PROOF Of LXX PRECEDENCE

-THE SMOKING GUN -

If you want me to believe that the Greeks translated the LXX from a Hebrew Bible, you need to produce an authentic copy of the Hebrew version that predates the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Until you do that, we (The Jadeists) don't believe it. The Jews claim to have learned the name Philistine neither from a Greek or Egyptian source. To that declaration we challenge you to produce any Hebrew literature that predates Herodotus or Ramses III in which the Hebrew version of that word is contained. Until you do, material evidence confirms the first attestation of that word in a temple of Ramses III, located in Medinet Habu, Egypt. It appears to be exonymic, originally attributed to the Egyptians, and given no descriptive meaning apart from identifying the Philistine with a confederation of invaders referred to as 'Sea People'. Further details of the Egyptian war against them and its aftermath can be sought in the Harris Papyrus. The figure below shows how the name was originally rendered in hieroglyphics.

The Name 'PHILISTINE' In It's Original Hieroglyphic Form

Notice that, in place of the /r/, the Greeks have transcribed the word using an /l/. This reflects the sound shift that existed between these 2 languages, whereas the closest Greek phonetic equivalent of the Egyptian /r/ was their /l/. We can confirm this conclusion by referring to the Rosetta Stone, in which the hieroglyph of a recumbent lion (having the phonetic value of /r/) is used to represent the /l/ in the names of Alexander, Ptolemy, and Cleopatra. It was an ingenious choice of pictograms, serving both in a mnemonic and acrophonic capacity (as the lion was known as Leo to the Greeks, and also a word that began with the letter /l/). Therefore, until evidence can be presented to the contrary, it is logical to suspect that the Greek version of this word is the immediate ancestor of the Hebrew form.

What are the implications of this, besides proving that the word was an anachronism when it appeared in Genesis 26:1? It means that that part of the Abraham story couldn't have been written no earlier than the 5th century BC! Which also stands to reason that, if the Abraham story was yet to be conceived, then it was impossible for the Biblical Moses (who supposedly existed almost a millennium earlier) to have been acquainted with it, or that the Biblical God could've brought up the subject of an Abraham in the first place. Secondly, It also means that Jugdes 3:3 had to be written during the 5th century BC or later, It also ascribes a later date (1150 BC and forward) of Israel's return to Canaan after the Egyptian captivity, since the "5 lords of the Philistines" could not have been politically established in the land before then.

When The 'R' Is NOT An 'L'

ON THE MERNEPTAH STELE!

On it, we are told, can be found the earliest attestation of the name Israel outside of the Bible. But is that really meant to spell Israel?

Because of the purpose of this particular stele, we know that the people referred to here are foes of Egypt. What's more, because they aren't accompanied by any 'land' determinative, we know that they are regarded as nomadic transients. So this can't be the Biblical Israel, because their non-sedentary lifestyle would repudiate the allotment narrative, in which the 12 tribes are given territories that stretch from the boundaries of Egypt to those of the Euphrates River. Merneptah lived c. 1274 - 1203 BC, plenty of time, since The Exodus, for the Israelites to be firmly settled during the time of The Judges. So what happened to all their land?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave ....

TO BE CONTINNUED ....