despite what you think, there IS evidence of exodus.
ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html
Rohl’s biggest discovery, though, was in finding the evidence for the Exodus in the Thirteenth Dynasty. His findings are summarized by John Fulton, a supporter of David Rohl:
‘Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum (p.276, fig. 310) resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).
1. You'll notice the difference in scale there. Some less than 50 slaves with semitic names are mentioned. That is a massive difference between that and 2 million leaving Egypt. Among other things because:
2. The 13'th Dynasty (to which Sobekhotep III belongs) is before the Hyskos invasion. Egypt was as much bottled in by the desert as it was protected from the outside from it. That a few slaves would be brought in by caravans or by boat, sure, it's possible. (Egypt had a trade with Mesopotamia since pre-dynastic times.) But nobody had yet the technology to wage a war across the desert. So the notion that they would enslave some 2 million people from across the desert is underpants-on-the-head pencils-up-the-nose stupid. More importantly:
3. There is no evidence of such warfare or even the armies to do it in Egypt at the time. And even more importantly:
4. The armies of Egypt even at the time of the Hyskos invasion were thoroughly obsolete. (And we're a bit before it at this time.) If Egypt were to somehow manage to magically teleport its armies across the desert and wage war to enslave those Hebrews, Egypt would have gotten thoroughly spanked. As they will soon be by the Hyskos.
Egypt's army was that bad, that the Hyskos pretty much rolled over them.
Almost funnily, Egypt's army and equipment at the time they got invaded, weren't even up to what's recorded about the war between Lagash and Umma. Egypt's army was over 1000 years out of date, compared to its eastern "neighbours". Its only saving grace was that there was a desert between it and those neighbours, or they'd have been toast.
The notion that _that_ Egyptian army would actually attack those neighbours and enslave some two millions of them, is on par with 9/11 conspiracies for sheer stonking stupidity.
5. Exodus also mentions being chased by Egyptian chariots. Egypt didn't actually have any, nor horses for that matter, until the Hyskos brought those. That's one reason why the Hyskos just rolled over the obsolete Egyptian infantry.
If Neferhotep I and the Pharaohs after him had had any chariots, or even enough army to pose any threat to a migrating band of 2 millions (even of civillians with sticks), Egypt could have saved itself from the Hyskos. Which, again, it didn't.
The first mention of the Egyptian army actually using horses is in the wars to free itself from the Hyskos, in the 17'th dynasty. So giving them to a 13'th dynasty Pharaoh is just stupid even by the standards of the pseudo-archaeology used to try to prop up the Bible.
Even the earliest skeletons of horses found in Egypt (at this point, probably still belonging to the Hyskos) are from about a century after Sobekhotep III.
6. "Semitic" names doesn't equal "Hebrew." The whole group of languages derived from Akkadian, including Babylonian, Hebrew, Phoenician, etc, were semitic and would have semitic names. There's a vast teritory out there from which such slaves could be bought (but again, in tiny numbers) or brought in by their immigrating masters. (Egypt had a steady immigration, though not yet comparable with the massive immigration wave that would come later.)
From the slightly over 40 slaves mentioned there with semitic names, realistically you'd be lucky if 2-3 were even from the region that would later become the Hebrew kingdoms. If any.
ETA:
7. The only places within reach of the Egyptian army at the time, were by sea. (And again, never mind that the army was obsolete and tiny and there's no evidence of such warfare.) And how even the later attempted invasions of the Sea People, during the 19'th and 20'th dynasties, proved: the tech level just wasn't yet up to snuff to haul and supply a large army by sea.
But there's an even more perverse issue there: even theoretically, they could only haul and supply an army in that eastern part if it was basically on the shore. Everything else was out of their reach the hard way. And the area of the latter Hebrew kingdoms simply wasn't by the sea.
