Moses’ Other Names: A Clue to the Biblical Exodus During Egypt’s Civil War?
September 2025 | Vol. 13.9
By Thomas Schneider
The majority of Hebrew Bible scholarship sees in the exodus narrative a chronologically multi-layered text of cultural memory that anchors Israel’s identity in a foundational event of its history of salvation: selected by Yahweh, Moses liberated the Hebrews from servitude in Egypt and brought the people, as a full-fledged nation, to the borders of the Promised Land. There is broad consensus in modern research that a literal historicity of the exodus as given in the Book of Exodus cannot be upheld. At the same time, scholars have posited that there may have been an actual historical event that gave rise to the legend of the exodus. The transfer of groups of foreigners into and out of Egypt — as prisoners, state-drafted workers, professionals etc. — is well attested throughout all of Egypt’s history. However, tying any of this information directly to an exodus event has so far proven elusive.
Nonetheless, there is additional extra-Biblical information that may help to situate the origin of the Exodus story more precisely in time and space: the Egyptian names of Moses as preserved in versions of the infamous story of the lepers. This story, retold by the Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus from Greco-Egyptian sources (and probably anti-Semitic in intention), reports how a king Amenophis was advised to cleanse Egypt of “lepers and other polluted persons”.
Departure of the Israelites, David Roberts (1829). Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.
As Josephus tells it, Amenophis confined 80,000 such people from Egypt initially in a quarry to the east of the Nile. After suffering many hardships, they requested to be transferred from the quarries to the abandoned former Hyksos capital Avaris, where they chose as their leader a man named Osarseph who renamed himself “Moses”. He gave the lepers a new religion that despised the Egyptian gods and their sacred animals, and enlisted the military support of the “shepherds” (a wrong interpretation of “Hyksos”, the Egyptian term for a western Asiatic dynasty that ruled in the Egyptian delta 1650-1550 BCE) in Jerusalem to revolt against Amenophis. With 200,000 of the “shepherds” joining forces with the “lepers”, together they assumed control in Egypt, looted the Egyptian temples, and slaughtered the sacred animals. Amenophis fled to Ethiopia and could regain Egypt only 13 years later with the support of his son Ramesses, leading to the expulsion of the “shepherds” and “their polluted allies”.
For this story, Josephus cites Egypt’s first chronographer Manetho (mid-3rd c. BCE) and the Egyptian priest and Stoic philosopher Chaeremon (1st c. CE). Intriguingly, Manetho and Chaeremon give as Moses’ original (Egyptian) names “Osarseph” (Οσαρσήφ; one manuscript has “Osarsiph” / Οσαρσίφ) and “Tisithen” (Τισιθέν), respectively:
Occupying this city and using the region as a base for revolt, they appointed as their leader one of the priests of Heliopolis called Osarsēph and took an oath of obedience to him in everything... It is said that the priest who framed their constitution and their laws was a native of Heliopolis, named Osarseph after the god Osiris, worshipped at Heliopolis; but when he joined this people, he changed his name and was called Moses.
The next witness I shall cross-examine is Chaeremon. This writer likewise professes to write the history of Egypt, and agrees with Manetho in giving the names of Amenophis and Ramesses to the king and his son. Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep, and reproached him for the destruction of her temple in war-time. The sacred scribe Phritobautes told him that, if he purged Egypt of its contaminated population, he might cease to be alarmed. The king, thereupon, collected 250,000 afflicted persons and banished them from the country. Their leaders were scribes, Moses and another sacred scribe—Joseph. Their Egyptian names were Tisithen (Τισιθέν) for Moses and Peteseph (Πετεσήφ) for Joseph.
These names for Moses — Osarsēph and Tisithen — must have a historical or narrative origin, yet they have never been the topic of a thorough linguistic analysis.
Osarseph/Osarsiph is in all probability the correct late form of Egyptian Wsjr-(m-)ḫʕw=f “Osiris is in his appearance!”. Personal names of the type “(the god) is in his appearance” are well attested in the Middle Kingdom. While such names are not currently documented after the Middle Kingdom, the appearance of Osiris is a motif well known from the New Kingdom and later as a symbol of kingship and the god’s triumph over Seth, the murderer of Osiris. For example, the Great Papyrus Harris starts with proclaiming that king Ramesses III “appeared (= assumed kingship) with the White Crown like Osiris”. A statement Wsjr-(m-)ḫʕw=f “Osiris is in his appearance!” may thus in origin have served as a political slogan proclaiming Osiris’ rightful kingship.
As for the second Egyptian name, Tisithén, this appears to be a precise Greek rendering of Egyptian dꜢdꜢ–tnw “The enemy from the cliff (or ‘border’ or ‘quarry’)”.
What to make of these two etymologies? Can they be used as historical evidence? Traditionally, scholars have mostly seen the equation of the leader of the leper story with Moses as a later interpolation, and the leper story as an amalgamation of literary motifs from the Hyksos period through the Ramesside period. However, these two names are likely not late fictional creations; due to their linguistic form, they must have an earlier historical origin. I propose to link the two names to a precise episode in Egypt’s history: the civil war at the transition from the 19th to the 20th dynasty. Several scholars have proposed this time period around 1200 BCE as a potential backdrop to the exodus story: a civil war shattering the country for one generation, between the end of the reign of Merenptah (1224–1214 BCE) and the reign of Setnakhte (1200–1197 BCE). This time included the reigns of Seti II, the usurper Amenmesse, Siptah and queen Tewosre.
Chart showing the relationship of rulers and contenders for the throne during the civil war that occurred in the transition from the 19th to the 20th dynasties in Egypt.
This domestic crisis at the end of the 19th dynasty is documented in some of the most singular documents preserved from ancient Egypt, namely documents departing from the Egyptian tradition that would regularly avoid addressing negative events. The Great Papyrus Harris (Papyrus British Museum EA 9999), an accountability report on the reign of Ramesses III, describes in its historical prologue the time leading up to the reign of Setnakhte, Ramesses’ III’s father, as follows (75,2-6; author’s translation):
The country of Egypt was cast out; everyone was his own yardstick. They had no leader, with many years having previously given way to a period of other years. Thus, the country of Egypt consisted of chieftains and mayors, each of them killing one another, whether noble or lowly. Thereafter, another time occurred, consisting of empty years, when Irsu, a certain Syrian, was with them as chieftain, having put the entire country under his control. One person would team up with his companion in plundering their belongings. One treated the gods in the way of the people, in that one no longer sacrificed offerings within the temples. Then, however, the gods turned around towards mercy, letting the country be righteous according to its correct design, by installing their son, who had come forth from their body, as ruler of every land, on the great throne: Userkhaure-Setepenre-Meriamun, the Son of Re Setnakhte-Mererre-Meriamun. The likeness of Seth when he is in a fury, he straightened out the entire land which had been rebellious, killing the unruly ones who had existed in Ta-Mery (Egypt) and cleansing the great throne of Egypt.
The Great Harris Papyrus, Historical Prologue. This section describes the events leading up to the reign of Setnakhte. British Museum EA3999, 75. © The Trustees of the British Museum. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
The text appears to differentiate between three periods of the civil war with widespread violence: a period of political fragmentation during which the country was ruled by “chieftains” and “mayors”; a subsequent “other time” when the entire country was subjected to the rule of a Syrian chieftain “Irsu” (which may be a code name for king Siptah, more on this below); and the restoration of order by king Setnakhte, the founder of the 20th dynasty.
The other exceptional document about the civil war is a stele by king Setnakhte discovered on Elephantine Island in 1971. After describing his selection as ruler by the gods of Egypt, the text proceeds as follows (in the translation, I follow Seidlmayer with minor changes):
“Now his Majesty (Setnakhte) was like his father Seth, spreading out his two arms to liberate Egypt from those who harmed it. His (Seth’s) power – its protection enclosed his (the king’s) body; his enemies fell before him after fear of him had seized their hearts. They fled like sparrows and small birds when a falcon is after them, after they had dropped the silver, gold, copper and linen of Ta-Meri (Egypt) which they had given to these Asiatics in order to acquire fighters to attack the borders of Egypt. Their plans have failed and their schemes [here a Semitic loanword is used!] have come to naught. When all gods and all goddesses appeared (in festival), their wonders were in presence of the Perfect God (= Setnakhte), predicting for him victory and that the opponents and enemies would fall under him. When the gods arbitrated against them, the depressed mood was brightened. Year 2, second month of summer, day 10: there were no (more) enemies of his Majesty in any lands.”
Stela of Setnakhte from Elephantine, FN-K375 photo: Dieter Johannes © DAI Kairo
The situation described here — opponents of Setnakhte paying people from the Levant to enlist military support from abroad, followed by their expulsion and escape — has often been identified by scholars as a possible historical backdrop of the Biblical exodus story. The new evidence adduced through the proposed interpretation of Moses’ Egyptian names can perhaps be tied to this historical context.
As a political slogan or sobriquet, Wśjr-(m-)ḫʕw=f “Osiris is in his appearance!” can be seen as a rebuke of Setnakhte in two ways. First, it counters the claim of his throne name, Wśr-ḫʕw-rʕ “who is strong (wśr) of the appearance of Re” (» “The one with Re’s strong appearance”) through the statement that instead of king Setnakhte, “Osiris is in his appearance!”. Second, Osiris’ appearance as the rightful king would mean the god’s triumph over his murderer Seth — the very god Setnakhte evokes in his prenomen (“Seth is victorious”). It is interesting to notice that Setnakhte’s stele concludes by asserting that “all gods and all goddesses appeared (in festival)”. Is this an offer of political reconciliation, not prioritizing any deity’s appearance?
Fragmentary relief depicting the god Seth, from the open-air museum at Karnak. Photo: Dr Amy Calvert. CC By-NC-SA 4.0
In turn, the label “enemy from the cliff” would be a derogatory political term used by Setnakhte’s faction for one of their main opponents, maybe an individual leading a revolt from Egypt’s border region. A similar code word was in use for Akhenaten who was labelled “the criminal from Amarna” in references after his demise.
Political sobriquets of this type are well attested in the period’s political discourse. A political contender for the throne during the domestic crisis, Bay, echoed and amplified Siptah’s throne name “beneficial for Re” in his own epithet, “beneficial for the gods!”. As his mummy shows, Siptah suffered from partial paralysis, possibly caused by polio. Thus, Bay’s epithets, “Who has established the king on his fathers’ throne” and “Who has raised the ruler’s arm” could well have a disparaging innuendo. Similarly, the name of the Syrian usurper mentioned in the Great Papyrus Harris, Irsu, means “the one who made (= reigned) 6 [years]”. This could be a code name for king Siptah, who indeed only reigned for 6 years, was later considered illegitimate, and whose mother may have been Levantine.
Damaged statue of king Siptah as a child sitting on the lap of an unknown ruler whose figure has been removed, c. 1210/00 BC. Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst München Gl 122. Photo by Marianne Franke, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Returning then to Josephus’ story of the lepers, the kings Amenophis and Ramesses mentioned in the story of the lepers can be understood as forming a historical bracket around the epoch of the civil war. We can understand “Amenophis” here as a reference to Merenptah, as elsewhere Manetho himself refers to Ramesses II’s successor Merenptah (wrongly) once as “Amenophis” and another time, as “Ammenephthis”, clearly a conflation of the names Amenophis and Merenptah. In turn, when his account speaks about Amenophis’ son “Sethos, also called Ramesses after his grandfather Rapses”, this would refer to the individuals ending the civil war, Setnakhte and his son Ramesses III (1197-1166). In his account, Manetho also mentions “13 years” of purportedly foreign rule in Egypt; this could be regarded as comprising the combined reigns of Seti II/Amenmesse (6 years) and of Siptah/ Tewosre (7 years).
Drawing of a relief of King Setnakhte. The “cleansing” of Egypt of enemies from Canaan under Setnakhte may be the setting for the biblical Exodus. Drawing by Karl Richard Lepsius (1810-84). Public Domain.
Within the final phase of the civil war — Queen Tewosre’s conflict with Setnakhte — we would thus have to search for another individual labelled by the two sides of the conflict, Osarsēph, “Osiris is in his appearance!” and Tisithén, “The enemy from the cliff”. While this interpretation is clearly speculative at this point, it may vindicate historiographically extra-Biblical traditions about Moses: whereas the Biblical story does not allow to pinpoint a precise historical context for the exodus event, the tradition preserved by Manetho and Chairemon might provide precisely that nexus. If so, Setnakhte’s “cleansing” of Egypt of enemies from Canaan could indeed be regarded as evidence of an actual exodus – reflected in the Biblical exodus account – in Setnakhte’s 2nd year, 1198 BCE.
It remains to be seen whether other scholars will suggest alternative historical or narrative contexts for the names Osarsēph/ Osarsiph and Tisithén — but if they do, they will need to account for their linguistic interpretation.
Thomas Schneider is Professor of Egyptology and Near Eastern Studies at the University of British Columbia and Chief Executive of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities.
Author’s Note:
I am much indebted to Roman Gundacker and Julien Cooper for a discussion and suggestions about the two names in question.
A more comprehensive discussion with a full linguistic explanation of the two names ‘Osarseph’ and ‘Tisithen’ will be published in: Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, Neil G. Smith, Brad C. Sparks (eds.), Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Advances in Archaeology, Geoscience, History (Springer, 2026).
Further Reading:
Perspectives on the exodus:
Manfred Bietak and Gary A. Rendsburg, “Egypt and the Exodus”. Chapter II in: Hershel Shanks and John Merrill (eds.), Ancient Israel, From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, ed. by Hershel Shanks and John Merrill. Biblical Archaeology Society (2021), pp. 17-58, 342-351.
Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider and William H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective – Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Springer (2015)
Thomas Schneider, “Moses the Egyptian? A Reassessment of the Etymology of the Name ‘Moses’”, in “And in Length of Days Understanding” (Job 12:12): Essays on Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond in Honor of Thomas E. Levy, ed. by E. Ben Yosef, I.W.N. Jones. Springer (2023), pp. 1047-1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27330-8_43
The story of the lepers:
R.E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. T&T Clark International (2006), pp. 192-214.
Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia. Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World. Harvard University Press (1997), pp. 17-21.
Egypt’s civil war:
Aidan Dodson, Poisoned Legacy. The Fall of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty. American University of Cairo Press (2016).
Thomas Schneider, “Siptah und Beja”. Neubeurteilung einer historischen Konstellation, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 130 (2003), 133-146.
Stephan Seidlmayer, “Epigraphische Bemerkungen zur Stele des Sethnachte aus Elephantine“, in: Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz (eds.), Stationen. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet. Philipp von Zabern (1998), pp. 363-38.
How to cite this article:
Schneider, T. 2025. “Moses’ other names: A clue to the Biblical exodus during Egypt’s civil war?” The Ancient Near East Today 13.9. Accessed at: https://anetoday.org/moses-other-names-exodus/.
Want to learn more?
From Monolatry to Monotheism: The Changing Face of the Biblical Pantheon
What is a God in the Hebrew Bible? Part 2: Characteristics and Hierarchy
Kobus Truter
How many more untruths will be uncovered?