The Bible is a religious tract not a historical document, trying to "prove" any part of it is highly problematic. It was created for short term religious purposes not to accurately record events from that time.
Even the existence of someone much more prominent in the religious world like Jesus Christ is proving very difficult, the further back researchers go the less evidence there is he even existed.
So basically what we're dealing with here is mythological figures that have been literalized for religious and political reasons.
Would you begin a search for the literal origins of Zeus or Odin, doing so with Moses is approaching that scale. Trying to turn the metaphorical into the literal produces meaningless results and anyone who understands what religion actual is understands it is almost entirely metaphorical in nature.
It would be an almighty big coincidence for all of the myths to independently tell the same story. The Megiddo ivory is very real and can't be argued away. How would you interpret the scene on the ivory? Amenhotep III did spend a very long time in Nubia (why?) and probably died there. Your opinion that all biblical figures are mythological figures is just that - your opinion. And you'll stick to that belief no matter what evidence to the contrary might surface.
As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, I am convinced that there are enough references to real people, like for instance Gaius Vibius Pansa, a Roman consul, to prove that a person that became known as Christ did exist. The Romans believed that Christ's father was a Roman soldier called Pandira, and also that he was 'of the Treasury'. In my book Barbelo I argue that Christ was born to Joseph, Herod's treasurer, and Mariamne I, Herod's second wife. Joseph was also known as the Old Man (Sabbas) and reference is made to a Joseph barsabas of the Flat Feet. Joseph, the son of (bar) the Old Man, of the Flat Feet. I could not find any information about the Flat Feet, until I read a bit about Cicero's Pro Ligario speech, in which he defended a Roman soldier called Ligarius before Caesar. The Roman consul Gaius Vibius Pansa was also involved.
I had by then developed a habit of trying to translate, to satisfy my own curiosity, all interesting-looking Latin words I came across (I had Latin for 5 years at school and loved every bit of it). It turns out that Pansa means 'having broad flat feet', no less, and it is one of the tenses of pando, pandere. The word Ligarius has no direct translation, but again, by an almighty coincidence, the Latin word Lignarius means 'a carpenter'. So, here we have in a single context the Flat Feet, a Roman soldier called Pandira (Pandere) and a carpenter (the NT relates that Joseph was a carpenter). Joseph and his friend Sohemus were supposed to guard Mariamne during Herod's absence, but on on occasion he discovered that Joseph and Sohemus must have had intimate conversations with Mariamne, and had Sohemus promptly executed. It would seem that Joseph (sabas) 'of the Flat Feet' had some relationship with the Roman consul, perhaps having married his daughter, and Herod dared not touch him. As I point out in my book Barbelo, there are many stories about Christ and his disciples that point to conclusions that scholars simply seem to be unable to reach. For instance, the fact that the physical descriptions of Christ and Paul match to a T. And the sayings and deeds of Christ and Simon Magus are identical. Can't they connect the dots?
It is the very controversy that this information seems to be pointing at, that convinces me that a person called Jesus Christ did exist, but that he was anything but the Son of God.