One thing that I think most of us can agree on is that the Exodus story which was probably written in the 8th-6th century BC, was likely a compiolation of different facts and then embelished upon and attributed to the Hebrew people in many cases. The names and nations mentioned in the OT were real and historical, but they were often converged into different time periods and eras to describe different geographical settings. Thus, the "Way of the Philistines" given as a route god didn't want for the Exodus through Sinai, and Gaza, obviously shows us that if the Exodus did take place in the 1400's bc, the story was later edited by scribes who didn't know that the Philistines and other sea go-ers arrived in 1200, not 1400bc.
Little tidbits of this sort of editing are shown all through out the bible. Even with all of this, I believe that the stories are a collective fact fiction--historical places and stories that were based on real settings and historic figures--but greatly embelished and given credit to the Hebrews/Israelites.
The Exodus legend most likely was based on the simple trade and commune between semetic peoples and Egypt. The Semetic Hyksos dynasties of Egypt and the Story of Joseph and Jacob[c.1700-1500bc], show some correlation and historical truth. The Idea of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, shows us a convulge of different facts and stories. There were a people called "Habiru", mentioned frequently in the Amarna letters (c.1400 bc)who were runaway slaves attacking Canaanite strongholds (vassals to Egypt). There is a considerable bit of evidence that could show us that the Conquest legend mentioned in the OT, was based on the Habiru slaves attacking these canaanite strongholds in c. 1400-1350bc, and later sites such as Hisban(1200bc) etc. may not have been destroyed till 200 years later when Israel, was mentioned for the first time as a nation in the Merneptah Stele. Thus the "Conquest" really may have been a 200+ year tribal war the Habiru who later became known as "Israel" declared against the Canaanites.
Perhaps some of the classical exaggerations of the Exodus are the numbers given which describe thousands of men. Numbers were very often symbolic, not literal. 3,6,7, and 40 were just some of the sacred numbers. The 2.5 million Israelites wandering in the desert are so much of an exaggeration it is quite laughable. I have calculated that there may have been as many as 25,000 Israelites when entering Canaan, but this is truly an enormous number in a barren waterless desert such as Sinai/Negev. Before the Census of Numbers 1. The Book of Exodus mentions "600,000 men on foot" in the hebrew exodus from egypt. This is obviously a mistranslation on the copyists part or just part of an oral exaggeration. Obviously 6,000, or more realisticly 600 men were first intedned. Let's say there were 600 men, that would give an entire Exodus population of 2,400-3,000--Satisfyingly realistic enough.
I have recently been in a crowd of 2,000 people in a fundraiser walk, and just being among that number makes me think of how difficult it would be to keep everyone under control, giving each person enough food and water. 2 million would be impossible.
Whatever the case, if it was 2,400 or 24,000 Israelites, it seems very possible such an Exodus could have happened. There would be many starving people, and infant deaths among these nomads, but I think that these hardships are described in The books of the OT.
Therefore, one could say that the exodus from egypt to Canaan of semetic peoples who later became known as Habiru/Israel, of several tribes numbering ~3,000 among an "unknown multitude", could have occured. And it probably did in my opinion. There is too much historical/legendary evidence to refute these kernals.
™ Version 4.2
