Is there extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus? I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true, why is this and how do Christians get over this lack of evidence?
If this isn't necessarily true, what extra-biblical evidence is there of Israelites being enslaved, escaping, and wandering in the desert for 40 years?
&quot;I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true....&quot;
Well, it isn't actually true.
Evidence 1
Manetho was an ancient historian in Egypt and he says the Exodus happened.  Now he could have just been reading the Jewish Scriptures ie the Old Testament.... but he says something else which is significant and really strongly suggests he was using written records (which, I suppose, no longer exist)..  he wrote that the Exodus happened during the reign of Amenophis.  Amenophis is the Greek language version of the name Amenhotep.  There were four Pharaohs called Amenhotep. If we take the Bible verse 1 Kings 6:1 literally and use the High Chronology for the 18th dynasty rather than the Low Chronology then the Exodus clearly happened in 1446 bc in the reign of Amenhotep II (1452-1425) after the death of Thutmose III.
Evidence 2
An important evidence is linguistic: there are many foreign loanwords in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  In the Pentateuch the most common loanwords are from Egyptian..  in fact the Pentateuch has far more Egyptian loanwords than the rest of the OT.  When recording the wanderings in the wilderness the loanwords are from Arabic.  When recording the events before the time in Egypt the loanwords are from Middle Eastern languages Sumerian and Accadian - eg Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel - all these do not have Egyptian loanwords, but rather Sumerian and Accadian.
This is circumstantial evidence, but evidence, nontheless.
Really, no one comes to faith in the Bible as the Word of the Living God by finding that one or two things in it can be verified by archaeological evidence... archaeological evidence is nice for believers, its interesting, and often fascinating, but its not essential to faith (John 20:29). Just because the evidence is not there does not mean it did not happen: arguments claiming proof on the basis of absence of evidence are logically invalid.  We come to faith in the Bible as God's Word by reading it and coming to see it is right about things such as sin, righteousness and judgement.  It is right about us, about the human race, about evil.  It is right in its standards of morality, etc.  Once we realise it is from God and could not have been produced by sinners then we can see that what it writes about the Exodus or anything else must be true, even if there is no external evidence.
For more interesting (circumstantial?) evidence see Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?
For more on the foreign loanwords of the Old Testament see Who documented biblical events before Moses?
For evidence of the falling of the walls of Jericho at the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land in the spring of 1406 BC see:
How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?
For an account of evidence of Joseph in Egypt see:
Why we do we &quot;know&quot; that Joseph wasn&#39;t Hyksos?