New Evidence for a Historical Moses?
According to a newly released research paper, the name "Moses" was recently discovered on Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim. Could this be external evidence for the biblical Moses?
On episode 71, I spoke with Michael Bar-Ron about some of the fascinating Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions that have been discovered over the last century or more, and in that conversation, he indicated that he would soon be publishing a “Proto-Thesis” related to various aspects of his research. That 213-page paper was recently submitted to Academia.edu and is now available to the public here.
By far, the most significant claim made in Bar-Ron’s research paper relates to the discovery of the name “Moses” in two separate inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai 357 and 361). Since this individual appears to have promoted the worship of “El” and violently opposed the cult of a golden cow goddess named “Ba'alat,” linking him with the Moses described in the pages of Exodus does not appear to be outside the bounds of possibilities.1 However, Michael Bar-Ron is not the first scholar in this field to claim to have discovered Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions referring to the biblical Moses.
In his 2016 book, The World’s Oldest Alphabet, Douglas Petrovich argued that Sinai 361 should be translated as: “Our bound servitude had lingered. Moses then provoked astonishment. It is a year of astonishment…” Unfortunately, few scholars ended up agreeing with Petrovich’s rendering. In fact, one reviewer ended up concluding that his work was “deeply flawed.”2 When I had the opportunity to interview Egyptologist David Rohl a few years ago, he told me that because the name “Moses in Hebrew is just two letters (M and S—mayim, and shin),” the inscription cited by Petrovich could be interpreted in many different ways, and in his view, it made better sense to see the MS as part of the three-letter word “NiMaSh.”3
Therefore, with the release of this new research paper, I reached out to Dr. Rohl to see whether he agreed with his colleague’s new reading of Sinai 357 and 361, particularly in light of Bar-Ron’s claim that, with the help of high-resolution images, he has now discovered previously unnoticed references to Moses. Here’s how he responded:
The first thing to say is that Michael Bar-Ron has done an amazing and brilliant job in giving us the very best decipherment and translations of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions so far. I agree with much of his work and I am thrilled that we finally have inscriptions from Sinai and Egypt which relate directly to both the biblical Sojourn and Exodus. The simple fact is that, at least to my mind, his translations convincingly demonstrate that Proto-Sinaitic is an alphabetic script which represents in writing the early Hebrew language.
As for the possibility that some of the inscriptions were written by Moses, I am sure that this is true, based on what the Hebrew actually has to say. There are certainly a few (possibly more than two) inscriptions in the same hand (stylistically). The contents would fit best as the words of Moses — one, Sinai 357, commanding people to follow the instructions from ‘the father’ about how to consume manna. This inscription has a small tagged inscription of five signs which reads ‘ZT M MSh’ which can certainly break down as ‘Zot m' Moshe’ — ‘This is from Moses’, labeling the column of signs directly to its left. I think this is very strong, because it is not part of a longer set of signs where MSh can be part of a two-syllable word like NiMasSh as in Sinai 349 and Sinai 351.
Dr. Pieter van der Veen is the senior lecturer of Old Testament and Biblical Archaeology at the University of Mainz, and he also agrees with this interpretation. When Michael Bar-Ron first pointed out the faint inscription relating to Moses on Sinai 357, Dr. van der Veen, his academic supervisor, replied by saying, “You’re absolutely correct, I read this as well—it is not imagined!” Soon after the discovery was made, Dr. van der Veen appeared with Michael Bar-Ron to announce it on an episode of the Patterns of Evidence podcast which you can watch here (Part 1), and here (Part 2).
Since much of this work has been done outside the official academic arena, other scholars haven’t yet chimed in. But according to Bar-Ron, this is about to change. “As soon as it becomes a Masters and PhD thesis, it will be reviewed critically by those whose opinions count, and I’ll need to defend it. As we speak, it is now being reviewed by my new academic advisor who will help me develop the material into theses according to the expectations and standards of Ariel University.”
According to Bar-Ron, “The mark of quality scholarship is when we change our mind in light of further evidence.”4 And this is something he’s done several times over the past 8 years in his detailed study of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. In fact, months before he released his latest “Proto-Thesis,” he ended up retracting some of his earlier papers at Academia.edu, indicating that some of his interpretations and translations had changed in light of his additional research. “Anyone who remains static in this field,” he says, “is definitely wrong.” That’s very important, he says because some of these inscriptions are very faint. “It is impossible that I am correct on everything. Whoever does not approach this field with that kind of an attitude, that's not somebody to take very much stock in their work.”
In the introduction of his Proto-Thesis, Bar-Ron confesses that “no epigrapher can pretend immunity from bias. Let alone a scholar of my own rabbinical background, presenting a picture suggesting that, within the slew of Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions found, there may be messages providing historical context for certain biblical traditions.” He then goes on to say,
I have had to wrestle with such “shoot the arrow and paint the target” thinking when arguing with peers unable to let go of their own “sacred cows”; no pun intented. I can understand the confirmed skeptic who argues that teleological instinct and ideological prejudice damns any broad attempt at translations of most Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. Yet, these inscriptions most certainly have a historical context of their own, waiting to be understood. So long as we (a) employ clear, known points and principles from ancient Semitic languages appropriate to the region and time period, such as Aramaic (b) stay wary of the pitfalls of anachronism, and (c) remain self-critical concerning cultural bias, hyper-avoidance of biblical source material is a pitfall (emphasis in original).
In the images presented throughout his paper, Bar-Ron outlines “the glyphs that anybody can see” in one color, and in a different color draws “lines and glyphs that can be seen if you have high-resolution images or have worked with the casts themselves or the originals.” This approach enables him to distinguish the very clear letter signs from some of his more speculative claims. In his opinion, however, some of the high-quality images that he has taken himself have enabled him to see “elements there that nobody else has noticed.”
Michael Bar-Ron’s Proto-Thesis covers a wide range of topics, including a fascinating discussion of earlier Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions relating to the period of Joseph along with additional archaeological evidence connecting the biblical Joseph to the Egyptian vizier Ankhu—which is something I plan to write about in a future post. In the meantime, however, for those interested in a fresh new evaluation of these fascinating inscriptions, I heartily recommend this 213-page paper, which you can access via the link below.
Shane Rosenthal is the author of Luke’s Key Witness and the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic podcast. He was one of the creators of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast which he also hosted from 2019-2021, and has written numerous articles for various sites and publications, including TableTalk, Logia, Core Christianity, and Beautiful Christian Life and many others.
FOR FURTHER STUDY
Related Articles
The Golden Calf, David Rohl
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet, Michael S. Bar-Ron
The Origins of Israel in Canaan, John Bimson
Archaeological Data & The Dating of the Patriarchs, John Bimson
A Cuneiform Cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar II, Shane Rosenthal
Simon of Cyrene: An Archaeological Discovery, Shane Rosenthal
Water Into Wine: An Archaeological Assessment, Shane Rosenthal
Related Audio
The Sinai Inscriptions, HS #71 with Michael Bar-Ron
Did The Exodus Ever Happen? HS #69 with David Rohl
Questioning Conventional Wisdom (1), HS #13 with David Rohl
Questioning Conventional Wisdom (2), HS #14 with David Rohl
Locating Golgotha, Humble Skeptic #17 with David Rohl
Faith Founded on Facts, HS #15 with Lennox, Bauckham, etc.
The Jesus of History, Humble Skeptic #12
Related Video
Michael Bar-Ron on the Sinai Inscriptions, Patterns of Evidence
David Rohl on the Sinai Inscriptions, Patterns of Evidence
The World’s Earliest Alphabet, Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East
The First Alphabet, Patterns of Evidence
The Moses Controversy, Patterns of Evidence
A to Z: The First Alphabet, Nova (PBS)
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)
Books
Legendary Kings, David Rohl (e-book)
Exodus: Myth or History? David Rohl (e-book)
The Genesis of Alphabetic Writing, Ludwig Morenz
In Search of the Biblical Patriarchs, Pieter G. van der Veen
Researches in Sinai, W.M. Flinders Petrie — FREE
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal
The Sinai Inscriptions
On this episode, Shane talks with Mori Michael S. Bar-Ron about his research project related to the Sinai inscriptions discove…
I discussed many of the references to Ba’alat found in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions with Michael Bar-Ron on episode 71. See also David Rohl’s article, The Golden Calf.
David A. Falk, “Review of ‘The World's Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the Language of the Proto-consonantal Script’ by Douglas Petrovich,” Review of Biblical Literature (October, 2018). Falk’s review is available online here.
You can listen to my interview with David Rohl here (for this part of the conversation, start at around 35:06). See also the links to other interviews with Dr. Rohl in the Related Audio section at the end of this article.
The Humble Skeptic, episode 71 “The Sinai Inscriptions.” This comment can be heard at approx. 13:30.