Do We Need A New Bible? 161 in the pre-stabilization period, some of the differences being relatively minor but others, as we shall see, being far more substantial. This is not, in fact, new knowledge since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as is sometimes implied. It was recognized by most serious textual critics long before that on the basis of the Septuagint, the pre- stabilization translation which in the case of some books reflects an alternative tradition (or should we call it edition?) from what eventually became the Masoretic Text. The cases of Samuel and Jeremiah are the most celebrated of the examples, though they are not in fact alone. What the Dead Sea Scrolls did was, for the first time, to give us Hebrew versions of (parts, sometimes only fragments of) these alternative traditions, thus finally burying the notion that was sometimes voiced that these differences in the Septuagint were to be ascribed entirely to the work of the translator. But while it remains the case that this is always an important possibility to bear in mind in any individual case, the evidence against it being so in every case was already overwhelming long before the scrolls were discovered. In the case of Samuel, for example, there was already the evidence before us of the Hebrew text of Chronicles in passages where it runs parallel with Samuel, as well as the evidence of the later paraphrases by Josephus and the like. Now, given these circumstances, Hendel and his colleagues clearly have every right to affirm that in such cases the textual critic has the responsibility to exercise his or her best judgment in choosing which of the variant texts is likely to be more original. From a purely academic point of view there can be no justification for assuming that the masoretic tradition must always be superior. While such a form of fundamentalism is known in certain circles, it tends to be restricted to the most extreme orthodox Jews who are able, of course, to handle the Hebrew text with a certain sort of facility. Whatever Christian fundamentalists may say, they are generally dependent on modern translations which, whether they know it or not, inevitably incorporate some of this scholarship simply in order to produce an intelligible rendering. Conservative Christian scholars may certainly be more reluctant than others to concede the issue, but they seek to argue their case on the basis of how they see the evidence, not simple prejudice. I therefore have no hesitation in affirming that in this regard the text-critical work of the proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible is entirely justified and indeed necessary. Although I have not engaged much in my own writings with Samuel and Jeremiah, I have written