Biblical Moses<\/strong><\/mark>.<\/p>\nA proto-Sinaitic writing was indeed found in an Egyptian mine at Serabit el-Khadim, in the Sinai<\/strong>, and it is said it could refer to Moses.<\/p>\nThe author of this interpretation is Michael Bar-Ron<\/mark><\/b>, an epigrapher specializing in proto-Sinaitic writing and a researcher at Ariel University (Israel).<\/p>\nHe is the one who has codified two inscriptions, in particular, with the phrases \u201cthis comes from Moses\u201d<\/i> and “a saying of Moses”. <\/i><\/p>\n
It could be the first extra-biblical testimony<\/strong> of the great biblical leader, but some scholars have criticized the interpretation, while others, such as Bar-Ron’s academic supervisor, Pieter van der Veen<\/strong>, have expressed support. The discovery is still awaiting peer review<\/strong>.<\/p>\nIn the meantime, we wanted to learn more; below is the interview<\/strong> with the author of the discovery.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Interview with epigrapher Michael Bar-Ron<\/h2>\n
QUESTION – Prof. Bar-Ron, what epigraphic and paleographic evidence convinces you that the inscriptions contain a reference to the Biblical Moses?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – My reading is grounded in a systematic, multi-year comparative study of the entire Proto-Sinaitic corpus<\/strong> from Serabit el-Khadim and related sites.<\/p>\nI examined originals and casts (including at Harvard\u2019s Museum of the Ancient Near East) using shifting-light photography<\/strong> and high-resolution imagery<\/strong>, and then compared letter forms across dozens of inscriptions.<\/p>\nIn both Sinai 357<\/strong> and Sinai 361<\/strong>, the sequence of signs aligns closely<\/strong> with expected forms for zayin<\/i>, tau<\/i>, mem<\/i>, mem<\/i>, and shin<\/i>, in early that early Semitic script, yielding the phrase zot m\u2019Moshe<\/strong> (\u201cthis is from Moses\u201d).<\/p>\nIn Sinai 361<\/em>, we’re speaking of the glyps for nun<\/i>, aleph<\/i>, mem<\/i>, mem<\/i>, mem<\/i>, and shin<\/i>, yielding the phrase n’um Moshe<\/strong> (“so says Moses”). Both in the same, corresponding<\/strong> place on the stone surface in relation to the rest of the text.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
QUESTION – And is there consistency with the other inscriptions found at the same archaeological site?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – Yes, the identification is strengthened by parallel letter shapes in all other<\/strong> proto-Sinaitic inscriptions found at the site, and by consistent spacing, sign order, and contextual syntax.<\/p>\nMy letter ID’s are based on the work of giants in the field<\/strong>, of earlier generations down to today. There is nothing controversial in that alphabetic sign base.<\/p>\nIn Part I, they are organized as a definitive list of the proto-Sinaitic letter-signs<\/strong>, based on their hieroglyphic and cuneiform roots. In Part II an epigraphic analysis is made by which several inscriptions, these included, are revealed to be by the same common hand<\/strong>.<\/p>\nMoreover, these two name attribution elements<\/strong> are among 4 across the broad set of inscriptions I studied. in which we find such attributions\/signatures<\/strong> of the speaker or author.<\/p>\n![\"biblical](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/mose_biblico_scoperta.webp\")
![\"biblical](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/mose_biblico_scoperta2.webp\")
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The discovery of Moses, response to criticisms<\/h2>\n
QUESTION – You will know that some scholars, such as Egyptologist Thomas Schneider, have called this interpretation \u201ccompletely unproven and misleading,\u201d arguing that arbitrary identifications of letters can distort ancient history. How do you respond to these criticisms?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – I agree entirely that Proto-Sinaitic is challenging<\/strong>, and I welcome critical review.<\/p>\nHowever, my readings are not isolated guesses at letter shapes \u2014 they are part of a coherent framework<\/strong> I call \u201cclades,\u201d groups of inscriptions linked by vocabulary, phrasing, letter forms, and thematic content. The same patterns recur<\/strong> in multiple pieces, making the identification less arbitrary and more a matter of pattern recognition.<\/p>\nIt\u2019s important to note that the possible Moshe references<\/strong> were discovered very late in my research and are not the foundation of my thesis. My broader argument for Mosaic influence rests on many mutually reinforcing inscriptions<\/strong>, with or without explicit name attributions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
QUESTION – But what do you answer to Prof. Schneider?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – Anyone in the field who actually studies the 214 page work –which I cannot believe that Schneider did — would find his comment unfair<\/strong> to the point of obscene.<\/p>\nOn one hand, no work is above the constructive peer critique<\/strong>. I, for one, have eagerly sought out such criticism over the past years. At times I felt forced back to the drawing board on several inscriptions, even publicly recanting<\/strong> earlier readings.<\/p>\nSo with no false humility, aware that my readinigs my evolve further, I have yet to learn<\/strong> of anyone who has pursued precision and accuracy more relentlessly in this field. In my Introduction<\/em>, I even discuss to the role of inner bias<\/strong> among scholars.<\/p>\nNo one who reads the work can escape the presentation of a strong critical methodology<\/strong>, relating to the work of my predecessors and even to differing opinions among my colleagues. In transparent fashion, the conclusion even reveal points of doubt I still have on a certain inscription that requires future study.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
QUESTION – Did you collaborate with anyone in the realization of your study?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – Yes, I have Hebrew philologists<\/strong> helping me to avoid anachronism, concerning how Proto-Hebrew has evolved.<\/p>\nThat besides the fact that, with no arrogance, I am an Israeli Torah scholar<\/strong>, deeply fluent in our TaNa”Kh<\/em>, the Hebrew Bible, and oral traditions. This work is easier for me<\/strong> than those for whom Hebrew is no more a living language than Akkadian or Sumerian, not harder.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The author of the writings is an educated leader<\/h2>\n
QUESTION – You claim that the linguistic style and poetic structure of the inscriptions indicate a single educated scribe, consistent with the biblical figure of Moses. Why couldn\u2019t they simply be anonymous carvings made by common people?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – Several factors point to a single, trained Semitic scribe<\/strong> behind a subset of 7\u20138 inscriptions, including 357 and 361:<\/p>\n\n- Recurrent vocabulary<\/strong> and rare word forms;<\/li>\n
- Consistent poetic<\/strong> and parallelism structures;<\/li>\n
- Uniformity<\/strong> in letter morphology despite variations in medium;<\/li>\n
- A shared thematic<\/strong> focus on El worship and rejection of the Ba\u02bfalat\/Hathor cult, including altered or defaced votive inscriptions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This level of stylistic and theological coherence<\/strong> is not what we expect from unrelated, casual carvings. It fits better with the output of a literate leader<\/strong> or high-level scribe \u2014 which in biblical tradition, Moses is portrayed as being.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
QUESTION – And couldn\u2019t it have been another Moses?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – I never said<\/strong> they couldn’t have been written by another Moses, other than the biblical Moses.<\/p>\nBut as I mentioned above, we’re speaking of one scribe<\/strong> for a group of inscriptions, not plural scribes.<\/p>\nInscriptions that bear readings that clearly laud and pray to El, and utterly denigrate the cult of Ba`alat – the very likely source identification of the ‘Golden Calf” tradition – even inciting violence against the cult. They bear the signs of poetic and prophetic flare<\/strong>, as seen in Sinai 351 and Sinai 358.<\/p>\nConsidering the evidence of the Temple of Ba`alat<\/strong> having been burned down at an appropriate time, and all this occurring within close view of the twin mounts “Jebel Saniyah” and “Jebel Ghorabi” (a hidden, ancient group’s “Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb). <\/p>\nTwo words found across these inscriptions are \u05d1\u05e9<\/em>-“Bosh”, “be ashamed”, and \u05e0\u05de\u05e9<\/em>-“Nimosh”, “let us depart”, are only too appropriate for a Moses-like figure<\/strong>, as are many other elements found.<\/p>\nBelow is a Sinai 353<\/em>, my interpretation and reading at right, next to an original high-resolution image in Morenz (2019).<\/p>\n![\"biblical](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/mose_biblico_scoperta3.webp\")
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Moses and archaeology: the date of the inscriptions<\/h2>\n
QUESTION – Some scholars argue that the dating (around 1800 BC) and the linguistic context of the inscriptions are too uncertain to link them to Moses or the story of the Exodus. How do you justify the chronological and cultural correlation between the inscriptions and the biblical tradition?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – The site\u2019s archaeological context, ceramic evidence, and inscription style place the relevant pieces in the late 12th through 13th Dynasties<\/strong> (Middle Bronze Age), broadly in line with some scholarly models for an early Exodus context.<\/p>\nEven if one prefers a later Exodus chronology, the inscriptions\u2019 location, content, and cultural setting \u2014 a Semitic workforce in a major Egyptian mining center \u2014 fit<\/strong> the kind of environment the biblical account presupposes.<\/p>\nMy argument does not depend on one narrow date; rather, it shows that the inscriptions plausibly belong to a horizon in which a Mosaic-type figure<\/strong> could have operated.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
How soon for peer-review publication?<\/h2>\n
QUESTION – Your research has not yet been peer-reviewed. How important is this missing process to validate such an extraordinary claim? Do you intend to publish in peer-reviewed venues?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
ANSWER – Contrary to some reports, my Proto-Thesis has undergone extensive internal review<\/strong>.<\/p>\nIt has been twice critically reviewed by my co-supervisor, Prof. Pieter van der Veen<\/strong> (University of Mainz), and further reviewed by Dr. David Ben-Shlomo<\/strong> (Ariel University), both of whom provided substantial corrections and refinements. Over 100 substantive corrections<\/strong> have been incorporated.<\/p>\nThis work has now been accepted by the Department of Archaeology at Ariel University<\/strong> as the basis for my M.A. and Ph.D. theses, which will be submitted for formal academic peer review<\/strong> and eventual publication. I view that process as essential for exploring any quality, constructive critique I may receive, and I look forward to broader scholarly engagement.<\/p>\nThis corrects the notion that I am merely an “independent researcher”<\/strong>. Together with this thesis material, I now operate as a proud part of Ariel U’s Department of Archaeology<\/strong>.<\/p>\nI hope this clarifies both the scope and the caution<\/strong> with which I approach these inscriptions. While the possible Moshe attributions in 357 and 361 are exciting, they are part of a larger, multi-layered case for early Mosaic influence at Serabit el-Khadim, and must be weighed in that full context<\/strong>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n
![\"moses](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/mose_archeologia-1.webp\")
<\/p>\n