https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8uv4D7cOE < This one in particular
Also, I think it's a mistake to assume people were dummies back then. If you think about it, humans have accomplished amazing things over the millenia, and some of those discoveries are still important today (every cryptography book still covers Euclid's GCD in its early chapters). Dismissing them as barely literate IMO is ignoring the important lessons that history has for us.
-1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed (Eric Cline, PhD)
(Note: I'm a history nerd, so I'm not complaining. Just legitimately curious.)
I've noticed that history topics getting more popularity on HN usually correlate with recent Extra History episodes.
Can anyone comment on whether this is still the most common accepted theory?
Indeed not. This is a subject that I am beginning to investigate myself, but a couple of things to note:
1. The region the Israelites stayed, Goshen, was in the Nile delta and hence a much wetter climate than the southern parts of Egypt where, as I understand it, we tend to get better preserved artifacts. The wet climate facilitates decomposition and so we have to calibrate our expectations as to what we can find.
2. The Exodus story was written several hundred years after the event. Something notable is that the story refers to the construction of the city of Pi-Ramesses, a city which did exist but had long been dismantled before the Exodus story had been written (the stones were used to build the city of Tanis). It seems strange that the writers would have gotten the detail right if the Israelites had not been there (though not impossible).
The "Sea Peoples", a term itself controversial because they don't seem to have any strict delineation in language, art, or leadership, subsumed a much larger presence in the Mediterranean, and it is during their height that we have the earliest solid evidence of Israelites, but also of other Bronze age tribes elsewhere in Greece, Anatolia, etc.
That comes under the heading "Wacky Coincidences in Liguistics". One means "rulers of foreign lands" in a an older Afro-Asiatic language (a precursor to Coptic); the other is an English retention of a Latin adaptation of a Greek word meaning "the road/path out" (exodos) from the book titles in the Septuagint, all Indo-European. It's related to exit (literally, "he goes out").
One of these findings is really recent:
These findings may represent the most conclusive evidence that Philistines were not indigenous to Canaan which is indicated by ceramics, architecture, burial customs, and pottery remains with writing – in non-Semitic languages. Lawrence Stager of Harvard University believes that Philistines came to Canaan by ships before the Battle of the Delta circa 1175 BCE. DNA was extracted from the skeletons for archaeogenetic population analysis.
That doesn't answer your question, but the Hebrew origin stories always place them further east from Canaan in Mesopotamia. If the Philistines were the Sea People, it makes the clash of those two different cultures (Aegean vs Near East) make sense.
Why do you equate Canaan with Palestine?
The Exodus is said to have occurred around 1446 BCE. The first clear usage of "Palestine" to refer to that area was much later (5BC) when Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê".
The Israelite exodus was from from Egypt to Canaan, not to "Palestine".
Does it really matter whether the Israelites migrated to Canaan or Palestine or Judea or 31°47′N 35°13′E or whatever as long as we all know roughly which part of the world we're talking about?