Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

Recently, I watched the documentary "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy", directed by Tim Mahoney. I was fascinated by things he mentioned, enough so to go and watch the previous documentary he did on the Exodus, namely "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus". Tim Mahoney's own testimony is interesting as well.

Here is the trailer

 It seems the accepted view among "credible" scholars and archaeologists, is that the Biblical account of the Exodus is a work of fiction.  This view somehow gained acceptance in the academic community when a female archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon did work at the site of Jericho in the 1950's and determined there was no evidence of destruction matching the Biblical account. She was looking in an area that represents the late bronze age, but it's just not there. However, like many ancient sites, cities, castles, forts etc. are often built on top of previous sites.

In short, this whole controversy in the archeological debate mostly seems to be centered around the timeline or chronology of events.  The timeframe of the Exodus, which scholars doubt happened at all, is said to have occurred during the reign of Ramses, which is much later during Egypt's new kingdom. Since no evidence exists in that time period, well it was settled among academics that the Biblical account must be little more than fairy tale.  

The different stages of the Exodus, once put in the timeframe known as the middle kingdom, rather than the period known as the new kingdom, evidence starts to line up with the Biblical account.  Yet, this evidence has yet to gain acceptance in academic circles for various reasons.  These stages, the documentary categorizes like this:
- Arrival
- Multiplication
- Slavery
- Judgement of Egypt (the plagues)
- Exodus
- Conquest of Canaan

The question then becomes - surely there is evidence of these things in the historical and archeological record?  What is not well published, is there IS evidence, just not during the time period that is accepted by the dominant scholars of our era.

What follows are a brief list of some of the evidence discussed in the film that I had never heard of, except one - the Merneptah Stele.  Some of the most compelling evidence is covered by someone who is a self-avowed agnostic, David Rohl, which you would think would remove any claim of bias that a Bible-believing Christian might be accused of.

- Joseph's arrival in Egypt and rise to a position, 2nd only to the pharaoh.
- The city of Ramses, where there is little evidence for the Hebrews ever existing, lies on top of an older settlement known as Avaris where there is evidence of Semitic peoples.  This evidence also includes signs that they were initially doing very well, but then seemed to have much shorter lifespans, consistent with being put into slavery.
- A canal which diverts water from the Nile river, which to this day is called Bahr Yussef or "waterway of Joseph"
- About the time the Biblical story of the 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine are to occur, there is evidence of a decline of power of the various regions of Egypt, being concentrated in one area and in the hands of pharaoh alone. This was during the time of Sunusret and Amenemhat III (not Ramses).
- An Egyptian papyrus document known as the Brooklyn Papyrus, lists names of slaves and a large number of these names are Semitic. Note that it's sometimes confusing when Canaanite or Semitic people have historically been referred to as Asian. You can see this in the writings of several early British scholars. 
- An Egyptian document that recounts events remarkably similar to those of the plagues mentioned in the Bible. This papyrus known as the Ipuwer Papyrus, or "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", is in a Dutch museum. 
- The Merneptah Stele, a large stone that records a number of military conquests and at the very bottom, a section that refers to Israel as a people. King Merneptah was just prior to His immediate successor, Ramses III. Yet his immediate predecessor was known as Ramses the Great, and its this Ramses that scholars still associate as the pharaoh of the Exodus. More evidence that the Exodus wouldn't have happened then as Israel is already referred to as a nation on the Stele.

There is lots more, but I highly encourage you to find and watch this documentary.  If for no other reason, than to see and hear evidence that is largely obscured by modern scholars that, when taken together, seems to vindicate the Biblical account of the Exodus.

 

Very interesting - "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy"

The world we live in today has many of the academics and scholarly types giving their findings that contradict and cast doubt on the Bible. I am no scholar, archaeologist or theologian, but I do love history.  The Bible claims that God told Moses to write down the events of the Exodus. 
Exodus 17:14
17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

I have heard or read comments over the years about how some scholars suggest that Moses could not have written the first 5 books of the Bible. They make this claim based on their research which shows them the Hebrew language as we know it today, didn't exist at the time of Moses.  The claims typically go on to suggest the "documentary" style of development to the first five books of the Bible, with having several authors, which are said to have been "developed" over time.  This "development" would then have been embellished with stories like the parting of the Red Sea etc.  So the thinking goes.  Amazon is full of books on this subject.

Yesterday, I watched "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy", purchasing and watching it on youtube.  No this is not click-bait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5a7koxKABQ

Wow, I can honestly say I learned a lot from watching that.  I had no idea there were this much activity in this area.  Especially interesting however, are the things brought up in this documentary as counter-weight to the skeptics and scholars who cast doubt on the Bible account.  None of the evidence individually is likely to sway any of these scholars, nor the skeptics that rest on their work.  However, the phrase from the title of the documentary eg. "patterns" which include a number of things, when taken together, form a body of evidence that I have not seen mentioned before. These things, when taken together, dispel the notion that Bible is a fairy tale and has no historical basis.  In the end however, it still comes down to belief.  Nothing that can be dug out of the ground, by itself, is going to show the world that there is a God and that this same God said and did all the things in the Bible.  It didn't take but a few generations after Noah, for man to doubt God. Today, believing in the God of the Bible is largely considered "foolish" or childish, especially if one takes the Bible literally.

1 Cor 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1 Cor 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

However, for those that believe the Bible, there are things that this documentary discusses that can strengthen our faith.  Archaeology isn't needed to believe, but a few things discovered along the way, sure seem to help stop up the mouths of the skeptics.