Biblical Literalism+Selectively Used Anthropology/Archaeology= Nothing Conclusive
It is always unfortunate when science and religion fall into open conflict with one another, as both often suffer. Usually neither the religious or scientific aspects of the overall argument get a fair hearing. As you are probably aware, there is a large contingent of researchers who believe that the archaeological evidence supports the notion that the Exodus story applies to only a portion of the people considered to be part of the Kingdom of David. This theory holds that revolts against the rulers of the Egyptian vassal city-states in Canaan from circa 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE, perhaps inspired by accounts of the ancient Hebrews escape from bondage in Egypt cleared the path for Joshua and paved the way for David’s Kingdom. Mostly the evidence comes in the form of pottery shards from various excavations during the past two centuries. However, these theories also postulate that Palestinians descend mostly from these same aforesaid rebellious classes of people who threw off the yoke of ancient Egyptian compradores in favor of a better life. Indeed, King David chose to make Jerusalem the capital after its conquest precisely because no tribe of Israel could lay claim to it. Summarily, if anthropologists are correct on all accounts, how can current Palestinians deny Jerusalem as the capital of Israel if their ancestors benefited from and helped build it?