i don't claim i write according to what scholarship says if you don't understand the problem it's because there is no problem both comments above are pointless except to underline an unfamiliarity with the distinction between ancient texts and secondary scholarship let me illustrate by using your claim of a contradiction and restating what i said re moses as if it dealt with odysseus another fictional person 'odysseus is a fictional character invented by homer and homer's odyssey is not a source for explaining the etymology of the name ' no one would blink at that except just as 'moses mashah' is a kind of figura etymologica used by the writers to explain a name whose origins they did not know so too is 'odysseus odussamemos' at od xix ff this is very frequent in ancient literature just as modern scholarship doesn't accept the biblical etymology for moses so classical scholarship has generally disabused itself of the idea stated by autolykos that odysseus be named 'child of hate woe' because his grandfather was in wrathful odds with the world the ancient jewish readers of the bible were quite aware as we can see from philo of alexandria and josephus who both proposed an egyptian etymology in doing so they dismissed the folk etymology given in the tanakh realizing that that the derivation from the verb 'to draw from' was an infra hebrew folk etymology a kind of figura etymologica as ancient rhetoric classified such games that had no value how could an egyptian speaking princess in bc be sufficiently fluent in a language that was only attested in that form several hundred years alter to give moses a name that would make sense a millennium later in medieval times once direct and living contact with antiquity was lost all sorts of fantastic speculations developed