseph. The biblical answer would be that the Jews took the mummy/corpse and brought it to the "Holy Land" - as it was written in the bible. So, this must be it, Rohl says. When the filmmaker asks what about grave robbers, Rohl answers no grave robber would be interested in mummies at all. They would take the jewelry, but not the bones as those would be worth nothing.

This is just wrong. Mummies and their bones were used as medicine during European medieval times, f.e. which is part of why we don't have the mummies of many famous Pharaoes despite having found their tombs. Grave robbers could have made good money with the corpse and this might be the reason it is not there. Sadly, nothing else is said about this in the documentary: Were there signs of grave robbers at all? If so, do we know when they broke into the tomb? This would be interesting.

But sadly, no real other views than those of the defenders of this "theory" are given much room in this film... And why should the? To falsify the weak statements made in this film?

My opinion on this film is: Just watch the beginning, when Manfred Beitak says: "It's a very weak affair." Because that basically sums up this film.

4 stars for good editing and the overall interesting topic. Only watch it if you've made up your mind about it anyway and believe in this. Or watch it while being highly critical and do some additional research as hobby detective work to debunk it. Everything else is a waste of time.

My advice for the filmmakers: read the bible as what it was supposed to be: a religious text. Not a historical one. (And no, Moses was not the first historian as proposed in this film.)

New York was known as New Amsterdam when the Dutch were there however when the English took it over they changed the name to New York, if I were write a blog and in it, made reference to New Amsterdam, most people would have no idea what city I was referring to! Likewise Ramses was known as Avaris, when the Jews were there however when Egyptians took it over they changed the name to Ramses!! Duh!! What an obvious and blatant mistake! How on earth could such renowned, educated and intelligent men and women in the field of archeology possibly be so stupid?? Furthermore it infuriates me when such individuals who have PhDs and are trained in the sciences to be professionals, act as if no one can point out there mistakes to them! And God forbid an amateur might actually know something that they don't! One should never let their persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance. Sorry for hyperventilating but this is ridicules!

This documentary provides astounding evidence of the events described in the book of Exodus, as well as key events in Genesis. Key events substantiated include:

The existence of Joseph: -A canal which bears his name to this day which was a major achievement of agricultural planning and engineering; -A palatial residence in Goshen, belonging to a high ranking Egyptian official, built over a large Syrian-style home, in a district inhabited by Asiatic/Semitic people; -Joseph's tomb: adjacent to the palatial home, topped with a pyramid, surrounded by 11 other tombs in the same complex. The "Joseph tomb" features architecture reserved for pharaohs, queens, and other extremely high ranking Egyptian officials, contains no Egyptian religious objects, but does have a larger-than-life statue of a man who is portrayed as a northerner/Semitic man with distinct hairstyle and clothing, including the painted remnants of a "coat of many colors."

The existence of a large population of Semitic persons in Egypt, populating the Delta region as the Bible specifies, apparently authorized directly by the pharaoh and/or his administration, comprising a distinct Semitic material culture, presence of herd animals in abundance (shepherd culture), which multiplied rapidly and was initially characterized by prosperity.

Descent of Semitic population into poverty, impoverishment and short life expectancy, consistent with forced servitude.

The occurrence of the Biblical plagues in Egypt, characterized by the sudden decline in Egypt's ability to defend itself, culminating in an effortless takeover by the "Hyksos" or "shepherd kings." An Egyptian document named the Ipuwer Papyrus details, with starting convergence to the Biblical account, a time in which Egypt suffered terrible plagues at the hands of "God" (singular), including thirst due to the Nile becoming "as blood," hunger and destitution in every social class in Egypt, death in every home, lamentation throughout the entire land, AND slaves plundering their former masters, with gold and jewels being worn around the necks of female slaves.

Mahoney then cites archaeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan, in which all the cities claimed to have been destroyed in the book of Joshua, were in fact destroyed in the same exact manner. One striking piece of evidence is a tablet recovered from the ruins of Hazor, which references a king named Jabin--the exact name attributed to the king of Hazor (Jaban) by the book of Exodus! Other amazing correlations are found in the details of the destruction of the city of Jericho.

All of this evidence taken in sum adds up to an exhaustively evidenced and coherent picture of major events described in Genesis, Exodus and the book of Joshua. The evidence is extremely compelling.

The biggest impediment to a complete corroboration of the Biblical accounts is the discrepancies in dating that have plagued modern archaeological attempts to harmonize these events. These issues are complex and knotty, and well over the heads of most viewers, not to mention, very time-consuming to survey. In a rather understated way, Mahoney suggests that his own position is to agree with researchers like David Rohl that what is needed is a radical reassessment of Egyptian chronology. In my own reading and that of my husband, this view is well founded.

Mahoney's goal at the end, it seems to me, is not to champion his own view of the harmonization of biblical accounts, history, and chronology, but to reveal the depth of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, give a brief introduction to varying views on how and where to place this event chronologically, and hope that his film will stimulate further interest, awareness and scholarship on the issue.

I personally support, to my current knowledge on the subject, the redating route. To read more on this, I would recommend the works of Emmanuel Velikovsky: Ramses II and His Time (brilliantly illustrates a lot of the absurdities of conventional Egyptian chronology and dating) and Peoples of the Sea, in which he probes the question of who the Hyksos were. Another great work on the subject of chronological reassessment is Centuries of Darkness by Peter James.

To conclude, I was highly impressed with this film and I can only hope Mahoney will direct a follow-up or even a series of films further probing issues of dating and other side issues of the Exodus. The end of the film was a bit disappointing just because of the lingering uncertainty as to dating with which Mahoney concluded, but I believe this was a very careful and reasonable tone to take with the subject matter. His main points were that there is a plethora of evidence archaeologically for these events occurring as described and that there are many and strong reasons to reassess conventional scholarship in terms of dating these events and even the wider chronologies of Egypt and the Near East. The first point was illustrated very brilliantly and persuasively; the second, I felt, a little less so, mostly due, I believe, to the heady nature of the evidence there and the lack of time to adequately cover such a subject. If this intrigues you, do your own reading!

I also highly recommend the online articles of scholar Alan Montgomery, who has done absolutely brilliant work on Biblical, Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology. His view is that Kenyon's Jericho date of 1550 is indeed valid and that that is when the Conquest occurred, following a 1590 Exodus.

I am thrilled that this documentary was produced and fervently hope that it will spark further debate, scholarship, and confidence on the part of believers of the Biblical accounts!

This documentary provides an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Exodus and many other parts of the Bible have been proven again and again, it shows that everyone is looking at the same clues and it's all about how people interpret them, either by following the word of god that is always reliable or the word of secular foolishness that keeps changing and in the end also leads to God. Moreover the entire egyptian traditional timeline has been messed up by secular archaeologians and they admitted it themselves, when it is aligned correctly with the Bible and the other calendars the date and evidence match correctly. It is sad that a lot of people have been manipulated into worshiping false religions of naturalism and materialisms and believing that they are actually true and that their existense is a random accident with no meaning despite being proven wrong, along with many other mistakes. The Bible keeps being proven correct all the time.

As the prophets said in the past, people will be corrupted by pride, thinking that they become intelligent and try to make themselves gods but in reality they are becoming foolish, full of unreasonable hatred and despair and turn away from their Creator. The Amazon website which is mainstream has a lot more reviews and they are all overwhelmingly positive in favor of the truth of the Bible but here on imdb which is less populated it has some sad people that unreasonably hate everything including themselves and give low reviews to desperately try and lie to their own hearts but in the end it is all in vain. The Word of God will always be the only truth.

This title was recommended to me by Netflix so I gave it a shot.

The "documentary" presents itself as a serious attempt to study the Exodus in an historical way; but suddenly you realize what is happening.

The serious testimonies from archaeologists and historians that deny the historicity of the biblical narration presented first are contrasted against nut jobs who "can prove" that the exodus really happened.

Historic revisionism trying to justify myths.

Another piece of evangelical propaganda, don't waste your time watching it.

The documentaries was long but all worth it, including the panel at the end. The film builds a great and compelling case for the historicity of the Exodus. I was shocked when hearing reputable skeptics, such as Israel Finkelstein, opinions about the early date and why they would not accept it. It was mostly because the evidence they had for the arrival of Semitic people, the multiplying the Semitic people, the slavery of the Semitic people, and an Exodus of the Semitic people WAS TOO EARLY! They had the evidence, but since it happened in the "wrong" time period, it never happened. I'm not sure what logic they were using, but it wasn't common sense.

A great problem of making a documentary film of this kind, is that you cannot merely make a film about archeology or history. For this to work coherently, you need to make a film about not only two subjects which already relate to each other deeply, but about other subjects that play large roles in the objective proving of text. Physics, Biology, Geology, Chemistry, are all subjects that you need to even make an attempt at stoutly reconciling a text of this kind, because in the end, the text does not only make historical and archeological claims, but it also makes physical claims as well, and on a broader scale, even biological claims. If you want to objectively, and that word plays a large role here, prove the bibles canon, you need to ask the questions: Is it objectively possible that Moses could have split the red sea? Is it possible to biologically survive in such conditions that the Israelites were in? Now, some of you may cringe at me asking those questions, because you may say that the bible obviously cannot be reconciled with modern evidence, however, the point of the film is to do exactly that, which is precisely why the questions need to be asked again. To even begin to prove the bibles claims, you would also have to make a book about philosophy and morality: Was it morally right that Abraham would so willingly kill his own son because he heard a voice in his head that told him to? I would estimate that to at least give a well researched viewpoint on such matters you would need a documentary of at least 20 hours long. But within the confines of a two hour film, of course the filmmakers bias would show, of course the research would be skew. These are obvious prerequisites, which is why the attempt to do so (That is, to prove a book in biblical cannon as true) is a futile attempt, and really is evidence of apologetic impotency.

Modern history writing requires the critical evaluation of sources, and does not accept God as a cause of events, but in exodus, everything is presented as the work of God, who appears frequently in person, and the historical setting is only very hazily sketched, which makes it tirelessly difficult to accurately document. A critical observation is imperative in modern history, and this film is severely lacking in that area, and given its time frame, and largely comical prerequisites, it isn't surprising. Which really makes this film, from an academic point of view, almost unwatchable. And that is mostly due to its general premise.

Now with all that being said, is it unwatchable for the general viewer? No. Of course not. If you are truly interested in the subject, or just want to hear a different viewpoint, no matter the lack of criticism, then this movie is not a terrible one. But I do think that the general viewer should also understand that the claims made in the movie, and in the bible itself, are all still just claims, that don't have much scientific or historical validity (At least compared with the evidence). The film itself is actually well made, the cinematography is surprisingly good, and the cgi, for a movie of its kind, isn't bad (But not good either). So I really would like to give the people behind the camera some sort of recognition.

So I really wouldn't recommend watching the film per se, unless you're legitimately interested in the subject, but if you want something to pass the time and you're a bit curious, then go ahead. I just implore you to remember what I said about historicity, and to take the film for what it is: A film made by an apologist, trying to prove apologist points. Just as you would with anything else.