Bulletin for Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.1 78 examines texts that manifest a distinct, northern dialect of Hebrew. Cohen demonstrates how a knowledge of diachrony can inform textual analysis. The fourth section contains essays that survey the issue of diachrony in Aramaic (Sokoloff), Ugaritic (Lam and Pardee), and Akkadian (Kouwenberg). In the fifth and final section, Zevit provides an extended review of Linguistic Dating Dating of Biblical Texts (hereafter, LDBT) by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvard, a two-volume work to which DBH is a rejoinder. Special consideration of LDBT is appropriate due to frequent citation of this work within DBH. In many cases, DBH DBH essays forcefully reject the putative central theses of LDBT, including the idea that varying literary styles account for observed linguistic differences better than diachrony. Despite this seeming unanimity of opinion, a critical reading of the DBH trove of resources suggests that ongoing studies of He brew diachrony should continue to answer critiques such as those of LDBT. For example, the essay of Ehrensvard (who also authored chapters in LDBT) affirms that Hebrew experienced diachronic change (p. 181) and that there are clear differences between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew (p. 190), casting doubt on characterization of LDBT as utterly nihilistic toward the phenomenon of diachronic language change. Considered as a composite whole, DBH is a technical work of scholarly depth. Inclusion of both generative and functional linguistic approaches is an uncommon but welcome advancement of widely varying theoretical perspec tives. At times, contributors reach disparate (or complementary) conclusions, such as attributing the phenomenon of the infinitive absolute substituting for a finite verb to "style" (Ehrensvard, p. 189), "diachrony" (Paul, p. 294), or "dia lect" (Rendsburg, pp. 345-46). Further, the fact that some chapter authors criti cally evaluate the work of other DBH contributors and on occasion note the absence absence of discernible diachronic change within texts in their purview testifies to the integrity of scholarship in the book. One claim within DBH highlights the need for circumspection when citing informal discourse during argumentation on contentious topics. The final chapter attributes confirmation of an inferred central principle of LDBT to personal e-mail communication with one of its authors. However, the same author expressly denied confirming that principle in an e-mail to the present reviewer. Brief comments such as those above can scarcely do justice to the work of each DBH contributor and only hint at the complexity of the current state of discussion on Hebrew diachrony. Though complex indeed, the implications for broader Hebraic studies are weighty. Clearly, all informed discussion of Hebrew diachrony in the future will benefit from interaction with DBH. Scott N. Callaham Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Steven E. Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth A. Clements, eds. Hebrew in the Second Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Contempo raryrary Sources. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 108. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pp. xi + 331. ISBN 978-90-04-25478-7. $156.00 cloth. This volume contains 20 essays from the proceedings of the 12th annual inter national symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/biblical-research/article-pdf/24/1/78/1291630/bullbiblrese_24_1_78.pdf by guest on 06 February 2022