Claims linking the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions to Moses are unconvincing and continue a long pattern in which biblical apologists overread fragmentary evidence. Michael Bar-Ron’s proposed “Moses” readings fail on epigraphic, linguistic, and historical grounds: the supposed letters are not actually present, the spelling does not fit, and even a genuine occurrence of the name would not establish a connection to the biblical figure. More broadly, sensational media coverage turned a weak scholarly claim into clickbait. The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions are significant enough on their own for what they reveal about the early history of alphabetic writing, without the need for apologetic overreach or manufactured controversy.
See also The Lost Language of the Ghassulians: Proto-Writing at Nahal Mishmar?
On the Origin of Alphabetic Writing 2019
Wandering in the Desert?: A Review of Charles R. Krahmalkov’s “The Chief of Miners Mashe/Moshe
By Aren Wilson-Wright
University of Chicago
Department of Middle Eastern Studies
Assistant Instructional Professor
April 2026
Click here for article
A state official or entrepreneur who was involved in a commercial activity, connected via Hathor or otherwise with the art and religion of Egypt, seems (as I’ve ventured to say here before) so unlike the Biblical Moses that supposed references to him should really have no clickbait - at least no very sexy clickbait - value.