Yeah but a source which is itself derived from an earlier source (Torah) but the earlier source lacks the relevant details is a shut and dry case of fabrication.
It is only controversial to say this because it is a religious document.
(Lest you think I’m taking sides, the Jewish account of exodus doesn’t line up with archeological evidence either.)
There's a lot stated in the article. There is absolutely no evidence for a Hebrew peoples invasion of Canaan. The cities mentioned in the Bible were excavated, but there is no record of any sieges. The transition from Canaanite to Israelite settlers is gradual over hundreds of years, and likely represents a transformation of the same culture and not an actual displacement of people. None of the places mentioned in Sinai that have been identified show any evidence of any people whatsoever having visited until hundreds of years after the absolute latest possible dates. "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable [...] repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence." (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002).
On the Egyptian side, basically no excavations or inscriptions anywhere match up with the biblical story. There were semitic-speaking slaves in Egypt, yes, but not chattel slavery as commonly depicted, but rather something more akin to domestic servants and feudal peasants. And they were never expelled, as there are ongoing references long after into the Ptolemaic kingdom. The only exodus on record of semitic peoples is the Hyksos, who weren't slaves but rather conquerors and the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt. When the Hyksos were eventually defeated, they were expelled and driven out as far as Syria. Maybe that was the origin of The Exodus? But if the story changed from a slave rebellion ("let my people go!") to a dynastic struggle by the ruling class, are we still talking about the same story?
Finally there's the question of when the story was written down in the first place. It is interesting to note that the first few prophets of Israel make no mention of the Exodus whatsoever. It is not part of the shared zeitgeist of early Israel. It is only a few hundred years later that the references to an Egyptian origin are made by some of the northern prophets, and then the story spreads to the south. The Exodus itself isn't written down until Babylonian captivity much, much later, at which point a liberation story starts sounding quite a bit like Mary Sue fan-fiction.
Probably the histrorians were looking at the wrong place and perhaps the original Mount Sinai is not the one that's widely accepted. Any knowledge be it science, history, etc need to be revised and aligned to the newly discovery with more robust evidences.
Please check this documentary on the new evidences regarding the Exodus [1].
[1]The Real Mount Sinai - Shocking Exodus Evidence in Saudi Arabia:
It is only controversial to say this because it is a religious document.
(Lest you think I’m taking sides, the Jewish account of exodus doesn’t line up with archeological evidence either.)