The evolution of Classical Biblical Hebrew

In 2022 Yoel Elitzur, or "Joel" in German, laid down a challenge. Google Scholar reveals basically nobody as take this seriously; I consider Joosten's cite as an opportunism (and Joosten knows better). So I'll try :-

Elitzur pinpoints 17 Hebrew words and expressions as appear over the early Biblical corpus, and where they appear. Many cluster in specific sections. Some are quoted later but otherwise don't appear (e.g. the Chronicler quoting Reigns), some change their triconsonantal root so probably pronunciation, some change semantics. From that, Elitzur argues for no need to budge the Masoretic (and, honestly, Septuagintal) order of the historical books from the Pentateuch through Joshua-Judges through Reigns. Nor to budge the historically-understood dates of the Prophets - with the dramatic exception of Isaiah 40+ (I've been arguing 34+). The Psalms don't seem to figure.

The paper admits that some cases be stronger than others. The infamous he who pisseth against the wall is used in the Saul-David cycle and not earlier nor since. You'd think there'd be occasion for an author to bring it up in Judges or in the Ahab-Jezebel sequence, or when the Assyrians arrived, or for one of the more visceral Prophets like Ezekiel. Elitzur concedes the possibility of one author later subsumed into a longer history. But that might even help the paper's case: he's arguing that the later editor, or perhaps Editor, assigned earlier content to their correct place.

The largest tub o' skub develops from the implication of no later major editorial intrusions. He might allow, oh, the tweaks to Joshua against 4QJoshᵃ or the airdropping of Judges 6:7-10. But he doesn't allow for the Documentary Hypothesis in the five books (claimed) before Joshua. They're historical books too and they end with the Testament of Moses which is Deuteronomy.

The now-famous word elón, which (we agree) meant something like the Archaic Greek chora (district/ viable-flatland), exists in Genesis and Deuteronomy, then through to 1 Samuel. Once David takes control we no longer read the word. Why not, if it was Deuteronomic? This argument is stronger than that for the yellowed walls.

"Maidservant" amah and shaptah exist only in quoted dialog, like -na. In each case here, the woman is rendering an appeal. Elitzur here does not read these female words in Pentateuch, even in narrative sections where someone like Rebecca in Genesis 24:18-19, or especially Sarah [in Gen. 18], could have used it but did not. One might also ask after Rahab in Jericho; here, we can contrast that -na which does appear in Genesis. Elitzur here argues this means the usage (amah first) started in the Gibeah episode [of Judges 19] to continue throughout Reigns although maybe dropping off in final 2 Kings. As Joshua precedes all that; so does Torah.

asa for "fire-sacrifice" is of course Levitic. Elitzur however refuses it for P - he overall refuses all P - because it's also in Deuteronomy. Then it recurs in Joshua and even Samuel.

Elitzur brings a fair dataset. I think, however, his cases aren't as strong as he thinks. Just because a bundle with some word exists, that says nothing about the sequence before-and-after.

For "thy [maid]servant", we have outside data: Late Bronze Age texts, wherein Canaani or Ugariti supplicants abase themselves before some Pharaoh as "thy servant". The trope's persistence in the Iron Age would parallel the world of Judges 19-to-Reigns. For Elitzur the trope should be even stronger if Genesis truly was a text of early iron or even bronze.

Now take asa. Since Wellhausen, most understand that even without the "Holiness Code" P came from a central altar. D and D's history was arguing for that central altar. Just because a sacrifice was burned does not mean the law came from P. D would do just as well, in which case P simply developed the theme and drew up a whole ritual around it.