Do We Need A New Bible? 159 available to us we should seek to publish an eclectic text, one which evaluates the readings of the scrolls and the evidence from the ancient versions as well as the best-informed scholarly conjectures on texts which most agree have suffered some form of corruption in the copying process over many centuries. With all reserve and sobriety, therefore, we should seek to publish a text of the Hebrew Bible which is as near as we can make it a version of the original as it left the hands of its final authors or editors. As with any other edition of a text, mistakes will no doubt be made, but these can be improved and corrected as new evidence comes to light or as further research clarifies what currently remains obscure. There should be no difference in principle from the way that any other ancient text is treated. And now, indeed, that is just what is to happen. Following an earlier study of Genesis 1-11 along these lines (11), Ron Hendel has now publicly announced what has been known privately for a few years, namely that he has organized a team of leading scholars whose work he will edit to produce what is to be called The Oxford Hebrew Bible (12). He has recently published a substantial article setting out the terms of the project and justifying it as well as accompanying it with sample editions by three of his colleagues to illustrate the nature of the work in progress (13). (11) R.S. HENDEL, The Text of Genesis 1-11. Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York – Oxford 1998). (12) In view of my own institutional affiliation, I should perhaps make clear that the proposal for this project was submitted to OUP in New York. Given their previously successful publication of Hendel’s monograph on Genesis 1-11, together with the scholarly distinction of both Hendel and his team of colleagues, it is not altogether surprising that they should have accepted his new proposal. Under the way in which OUP operates, all agreements to publish must receive final approval from the Delegates in Oxford. By the time they took advice on this particular proposal, however, the decision was already more or less a fait accompli, despite hurried written reservations having been expressed to them when they sought further advice at very much the eleventh hour. As will become clear in what follows, I have the greatest scholarly interest in this project and high regard for the team of scholars involved. But for reasons which will become apparent, I regret the proposed title and its implications for the sound presentation of the text of the Hebrew Bible. (13) R. HENDEL, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition”, VT 58 (2008) 324-351; S. WHITE CRAWFORD – J. JOOSTEN – E. ULRICH, “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1-9, 1 Kings 11:1-8, and Jeremiah 27:1-10 (34 G)”, VT 58 (2008) 352-366. See too the separate presentation of a further passage in R. HENDEL, “Plural Texts and Literary Criticism: For Instance, 1 Samuel 17”, Textus 23 (2007) 97-114.