Etymology of the proper noun “Moses”

[Apollodorus]

Etymology of the proper noun “Moses”

The etymology of the name משה mō-šeh/m-š-h, “Moses” (Greek Μωυσῆς Mōusēs) seems to be a much debated topic. It isn’t even certain whether it is Hebrew, Egyptian, or something else.

According to Wiktionary, it is “from Biblical Hebrew מֹשֶׁה‎ (mōšê). Further etymology is unclear, but it is sometimes conjectured to derive from Egyptian (msj, “to give birth to”), a common element in Egyptian names of the form ‘[name of deity] is the one who bore him’; or, alternatively, contains Egyptian (mw, “water”)”.

According to the Online Etymological Dictionary, “Most scholars see in it the Hebraization of Egyptian mes, mesu 'child, son,' which is often used in theophorous names”.

But according to Wikipedia, “Though the names of Moses and others in the biblical narratives are Egyptian and contain genuine Egyptian elements, no extrabiblical sources point clearly to Moses. No references to Moses appear in any Egyptian sources prior to the fourth century BCE”.

Incidentally, Philo of Alexandria links “Moses” to Egyptian (Coptic) möu, “water”:

“Then she gave him a name, calling him Moses with great propriety, because she had received him out of the water, for the Egyptians call water "mos" (De Vita Mosis 1.4.17).

So, the assumption of an Egyptian derivation isn’t a modern innovation but seems to go back to antiquity.

Any suggestions?

 

[berndf]

from Biblical Hebrew מֹשֶׁה‎ (mōšê). Further etymology is unclear.

I would say that this is the final answer. Everything else is hot air.

 

[Apollodorus]

Yeah, that’s what I had been thinking, too. Unfortunately, the biblical etymology is folk etymology (< Volksetymologie) and shouldn’t be taken as gospel truth (no pun intended 🙂).

According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, “undoubtedly Moshe is an Egyptian name, probably meaning ‘son’” (Vol. 14, p. 523).

According to Wikipedia, “the Hebrew etymology in the Biblical story may reflect an attempt to cancel out traces of Moses' Egyptian origins”.

In any case, the etymology given at Exodus 2:10, “She named him Moses and explained, ‘I drew him out of the water’,” doesn’t seem to add up. That’s precisely why linguists and historians have been looking for alternative etymologies.

 

[Apollodorus]

From what I see, most sources consider an Egyptian derivation as a possibility (with various degrees of probability or certainty).

Personally, I think it is indisputable that Egypt was one of the world’s most advanced civilisations as well as being a large and powerful empire that exerted considerable influence in the region. If the “Israelites” came from Egypt as it is alleged, then we should logically expect to see evidence of Egyptian influence.

Indeed, the Exodus narrative alone contains about 26 Egyptian loanwords occurring 333 times, for example:

תבת tebat, “basket” < dbjt

גמא gome, “reed” < qmꜢ (cf. gmy)

זפת zapet, “pitch” < sft

יאר yor, “river, Nile” < ı͗rw (cf. ı͗trw), etc.

An unusual name like “Moses” would perfectly well fit in an Egyptian context, especially if it has clear parallels in Egyptian language and culture.

See also "Egyptian Loanwords", Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics:

“פִּינְחָס pīnḥå̄s ‘Phineas’ and אָֽסְנַת ʾå̄snaṯ ‘Asnath’ (in modern contexts often pronounced Osnat) are certainly Egyptian, and many have argued that the names מֹשֶׁה mošε ‘Moses’, אַהֲרֹן ʾahărōn ‘Aaron’, and מִרְיָם miryå̄m ‘Miriam’ are also Egyptian”.

And

James Hoffmeier, “Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus,” in Margaret Warker ed., Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, 2012.

Benjamin J. Noonan, “Egyptian Loanwords as Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus and Wilderness Traditions” in James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg, eds., “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 13 (2016), 49–67.

But I think that, for a clearer picture, what also needs to be factored in is the original spelling of the name, its earliest attestation, etc.

 

[Platytude]

It's not a good argument to use loanwords in Exodus for the origin of the characters' names. A competent storyteller would try to use words associated with the geographical context of the story to make it more compelling. Here, we have mainly words that would be recognisable for a reader or listener as related to Egypt (artefacts, architecture, exports or crops of Egypt) or widely known words (Nile, Pharaoh).

A comparable example is Book of Esther, where we have considerable Iranian words and context in the story, plus specific references to the cultural milieu. Despite that, the names of the heroes are unrelated to this context (probably Sumerian and Semitic).

 

[Apollodorus]

But I think that, for a clearer picture, what also needs to be factored in is the original spelling of the name, its earliest attestation, etc.

The reason why additional data such as original spelling, possible variations and earliest attestation need to be factored in is that while some loanwords may suggest a particular setting for the general context, e.g., Egyptian, the name itself may have been introduced into the story from another linguistic and cultural source.

As pointed out by the Encyclopaedia Judaica,

“The representation of Israel’s savior as being of Egyptian provenance and rearing is singularly unstereotypical, and is supported by the Egyptian names of other Levites – Phinehas, Merari, Hophni, and perhaps Aaron and Miriam as well (Albright). The name of Moses too is probably to be derived from the final, verbal element in such Egyptian names as Ptah-mose (“Ptah is born”), which occurs independently in names of the New Kingdom (Griffiths). Connection with Hebrew mashah, “draw out,” like other such name interpretations, is based on assonance rather than etymology (e.g., the connection of Noah with the unrelated verb nḥm; Gen. 5:29); as a Hebrew name, Moshe is of very rare, if not unique, formation … The popular etymology (undoubtedly Moshe is an Egyptian name, probably meaning “son”) “I drew him out of the water” (Ex. 2:10) should logically have required the form mashui (“one that has been drawn out”), not moshe (“one that draws out”)” (Vol. 14, pp. 526, 523).

Certainly, if the names of Moses’ older siblings Aaron (< aaru/aharw) and Miriam (< mry), are Egyptian as has been suggested, it makes sense for “Moses” itself to be based on an Egyptian word. In any case, the implausibility of the “etymology” offered in Exodus, together with other internal inconsistencies, makes it imperative to consider alternative origins of the name.

Bearing in mind that (a) the Exodus narrative indicates a seventh-century BC composition (Finkelstein & Silberman; Redford) with alterations and expansion in the post-exilic period (Exodus – Wikipedia) and (b) the earliest MS fragments are from the Hellenistic period, we find that there is no shortage of personages – some historical, others legendary or semi-legendary – bearing similar names in extra-biblical sources. For example:

1. King Ahmose (Aa-Mose or Ia-Mose) I, founder of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty.

2. Musaeus of Athens, Greek philosopher, prophet and priest (lived before 6th century BC).

3. Mochos of Sidon, Phoenician prophet whose cult is said to have been widespread in Phoenicia and Syria and was connected with Mt Carmel, possibly, in competition with a rival cult centred on Mt Zion (cf. Book of Amos 1:2).

The figure of Moses may have been inspired by any of the above, or a combination of them, to which details from other traditions could have been added.

Ahmose has the obvious advantage of being Egyptian. However, he was more political and military leader than a religious figure and his memory may have been too remote by the time the Exodus narrative was compiled or finally redacted. Unless there is evidence of a seventh-century BC Egyptian who could have served as a source, we need to look at the other two characters.

Mochos has the advantage of being close to seventh-century BC Palestine and may point to a Semitic provenance. Unfortunately, references to him appear to be late and rather inconclusive.

Musaeus has the advantage of being associated with Greek beliefs about philosophers and sages’ (e.g. Orpheus, Pythagoras) acquiring knowledge from Egypt, which are consistent with the “out-of-Egypt” narrative of Exodus.

Secondly, Musaeus is actually identified with Moses by ancient writers like Artapanus (3rd-2nd century BC). This is important because it shows that similarities between the two characters, including the name, were acknowledged in the Early Hellenistic period.

Finally, Musaeus’ very name (Μουσαῖος < Μοῦσα Mousa, “muse, inspiring deity”) not only marks him out as a divinely-inspired sage and is consistent with a religious founder, but is virtually identical with “Moses” (Μωϋσῆς/Μωυσῆς Mōusēs) and may explain the “e” in Hebrew משה mō-šeh, “Mosheh, Moses”.

It follows that “Moses” need not necessarily be Egyptian and could be a Hebraisation of a Greek word with a more plausible meaning.

G. H. van Kooten, “Moses/Musaeus/Mochos and his God Yahweh, Iao, and Sabaoth, seen from a Graeco-Roman perspective” in G. H. V. Kooten, ed., The revelation of the name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the pagan Graeco-Roman world, and early Christianity, Themes in Biblical Narrative No. 9 (2006), pp. 107-138.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, 2002, pp. 65 ff.

D. B. Redford, “An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative”, in A. F. Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, 1987, pp. 137-161; D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, 1992, pp. 98-122, 408-469.

 

[berndf]

It follows that “Moses” need not necessarily be Egyptian and could be a Hebraisation of a Greek word with a more plausible meaning.

This is moving from hot air to ridiculous.

 

[Apollodorus]

This is moving from hot air to ridiculous.

I think what is more ridiculous is a fossilised mindset stuck in the 1800s (or the Middle Ages) and incapable of critical and objective analysis of ancient texts. But thanks, anyway. 🙂

 

[berndf]

I think what is more ridiculous is a fossilised mindset stuck in the 1800s (or the Middle Ages) and incapable of critical and objective analysis of ancient texts. But thanks, anyway. 🙂

I see. It is better to go 2000 years further back to a time where for some people everything of any cultural significance had to be Greek and to quote Artapanus as a serious source for events that already in his time belonged to a mythical past.

I think, what the Jewish Encyclopedia (a precursor to the Encyclopedia Judaica) had to say about Artapanus' theories about Moses is still valid:

Artapanus evidently belonged to that narrowminded circle of Hellenizing Jews that were unable to grasp what was truly great in Judaism, and, therefore, in their mistaken apologetic zeal—for even in those early days Judaism had its opponents among the Hellenes—set about glorifying Judaism to the outer world by inventing all manner of fables concerning the Jews. As an illustration of this method, the following account of Moses will serve. According to Artapanus (Eusebius, ibid. ix. 27), Moses is he whom the Greeks called Musæus; he was, however, not (as in the Greek legend) the pupil, but the teacher, of Orpheus. Wherefore Moses is not only the inventor of many useful appliances and arts, such as navigation, architecture, military strategy, and of philosophy, but is also—this is peculiar to Artapanus—the real founder of the Greek-Egyptian worship. By the Egyptians, whose political system he organized, Moses was called Hermes διἁ τῶν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἑρμηνείαν ("because he expounded the writings of the priests").​

 

[Apollodorus]

It should be obvious that this isn't about "Artapanus". I only gave him as an example of writers of the Early Hellenistic period. Musaeus is mentioned by earlier writers including Plato. Artapanus simply altered the narrative to make Moses the ultimate source instead of the Egyptian priests. It is important to study the sources and the literature. See the links above.

More generally, to correctly determine the etymology of a word, it is necessary to examine all the evidence available, not stick to just one opinion.

The “etymology” suggested in Exodus is obviously untenable as stated in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, above, and as generally accepted by scholars. Therefore, alternative possibilities must be considered, no matter how “ridiculous” they may seem to fundamentalists.

 

[berndf]

It should be obvious that this isn't about "Artapanus". I only gave him as an example of writers of the Early Hellenistic period. Musaeus is mentioned by earlier writers including Plato.

But it took a fantasising mind like Artapanus to relate the names Μουσαῖος and משה for no apparent other reasons then that both names started with am M-sound and contained a sibilant.

 

[Ihsiin]

@Apollodorus have you ever read Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco? Your style of argumentation reminds me much of that of Colonel Ardenti. If you haven’t read the book I’d encourage you to do so, particularly chapter 10.

More on-topic, I agree completely with berndf - any proposed etymologies beyond Hebrew משה are highly speculative and lacking in evidence. I don’t think such speculation should belong on this forum.

 

[Apollodorus]

But it took a fantasising mind like Artapanus to relate the names Μουσαῖος and משה for no apparent other reasons then that both names started with am M-sound and contained a sibilant.

I think it is indisputable that “Moses” (Μωϋσῆς/Μωυσῆς Mōusēs) and “Musaeus” (Μουσαῖος Mousaios) are phonetically very similar, especially as used by Greek-speaking Jews. The similarity can’t be dismissed as “fantasy” in the Hellenistic period.

As shown by Finkelstein and Redford (see links above), the Exodus narrative suggests a seventh-century BC context which is consistent with a period of Egyptian influence. But we still have no conclusive evidence to securely establish an Egyptian provenance for “Moses” itself.

Given that the Exodus narrative seems to have undergone a process of alteration and expansion in the post-exilic period (Exodus – Wikipedia) and the earliest MS fragments are from the Hellenistic period, Hellenistic influence cannot logically be ruled out, in the same way an Egyptian or Semitic origin can’t be excluded.

 

[Apollodorus]

any proposed etymologies beyond Hebrew משה are highly speculative and lacking in evidence.

Are you saying we must accept the "etymology" given in Exodus that most sources regard as untenable?

 

[Ihsiin]

Are you saying we must accept the "etymology" given in Exodus that most sources regard as untenable?

No, I’m saying that given the evidence we have, further etymology is unknowable. This is also what berndf said in #2.

 

[Apollodorus]

I think it is indisputable that “Moses” (Μωϋσῆς/Μωυσῆς Mōusēs) and “Musaeus” (Μουσαῖος Mousaios) are phonetically very similar, especially as used by Greek-speaking Jews. The similarity can’t be dismissed as “fantasy” in the Hellenistic period.

It ought to be obvious that Artapanus of Alexandria was from Alexandria in Hellenistic Egypt where Greek was the main language among the Jews. He and other writers of the period wrote in Greek. Moreover, “there is general scholarly consensus that Artapanus used the Septuagint as a framework for his historical narrative” (Artapanus – Wikipedia).

It follows that there can be no question of the similarity between “Mouses” and “Mouseos” being “fantasy” or based on the initial “m”.

 

[Apollodorus]

No, I’m saying that given the evidence we have, further etymology is unknowable.

I see. I thought you meant the etymology of a word should not be sought anywhere outside the word itself.

Also, "further etymology is unknowable" seems to imply that the existing "etymology" as suggested in the Exodus text - and which has been dismissed by scholars - is knowable. Perhaps you would deign to rephrase that for greater clarity.

 

[berndf]

Also, "further etymology is unknowable" seems to imply that the existing "etymology" as suggested in the Exodus text - and which has been dismissed by scholars - is knowable.

No it does not. He said "unknowable" and there is no way you can turn this into its opposite. Period.

 

[berndf]

It follows that there can be no question of the similarity between “Mouses” and “Mouseos” being “fantasy” or based on the initial “m”.

That would make it even worse: The confusion of the two names would then be based on a Greek corruption of the Hebrew name.

 

[Apollodorus]

No it does not. He said "unknowable" and there is no way you can turn this into its opposite. Period.

Sorry, mate, but there is a difference between "existing etymology" and "further etymology". The latter can only exist in relation to the former. Are both of them "unknowable" or only the latter?

And why can't @Ihsiin speak for himself?

 

[Apollodorus]

That would make it even worse: The confusion of the two names would then be based on a Greek corruption of the Hebrew name.

I wasn't talking about "confusion" but about phonetic similarity. My exact statement was "similarities between the two characters, including the name, were acknowledged in the Early Hellenistic period". #6

"Confusion" and "similarity" are two different things in English.

 

[berndf]

I wasn't talking about "confusion" but about phonetic similarity. My exact statement was "similarities between the two characters, including the name, were acknowledged in the Early Hellenistic period". #6

"Confusion" and "similarity" are two different things in English.

Yes, they were indeed confused in "Early Hellenistic period" based on a Hellenised version of the Hebrew name. Which tells us exactly nothing about the real etymology of the name.

Sorry, mate, but there is a difference between "existing etymology" and "further etymology". The latter can only exist in relation to the former. Are both of them "unknowable" or only the latter?

"Further etymology" means etymology further back in time than the oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction. In this case, it means "further back in time than when the Torah was written". Stories about the origin of the name included in the Torah itself (i.e. Exodus 2.10) also belong to that realm of "further etymology".

 

[Apollodorus]

1. I think your Google translate app might be a tad defective.😀 Ancient writers may or may not have been "confused". I for one was talking about the phonetic similarity which must be indisputable.

2. In English, “further etymology” can’t be the same as “existing etymology”, full stop. If we are saying that “further etymology is unknowable,” we leave out the existing etymology. It logically follows that we need to specify what is meant by "existing etymology".

If by "existing etymology" you mean "oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction" as you appear to be saying, which "oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction" are you referring to???

 

[berndf]

If by "existing etymology" you mean "oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction" as you appear to be saying, which "oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction" are you referring to???

I didn't. I didn't use the term "existing etymology". "Etymology" means a chain of traces back into history. "Further etymology" means "anything before a given point in this chain". And this point is that the name occurs as משה in the Torah. This is the "oldest known attestation" and in this case there is no safe reconstruction beyond this oldest known attestation, i.e. "further etymology" is speculative.

 

[Ihsiin]

And why can't @Ihsiin speak for himself?

I think berndf has represented my position admirably, but to summarise: with the evidence we have, it is not possible to know where the word משה comes from.

 

[Platytude]

Just to add, not only we don't know where the name came from, we don't know where the character came from either. As elaborated in the linked source in #6 (Finkelstein), the milieu of Exodus should be understood as separate from its core narrative, as a context making for people contemporary to the compilation time. This is why attempting to find an etymology would be speculative hot air. We can't even be sure if Moses had initially been related to Egypt proper, but not later associated with Egypt for the sake of a bigger picture.

 

[Apollodorus]

"Etymology" means a chain of traces back into history. "Further etymology" means "anything before a given point in this chain". And this point is that the name occurs as משה in the Torah. This is the "oldest known attestation" and in this case there is no safe reconstruction beyond this oldest known attestation, i.e. "further etymology" is speculative.

Very interesting. If I recall correctly, you said "oldest known attestation or safe reconstruction" (#22).

Presumably, by "chain of traces back into history" and "given point in this chain" you mean points in time? If so, then would said points in time have a date that can be attached to them?

From what I see, the main references to Moses in Greek are:

Hellanicus of Lesbos (490-405),

Hecataeus of Abdera (360-290 BC),

Lysimachus of Alexandria (355-281 BC),

Philochorus of Athens (340-260 BC),

Manetho (c. 300-280 BC),

Artapanus of Alexandria (250-180? BC),

Septuagint/LXX (270 BC).

Obviously, most of these are from the Hellenistic period in which most Jews spoke Greek. As regards MS fragments of Exodus the vast majority are from the Hellenistic-Roman/Herodian period, with the exception of a very small fragment of Exodus 28:4-7 (7Q1) from the Hasmonean period (140-37 BC), which doesn’t mention “Moses”.

So, there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of "oldest known attestations" of Hebrew “Moses/Moshe” and even less of Exodus 2:10.

 

[berndf]

Obviously, most of these are from the Hellenistic period in which most Jews spoke Greek. As regards MS fragments of Exodus the vast majority are from the Hellenistic-Roman/Herodian period, with the exception of a very small fragment of Exodus 28:4-7 (7Q1) from the Hasmonean period (140-37 BC), which doesn’t mention “Moses”.

That is a nonsensical argument. There are almost no original Greek or Roman manuscripts. All the classical texts are copies of copies of copies. The fact that we do not have any 7th century BC copies of the Torah doesn't mean that Greek attestations are "older".

 

[Apollodorus]

Well, it was you who said “oldest known attestation” as part of your definition of etymology. See your post #22.

When I asked what “oldest known attestation” you’re referring to, your response was to vaguely theorise about “points in history”. But points in history must be datable. And you haven’t got any evidence for Hebrew “Moses/Moshe” that is datable to before the Hellenistic period, full stop.

In fact, you don't seem to be willing to provide any dates whatsoever. So, by your own definition, it’s all hot air. 😉

 

[berndf]

Listen who's talking.

Take, e.g., your oldest cited "attestation": This is not even included in any of the works attributed to Hellanicus but occurs ina probably 4th c. A.D. text by an unknown author, which is, almost certainly wrongly, attributed to Justin the Martyr claims that Hellanicus had written about a certain Moses prince of the Jews. You have copied the above list probably from G. van Kooten's 2006 paper, where he took this passage from Menahem Stern not without noting that Stern himself doubted the truth of the claim.

Apart from this, משה is a biblical figure. Its occurrence in the Torah defines the figure and the name. The only question that remains is from where the author(s) of the Torah got this name (which includes the possibility that they just invented it). As to the dating when the text was compiled, scholarly consensus today is during the reign of Hezekiah, i.e. around 700 BC.

It should also be noted that van Kooten, from whom you seem to have gotten your ideas, tried to demonstrate that Greek scholars had been familiar with Jewish mythology earlier than previously thought and nowhere formulates the absurd idea of inverting the timeline.

 

[Apollodorus]

Here are your own statements:

"Etymology" means a chain of traces back into history. "Further etymology" means "anything before a given point in this chain". And this point is that the name occurs as משה in the Torah. This is the "oldest known attestation" and in this case there is no safe reconstruction beyond this oldest known attestation.”

And:

“We do not have any 7th century BC copies of the Torah”.

For starters, your second statement is misleading because we don’t even have any 3rd century BC copies of the Torah.

Second, a thing can only be “oldest” in relation to other things that are more recent. If you have no dates, your “oldest known attestation” is undatable and therefore not the “oldest known attestation”. Exodus may have been composed in the 7th century BC, but this doesn’t mean that “Moses/Moshe” must have been part of the text at the same time. These are two separate things.

Also your statement “There are almost no original Greek or Roman manuscripts.”

The fact is that we do have MS fragments of Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Plato and other Greek works from Ptolemaic Egypt (3rd c. BC) that are earlier than HB fragments from the Herodian period.

Rhesus 945 (450-300 BC), attributed to Euripides, describes Musaeus as “holy (σεμνός), most advanced in lore among men and taught by Apollo and the Muses”. Plato in the Protagoras 316d mentions Musaeus (alongside Orpheus) as a religious leader who instructs his followers through mystic rites and prophecies, and in the Republic he mentions “books of Musaeus”, etc.

As regards Artapanus, van Kooten very clearly states:

“Whereas in Greek sources Musaeus is in fact viewed as the disciple of Orpheus, according to Artapanus' identification of Musaeus with Moses, followed by Alexander Polyhistor, this relationship is inverted and Orpheus is represented as the disciple of Moses, alias Musaeus … this is in fact a modification of the Greek view in Hecataeus of Abdera (FGrH 264, frg. 25 = Diodorus Siculus 1.96.2) that 'Orpheus transmits to the Greeks the sacred wisdom gained in his Egyptian travels (... ). It is altered by Artapanus so that Moses, not the Egyptian priests, becomes the ultimate source of Greek wisdom” (pp. 112-113).

As I said, it is important to read the sources and the literature, which is why I posted the links. The very fact that Artapanus and others felt free to make up stories about Moses suggests that the Moses narrative was not set in stone at the time but was to a large extent fluid. Religious fluidity is also supported by variations in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Elephantine papyri and Qumran scrolls, and clearly allowed for a degree of alteration, interpolation, and expansion all the way down to the second century BC, i.e., well into the Hellenistic period.

In any case, the suggestion that “Moses/Moshe” can’t have a non-Hebrew etymology remains totally unsubstantiated and unjustified.

If you're including the possibility that the name was "invented", why exclude the possibility of a borrowing from another language?

 

[berndf]

In any case, the suggestion that “Moses/Moshe” can’t have a non-Hebrew etymology remains totally unsubstantiated and unjustified.

Nobody here has ever said otherwise.

The verdict still is "further etymology is unclear" (one last time to make is absolutely clear what this means: "We don’t know where the authors of the Torah got the name משה from") and in a dictionary forum which is supposed the reflect current knowledge and not to endeavour into endless speculation, there isn't really much to add.

Moderator note: Thread is closed.