An exerpt from;
http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/moses.htm
The Historicity of Moses:
Our only source of knowledge about an individual named Moses is the Bible. Archaeology has not unearthed objects bearing his name, nor do ancient Near Eastern documents contain references to him. Therefore, judging his historicity, like the historicity of other early biblical figures, depends on one’s view of the historicity of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch where the preponderance of Mosaic references are found. The historicity of the Pentateuch is a vexed question in biblical scholarship. Based on inconsistencies and doublets, scholars have isolated separate sources dating from different periods. Because some of the Moses stories show inconsistencies (e.g., in some of the wilderness narratives) or occur in doublets (e.g., intercessions in Exodus and Numbers), it is difficult to know which material is historically authentic, if any. Most scholars think that the most reliable references to Moses come from the J and E sources, the two earliest.
Some scholars have gone further and isolated four different themes or traditions connected with Moses: the exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Sinai, the wandering in the wilderness, and the entrance into the Promised Land. These themes, according to modern scholars like M. Noth and G. von Rad, originated in separate settings among various tribes and preserve different historical experiences. It would then seem doubtful that the same leader could have figured in all of them. According to this view there is a gap between the original themes/traditions and the picture presented even in the earliest sources of J and E.
This difficulty is refuted by those who suggest that even if the traditions developed independently, it is not impossible that Moses originally had a place in all of them. Each tradition developed differently, and so each developed a different view of Moses as well. Thus different aspects of the same person are preserved in different traditions.
Another problem is posed by some: in one of the earliest references to the Exodus, the poem in Exodus 15, Moses is not mentioned. By the same token, references to Moses outside of the Pentateuch (especially in prophetic and hymnic literature), even in connection with exodus or Sinai motifs, are relatively few. Thus the historicity of the man, as opposed to the events, is called into question. But this does not mean that Moses was actually a negligible or nonexistent person; it results simply from the fact that prophetic and hymnic literature is concerned with God and Israel, not with individuals, and therefore it highlights very few historical personages.
It is unlikely that a quick consensus will be reached concerning the historicity of the Pentateuch. Indeed, it might be better if this concern were replaced by concern for its literary and religious aspects. Here there is no need to rely on the hypothetical reconstruction of sources or traditions. The Pentateuch makes abundantly clear (and it is not contradicted by references elsewhere in the Bible), that there was one person who, at least from the point of view of Israel’s literary-religious tradition, played a major role at the crucial point when the nation was born and its religious norms established. The importance of Moses, like the importance of all great national heroes, transcends his historicity.