A LIGHT SHINING IN THE DARKNESS
PROOF Of LXX PRECEDENCE
-THE SMOKING GUN -
UPDATED FEB. 27, 2026. 7:00 A.M.
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.
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 any 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 stretched 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 ....
Whether or not an original Hebrew version of The Law was the source for the LXX, hinges on the authenticity and veracity of the Letter Of Aristaeus, and on a correct and accurate interpretation of that letter. Apparently, according to section 30, there's no doubt that the Alexandrian Jews already had a copy of some kind of book(s) before the composition of the Ptolemaic LXX. The problem, however, seemed to have been that "the books of the Jewish laws with some others" were wanting. Because they were "written in the Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew tongue, they had been interpreted carelessly and didn't represent the original text, according to information provided by the experts, because they have never received a king's fostering care.". It further stated that, "It is necessary that these book(s) too should IN AN EMENDED FORM find a place" in the King's library.
So the letter clearly informs us that the books possessed by the Alexandrian Jews, at that time, had been copied from another source. If they had been copied from an original Hebrew source, it would've entailed a simple process of copying word-for-word, and the matter of "interpreting" it would not have posed any relevant issue at that time. Therefore, a "mis-interpretation" could only make sense if the source was in a different language and script, and errors came into play during the process of converting the original source into Hebrew. Because, afterall, if the original source had been Hebrew, and it proved to be "wanting," it would be an exercise in futility to use that same Hebrew source yet a second time. In any event, the "experts" who've informed them of the errors must, themselves, have been in possession of the original (or a copy thereof), or how could the comparison be made. According to Josephus, the Greeks had already copied (pre-LXX) material from original Hebrew texts, for most of their philosophies are the result of the wisdom contained in the Hebrew writings. But if this were true, Ptolemy II, being Greek himself, as well as a bibliophile, would've already known about the alleged Hebrew source, and there would've been no need for the librarian Demetrius to make him aware of it. However, If we use this section of the letter, in conjunction with excerpts from Josephus' "Contra Apionen" and "Antiquities...", we will arrive at a priori evidence that the LXX was NOT translated from a Hebrew source, but vice versa.
​
In Contra Apionen [Bk I, 14-16], by identifying the Hyksos (shepherd kings) with the ancestors of the Hebrews/Jews, Josephus unwittingly divulges the [Greek] source from which that part of their history was derived. That source was Manetho's Aegyptiaca, which in turn had been compiled from an "original" Egyptian source! Then Josephus continued to prosecute himself further by stating, "It is evident that Plato was a follower of our code of laws, evident too that he diligently studied all their details...." [ibid., Bk 2, Sec. 168]. Perhaps he intended this as an allusion to Plato's use of the term "Demiurge" in direct reference to "ho theos" [Timaeus, 29e (a term found in Exodus 6:3 LXX)], or to an ancient, mysterious tradition that credits Plato with the phrase "Tell me of the god On who is, was, and never knew beginning" ? ['On' being a name also found in the LXX (Ex. 3:14)]. But could any serious theologian or philosopher have the audacity to compare ANY book of the Torah with the sublime profundity of Plato's Timaeus! Never mind the fact that it was written around a century BEFORE the LXX. We may reason, then, that the "emended form" constituted a revision of Manetho's version, an edited narrative that forbids [the biblical] Moses from crossing over into the Promised Land with the expelled Hyksos.
​
Also, after reading the Letter Of Aristeas, we see that it doesn't address the issue of the Alexandrian Jews being unable to read, or having forgotten how to read, Hebrew. But it was Josephus who first cited this letter. And Josephus who provided the primary impetus behind the LXX narrative, suggesting the rationale for its composition was to accommodate a practical need of a diaspora transitioning into Greek language and culture, in which a Greek translation of their Holy Writ had become absolutely necessary. Yet, in the end, even after God declared to Moses his holy name, "which had never been discovered to men before," it was "unlawful" for Josephus to say any more concerning it [Antiq., Bk 2, Ch 12, P 4]. Even though these names --- "ho theos", "kyrios", and "On" --- were right there in the LXX for all(?) to see [Cp. Ex. 3:14; 6:2-3]. All things being considered, Josephus has succeeded in undermining his own credibility --- especially since his birth name was Yosef ben Matityahu !
And as to "a King's fostering care"? This implies [to me] that the "emended" version would still require the endorsement of the Greek king before it could be considered an official book!
TO BE CONTINNUED ....