This is called "classical errors-in-variables" and has proofs for the single-variable version on Wikipedia and here. I think you are making it harder than it has to be and also missing some key points in the OLS proof.
- The "given" part of the expected value should usually be what you observe and know about. In this case, we observe $\widetilde X$, and so we don't want to be given $X$, since we know nothing about X!
- It seems in this, $X$ and $\widetilde X$ must be vectors since $\epsilon$ is a vector. Then $\widetilde X' X$ is a scalar, and $(\widetilde X' X)^{-1} = \frac{1}{\widetilde X' X}$. That is, we don't have to worry about matrix issues when we're dealing with scalars.
As for the method, yours looks solid but then peters out. A good way to continue a second attempt is, instead of plugging in for $\widetilde X$ to get everything in terms of $X$, plug in for $X$ to get everything in terms of $\widetilde X$. So $y = X\beta + u = \widetilde X \beta - \epsilon \beta + u$.
Then
$$
\begin{align*}
E(\widehat \beta | \widetilde X) &= E\left[(\widetilde X' \widetilde X)^{-1} \widetilde X' y \, | \, \widetilde X\right] \\
&= E\left[(\widetilde X' \widetilde X)^{-1} \widetilde X' (\widetilde X \beta - \epsilon \beta + u) \, | \, \widetilde X\right] \\
&= E\left[(\widetilde X' \widetilde X)^{-1} \widetilde X' (\widetilde X \beta - \epsilon \beta + u) \, | \, \widetilde X\right] \\
&= E\left[\beta + \frac{\widetilde X' u}{\widetilde X' \widetilde X} - \frac{\widetilde X'\epsilon}{\widetilde X' \widetilde X} \beta \, | \, \widetilde X\right] \\
&= \beta\left[1 - \frac{\widetilde X' \mu}{\widetilde X' \widetilde X}\right]. \\
\implies E(\widehat\beta) &= \beta E\left[1 - \frac{\widetilde X' \mu}{\widetilde X' \widetilde X}\right] \\
\implies \text{Bias}(\widehat\beta) &= -\beta E\left[\frac{\widetilde X' \mu}{\widetilde X' \widetilde X}\right]
\end{align*}
$$
The second-to-last line is implied by law of total expectation: $E(\widehat\beta, \beta) = E_{\widetilde X}[ E(\widehat \beta | \widetilde X)]$.
Notice this bias looks like an omitted variable bias. In fact, another way to frame the problem is that we're omitting $-\epsilon$ from the model specification, even though it appears in our observations.
A good way to practice: what if the error was on the observed dependent variable (so $y = y^* + \epsilon$ where $y^*$ is the true value of $y$)?