No written documents concerning it have been found predating the compilation of the Masoretic Bible.  For it was only after  the creation of the Masoretic Bible that the Tetragrammaton could be compared with the On/Kyrios of the LXX.  Thus, The Doctrine of The Ineffable Name⁰ was nothing more than an apologetic expedient, fabricated by the Masoretes to justify the discrepancy between the two names and, incidentally, ignorance of the original one. 

 

But it proved counter-productive to persist in such irrationalism because Iah-/Ja-/Je-/Jo-, a distinctive theophoric prefix (e.g. Jo-seph; Jo-chebed; je-phthah) and suffix (e.g., Bith-iah; Isa-iah; Jerem-iah) throughout the Old testament, was inevitably resolved into a contraction (or primary root) of  the so-called Ineffable Name [a name, mind you, that was first inscribed in the pyramid of Pepi I (d. c. 2280 B.C.) --- at least 200 years before  Abraham (c. 2056 B.C.), thus providing material evidence which immediately refutes the notion that the ancient Egyptians first learned of Iah through the Biblical Hebrews! (Just as there exists inscriptional evidence negating the allegation that the ancient Egyptians learned the practice of circumcision* from the Biblical Hebrews)!  The name was also recorded by Amenhotep III (14th century BC), and preserved at the Soleb Temple; again in an inscription by Ramses II (13th century BC) at Amarah-West; and preserved yet again on the Moabite Stone by king Mesha (c. 800 BC --- according to Biblical Archaeological reckoning)].  Which implied that the name of God was in the LXX all along but only the Jews were forbidden to utter it, or  both the Hellenistic Jews (probably) and Post-Temple Jews (certainly) had failed to recognize it; just as they failed to acknowledge yet another Egyptian God they worshipped.  As to this second God,  such a blatant faux pas indicates not only an ignorance of their own identity, but the desperate nature of their circumstances as well. Because Scripture says, “My people who are called by my name¹….” (2 Chr. 7:14. Italics mine). Thus, a proscription against writing or saying aloud the true name(s) of their God(s) would mean they were also forbidden to do either with their own; “I will protect those who know my name” (Ps. 91:14.  No protection;  no hope.  A condition of wretched despair); “They will call upon my name and I will answer them. I will say, “They are my people;” and they will say, “The LORD is my God”.” (Zech 13:9.  They could cry out until they were blue in the face, but their prayers would never be answered.  Because how does one implore a God that has no specific  name?  I suppose they could've simply gone with Ba'al, since it was in later times explained as meaning  LORD!).  Either the Jews never knew the name, or they never  possessed a book containing it before receiving the LXX.  Basically, two sides of the same coin.  So, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes prohibited the reading of the Law of Moses (giving orders to search out and burn any copies that could be found), exactly what version of it was he referring to?  And when, in 167 BC, he dedicated the Jerusalem Temple to Zeus², can we surmise that from then until the compilation of the Masoretic Bible, the Jews of Syria knew only that  god  (Zeus) in its various manifestations?  Thanks to the recorded customs of Interpretatio Graeca-Romano, the question has been sufficiently answered, and we've been led full-circle to Yahweh's Egyptian point of origin.   All that's left to do is apply the orthographic pronunciation of Jupiter's alternate name³ in Classic  Latin and --- EUREKA! --- mystery solved. Perfect sense is then made of:  "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."  (Hosea 13:4.  Italics mine )!; and "...they found me in the house of On ...." (Hosea 12:4 LXX. 7th-Degree Initiates understand the significance of this). 

o

Equally unconvincing was the allegation that the LXX was translated from a source of Hebrew provenance, considering that, between the two, the LXX claims an antiquity 700 years earlier than the oldest extant volume of the Masoretic Bible.  The burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the Masoretes.  Is it any wonder that the Greeks  never mentioned translating the LXX from a Hebrew original? If a Hebrew version had preexisted, would there be any doubt that a synchronism between Sethos, Sennacherib, and Hezekiah would have been established during the translation?  Finally, if the Hebrew Bible preceded the LXX, chances are the first Rosetta Stone would have been of Hebrew origin, not Greek!​

​

​

​⁰   Josephus was the first to make mention of this name : "²³⁵ ... another golden crown, in which was engravened the sacred name...: It consists of four vowels." (Jewish Wars,  Ch. 5; c. 70 AD).  But he never said what those vowels were.  What an intriguing coincident that Jupiter's alternate name consists of four vowels exactly; the same kind and in the same order as the tetragrammaton!  As a matter of fact, The Jewish Wars, initially written in Aramaic (?), was later translated into Greek (the language of the scholars of his days).  Since "tetragrammaton" is a Greek  word, I'd venture to say this is the first historical attestation of its connection to the "ineffable name"; while the doctrine  of this name was first drafted centuries later.

​

*  The earliest depiction of the procedure is in the pyramid of Djedkare Isesi (d. 2375 BC), 8th king of the 5th dynasty.  At least 300  years before Abram and the so-called Abrahamic Covenant!  Herodotus also informs us that the Syrians of his days acknowledged that they learned the practice from the Egyptians (The Histories.  104. [3]).  It seemed to have also been a mandatory rite for the high priests of Ra (which was probably adopted from the cult of Min, whose phallus was circumcised).  

​

¹  APPLY LOGIC!  Their name is Israel.  Therefore, contained within  their name is the name of their God.  I've already expounded on the relevance of the Shibboleth, whereas one might say Ish-baal while another Is-baal. In either case, it still renders 'a man of  Baal', or 'someone belonging  to Baal' (according to conventional Bible dictionaries).  The LXX has demonstrated how El is paralleled with On (Beth-On : Beth-El).  On, says the Greeks, is Heliopolis, the 'City of the sun', located in Egypt. Besides Osiris, the sun-god Ra is worshipped in Heliopolis.  The God El, we've been told by the authorities, hails from Canaan.  But scripture itself has informed us that the God of the Israelites came from 'the land of Egypt'.  We must conclude, then, that the "-ra-" in Israel relates to the God Ra (see "Seer") in a syncretic form with El (this has constituted my most  illustrative example of a theophoric).  A strong argument can be made for Ammi as well (Gen 19:38; Hosea 2:1); in which case the Egyptian God becomes Amun- (or, if you prefer, Ammon-) Ra. Let the Christian  Brethren be neither daunted, confused, offended, or embarrassed by this.  For did not Osiris rise from the dead millennia before Hiram? And was not Osiris reborn like Iah (the moon), shining in the place of Ra (the sun) at midnight?  And were you not lectured ---  in regard to the Greaters & Lessers --- to behold  the Sun, Moon  & ....!?!  This doesn't make you Pagans or Sabeans; just those who've been enlightened by a knowledge that the uninitiated were not.   If this in any way disturbs your conscience, perhaps it is better that you withdraw from The Craft.

​​

²   "... Because, by Zeus, before his time another king had seen them ...."  (Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.26-31, 255).  Also, in Josephus' paraphrases of the Letter of Aristaeus, he ascribes the following quotes to Aristaeus, who is presenting Ptolemy II Philadelphus with a reason for freeing the Jewish slaves in his empire, "... since the God who gave them their laws is the same who presides over your kingdom .... For both they and we worship the God who created the universe, whom we call by the appropriate name Zena** {ZEUS} ...."  (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Bk 12, Secs 21-22).  Here Aristaeus plainly identifies Zeus and the Hebrew God as the same  deity!  Or, at least, suggesting the same God called by different names! 

 

​³  For it was relayed in Macrobius' Saturnalia  (1.23; c. 400 AD) that, "The Assyrians celebrated ... in Heliopolis ... the worship of the sun-god...." under Jupiter's alternate name.  Let the reader be reminded that the modern meaning of the name Assyria (as well as Syria) is of Greek origin and was used interchangeably by them.  Then recall the testimony of the ancient Israelite:  "A Syrian ready to perish was my father; and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there...." (Deut. 26:5)!  The Heliopolis here referred to was the name given by Alexander the Great to the ancient Phoenician temple complex at Baalbek.  The sun-god was worshipped at Baalbek under this name until Emperor Theodosius (r. 379 - 395 AD) turned its temple into a Christian  church! 

​

**  Zena supposedly means 'she who belongs to Zeus'; a most baffling choice of gender, considering the context in which it is given.  Nevertheless, here Zeus is ultimately  the God being alluded to.

​