Cortechba Overrated

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Serdar Kaya 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)

Jens-Christian Seele 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.)

classicalsteve 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" to 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.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.

gardenandbike I found Patterns of Evidence:The Exodus simply fascinating. It was well produced with a balanced analysis of the subject. It allowed each expert to explain their views freely and completely. This approach caused me to think beyond the box and ask my own questions. I now want to learn more about all of it. One of the experts at the center of it all is David Rolh. I hope to get and study his new book, "Exodus - Myth or History?". The tension presented by the dating controversy made the film very thoughtful. And as it progressed it becomes more and more compelling. Not just a bunch of dried up bones and clay pots but real life people that lived thousands of years ago that are at the center of our human story. Showing a bit of what they were like and what they thought. That's why I say it was not at all boring. I wanted to watch it over and over again and ran to my computer to look things up. I believe when a movie makes one curious it delivers something far greater and rewarding then simply entertaining us. Watch it you wouldn't regret it!!