Summary: An update after tremendous media reaction to our recent articles and podcasts on the Sinai Hebrew inscriptions, plus some breaking news on more interpretations.
And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart… You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. – Deuteronomy 6:6,9 (ESV)
A Whirlwind of Media Attention
NOTE: The following is a summary of a recent podcast discussion with Tim Mahoney and Mori Michael Shelomo Bar Ron after a large reaction from the media to an earlier podcast on Proto-Sinaitic script found in the Egyptian mines of the Sinai Peninsula. To see more details of his argument, see the full podcast.
TIM MAHONEY:
Hello Thinkers. We’re back again with a very important podcast today. I’m very excited to have on as a special guest who has been in our films on the Moses Controversy, Mchael Shelomo Bar- Ron. We’ve also worked with his academic supervisor, Pieter van der Veen, but today it’s only Michael. And there’s some amazing things that have been blowing up on the internet. You’ve been in a lot of articles. And you’re working on your master’s degree and eventually your PhD through Ariel University.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Yes. Thanks to the partnership, the friendship between Dr. van der Veen and my new academic advisor, David Ben Shlomo of Ariel, that basically this work has been accepted as the basis for the MA and PhD. So I’m actually doing both of them at the same time.
TIM MAHONEY:
Let’s just talk a little bit about what happened. Because we did a podcast with you and Dr. Pieter van der Veen. And that blew up. It looks like it’s been covered on National Geographic, the Smithsonian Magazine, Fox News, New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, Archeology News online magazine, the Humble Skeptic podcast, and Answers in Genesis. So there’s an awful lot that was happening, and all of that is what kind of brought us to the second podcast for us. It must seem pretty surreal for you getting all this press coverage on your work.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
It’s even more than that. It’s in different languages. I actually gave an interview in Spanish. I speak Spanish as well. There are articles in Italian. There’s buzz in the Catholic world for it. India, you have it even in Serbian, Arabic. It’s just quite exciting. I’m going to say the amount of mental ram that this has taken up has definitely been a lot, but I’m very, very gratified to have the support of Ariel University. The very fact that they would embrace me, that they would actually own my work and their representative would actually be helping me out with this, is just something, it feels like a miracle. Personally, I am grateful to Hashem. I’m grateful to God for being able to be used for something so great.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
And what I really tried to do throughout was to be very, very objective and always seek out critique instead of running away from critique and falling in love with my own readings and falling in love with my own theory. It’s very much nearly a decade now of quite the opposite, almost being masochistic about it and trying to attack my own work.
TIM MAHONEY:
Sorry, Michael, for people who don’t know what’s happening here, what has been uncovered as it were, is that these inscriptions that were found in the mines are the earliest form of the alphabet. And so what is the big idea here is that this early form of the alphabet shows up in the place where the Israelite people were said to have been. And this early form of the alphabet is a phonetic language right, and it looks like the earliest form of Hebrew. And that’s the reason why this is so profound.
So this press coverage, it was pretty impressive how much noise this created.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
So the most important message that I would like to get out to everybody is that this work should not be controversial. In other words, the idea that there is some sort of a genesis to Israelite culture and that is likely to be found, why should that be controversial?
But simply, the only controversial element to it – totally – is that this suggests the existence of the character, the personage behind the biblical traditions of Moses and Joseph. That’s all. In other words, you have researchers that think this is an impossibility.
The moment that you say that, it becomes something so outlandish that it colors the work as controversial. But in fact, this is far from it. Dr. van der Veen responded with a wonderful post of his own defending my work in defending and actually really digging down deep with his defense of the methodology.
TIM MAHONEY:
I think the reason why some people would say it’s controversial is because they don’t want it to be true. In other words, true that there was an original time and place that the alphabet, the connection between the Israelites and Moses and the alphabet, it’s what the biblical narrative is saying that Moses told the Israelites who were in bondage with slavery, that they were to teach these commandments to their children. They were supposed to write them on their doorposts, these words from God. So if you’re going to write something, what are you going to use? Well, they weren’t using hieroglyphs the way the Egyptians did, correct?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Indeed, yes. And what does any scholar do when they want to read any one of these inscriptions? They conceive of a basic idea and they try it out. In other words, whether a given interpreter, a given epigraphist, a person who comes to figure out these ancient inscriptions, whether they believe in God, whether they believe in the Bible, whether they don’t believe in anything at all, they’re going to try out a certain concept. In other words, everyone is going to be looking for Ba’alat because there are so many instances of Ba’alat in these inscriptions, and they’re basically going to obviously impose certain ideas and try them out and see if they bear out in the writing. Everybody does this.
TIM MAHONEY:
And so if we look at some of this, when people were attacking this concept, let’s just talk about what did they get right and what did they get wrong or did they get anything right when they were attacking? Because what Pieter van der Veen was saying is that you have to read the whole idea – right? They were just looking at something sideways and they weren’t taking in your whole argument.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Well, I’ll tell you, I was quite surprised by two things. The first thing is that, and no offense because it’s not only something that religious Christians are associated with, but also Orthodox Jews. But basically growing up, I came to associate very religious channels with a more narrow way of looking at things. In other words, always trying to sort of spin or interpret things in a Biblical way. And I always associated academics with objectivity. And I was so surprised that the opposite occurred with this fallout. What you had were Christian channels being very balanced about this. Of course, putting up the news of the work while also noting opinions of certain detractors.
Initially, the only critical voices who were relating just to the hype, just to “this last-minute discovery about the name of Moses” – as if that’s all that I’m coming out with – and just taking it down, were academic channels. And it just so happens to be that every academic who actually came out and said something negative happened to be people who had skin in the game. In other words, they actually happened to have written certain interpretations. They had actually done some work on these things or felt that if this work were legitimized, it would somehow undermine their own opinions.
What I have yet to see is any objective scholar who has not published on proto-Sinaitic, or not published on this field per se, who from a completely objective perspective said, “This is poor methodology; this is not quality work; this is not serious. That has not happened. So I think that that says a lot.
So when it comes to the substance of what people have said, I find the pushback a bit unfair. One particular gentleman, basically his upshot was that “Proto-Sinaitic is very, very difficult to read,” basically, “who can read these?” And essentially just sort of shooting down the whole idea that anybody can read these inscriptions. And I’m sorry, but that’s not an argument, particularly when it comes to my work, which always involves three different colorings in any given graphic, in any given tracing. In other words, I actually make a distinction between letters, which anybody can see, and elements of the letter – even lines within the letter lines – that you can only see if you have excellent images or you’ve actually worked with the originals themselves as I have, and gray, where I own up to the fact that this is speculative.
And basically what I am saying is that my readings are generally carried by the elements that are visible to anyone. In other words, I’m actually owning up to certain lines which are speculative, which is honest work. So I just really feel that that is very unfair.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Another individual took it very, very seriously. This proto thesis, he took it personally and actually put out YouTube videos, really trying to take apart the proto thesis, but basically his whole upshot on any given point is “okay, nobody agrees with him here or he agrees with nobody here, so he’s wrong.”
And one of the things that I explain in the introduction is that I happened to be working with better quality imagery than I have seen by anyone. And what I’ve done is I’ve taken multiple different high res images, taken those of my own, working with the originals, and I actually now have the benefit of you guys’ work with your cameraman who went down into the Sinai Desert at Serabit el-Khadim and took better pictures, better images of these inscriptions than exist anywhere.
And so for a person to then just go and try in his own mind to eviscerate the proto thesis because of images that he doesn’t have or because I disagree with others, while the paper itself in fact gets into and relates to other opinions, those of my respected colleagues and actually shows how my readings are really built on earlier readings as well, it’s just disappointing.
TIM MAHONEY:
It looks like there’s three main areas that people have been attacking, and I guess one was just because of the hype. I mean obviously they had a different viewpoint. Number two was the methodology behind your translations. And then finally some are attacking your views of chronology, thereby how these inscriptions fit the biblical story.
And so what has happened is that the Phoenicians have been given credit for being the instigators of a phonetic alphabet. But what we’re saying here is that, wait a minute, hold off. These inscriptions are much earlier than that, and they’re in the Sinai, not in Phoenicia or Lebanon. And when I went to see Donald Redford, I think he was at Penn., he said that he really believed that the origin of the alphabet was at Avaris. Avaris is the city underneath Ramesses. that much older city where David Rohl places the early Israelites. So very, very interesting plot forming here that the whole question of chronology and time, and when did things happen?
So let’s just look at the methodology behind your translations. Because ever since the early 1900s, people have tried to read them, right?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
That is very surprising, because it is founded on principles that all epigraphers – anyone who works with this text, it’s what they all work with.
So this is just based on the alphabet, what these glyphs are understood to represent in terms of letters. Now, if you see my screen, okay, here is an example of a worthy attack. I wouldn’t say attack, but criticism, right? So for example, there are some who will look at what I see as a composite logogram of bet and tav. So there are some who will disagree with that. They are based on hieroglyphs, and there is another understanding of what this could be. And that is a worthy criticism, okay? That may be something in fact that will only be understood generations from now. On the other hand, I still think that my readings are very much carried by so many elements that don’t involve that, okay?
A Second Moses Inscription?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Now notice how we don’t need a signature of Moses, we don’t need an attribution to Moses. That is just icing on the cake. And something that I think I may have discovered only at the very last minute, the paper was already overdue when I made that discovery. So with the background of Ba’alat, or the golden calf, for this reading, look at what you see here in the corner. What you see in the corner here to my reading is possibly Moshe. It basically means “thus saith Moses,” a statement by Moses. And notice how the aleph now goes in the opposite direction. In other words, when this was written, it’s as though the scribe wanted this to be apart from the rest of the inscription. And this is something that you see in four different inscriptions. Something that looks like a signature or an attribution to the author, but the Mosaic theme to it, okay? The idea of vengeance and destruction to the cult of the golden calf. That says enough.
TIM MAHONEY:
I never noticed that before, but that’s very interesting. It’s almost like someone saying, “pay attention here.”
Joseph in the Inscriptions
TIM MAHONEY:
I know you want to talk about another biblical character based on this verse in Genesis.
And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt. – Genesis 41:45
And in order to reward Joseph, Pharaoh basically makes him the second in command. And he also is given a woman for marriage. Is it Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera. A priest. And so you think there’s a strong connection to Joseph in these inscriptions, correct?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Yes. Now it’s important, especially for my more academic viewers, that this is not a bringing what seems to be Joseph or again, the character behind the biblical traditions of Joseph, for the sake of Joseph. This is an academic paper. So we have a very, very important inscription called Sinai 350. And what is so exciting about Sinai 350 is that we have in the name of El, in the name of God, okay, a message that seems to be competing with Ba’alat [connected to Hathor and golden calf worship].
But what’s incredible is that this writing in context of the others seemed to be by a very refined hand. This is a very skilled scribe, and he does it in the name of the Pharaoh. In other words, here you basically have a logogram – that’s like a combination of two symbols of the Pharaoh, Amenemhat III. And he is putting that up in the corner. And the precision by which he draws this kind of a combined logogram of Pharaoh Amenemhat III, this is some of the finest scribal work I have seen. This sun symbol, for example, is a perfect circle. These lines are perfectly straight. That is not approximated.
TIM MAHONEY:
Yeah, it looks like they must have almost had help by having a straight edge or something. But it’s not easy. I’ve tried to make these etchings when I’ve been in the desert, you try to take another rock and scratch, but it does not work very well. So this is called Sinai 350, is that correct?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON::
Yes. So this is literally the time when most scholars will date the birth, or at least the advent in Egypt of this script. This is the time of the Pharaoh Amenemhat III. Okay? For whom I understand that there is very compelling evidence to suggest that this is the Pharaoh who raised Joseph up.
By the way, my letter identifications are agreed upon by Dr. Ludwig Morenz, who is the head of Egyptology at the University of Bonn, a very strict scholar. And so these letter identifications we’re pretty confident about them. But what you have very interestingly is in the corner you can tell that this is being written in the name or in the honor of the pharaoh Amenemhat III, which is completely unnecessary if you think about it.
This seems to have been written by a Semitic, a Hebrew official, and that screams the possibility of a Joseph-like official of the pharaoh’s court, of that pharaoh’s court. So it’s not for the sake of trying to prove the Bible per se, but simply trying to understand these inscriptions in their likely context that we have a part of.
Joseph and His Wife on a Stele?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
So considering the evidence for this Semite high official who seems loyal to El, seems loyal to the God of the Hebrews, right? So you asked about Asenath, his wife. So one of the most amazing things is that this Semitic High official could very well be, there is what to suggest that he is this very well known vizier [second in command] named Ankhu.
And in this stele that I discussed in part four, we see that he is seated next to his wife. And what you have here is a translation from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Her name is Senet. And Egyptologist David Rohl explains that the way basically that they would render Egyptian in English, it could very well be Asenath/Asenat, so essentially what are the odds that a person who really, there’s so much about him that suggests Joseph or the tradition of Joseph, that he happens to be seated next to a wife by the name of Senet or Asenath and happens to have two sons who became viziers in their own right, who seem to be the historical Manasseh and Ephraim.
TIM MAHONEY:
That’s quite the interesting connection there.
A New Course Opportunity
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
I would love to tell your viewers about a course that I’m starting, and I would like to provide your viewers with a special discount just out of gratitude for you guys’ friendship throughout the years.
TIM MAHONEY:
That would be great. So tell us about the course.
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
All you need to do is go to the link and put in the promo code, then you are understood to be a friend of patterns of evidence. And you will get a 10% discount. We’re talking about a 3-lecture mini-series on Sundays. And it will begin Sunday, September 14th, then Sunday, September 21th, and then Sunday, September 28th in the afternoon in the Western Hemisphere.
COURSE LANDING PAGE Use code 4POE-TABLETS101 at checkout on our landing page to receive 10% off Mori Michael Bar-Ron’s upcoming course. Offer valid for friends of Patterns of Evidence through Sept 14, 2025. One use per customer, not combinable with other offers.
And I would love for many of you guys to be there. There will be Q and A and we will get into these details and more. We’ll give you a background into chronology. We’ll give you a background into these inscriptions themselves and just unlock the proto thesis for you. And we’ll even go beyond what I would publish, beyond academics into the deeper questions of faith. What is uncovered in these descriptions? What do they seem to answer in terms of the historicity of biblical traditions? And what questions do they arise? So what questions do they raise? And we would just love to have as many of you there as possible. Again, you’ll get a 10% discount just for being a friend of Patterns of Evidence.
TIM MAHONEY:
So if your interest was piqued and you’re fascinated by this, then I think it would be important for you to attend this three-session workshop on three successive Sundays. And so I just want to encourage everybody to do that and just know that Mori Michael has been very courageous, I think, because you’re not paid. This is something that you’ve just felt led to do and you’re going out there,
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
A labor of love.
Conclusion
TIM MAHONEY:
Well, there are so many things that when we look at the patterns of evidence approach that you are following, where you’re basically saying, well, what does the Scriptures say, and can I find a pattern in the archeology, and a pattern in history? And you just showed us with Joseph, you see, as I understand it, you see a connection to the name of Joseph, his Egyptian name, his wife, the two sons, and at the time period when many people, if they think about what kind of chronology, I know that it’s an earlier chronology that you’re looking at, all connects with this narrative that you’re working on.
And if people want to support what you’re doing?
MORI MICHAEL SHELOMO BAR RON:
Thank you so much for mentioning that. There’s a link to my GoFundMe page, and I can’t call myself a starving scholar, but definitely someone who is not getting rich from this and is supporting beautiful children. And we would be very grateful to whoever wants to be a part of this awesome journey.
TIM MAHONEY:
That’s great. Well, thank you again, and we’ll be talking further. So stay tuned for that. And as I always conclude with everyone, keep on thinking!
TOP PHOTO: Left: Proposed Moses signature in Sinai 357 reading “zt mmsh,” translated “This is from Moses.” Right: Moses leading the Israelites through the desert. (credit: Left: © 2025 Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved to Michael S. Bar-Ron. Base Images courtesy of Cedric Paulhiac with Patterns of Evidence Foundation © 2022, Letter Highlights by Patterns of Evidence Foundation ©2025. Right: Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle I (Patterns of Evidence LLC © 2018)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing to Podcast or Thinker content necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that our audience can become familiar with the different arguments involved.
