`  == From bad to worse ==  Thanks to Izak and Quark, we now have a section:  Theories of William Denver and others  There is reportedly rchaeological evidence that the origins of Israel were in fact largely Canaanite, leaving, in the words of archaeologist William Dever, ``no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.``[5] The modern scholarly consensus is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[6] and that the story is best seen as theology instead of history, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people.[7]  'William Denver'? 'rchaeological'? And who in the world agrees with the segue between 'There is reportedly' (pov in wording) and '``in the words of...``. It isn't the origins of Israel in Canaan that cause the lack of archaeological evidence for an exodus. It doesn't get any better from there, see the above discussion.   `