# Bible 101 - differences between versions
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 12, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795 "2005-08-12T22:47:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/1 "2005-08-12T22:47:14Z")
Mods: Please feel free to move this to GD or wherever else it may be appropriate. I’m not looking for a debate, just a factual answer, if there is one.
I need to read the Bible for school this year - basically, in an all-discussion philosophy class, as part of the great books program ([thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275093&highlight=Great+Books)where I explain it a bit more). I was raised Jewish, sent to an after-school Hebrew School for about ten years, and spent most of that time getting my rabbis pissed off and hating organized religion more and more. I know the very basics of both Judaism and Christianity, but that’s pretty much it. (I just realized last month that the old testament does, in fact, include more than just the first five books).
So I went out bible-shopping today, and finally settled on the Tanakah (Jewish Bible) and the King James Version. But there are a few more versions out there - could someone give me a summary of the main differences between them? I’m especially intrigued by the existance of a “New King James” version: what’s new about it? Why did they change it but keep the name?
Another random but related topic: What exactly is the Haftorah in Judaism? I realized that six years ago, I freakin’ memorized something from it and chanted it in front of a full synagogue, and have no idea what it is.
Also, while I’m at it (last question for now, I swear): Are bibles often given as gifts to mark special occasions? I noticed that practically all of them have a page in front: “Presented to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, by \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” What’s that about?
---
### Author:  [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/2 "2005-08-12T23:19:16Z")
There are indeed several different versions of the Bible. The book itself is a compilation of writings by many different people over long periods of time, in various languages. Obviously when this is translated into English or some other language, the exact words used will depend on who is doing the translations. Thus the various versions.
My favorites are the King James, for its beautiful language, and the New English Bible, for its easily understandable 20th century prose. The former was written at about the time of Shakespeare and is difficult for many people today to really understand. So which one to choose depends on what you’re looking for.
I can’t answer your questions about the Jewish texts.
Yes, Bibles are often given as gifts, especially on special occasions like a Christian child’s first communion, confirmation, or when he/she officially joins a particular Protestant church. Obviously the occasions and customs vary considerably from one church to another.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/3 "2005-08-13T00:14:39Z")
The thread [Recommend me a Bible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=324054) was originally posted in **IMHO** , but it was _seeking_ opinions. In the course of the discussion, of course, the various posters tended to answer your question, so a link to that thread might leave this thread safely in **GQ**.
A similar thread in **Cafe Society** was [Recommend a good Bible translation for me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260710) and a shorter one in **Great Debates** was [Which bible version should I study??](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=243552), while a request for a translation “untainted” by theology was sought in the **CS** thread, [Academic Bible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241564) (the consensus was that there were none).
[What are the common or “standard” Bible versions around the world?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=191666) brought some interesting replies.
[about the different versions of the bible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=158124) suffered some polemical hijacks, but brought forth some interesting information regarding different versions.
[Versions/History of the Bible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=145810) is slightly off-topic to the question, but provides some intersting information with links to more.
After that, I stopped looking, but I was about halfway back to the beginning of the board.
---
### Author:  [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/4 "2005-08-13T00:39:01Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#):
>
> I’m especially intrigued by the existance of a “New King James” version: what’s new about it? Why did they change it but keep the name?
Did a quick web search on that… apparently the makers wanted to blend the ‘majesty and beauty’ of the language in the king james with the accessibility of more recent translations. I also found out more than I wanted to know of what some guy named David Daniels thinks about modern perversions of the word of god. _shrugs_
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/5 "2005-08-13T01:42:04Z")
Sophmore year at St. John’s, **Ninjachick**?
---
### Author:  [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/6 "2005-08-13T01:53:17Z")
> [@MLS](#):
>
> There are indeed several different versions of the Bible. The book itself is a compilation of writings by many different people over long periods of time, in various languages. Obviously when this is translated into English or some other language, the exact words used will depend on who is doing the translations. Thus the various versions.
>
> My favorites are the King James, for its beautiful language, and the New English Bible, for its easily understandable 20th century prose. The former was written at about the time of Shakespeare and is difficult for many people today to really understand. So which one to choose depends on what you’re looking for.
>
> I can’t answer your questions about the Jewish texts.
>
> Yes, Bibles are often given as gifts, especially on special occasions like a Christian child’s first communion, confirmation, or when he/she officially joins a particular Protestant church. Obviously the occasions and customs vary considerably from one church to another.
Surely you don’t mean the original King James. It’s pretty near unintelligible.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/7 "2005-08-13T02:13:08Z")
> [@ouryL](#):
>
> Surely you don’t mean the original King James. It’s pretty near unintelligible.
From Chapter 1 of the Book of Ruth, KJV, 1611
> [@](#):
>
> And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
>
> And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
>
> When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?
>
> And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?
>
> So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
It uses words like “thee” and forms like “hath” and “clave” that we don’t use anymore, but that’s hardly unintelligible.
Compare that with the Wycliffe version of the same text, written in the 1330s
> [@](#):
>
> Therfor, whanne the vois was reisid, eft thei bigunnen to wepe. Orpha kisside `the modir of hir hosebonde, and turnede ayen, and Ruth `cleuyde to `the modir of hir hosebonde. To whom Noemy seide, Lo! thi kyneswomman turnede ayen to hir puple, and to hir goddis; go thou with hir.
>
> And sche answeride, Be thou not `aduersarye to me, that Y forsake thee, and go awei; whidur euer thou schalt go, Y schal go, and where thou schalt dwelle, and Y schal dwelle togidere; thi puple is my puple, and thi God is my God; what lond schal resseyue thee diynge, Y schal die ther ynne, and there Y schal take place of biriyng; God do to me these thingis, and adde these thingis, if deeth aloone schal not departe me and thee.
>
> Therfor Noemy siy, that Ruth hadde demyde with stidefast soule to go with hir, and sche nolde be ayens hir, nether counseile ferthere turnynge ayen `to her cuntrei men. And thei yeden forth togidere, and camen in to Bethleem; and whanne thei entriden in to the citee, swift fame roos anentis alle men, and wymmen seiden, This is thilke Noemy.
>
> To whiche sche seide, Clepe ye not me Noemy, that is, fair, but `clepe ye me Mara, that is, bittere; for Almyyti God hath fillid me greetli with bitternesse. Y yede out ful, and the Lord ledde me ayen voide; whi therfor clepen ye me Noemy, whom the Lord hath `maad low, and Almyyti God hath turmentid?
>
> Therfor Noemy cam with Ruth of Moab, `the wijf of hir sone, fro the lond of hir pilgrimage, and turnede ayen in to Bethleem, whanne barli was ropun first.
---
### Author:  [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/8 "2005-08-13T02:22:49Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#):
>
> Sophmore year at St. John’s, **Ninjachick**?
Yes indeed. In the beginning…there was “Oh my god, I need to get enabled at the end of this year!”
> [@ouryL](#):
>
> Surely you don’t mean the original King James. It’s pretty near unintelligible.
If that’s what I’m reading ([this](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879816007/qid=1123899351/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0221961-6876669?v=glance&s=books)), then I wouldn’t say it’s near unintelligible. Perhaps not the smoothest, most eloquent read, and a bit heavy on the “thou"s and “goeth” and other archaic conjugations, but it’s definitely readable by a modern audience. (OTOH, it’s possible I’m not looking at the original version.”
**tomndebb** - Searchy goodness - thanks. I did do a brief search, but things did seem to be a bit bogged down in opinions, which isn’t quite what I want (though I’m going to read through some of that.)
**MLS** - Would you say (I’m assuming you’ve read at least parts of the versions mentioned) that the differences in translations give a markedly different feel to the text? E.g., would you say that the New English version presents a different “attitude” or what have you than, say, the King James?
(And…yeah, I just did post a question about Judaism on Friday night. :smack: )
---
### Author:  [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/9 "2005-08-13T02:51:10Z")
Well, if you’re doing this for class discussion do \*not \*use the King James version. It may not be “unintelligible” but it is a very tough read. Slow to get through, hard to decipher, misleading in many ways, and just not very much fun.
If you really want to know what’s in the Bible, I recommend one of the contemporary translations, and there are many to choose from. You might take a look at [BibleGateway.com](http://www.biblegateway.com/). They have online just about every translation there is including Bulgarian, Hatian Creole, etc.
I’m in the process of reading the Bible from start to finish, and I have about seven Bibles in my arsenal. I generally read one of the contemporary translations but when something catches my attention, I will look it up in King James just to see how it looks there.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/10 "2005-08-13T03:02:53Z")
Your mileage may vary as to how readable the King James Version is. For centuries (i.e. from about Shakespeare’s time to the early-to-mid 20th century), it was THE Bible used in the English-speaking world, at least by Protestants. Because of its age, it’s not the most accurate or reliable translation, both because more recent versions take advantage of later Biblical scholarship and because some of the words themselves have different meanings than in King James’s day. But quite a few people love it for the beauty of its language.
If you really want to get fancy, there exist “parallel” Bibles that print the words of more than one version side by side.
---
### Author:  [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/11 "2005-08-13T03:11:36Z")
I don’t know that it’s a different attitude. But definitely a different feel. Here’s the same passage from Ruth that Captain Amazing quoted from the KJV, this time from the New English Bible:
> [@](#):
>
> At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and returned to her people, but Ruth clung to her.
>
> “You see,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; go back with her.” “Do not urge me to go back and desert you,” Ruth answered. “Where you go, I will go, and where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. I swear a solemn oath before the LORD your God: nothing but death shall divide us.” When Naomi saw that Ruth was determined to go with her, she said no more, and the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was in great excityement about them, and the women said, “Can this be Naomi?” “Do not call me Naomi,” she said, “call me Mara, for it is a bitter lot that the Almighty has sent me. I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi? The LORD has pronounced against me; the Almighty has brought disaster on me.” This is how Naomi’s daughter-in-law, Ruth the Moabitess, returned with her from the Moabite country. The barley harvest was beginning when they arrived in Bethlehem.
It tells the same basic tale, although it does not sound as grand and imposing. It’s an easier text to give a person who hasn’t read the Bible before, since you can read many parts of it as you would any other story.
---
### Author:  [@gaucho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaucho)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/12 "2005-08-13T14:23:42Z")
When I was in college, I was assigned the KJV in literature classes because it was the version every writer referred to for centuries, and the NRSV for ancient history classes because it was considered the most accurate translation. So I think it depend on why exactly you’re reading the Bible.
If I remember, the KJV was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, while the NRSV was based on older Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Their may well have been a more definitive version made since then, though.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/13 "2005-08-13T14:47:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> If I remember, the KJV was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, while the NRSV was based on older Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts.
Not really. The KJV was translated from the Hebrew and the Greek. The issue with the Vulgate is that the Vulgate was used to fill in some gaps where the Greek was unclear. The other issue with the Greek is that it was based on the _Textus Receptus_ which was an effort to reconcile variation in texts in the Byzantine version of the New Testament (that was, itself, derived from earlier Antiochan texts). There are some minor discrepancies between the Antiochan/Byzantine versions and the Alexandrian and Jerusalem versions and modern scholarship attempts to make a good faith effort to discover which has priority whenever there is a conflict. The translators of the KJV would probably have done the same thing, (after all, they tried reconciling the various versions of the _Textus Receptus_ on which their translation was based), but they simply had no Alexandrian or Jerusalem texts to review.
I am not sure (and don’t have time to look it up at the moment) whether the Hebrew translation was taken from the Masoretic recensions or some other source. I am also not sure how much they may have used the Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures to Greek by Jewish scholars in the 2d Century B.C.E.) to help reconcile difficult passages in the Hebrew.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/14 "2005-08-13T14:47:54Z")
The KJV was translated from the _Textus Receptus_, which was a collation of the **majority** of available manuscripts compiled in Renaissance times. Modern scholarship tends to put more reliance in the oldest manuscripts, particularly the Uncial codices and the Dead Sea and Oxyrhynchus material, and less reliance in the majority of manuscripts, which are generally the later miniscule-script material with a common ancestor in one of several possible readings. Accordingly, there are variant readings in KJV and its descendents (NKJV, etc.) that do not match what the majority of Bible scholars believe to be the more accurate reading. In particular, it’s worth noting that two significant probable scribal glosses are considered part of the canonical KJV text but not of the modern readings: the story of the woman taken in adultery in John, and the “three witnesses in Heaven” passage in, I believe, the First Epistle of John that is the sole reference to the Trinity as a unit in the Bible.
It’s also worth noting that there are numerous canons – i.e., which books are considered part of the Bible. The Tanakh is equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament. Most Protestants consider it and the standard New Testament (4 gospels, Acts, 12 letters attributed to Paul, 7 other letters, and Revelation) as the sole canon of Scripture.
Catholics add to this the _deuterocanon_: 12 books found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as finalized but not in the Tanakh. Eastern Orthodox have never formalized a canon but _de facto_ go with the Septuagint, which includes those 12 books and three others; Anglicans and Methodists accept the 15-book deuterocanon as “Apocrypha” – a sort of second-class Scripture suitable for reading, including “Bible readings” in church, but not for founding doctrine on. Most Oriental Orthodox (Jacobites, Armenians, and Egyptian Copts) concur in the Septuagint canon, but the Ethiopian Copts have a much larger canon than anyone else. And of course the Latter Day Saints add three other collections to the Protestant canon: Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. I believe there is also an alternate translation preferred by LDS theologians and leaders. It’s also worth noting that some groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular, use translations that are, in a word, slanted to support their particular doctrines.
New Revised Standard and New International Versions are considered excellent renderings of the original, with minimal “special pleading.” The New Jerusalem Bible takes a quite different approach to the original texts but is also exceptionally well done from a scholarship standpoint, and has the virtue of providing footnotes with alternate readings whenever there was a disputed passage.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/15 "2005-08-13T15:34:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The issue with the Vulgate is that the Vulgate was used to fill in some gaps where the Greek was unclear.
Should have been:
The issue with the Vulgate is that the Vulgate was used to fill in some gaps where the Hebrew or the Greek was unclear.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/16 "2005-08-13T18:13:42Z")
I love the King James Bible. Parts of it are heart-breakingly beautiful.
If I recall from my days at St. John’s, the tutors can get pretty fanatical about translations. Generally they go by the most accurate, not by the most readable. I think this is a shame with the KJV, which is a great book in it’s own right, IMO, and should not be unreadable to someone who’s already gone through a year at SJC.
As others have pointed out, you can’t really go wrong with the NRSV. But tutors do tend to have their own sometimes idiosyncratic ideas about what translations are good or bad. In my day there was a bit of controversy about the Jerusalem Bible. Maybe you should ask your tutor.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/17 "2005-08-13T18:59:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> I am not sure (and don’t have time to look it up at the moment) whether the Hebrew translation was taken from the Masoretic recensions or some other source.
The KJV used the Masoretic text, but an argument can be made that some of the translations do seem to have been influenced by the [Septuagint](http://www.catholicapologetics.net/septuagin_and_kjv.htm).
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/18 "2005-08-13T20:55:43Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#):
>
> Another random but related topic: What exactly is the Haftorah in Judaism? I realized that six years ago, I freakin’ memorized something from it and chanted it in front of a full synagogue, and have no idea what it is.
The haftarah is the second, or concluding, reading every week of services. While the regular reading, the _parshah_, is always from Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy), the haftarah is a reading from the prophets (Isaiah, Kings, Malachi, Hosea, Obadiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Judges, Amos, Samuel, Joshua, Micah, and… and anyone else I forgot).
I was taught that this practice came about in ancient times, when the Jews were forbidden by whoever was in power at the time from reading Torah, so the Rabbis substituted the prophets’ words. When the Torah restriction was removed, the practice of reading the prophets’ words was retained.
If you’ll look at a typical _chumash_, you’ll find each week’s _parshah_ reading, followed by the appropriate _haftorah_ reading.
---
### Author:  [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/19 "2005-08-14T02:24:59Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#):
>
> If I recall from my days at St. John’s, the tutors can get pretty fanatical about translations. Generally they go by the most accurate, not by the most readable. I think this is a shame with the KJV, which is a great book in it’s own right, IMO, and should not be unreadable to someone who’s already gone through a year at SJC.
>
> As others have pointed out, you can’t really go wrong with the NRSV. But tutors do tend to have their own sometimes idiosyncratic ideas about what translations are good or bad. In my day there was a bit of controversy about the Jerusalem Bible. Maybe you should ask your tutor.
\Some tutors are crazy about translations, moreso for certain works. Others, though, embrace having as many translations as possible in the seminar, as the differences can occasional be truly enlightening about what the original author was really trying to get on. I don’t know who’s seminar I’m going to be in, so that’s a crapshoot right now, but I’m figuring that if I start out with the KJV, I’ll be able to handle picking up another version at this point (and, I’m reading the Tanakah concurrently, so I’ve got that.)\
**Bricker** - ah. Thank you. (Er, what’s a _chumash_?)
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/20 "2005-08-14T02:34:23Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#):
>
> \Some tutors are crazy about translations, moreso for certain works. Others, though, embrace having as many translations as possible in the seminar, as the differences can occasional be truly enlightening about what the original author was really trying to get on. I don’t know who’s seminar I’m going to be in, so that’s a crapshoot right now, but I’m figuring that if I start out with the KJV, I’ll be able to handle picking up another version at this point (and, I’m reading the Tanakah concurrently, so I’ve got that.)\
>
> **Bricker** - ah. Thank you. (Er, what’s a _chumash_?)
FYI, the KJV is one of the worst versions you could choose for any serious study. Not only is it poor translation, it’s based on some seriously flawed manuscript sources. Get an Oxford Annotated. That’s the standard academic version.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795.md?page=2)