Joshua Spann: Reassessing Tim Mahoney's Early Exodus Theory in Light of Alternative Evidence

../ blog / exodus_pharaoh

I've found Patterns of Evidence that don't rhyme with baloney...

Egyptians Partying with Jews in the Desert

2025.03.26-27

TLDR;

I've been skeptical of Tim Mahoney's extremely early Exodus theory and stated that it could plausibly work out if Merneptah was the Pharaoh that gifted Gezer to Solomon and we used some liberty with matching up the dates. However, I find that unlikely as Merneptah campaigned against Israel and the chronology would be wrong in the bible. Instead, I feel that Siamun (Neterkheperre) is a more tenable candidate for gifting Gezer to Solomon, which fits in nicely with the dates scholarship attribute to Solomon's reign while also supporting growing claims that Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Bias Note

The author is not a fan of Tim Mahoney's Exodus Theory, as expressed in Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. Likewise, the author doesn't agree with the Rammeside Exodus theory, where the Pharaoh was either Rameses II or Rameses III. The author also believes that the Exodus event did happen, but was much more lackluster and that the accounts we have today are embellished. Finally, the author views the bible as accurate, not precise, and rejects the claims of perfect infallability of the scriptures as well as interpreting it literally in a post-modern, scientific and analytic context. While the geneaologies and chronologies are likely reliable, they are not 100% trustworthy to be both precise and accurate to accept without scrutiny. Just compare the chronologies of the MT and LXX to see this simple fact.

Introduction

I posted an earlier article, Evaluating Tim Mahoney's Early Exodus Theory, in which I stated that Tim Mahoney's theory was problematic with the biblical timeline as-is, and that his claims could be plausible as a long-shot against the mountain of sound scholarship and archaeology that runs contradictory to his claims. The main problem is that Merneptah is the only Pharaoh that falls within Mahoney's theory, and his legendary Stele mentions laying Israel's seed to waste. One, we'd have to say that the chronology in Kings is completely wrong. Two, it's highly unlikely that a Pharaoh bragging about laying Israel's seed to waste would raze a Canaanite city and gift it as a dowry for an Israelite that's going to marry his daughter.

The main anchor that we have to keep things in-check is to note that the bible gives a range from the Exodus to Solomon's reign and building of the temple. We also have the archaeological and historical evidence supporting Solomon to have ruled around 970-930 BC, give or take. However, there is another early Exodus theory that's been gaining traction in recent years. This one is more traditional, and dates around 1440 BC, and states that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is most likely Amenhotep II.

The Solomon Problem

I personally find Amenhotep II as the best bet for the Exodus Pharaoh by description alone, but it would conflict with the chronologies given in the bible and archaeological evidence to back up those claims, especially if we're using Tim Mahoney's Extemely Early Exodus Theory. Basic calculations of the Masoretic Text and Septuagint's differences of 480 vs 440 makes Amenhotep II's timeline, for Solomon building the temple, between 200-300 years AFTER the destruction of Gezer. In other words, the bible would have to be wrong with both the chronology and destruction of Gezer by Pharaoh. Seeing as how Amenhotep II lines up fairly well with academia and a proposed 1446 BC exodus date by the bible with a 50 years buffer (which would include the LXX and varying sources), Amenhotep is the best candidate to match the description. However, that poses an error with 1 Kings 9 as it stated Pharaoh gifted Gezer to Solomon after destroying it, which leaves a 200-year gap for a previous Pharaoh to have done so and left it in ruin. The archaeology is clearly against this as it was rebuilt shortly after considering the 10 layers of strata to the city.

Solomon began building the temple 480 years after the Exodus, in the 4th year of his reign (1 Kings 6.1). Solomon also began building the temple 440 years after the Exodus. This is because the Septuagint (LXX) was translated from a cousin mss. of our Masoretic Text (MT) that took liberties to have things differently. It could be that the LXX changed the original scriptures, or it could be that the MT changed the original scriptures. All I'll say is that the LXX was controlled by the Christians while the MT was controlled by the Jews, and both sides sought to fight with the other by changing the text. Most are innocent changes, as I believe the chonologies are.

Now back to the point: 1 Kings 6.1 states it was either 480 years after the Exodus (MT) or 440 (LXX). It took 20 years for Solomon to build the temple (1 Kings 9.10), where 13 of those were for his palace (1 Kings 7.1). In this 20 year period he also rebuilt Gezer (1 Kings 9.15), which an unnamed Pharaoh gifted to him as a dowry (1 Kings 9.16). So basically, sometime up to (or slightly through) that 20 year period we have Solomon receiving Gezer.

The Candidates for Razing Gezer

There are two candidates for the Pharaoh that razed Gezer: Siamun (r. ~986-967 BC) and Merneptah (r. ~1213-1203 BC). Siamun's seal is seen in Stratum 10A, reflecting the firery destruction of a raze, where carbon dating put Stratum 8's later destruction around 998–957 BC. This means that Stratum 8 of Gezer's destruction can't date beyond the first part of the 10th century BC. Merneptah's destruction came earlier, where Merneptah had to hush rebellious Canaanite vassals with military campaigns. Merneptah doesn't make much sense for one important reason, his stele. In the Merneptah Stele, it mentions ysrỉꜣr's grain/seed being laid to waste. Some consider this to be a mention of the ethnic people-group of Israel. If this is the case, then Merneptah warred with Israel and wasn't friendly towards them. In this case, a later destruction by Siamun could warrant an appropriate alternative as Solomon's father-in-law.

Gezer's Possibly Historical Fit with the Biblical Narratives

Another point to consider is that before Siamun, Pharaohs were simply known as "Pharaoh" and not by their name. Starting with himself onward, pharaohs were more commonly referred to by name. While there's contention on if Siamun was the proper Pharaoh and if he lived to see the start of Solomon's reign, we have clear evidence of a specific Pharaoh that laid Gezer yet again to rest, a third time. This Pharaoh came not too long after Siamun, and was named Shoshenq I. In the chronology it was Siamun, then Psusennes II, then Shoshenq I.

There's evidence that Gezer was fortefied in 950 BC then later destroyed by Shoshenq I. Interestingly enough, there's a king of Egypt mentioned in variuos places in the bible by name, ssq (1 Kings 11.40, 14.25, 2 Chronicles 2.12-9). There's dispute on if the ssq of the bible is in-fact Shoshenq I or Ramesses II or Ramesses III, which is possibly based on "rare hypocoristica for ‘Ramesses’" and seems to be a minority opinion among scholars. Considering how the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew, make distinctions between the ס and ש in Egyptian names extremely well, this minority opinion seems to misunderstand various points.

Note how the biblical ששק matches up with Shoshenq, and how Shoshenq campaigned against the Levant in both the biblical and historical records. When comparing this with a Pharaoh that razed Gezer a generation or two prior, then a 950 BC fortification, the historical and archaeological evidence is strongly placing Solomon's reign where the majority of Scholarship has agreed. We can most-likely assert with high confidence that Solomon's reign was around that of Siamun and it matches up fairly close to the biblical chronology. In order to determine if this set landmark is likely, we then have to look at other landmarks in the Exodus and Deuteronomic History and see if they match up with tangible evidence in the real world.

Extrabiblical References that Might Possibly Reference the Wandering Israelites

Yapahu, Gezer's governor, was in contact with Pharaoh Amenhotep III in one of the Armana Letters. In this letter, Yapahu mentions the Apiru/Habiru were laying seige to Gezer. To many, this sounds like "Hebrew" and therefore many assume that's what it means. Furthermore, the term hebrew today is of uncertain origin, and has been used to describe nomadic semitic people including the ancient Israelites and even the Phoenecians. Assuming his letter referring to the Habiru/Hapiru is referring to post-exodus Israelite Hebrews, then we could assume that the genocidal Israelite conquest occurred around that time. This would place this event around 1400-1300 BC. This reflects nicely as Amenhotep III was Amenhotep II's grandson (also the son of Thutmose IV) and father to the monolatristic and quasi-monotheistic Akhenaten. Considering the Gezer letter being made to Amenhotep III, and Siamun razing it after Amenhotep III, we have an estimate that nicely fits with the timeline of the Exodus, though not the chronology to a "T". Considering Merneptah warring in Canaan and laying Israel to waste, alongside his razing of Gezer creating major problems with Tim Mahoney's Exodus theory and making the scriptures irreconcilable, we can safely assume that Tim Mahoney is errant in his estimations.

Likewise, Amenhotep III mentions the Shasu of yhw on his temple. It's debated on what the yhw is, whether it's intending a deity's name or the name of a land. Considering that [Shasu encompassed meanings like bedouin or an eastern enemy to Egypt]](https://the-past.com/feature/the-shasu-and-egypt/), the description of a wandering and warlike tribe would make sense in context of the time being in the 40 year period after the Exodus. Furthermore, the term Habiru (also spelled Apiru) might've been used like we do "barbarian" and could've also referred to violent people as Shasu would, but from a Canaanite perspective. Regardless of these terms meaning Yhw as a God vs land, Habiru as an insult directed to a specific ethnic group or violent wanderers in general, the similarities are enough and line up closely, though not exactly, with the bible and make more sense than an obscenely early Mahoney Exodus theory.

Siamun and Solomon's Reign

Siamun fits in the timeline nicely, where he's also alongside the scholarly conscensus on Solomon's reign (c. 962-922 BC). Assuming Solomon's marriage to an Egyptian princess occurred in his early years (when he started building the temple and his palace), this fits in almost exactly with the very end of Siamun's reign. In all instances, this information works with the biblical account and the current early Exodus date placed during Amenhotep II's reign. Considering the Armana letters reflecting about 40 years after Amenhotep II and mirroring the bible as well, I'd say it's safe to assume that Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and Siamun was the Pharaoh that gifted Gezer to Solomon.

Consolidating Dates between Merneptah and Siamun

Assuming Merneptah's destruction of Gezer around 1210 BC, then comparing various claims and dates, Tim Mahoney lines up exactly with the LXX, with a no gap between its destruction and Solomon's earlier reign when accepting the LXX's 440 years from the Exodus to then. In the MT, the difference would be only 40 years off (which could be accounted for with C14 dating if we wanted to be apologetic). These years are drawn from 1 Kings 6.1. If we assumed Merneptah was the Pharaoh that gifted Gezer to Solomon and that Amenhotep II was the Exodus Pharaoh, then the difference is Gezer was destroyed 222 years earlier (LXX) or 262 years earlier (MT). This doesn't line up and causes problems. However, if we changed it to the later destruction of Gezer by Siamun around 990 BC, then Tim Mahoney is off by being 220 years too early (LXX) or 180 (MT). In this instance, however, the beginning of Amenhotep II's reign would coencide with the temple's construction with a difference of 2 years (LXX) or 42 (MT) for Gezer's destruction. In this case, the closest candidate would be Amenhotep II. Combine this, while removing the irreconcilable differences that Merneptah's raze of Gezer and Mahoney's Exodus and the biblical text, we find that the bible remains accurate, though not exact, and that Siamun is the only other candidate that could logically line up with the rest of the timeline with such accuracy (though not precision). This leads me to strongly believe that Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and that Siamun was the Pharaoh that gifted Gezer to Solomon.

Conclusion

Tim Mahoney's Extra-Early Exodus Theory is distantly plausible, but highly unlikely. One, there's mountains of archaeological and historical evidence placing Solomon's reign to the 900s BC, which Mahoney explicitly contradicts. Two, there's a lack of appropriate historical figures that match the Exodus narrative of the bible and the chronology of 1 Kings when done under Mahoney's interpretation. Three, Merneptah is a possible historical parallel, but he warred with Israelites; he wouldn't be marrying his daughter off to them and giving one of their kings a city.

A recent theory that's been gaining traction is that Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. First, this theory is completely in line with the academic concensus that Solomon's reign is in the 900s BC. Second, the historical and archaeological evidence provides multiple figures and scenarios that are more likely to coencide with the biblical narratives. Third, Siamun is a later parallel to Merneptah on top of the historical parallels that likely exist, such as with Shoshenq. In terms of providing the most tenable patterns of evidence, the early exodus of Amenhotep II has the most parallels, while Tim Mahoney's extremely early exodus is as lacking as the mainstream Rammeside theory.

Sources

  1. Armstrong Institute. (2024). Gezer's Carbon Finally Speaks: Solomonic City After All. Let the Stones Speak Exhibit 2024 Vol. 3 No. 1. https://armstronginstitute.org/1020-gezers-carbon-finally-speaks-solomonic-city-after-all
  2. Armstorng Institute. (2024). Siamun: Destroyer of Gezer, Father-in-Law of Solomon. Let the Stones Speak Exhibit 2024 Vol. 3 No. 1. https://armstronginstitute.org/1022-siamun-destroyer-of-gezer-father-in-law-of-solomon
  3. Christopher Eames. (Mar 2023). The Amarna Letters: Proof of Israel's Invasion of Canaan?. Armstrong Institute. Let the Stones Speak March-April 2023 Vol. 2 No. 2. https://armstronginstitute.org/881-the-amarna-letters-proof-of-israels-invasion-of-canaan
  4. David Flusser and Krister Stendahl. (Mar 14, 2025). Kings: background and Solomon's reign. https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Kings-background-and-Solomons-reign
  5. Elizabeth Knott. (Oct 1, 2016). The Amarna Letters. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/the-amarna-letters
  6. Encyclopedia Britannica. (Apr 3, 2024). Merneptah. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Merneptah
  7. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman via TheNuberOneRat. (2024). Reddit Answer to Papyrus Leiden 348. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/17w2t7b/comment/k9hpylv/?context=3
  8. Joel Kramer. (Mar 22, 2025). Tomb of the Exodus Pharaoh: What Was Found & Why You Don't Know About It! https://youtube.com/watch?v=mJP4pVjnWpk
  9. Joshua Spann. (Apr 26, 2024). Evaluating Tim Mahoney's Early Exodus Theory. https://joshuaspann.com/blog/20240426--evaluating_early_exodus.htm
  10. Landious Travel. (Aug 11, 2022). Siamun. https://landioustravel.com/egypt/pharaohs-egypt/siamun/
  11. Marek Dospel. (Aug 10, 2022). Pharaoh Merneptah's Destruction of Gezer. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/pharaoh-merneptahs-destruction-gezer/
  12. Sean Rigby. (Oct 16, 2024). The Shasu and Egypt. https://the-past.com/feature/the-shasu-and-egypt/
  13. Troy Leiland Sagrillo. (2015). Shoshenq I and Biblical Šîšaq: a philological defense of their traditional equation. Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology; Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March, 2011. https://www.academia.edu/13269463/Shoshenq_I_and_biblical_%C5%A0%C3%AE%C5%A1aq_A_philological_defense_of_their_traditional_equation
  14. Unknown, Wikipedia. (Jan 10, 2025). Hebrews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews
  15. Unkown, Wikipedia. (Mar 3, 2025). Merneptah Stele. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
  16. Unknown, Wikipedia. (Feb 9, 2025). Siamun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamun