Here I beg to differ. The chronology in Exodus is quite a bit off, according to the archaeological evidence. Some of the towns listed as destroyed bear no evidence of destruction. Some of the towns (Jericho, for instance) weren't even inhabited at the time of the Exodus, and if you shift the time period to cover a time when Jericho was inhabited and showed signs of destruction, other towns turn out to be uninhabited or inhabited with no signs of the destruction meted out to them in the Bible.
Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence for the Jewish sojourn in Egypt. Nothing in Egyptian records -- no bills of sale, no contracts, no government documents -- nothing indicating the Israelites were ever there.
BTW, subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review. It's a fascinating magazine covering just this subject. You'll love it.
Actually, I believe, there are competing theories as to the chronology of the Egytian Dynasties, which of course has major implications for dating the Exodus. Furthermore, the Hebrews were not a conquered people but rather traveled there of their own accord, meaning that a description of a gloriuos conquest would necessarily be missing. Also, the history of the Exodus would not tend to highlight Eygptian greatness and so its not being recorded by court scibes is understandable. All of this together falls far short of conclusive evidence that the Exodus never happened.
I used to receive Bibical Archeology, unfortunately I let the subscrition lapse, but you're right, it is an excellent publication.