In a review of Dr Bimson's Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Alberto Soggin writes in Vetus Testamentum XXXI, 1 (1981):
Too often the author presupposes the basic historicity of the biblical sources (pp.16, 68, 199, 202, etc.), although sometimes not without some benefit of doubt (e.g. p. 209: "... if these traditions are historically reliable ..."). Now such a thing cannot be presupposed (or believed, as the author has it sometimes), but must be proved. The ancient Near East is rich in historiographical texts such as chronicles, annals, royal inscriptions, introductions to international treaties and the like, and it is quite obvious that almost none of the texts in the Pentateuch and in the first two books of the "Former Prophets" belongs to one of these categories. But even if some did, it would be necessary to examine them critically. The historicity of a legendary text cannot of course be denied a priori, but it must be confirmed in every single case, a task that is sometimes difficult if not impossible....
He concludes:
If [the author's proposal for redating the Exodus and Conquest is not convincing] this is due first of all to objective factors ... for which he cannot be blamed; but secondly to the fact that the author seems not to have sufficiently appreciated the historical quality of the literary materials involved. With this limitation, the work remains valuable: the student and the scholar alike will find in it a thorough treatment of the archaeological and topographical problems connected with the Exodus and the Conquest. In other words, no scholar dealing with the problem can avoid a critical examination of the literary sources, as A. Alt and M. Noth taught us many years ago.