And that Evidence will be hard to find given the situation, the Jewish moving to Israel happened within a Generation so artifacts from that type of movement would probably be rare.
Forty years, actually, which is a considerable amount of time. Also, the Bible claims an absurd population size - a bit over sex hundred thousand men of weapon-bearing age alone, so over two million people at the very very least. A migration on that scale most assuredly would have left plenty of traces.
Egypt maybe had records, but it's major Library burnt down before modern historians had the chance to read their texts so the only written records, besides the Bible, were turned to ashes.
We have plenty of documents from pre-Ptolemaian times.
Also, it was a Christian who burnt down the Great Library of Alexandria. If we allow for conspiracy theories, who is to say the Christians did not burn the Library and destroyed the evidence that clearly disproved the Exodus?
Also if this is a response to the comment I'm thinking off, Egyptian pride probably prevent writing down such an event
Nevermind that the Egyptians did write about several crises…
as their pantheon of deities and their Pharaoh were brought down to their knees by a dirty man from the desert that claimed to be speaking on the behalf of the god of their slaves.
No. You are overlooking the obvious. This would not have been the gods of Egypt being humiliated by some desert slave god. No, they would have interpreted it as their own gods turning their back on the Two Lands because of our sinfulness/the people no longer doing as the priests told them/the King no longer doing as the priests told him/the divine blood of the kings running thin so our gloriosu new Pharaoh had to step up, depose the old one and install his own divine bloodline as the new Dynasty, etc. Hell, the Bible overfloes with such moments.
it just doesn't fit the historical timeline laid out by historians
A timeline that - unlike the Bible - is backed up by the records of the other contemporary nations and by astronomy, to the point that, by the New Kingdom, we get a precision of years and negligible afterwards.
There is a small pyramid tomb that has a statue of a man dressed in multicolored clothes just like Jacob's favorite son Josephn
Because surely, Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaak, son of Abraham, was the only person ever who wore clothes of more than one colour in the Ancient Orient. Wait, wasn’t it specifically a fancy coat, not simply generally multicoloured clothes?
So, a few moments of research… first, no one is really sure what exactly is meant by the description beyond it being highly decorated. Also, it was a coat Joseph had not in Egypt, but before he was sold into slavery, gifted to him by Jacob; indeed, his half-brothers ruin it as forged evidence for his death.
The problem is the saying is all wrong, the Pharoah wasn't Rameses, but another.
Ah yes. The Bible has endless lists of people who have no lore beyond their name, their first-born son and their age at death. But one of its most significant and memorable villains, whose defeat you would certainly want to remember? He does not get a name, only a title.
(But them, the Big Bad does who is oh so central to the grand story only suddendly turns up in much much later books aside from a far-fetched retcon cameo…)
And the Egyptians have written about it, vaguely.
You mean the Ipuwer Papyrus? It does not fit that well, and in any case, it is about the Old Kingdom, far too early for Exodus. Of course, given that the Papyrus woukd predate Exodus by several centuries, who is to say that the authors of Exodus did not base their story of the G’Tach on the papyrus or other Egyptian stories like that?