Some thoughts on historiography, in preparation for Pesah, the holiday of history:
History may not be a science, but it is a discipline that makes use of the sciences.
That said, the material evidence of bygone ages that scientists have to work with is relatively scant, and the majority of textual evidence that might provide meaningful context for interpreting the little material evidence we have, has not survived to the present day. Certainly we have no surviving members of lost societies to consult on the interpretation of their material heritage.
This makes the work of the historian especially vulnerable to bias, both overt and latent. While peer review of results and interpretations that methodologically respect the available source material helps to curb the influence of some of the more fatuous theories, peer consensus is not always correct and is rarely universally shared, in any academic discipline. Due to various factors and despite persistent criticism from equally credentialed experts in the field, mediocre explanations of the material and textual evidence sometimes can and do become academic dogma, with all the political implications thereof.
Some people, lacking exposure to critical and scientific methods and sometimes ignorant of basic facts of the relevant source material, react to the inherent tenuousness of the historian’s conclusions by rejecting their expertise altogether, preferring history written by contemporary religious or political celebrities, or other authors of fiction. This is how we get pseudo-history, and it’s a poor replacement for the real thing.
David Rohl (the historian, not the musician) is not a pseudo-historian. He is a serious academic, recognized by his peers as a master of the relevant source material, who happens to disagree with the academic consensus on Egyptian chronology. 
While purveyors and consumers of pseudo-history have of course made much of his work, so have many thoughtful and credentialed historians of ancient history across the world. Rohl has his critics – the academic discourse still functions – but I think his ideas about redating Egyptian chronology, in a way that just so happens to line up the material evidence with the biblical record, are worth considering as we ponder the reality and the meaning of the Exodus.
The Hebrew Bible contains, among many other genres, historical works, written in a distinctly Canaanite style. The Pentateuch, the first section of that anthology that is replete with Egyptian vocabulary and cultural references, contains much historical information as well. And the archaeological record, when interpreted critically but differently from the consensus view, upholds much of the history of the Hebrew Bible.
Is it really beyond the pale to suggest, in light of the totality of the evidence considered without prejudice, that the Israelites of the Judaean and Samaritan provinces of the second commonwealth didn’t all just make it all up, and that the Exodus from Egypt in fact occurred?
Check out the wikipedia article on the New Egyptian Chronology proposed by Rohl.