A provocative new reading of 3,800-year-old inscriptions found in an Egyptian turquoise mine has reignited one of archaeology’s thorniest questions: Was Moses a historical figure?
According to Archaeology Magazine, Independent researcher Michael S. Bar-Ron believes the answer may be inscribed on the rock walls of Serabit el-Khadim, a mine in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. After nearly a decade of study using 3D scans and high-resolution photos from Harvard’s Semitic Museum, Bar-Ron claims to have deciphered two phrases in early Hebrew: zot mi’Moshe (“This is from Moses”) and ne’um Moshe (“A saying of Moses”).
If his reading is correct, these would be the oldest known extra-biblical references to the leader of the Exodus, predating even the earliest known Hebrew texts and the Phoenician alphabet.
The inscriptions are part of a larger group of Proto-Sinaitic writings first uncovered by famed archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the early 1900s. Scholars believe they were etched by Semitic-speaking laborers during the reign of Pharaoh Amenemhat III (around 1800 BCE), making them some of the oldest alphabetic writings on record.
Bar-Ron’s interpretation, however, is controversial. In a draft thesis, he argues that many of the inscriptions may have come from a single author, possibly a Semitic scribe fluent in Egyptian hieroglyphs, who used Proto-Sinaitic script for religious and personal reflections.
Some of the nearby inscriptions mention “El,” the early Hebrew name for God, while others invoke Baʿalat, a Semitic counterpart to the Egyptian goddess Hathor. In several cases, Baʿalat’s name appears scratched out hinting at a theological schism. A burnt temple to Baʿalat, along with inscriptions referencing “overseers,” “slavery,” and what Bar-Ron believes is a plea to depart (“ni’mosh”), add fuel to speculation that the site contains echoes of a real-life Exodus.
But scholars remain skeptical. Thomas Schneider, an Egyptologist at the University of British Columbia, told The Daily Mail that the findings are “completely unproven and misleading,” warning that “arbitrary identifications of letters can distort ancient history.” Proto-Sinaitic script is difficult to decipher, and academic consensus remains elusive.
Bar-Ron’s research is not yet peer-reviewed, and he acknowledges it’s still a work in progress. But his adviser, Pieter van der Veen, has endorsed the findings and encouraged further study.
