In your analysis of the example of Exodus 9:17 you are contrasting one interpretation that fits linguistically and philosophically with Qumran and Rabbinic writing with another interpretation that you claim is earlier. Yet it isn't clear from the information here what demonstrably early literature and thinking this interpretation is meant to fit with. You say 'The latter meaning corresponds to the normal usage of the root in the Pentateuch', but are you assuming the Pentateuch is 'early'? Isn't this what is up to discussion?
In your analysis of the example of Exodus 9:17 you are contrasting one interpretation that fits linguistically and philosophically with Qumran and Rabbinic writing with another interpretation that you claim is earlier. Yet it isn't clear from the information here what demonstrably early literature and thinking this interpretation is meant to fit with. You say 'The latter meaning corresponds to the normal usage of the root in the Pentateuch', but are you assuming the Pentateuch is 'early'? Isn't this what is up to discussion?