First of all yes
The name "Israel" is not a late "invention" but is early known from Pharaoh Merenptah's inscription from approx. 1225 BC (found by Flinders Petrie in 1896): "... Ashqelon is taken as prisoners ... Gezer is taken ... Israel destroyed. ..."
That this is no coincidence is demonstrated by the existence of even one more Merenptah-stele with "Israel" - Spiegelberg's find (now, both at the Cairo Museum).
Ramses II's son, Merenptah, reigned 10 years (1228-1218 BC). It demonstrates the lowdating hypothesis is all wrong concerning that Israel began 40 years of desert travel during the reign of Merenptah, wrongly referred to by the scholars as "the new tough Pharaoh": So how could Israel be mentioned as a people living in Canaan, where this people, according to the hitherto theory had not yet arrived and began their residing in the country?
The remarkable is, no researchers have doubted the name.
The doubt is only how big was Israel, was it a minor tribe on a smaller tribe area or was it bigger in general.
I know that this is a bit o topic, but is somehow related to a lot of other discussions here on the board about Moses, Pentateuch and Egypt
With kindly thanks to Ove v Spaeth
he allowed me to copy this:
So you don't need to scroll down in his webpage - but there is other genuine
articles from his huge research.
Genuine Egyptian Source Documentation on Moses
By OVE VON SPAETH
Concerning many researchers' dismissal of the oldest texts of the Bible, i.e. The Pentateuch, a hypothetical claim can be seen: that the texts consist of myths or are later 'fabricated' products.
However, it has been demonstrated openly that this is completely wrong - not least according to a comprehensive and thorough documentation with concrete and direct sources.
Many researchers place the time of Moses too late in history, although traces of him have not been found in those later periods. Other researchers persist in seeing Moses as a myth because they do not believe that any traces of him exist at all.
The result? Again, many researchers adopted the attitude that: a) Abraham and Moses are pure fiction, b) the exodus never took place, and c) that most of the Bible consists of fictional, national-ideological narratives set in a 'patchwork' of religious backgrounds - everything invented by the Jewish priests ca. 300 BC.
However, for various reasons it is totally ignored that concrete Egyptian source documentation on Moses exists. In Ove von Spaeth's book-series "Assassinating Moses" in addition to these data hundreds of handed down sources, Egyptian, Greek, Arab, Indian, etc., presented by archaeologists, historians, Egyptologists, anthropologists, and numerous researchers from many disciplines of science - are brought to light.
Also, while the many undocumented claims that the ancient biblical text material is non-historical are based on numerous 'interpretations', all the genuine source documentation on Moses' historical existence is given directly in the following - entirely without any such interpretation:
From Egyptology: Among confirming archaeological finds analysed on the basis of their historical, anthropological, physical, chemical, and geographical circumstances some extraordinary finds should be mentioned:
1. It is a fact that the pharaoh now known as Tuthmosis II is mentioned in ancient Jewish writings as "the stepfather of Moses" and "the husband of Pharaoh's daughter". Also the Egyptian-Jewish writer Artapanos, ca. 150 BC, maintained this - as quoted by ancient Church historian Eusebius who specifically states ("Evangelica Praeparatio, IX", 27, 433b-434b) that this particular pharaoh (Tuthmosis II) was the oldest known case of a person suffering from elephantiasis.
The mummy of Pharaoh Tuthmosis II was found as late as in 1881, and his skin still showed signs of an advanced stage of affliction resembling elephantiasis - the most violent case ever seen on any royal mummy. This strongly indicates that these specific data about Moses cannot have been invented, as they refer exactly to a certain pharaoh and his time (ca. 1500 BC). In addition, it even determines a more correct time for the existence of Moses.
2. Around 280 BC the Egyptian King Ptolemy II had started collecting the ancient temple libraries and archives from all over Egypt for his new large library of Alexandria - actually two legendary libraries, "Serapeion" next to the Serapis temple, and "Mouseion" (Latin: Museum) in the base of the giant lighthouse at the harbour. They would contain "all knowledge of the civilized world", and there were stored several hundred thousands scrolls and books; he drove an intensive effort that many works could be translated in the international language, Greek. The king's historian, the priest Manetho, could here refer from a huge, in particular Egyptian material about Moses and the Israelite's exodus taking place during the time of the Pharaoh Amenophis whom we know now as Amenhotep II. He was Tuthmosis II's grandson. Again, the time frame for Moses is an exact match.
However, some researchers argue that "one can hardly rely on Manetho". But how can we rely on our theological researchers with robust statements that "Moses was invented by Jewish priests in the 300-century BC" in Israel or even Babylon, when simultaneously Manetho in Alexandria can refer from much older Egyptian records in precise detail about Moses?
From archaeology: Although many academic schools claim persistently that Moses and the exodus from Egypt is a myth - it is a claim in open conflict with important ancient writings.
3. The Tell el-Amarna letters of the archives (found in 1887) of the pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaton state that the city princes and governors in Canaan - at that time dominated by Egypt - for a period of some 20 years asked Egypt for help against the intruding Apiru people, i.e. the Hebrews: the number of years is in accordance with the biblical description stating that the invasion took place over a period of 21 years.
When also attempts are made to reject the corresponding probable time of the Hebrew-Israelite invasion, it can now be proved that such rejections were done on an extremely inadequate basis:
4. This is also the case regarding the archaeological excavations of Jericho having reveiled the collapse of the city walls (with evident traces of an earthquake), dating ca. 1415 BC - all exactly as in the biblical narrative, which also mentions the house of Rahab on top of the wall, and a burning down of the city, and the prior looting of all metal objects (the Book of Joshua, 6:19 og 6:24). The archaeologists did really find houses upon the wall and remains of actual fires arranged to burn down the city, together with the fact that precisely this city only (specific layer, also with finds of seals with names of contemporary Pharaoh Amenhotep III) - among all the many ancient Jerichoes built on top of each other - was totally robbed of all kinds of metal.
5. In the mentioned pharaonic archives of letters at Tell el-Amarna a correspondence with the Hittites was found, and at the excavation in 1905 of the Hittites' capital in present-day Turkey a similar and simultaneous exchange of letters with Egypt was found. At both sites the dating is scientifically established and match precisely each other - and the exact same dating applies to the Egyptian archive letters from from the Canaanitic rulers after the Jericho conquest asking for help because of the Israelite raid and siege of Jerusalem. Thus, with these concrete, written data from three geographically independent sites, research in more than 100 years has been able to know that the Israelite exodus ended at the Jericho conquest during the reign of a particular pharaoh, ca. 1400 BC. How can the researchers still maintain, although factually unfounded, that the exodus must have taken place even several centuries later, and because Jericho at this late stage was an empty ruin city, consequently, here was no conquest so the whole exodus must be a myth?
6. Further, the theological researchers have not preferred drawing conclusions from the fact that the Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay in 1979 in a tomb at Jerusalem found a genuine text from the Bible's Book of Numbers written on scrolls of silver, and is now at the Israel Museum. Later, several verses of the Pantateuch have been interpreted. The scrolls are from even the 5th century BC - i.e. long before the Jew's Babylonian exile and the claimed late creation of the Bible.
From the writers of antiquity: Although many general inscriptions in stone exist, the perishableness of old papyrus writing material is a problem - only few manuscripts or parts of texts on papyrus prior to ca. 1300 BC are preserved; - however:
7. When, 2,300 years ago, King Ptolemy II ordered all ancient books and documents from the libraries of the temples all over Egypt to be collected in his new great library in Alexandria - it is a fact too that in 280 BC original Egyptian documentation on Moses still existed - archives which less than three centuries later were at disposal for the Jewish philosopher in Alexandria, Philo, who here wrote a biography about Moses.
8. The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, almost simultaneously 2,000 years ago, had invaluable sources on the history of the Jews, also because the conqueror of Jerusalem, Titus Caesar (Vespasian), gave Josephus scrolls confiscated from the Jerusalem Temple on its destruction in 70 AD. Josephus had no problem acknowledging the authenticity of Manetho's texts but disagreed very much with Manetho's Egyptian view on Moses as a destructive rebel - to Josephus he was a great hero.
9. In the Bible, Moses is mentioned with such terms as 'the Son of Pharaoh's Daughter'. This, which is actually his Egyptian royal title, corresponds with the fact that Manetho called him both Moses and Osarsyph - i.e. User-sif in late-Egyptian language meaning 'child of Osiris', i.e. Horus, who was always identified with the crown prince of Egypt.
The Ptolemean kings allowed Jews to settle down in Egypt - and for about 300 years in the Egyptian city of Leontopolis they had their own temple, after the Jerusalem model, and their own high priest. In Alexandria they mostly occupied a quarter of the great city, namely the area called Delta. Altogether there has been a huge group of new inhabitants (and in addition many Samaritan emigrants) who could support the Egyptian King Ptolemy II's sponsoring of a translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek international language - the Septuaginta Bible.
10. Again, it was around 280 BC that this task was carried out in Alexandria and in this metropolis' famous, extensive library Manetho may by chance even have worked almost side by side with some of the 72 translating Jewish rabbis and scholars. So, how can it possibly be claimed that the Bible is a late creation - and how could the actually existing Septuaginta (Greek) Bible then have been translated from a Hebrew Bible which according to the theorists' claim hardly could have existed at this time?
From other sources, also Romans, the Church Fathers - and from India: It must now be taken into account that surprisingly many concrete statements of antiquity still exist concerning Moses' existence, royal status, and presence in Egypt.
The knowledge of Moses as heir to the throne, who was to become pharaoh, as well as his later so dramatic fate, was wide-spread not only among ancient writers, but simultaneously as far away as India, where an important statement about Moses’ situation in Egypt has survived.
11. From old Buddhist chronicles it appears that "Moses was an Egyptian prince, who was brought to fight for power against his brother, who wanted to become a pharaoh himself - which is why the whole situation with Moses as leader of the Jews (the Israelites) during their departure from Egypt only took place because Moses lost the fight to become pharaoh".
- A version of this narrative - in which manuscripts also included important later statements about hitherto unknown episodes from the long travels of Jesus - was found in the archives of a Buddhist monastery in Kashmir by Nicolas Notowitch, a Russian explorer. He had the text translated and published in French and English, i.e. "La vie inconnue de Jésus Christ" (Oldenburg and New York 1894); in the monastery it was rediscovered of the Austrian painter and travelling writer, Roerich, in 1925.
12. In ca. 320 BC, Hekataios of Abdera, an Greek historian in Alexandria, gave a similar account about how the Egyptian king had outmanoeuvred his brother who was the rightful heir to the throne but who later had to escape together with crowds of followers, among these many of high rank. After setting off from the site later known as Pelusium (today's Port Said), some of these groups reached Phoenicia, Crete, and the area of the Athens.
13. Diodorus Siculus, the Roman historian, also gives such an account - and adds about the distinguished Egyptians escaping by sea that they "all came from Thebes and belonged to a group that escaped from Egypt at the same time as Moses".
14. That the royal Egyptian descent of Moses was the main reason for his exile is apparently in accordance with the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea. In approx. 290 AD, he says in his work "Evangelica Praeparatio" (9:27) that it was "... a major intrigue at the court ..." with "... attempt to kill Moses ..." as well as false accusations that led to his escape.
Further facts: It is an inevitable fact that none of the learned men in antiquity, not even those who were opponents of the Bible or the Jews, has ever denied the existence of Moses. The denial proclaimed among today's researchers would have been considered arrogant.
Eventually, many present academic schools and students understood their claim (concerning "Moses-being-a-myth") as almost the very truth - and although some of its elements when observed individually may not be unreasonable thinking, they never realized that the whole claim is still not anything more than purely hypothetical and has never been concretely proven !
If the most important personality of the Old Testament and in addition one of the oldest and most crucial features connected to Jewish self-understanding were to be an entirely fictive figure - it had to cause a transformation of the origin of the very Mosaic religion and all of the Jewish ancient tradition into an amazing mystery.
15. When researchers claim that no Egyptian sources about Moses and the Israelite exodus exists, we have to ask why, for example, the Egyptian-Greek historian Manethos information from Egyptian archives, and further the Rabbinical Writings' agreement with the archaeological results, are all ignored?
16. It is overlooked that these researchers' allegations are contradicted by the Bible's own information, for example that King Hezekiah had the biblical texts copied and edited ("Proverbs", 25:1). Hezekiah is not an "invention" but is known concretely from his inscription in his tunnel beneath Jerusalem, ca. 700 BC, and from the Babylonial King Sennacherib's inscription (on "Sennacherib's prism"), and besides, the dating fits exactly to an astronomical information in biblical text about him. In any case the Moses-texts had already an established existence with a tradition prior to 700 BC.
17. In the biblical text known as the Law of Moses, later additions are seen to have arrived from other Near Oriental traditions with brutal, primitive punishing methods and some over-dimensioned animal sacrifices. Again, such has been taken as evidence that Moses and his own basic text has not existed. But later biblical prophets, for example "Jeremiah" (23:36) approx. 600 BC and later "Hosea" (6.6) points to and regret such a distortion of the original text. Later the Bible openly speaks about the priest Ezra (about 3rd century BC) editing in the biblical text - which, thus, actually just existed beforehand.
18. A Greek-Jewish historian, Eupolemus - who, around 160 BC, was the ambassador in Rome for his Maccabean government in Israel - stated in his work, "About the Judean Kings": "... Moses, the first sage ...". The work is cited by several of the authors of antiquity. If Moses really had been a myth invented and described by priests only a few generations before Eupolemus' own time, this erudite man of priestly family would have known about it and could not then in his historical narrative have written about Moses.
Much more evidence than all these examples are existing - thus an overwhelming confirmation of Moses' historical existence both as concrete Egyptian and Jewish sources. When research is having problems with details of the case, the solution is, therefore, not to claim him being a myth.
Previously, many Egyptologist were also educated in Greek and ancient Semitic languages (including commonly mastering several other languages and thus benefiting from Egyptological books in both English, French and German) - but today such basis is more rare, unfortunately, although an important part of our information about ancient Egypt has been preserved in Greek. Likewise, among anthropologists in recent times their knowledge has often become more specialized at the expense of their former force of being able to combine many circumstances and topics from various disciplines.
Our exciting history is also, not least, a most important field of research - but it happens in certain academic branches of research that they are cutting themselves off from information which could have changed and improved their hitherto picture; however, now such practice ought to belong to the past. History is of more use and relevance as more the accessibility is established regarding enlightening data - also from the many other connected fields.
Ove von Spaeth, writer, researcher, - A brief survey concerning archaeological and textual source traces on Moses - with texts and data from this author's book-series, "Assassinating Moses", - documentation published via Zenith IC Project - (Nov.2007)
Otherwise if any interest