Anna1111 wrote:
Well, as is often the case, I'd never heard of it. But, at your mention, I googled it & found this article, which gives me a bit of pause.
http://biblicalremains.com/another-brok ... -evidence/Essentially (if I understand correctly) he's saying that the producers moved the generally accepted dates by 200 years to match their theories, without taking into consideration that such a move would throw off the entire Biblical chronology. He also says that this theory is not new, and that it has been discarded by many scholars already.
He did take the "entire" Biblical chronology into account and thinks it matches the data better than the accepted theory. It seems to be a bit of "evolution" type thinking in that "if it's found here it must be this date". I don't know the ins and outs of archaeological digs and datings but I am quite a skeptic when it comes to what "we" know. The "fact" that Mary must have been 13-15 when she had Jesus or that "during this time period this is how everybody would have acted" (or worn or worked at, etc). People are never that easily put in a box. SO many assumptions and generalities are made throughout historical theories that I can easily accept this guy's theory as readily as anybody elses.
Mahoney doesn't hide the fact that his theory is different and he continually shows the other theory alongside his own. According to this documentary, if you go by the dates of the other theory, there is no evidence that the exodus happened. I think it's worth a watch. I don't think any theories about history can be put forth as "fact". And we know what "generally accepted" gets us.