In the recent monograph, Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrew (2024), Aaron Hornkohl proposes that the linguistic profile of the Torah, compared to that of the Prophets and the Writings, requires a modification to the bipolar periodization of Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) vs. Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), widely accepted by Hebraists within biblical studies. Maintaining the regnant view that the Masoretic Text of the Torah is, in the main, later than the pre-classical Archaic (ABH) period, Hornkohl proposes a sub-periodization of CBH: “CBH1” in the Torah and “CBH2” in the (non-LBH) Prophets and Writings.
This proposal builds on previous calls for sub-periodization of CBH, especially those of Yoel Elitzur in several recent and forthcoming articles. From such calls, two non-exclusive scenarios have been suggested, with varying degrees of confidence, that could have led to the linguistic uniqueness of the Torah’s final form: (a) the Torah might incorporate older traditions or texts than do the CBH Prophets and Writings, thus preserving remnants of a more ancient—for Elitzur, even pre-monarchic—linguistic stage, and/or (b) a “special conservatism” was exercised toward the Torah in contrast to the Prophets and Writings in the editorial processes of the First and (especially) the Second Temple Periods, because the Torah had obtained greater sanctity and/or earlier crystallization.
The present paper seeks to corroborate the linguistic evidence adduced by Hornkohl, Elitzur, and others by culling more and broader evidence. First, it briefly reviews the scholarship and sets forth the proposed interpretive scenarios. Second, it lists additional data, beyond a simplistic reading of the Torah’s narrative chronologies, that might be considered to individually or collectively support the proposal of an early, pre-monarchic textual base in the Torah’s present form. Third, it re-evaluates Hornkohl’s proposed phase of CBH1 as distinct from ABH, asking whether a fine distinction is sustainable in light of the larger body of evidence. Finally, it shows the relevance of the discussion to an evangelical doctrine of (the inspiration and inerrancy of) Scripture, which should include the Torah’s self-conscious witness of its transmission and editing and should take into consideration questions of its dating raised by historical linguistics.