This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Fig. 1. Map of the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean (modified from Cohen and Westbrook 2000, xii).
This paper in American Journal of Archaeology is tentative support for a theory that I find fascinating because it offers an explanation for the implausible Exodus myth in the Bible. The theory is that the myth is an exaggerated retelling of the expulsion or voluntary exile, of the Ahtenist sect from Egypt, complete with a 'royal' leader in the form of 'Moses' (an Egyptian name) - a retelling that grew over time and incorporated multiple miracles and the origins of the 'Law', with each telling until a small band became a mass exodus from which an entire new nation was built.
The exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt has too many inconsistencies for it to be real history - for example, the claim is that "600,000 men on foot" (Exodus 12:37), complete with their women, children and livestock, fled from Egypt into Sinai. That would mean some 2-3 million people - more than the then entire population of Egypt, plus livestock - far more than could be supplied with food and water in Sinai. There is also no archaeological evidence of such a large population ever living in Sinai for 40 years. It is inconceivable that they would leave no trace, not even the graves of those who died.
Then there is the story of 600, (horsedrawn) chariots (Exodus 14:7) pursuing them into the Red Sea, right after all the livestock, including, explicitly, all the horses, were killed in one of the plagues (Exodus 9:3-6).
Then there is the small geo-political problem that the story of crossing the Red Sea into Sinai 'from Egypt; ignores the fact that at that time Egypt not only controlled Sinai but its political and military control extended into Canaan, so the Israelites were leaving Egypt into... Egypt.
It is probably significant that during the entire telling of the tale of the Israelite's supposed captivity in Egypt, the pharaoh is invariably named 'Pharoh' (A Hebrew word), but never by his real name - Imhotep II, Rameses, Akhenaten, etc. It's as though the story-teller didn't know their names. This would be the equivalent of telling the Medieval history of England and only ever referring to 'King', never John, Henry IV, Edward II, etc.