166 H.G.M. Williamson be deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (20). I am sure this is right, and it may be that the Masoretes wanted to avoid the possible implication of imprecating the dead, forbidden by Deut 18,9-14. So far as I can see, however, this alternative reading of the ancient consonantal text can only be mentioned in the apparatus of the new edition because of the policy of adopting the Masoretic vocalization as the base-text and altering (and then leaving unpointed) only the consonantal text. This is one area where the inappropriate adoption of the base-text device from a linguistically rather different milieu is obvious. Examples could be multiplied, of course (21). (ii) At a more fundamental level, there are some instances where the Masoretic vocalization betrays a development in the Hebrew language itself which gives rise to forms which could not have existed in Biblical times. These are again not apparent in the consonantal text, of course, and they do not show up in the versional translations either. Yet in a critical text which seeks to reconstruct an archetype they should certainly be changed, but apparently cannot be according to the Project’s prospectus. In a special study of this very phenomenon, Jeremy Hughes has explained and illustrated this matter with several examples (22), and more could be added to his list (23). Some of the examples are inevitably somewhat intricate and so unsuitable for discussion here (24), but one is (20) In addition to standard commentaries on Isaiah, see especially BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 46-47 (noteworthy because of this work’s generally extremely conservative attitude towards MT. (21) An odd example of this relates to the very first word in the Hebrew Bible. There has been a great deal of discussion over the spelling of this word, and there is minor evidence, of the sort that the new edition ignores, for alternative vocalization. But in Genesis 1-11, 121, HENDEL reproduces MT with no comment. Thus, even though we may agree that in fact there is no need to entertain any change at this point, his system appears not to allow someone consulting his edition even to realize that there is a disputed issue here that deserves discussion. (22) J. HUGHES, “Post-Biblical Features of Biblical Hebrew Vocalization”, Language, Theology, and the Bible. Essays in Honour of James Barr (eds. S.E. BALENTINE – J. BARTON) (Oxford 1994) 67-80. (23) See, for instance, BARR, Variable Spellings, 77-81; S.E. FASSBERG, “The Movement from Qal to Pi‘‘el in Hebrew and the Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive”, HS 42 (2001) 243-55; A. SÁENZ-BADILLOS, A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge 1993) 73-74; Y. BLOCH, “From Linguistics to Text-Criticism and Back: wayyiqtol Constructions with Long Prefixed Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew”, HS 48 (2007) 141-170. (24) These relate in particular to (i) the probable overlooking of various forms of the infinitive absolute (a form which did not survive into later forms of Hebrew)