../ blog / evaluating early exodus
Joshua Spann, 2024.04.26:2220
TLDR (or Abstract if we want to keep it boring and academic-sounding):\ In his documentary series Patterns of Evidence, Tim Mahoney asserts that the conventional 1450 BC dating of the Exodus is late by 200 years. He matches details in the biblical accounts with earlier archeological evidence that points to 1650 BC. While his core claims are interesting, his 200 year offset affects the entire biblical timeline, assuming that Kings' account is correct with its dates post-Exodus. Once we apply Mahoney's dates, his theory negatively affects the biblical narrative of a Pharaoh that destroyed Gezer during Solomon's currently estimated rule. The unlikely alternative is that, accounting for a 40 year margin of error for carbon dating Gezer's seeds, ruins and then artifacts related to Merneptah, mixed with Mahoney's claim, it is plausible that Merneptah could have been the Pharaoh that gifted Gezer to Solomon, and that Mahoney's early Exodus theory could still be plausible. However, it's a long shot and most evidence currently supports the academic dates attributed to Solomon's rule.
The Philistines likely began to occupy Gezer around the mid 12 Century BC. The biblical account mentions in Joshua 16.10 and Judges 1.29 that the tribe of Ephraim failed to drive out the Canaanites that lived there. In 1 Chronicles 20.4, after warring with the Ammonites, David went to war with the Philistines at Gezer, before the plague and preparing to build the temple. This was after an earlier account of David in 1 Chronicles 14.16 and 2 Samuel 5.25 where David pushed back the Philistines from Gibeon to Gezer. The Philistines were considered as Canaanite peoples though they were likely from the Mycenean civilization. They likely settled in the southern Levante first then moved their way north later on, possibly around the collapse of Egyptian hegemony in southern Canaan. However, in 2023, radiocarbon dating provided evidence which suggested that the Philistine occupation of Gezer was in the mid 12th Century BC. Thus, David would have to be warring with them after that point. As the Philistines were seen as Canaanites, it could be that the statements in Joshua and Judges are referring to the Philistines or another group of Canaanites that dwelt there beforehand. However, the biblical account lacks any narrative of the Israelites being invaded by the Philistines in those areas, which suggests that the Philistines may have been in the region at that time in the biblical narrative.
Gezer's destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh, mentioned in 1 Kings 9.16-17, is reflected through radio-carbon (C-14) dating seeds found in Gezer, possibly linking its initial destruction to be dated around 1200 BC by the Pharaoh Merneptah. However, in the biblical account, an unnamed Pharaoh gifted Gezer to Solomon's wife as a dowry for marriage. A problem begins to occur with dating the events of the bible with the dated archaeological record, namely the scenario in Kings 9. The current hypothesized, consensus dating of Solomon flourishing places him around 975-926 BC. David is estimated to have flourished around 1000 BC. This provides a problem for the dating. For one, Gezer was most likely (not 100% guaranteed) to have been destroyed around 1210 BC by Merneptah. David warred with the Philistines and pushed them back from Judah to Gezer and Gibeon, which would be around 1000 BC according to current guesstimates on his life. The problem is that Merneptah destroyed Gezer around 1210 BC, 200 years before when David is estimated to have lived. It could be, assuming the current estimations on Solomon's rule, that Sheshonq I, who destroyed Gezer in 950 BC, was the Pharaoh rather than Merneptah. But then we have the problem of the Philistines being dated to have occupied there around 1200 BC.
Christian documentary filmmaker Tim Mahoney disagrees with the current dating on the Exodus, suggesting that it occurred at least 200 years prior to today's earliest dated chronology of around 1450 BC. In his film, however, he notes the early dating of 1450 BC is based off of the consensus on when Solomon is thought to have built the temple or at the start of his reign, around 970 BC (01:19:30). Current estimates give a ballpark of 450 years from the exodus to David's reign. Mahoney gives an estimate of the Exodus occurring around 1650 BC.
If we consider and apply Mahoney's dating and assume that the dating in the bible is accurate, we find that David's reign would be around 1200 BC, which is about the time that the city of Gezer was destroyed. If we are being strict, then 1 Kings 9.17 might be suggesting that the unnamed Pharaoh gifted Gezer as a dowry to Solomon's wife after holding on to it for a bit. We could also assume that the biblical events are off or that the description is errant and anachronistic. With Mahoney's suggested dating, we see Solomon's reign kicked backward to around 1170 BC. The problem is the Pharaoh's gifting. A Pharaoh is mentioned in the biblical account as burning Gezer and then gifting it later as a dowry for his daughter, Solomon's wife. Merneptah died in 1203 BC. Merneptah's son, Seti II, died in 1197 BC. This is still not in line with Solomon using Mahoney's dating, that would give around 1170 BC. The only Pharaoh in line with this date would be Ramesses III who reigned from 1186-1155 BC. At that time, however, there would be no relation to Merneptah and no point as to why it would be left as was for at least 17 years.
The C-14 dating on some seeds found at Gezer showcased it's destruction around 1200 BC, which lines up with Merneptah's campaign. Radio-carbon dating can be off by at least 20 years due to varying historical climate conditions. Carbon levels can vary, and results have been called into question where decades count in dating. If we look at the variance of radio-carbon dating, the earliest estimated date of Gezer's destruction (1210 BC) and compare it to Solomon's reign with Mahoney's offset (1170 BC), we get a difference of 40 years. With dating olive pits and various C-14 readings, radiocarbon dating can allegedly give a margin of error of about 40 years. This is not to say that C-14 dating is inaccurate. On the contrary, C-14 dating is accurate up to 12,594 years. What these examples show is that it's accurate, and not exact. It gives good estimates, not perfect results. Even with good calibration on Jordanian tree rings, C-14 dating gives a margin of error of 19 years. It is possible with all these estimates and rough values, that there is enough plausibility for Mahoney's earlier Exodus claim to be true. However, this requires deep research into his claims and more archaeology to confirm or deny his assumptions. Even if this is validated, it requires explanation of other archaeological evidence such as gates, walls, and an administrative building that's C-14 dated to the early 10th century BC, which matches with the traditional dating and guesstimates regarding Solomon's reign and reconstruction of Gezer.
Then there's the possibility of the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel as a people group rather than a nation or foreign land. This might suggest or showcase that Judah urbanized earlier than Israel, or that both Israel and Judah did not count as nations or kingdoms at the time of Merneptah's conquest. If the former is true, then it might make sense if Merneptah conquered the Israelites, which might have been a common enemy of Judah at that time. Then, as allies, Merneptah could have gifted the razed Gezer as a dowry gift to his daughter, which was Solomon's wife. However, if the latter is true, then it would make more sense that the current estimations of Solomon's rule are accurate and either Mahoney or the bible needs to revise dating and assumptions regarding nascent Israel and Judah.
If Mahoney's concept of a Middle-Kingdom exodus are correct, then we would have to re-date the bible and would find that it is entirely plausible that Merneptah was involved with the initial destruction of the Philistine Gezer, and gifted it to his daughter as a dowry that naturally would be Solomon's property. The only way for this to be accurate, however, is to assume that Mahoney's estimates are the correct. Unless we stumble upon evidence that clearly matches the biblical account and can be dated through various methods, this concept (and Mahoney's claims) is nothing more than speculation and assumption. Currently, C-14 dating and evidence points to Sheshonq I and not Menerptah as being the unnamed Pharaoh at the time of Solomon. While it could be possible to offset the timeline and chronology by shifting backwards 200 years, it would require a lot of effort to match as cleanly as today's concensus and would pose more questions than what it would answer.
Resources