Featured Is there Factual evidence of Church of England bias in the 1611?

Would not “bishops” have been one of the ecclesiastical words according to the third rule to be used and kept unless its use at Acts 20:28 in the genuine prelatic sense was considered a problem for the prelates?

In his history of Baptists, D. B. Ray noted the following about Acts 20:28 in the KJV: "The word overseers in this passage is episcopous in the Greek--the word which is usually translated bishops; but to have rendered it bishops in this place, would have shown that elder and bishop is the same office, which would have condemned the church of the translators" (Baptist Succession, p. 292). Edward Hiscox quoted Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, as saying that the English Version [the KJV] "has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text in rendering episcopous, v. 28, overseers; whereas, it ought there, as in all other places, to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous, might be apparent to the English reader" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 90). If a Church of England Dean can in effect see the bias, why are KJV-only advocates unable to see it? Four times the KJV had translated the same word as bishops (Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:7, 1 Pet. 2:25). In Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, David Brown asserted that the reason the word was not translated “bishops” at Acts 20:28 was “to avoid the obvious inference that the same persons are here called ‘elders’ (v. 17) and ‘bishops’” (III, p. 150). Concerning Acts 20:17, 28 in an article entitled “On the Right of Dissenting Ministers to the name of Bishops,“ the author asserted: “This is a stubborn passage, and a passage that never can be made to bend to diocesan episcopacy. The translators of King James’s Version saw with what tremendous weight and edge this text would fall on prelacy; therefore, to break its force, and prevent the effects, they introduced a Saxon compound, which has rendered its fall so easy, that the mere English reader never imagines this text to have any bearing on the question of episcopacy” (Congregational Magazine, March, 1827, p. 128). Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff observed: “They retained in all cases but one the old ecclesiastical word bishop, but in Acts 20:20, they did not do so; nor could they, without making it appear that there were several bishops in the church at Ephesus, which would not have agreed with diocesan episcopacy” (Primitive Church Magazine, Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 170). Silas Shepard noted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 78).

R. Mackenize Beverley contended: “The translators obviously had a motive for concealing the word bishops; and it is to keep out of sight the fact that elder and bishop are synonymous terms, that they have substituted the word overseers; for if the many elders of Ephesus were bishops as the Scriptures assert that they were, then the theory of diocesan Episcopacy would be incurably damaged” (Church of England Examined, p. 8). Silas E. Shephard asserted: “The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy” (The Reviser, 1855, p. 63). In The Expositor as edited by Samuel Cox, this is stated: ‘It can hardly be doubted that the translators avoided the word ‘Bishops’ in Acts 20:28 and put ‘overseers’ instead, because otherwise it would have been obvious that in the Apostolic age the word ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ were practically identical” (Vol. III, p. 301). James Lillie maintained: “Because had it there (Acts 20:28) been rendered bishop, everyone would have seen, that in the one Church of Ephesus, there were several bishops. In that one text alone, therefore, the word is translated, not as everywhere else, transferred, because, there, dust had to be thrown into the common reader’s eyes, lest he should discern the unscriptural nature of English Church government” (Bishops, p. 186). John Eadie wrote: “It has also been alleged, and not without some reason, that in Acts 20:28, the rendering of the clause ‘over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers’ is a deflection from the true translation, and conceals the identity of the ‘elders’ with the office-bearers usually named ‘bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 271). John Beard suggested that the KJV translators saw that the use of “bishops” at Acts 20:28 would have acknowledged that “plain presbyters were the same as bishops” (A Revised English Bible, p. 80). Jack Lewis wrote: “It has been thought that the varied use of ’bishoprick’ (Acts 1:20), ’overseers’ (Acts 20:28), ’oversight’ (1 Pet. 5:2), and ’bishop’ (1 Tim. 3:1) was an effort to avoid identification of bishops and elders” (English Bible, p. 63). John McClintock and James Strong agreed that the use of overseers at Acts 20:28 was “in order to avoid the identification of bishops and elders” (Cyclopaedia, III, p. 218).

 

In his dedication to King James I in the 1611 KJV, Bishop Thomas Bilson may have indicated possible Episcopal bias when he noted the “great hope” that the Church of England would reap “good fruit” from the translation.

Did Bilson’s comment possibly even indicate a firsthand awareness of renderings that were intended to help strengthen Church of England Episcopal and apostolic succession views?

 

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, Bilson, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill maintained that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie asserted: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows:

"We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by
the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is
the genuine signification of the Greek word,
cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted
by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated
the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English
Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out,
the words, 'by election'" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 351).

In removing the two words “by election,” the 1582 Rheims New Testament could have been followed. Benjamin Hanbury quoted from the preface of A True, Modest, and Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation printed in 1618 [likely in Leiden] the following: “Acts 14:23 is thus translated, not only in the Genevan, but also in the former Church translation [Bishops’], ‘And when they had ordained them elders by election.‘ But the new translation, with the Rhemists, leave out the words ‘by election’! Why? It is not to be suffered that the people should have any hand in choosing their ministers; but the papal bishops must do all” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). The 1582 Rheims N. T. had an annotation on this verse [numbered verse 22 in Rheims] that complained about the early English Bibles’ rendering. The Rheims’ annotation stated: “The heretics, to make the world believe that all Priests ought to be chosen by the voices of the people, and that they need no other Ordering or Consecration by Bishops, pressing the profane use of the Greek word more than the very natural signification requireth and Ecclesiastical use beareth, translate, Ordained by election. Whereas in deed this word in Scripture signifeth ordering by imposition of hands, as is plain by other words equivalent (Acts 6:13, 1 Tim. 4:5, 2 Tim. 1) where the ordering of deacons, Priests, and others is called Imposition of hands: not of the people, but of the Apostles” (p. 242). William Fulke cited Roman Catholic Gregory Martin as writing: “for ‘ordaining elders by election,‘ they should have said, ‘ordaining or making priests by imposition of hands’” (Defence, pp. 247-248). Did the KJV translators or the prelate who omitted “by election” accept the Roman Catholic interpretation that this Greek word referred to “laying on of hands” for consecration to ecclesiastical offices?

In agreement with the Roman Catholic view, Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, asserted that the Greek word at Acts 14:23 signifieth “imposition of hands” and “not to ordain by election of the people, as some men of late had new framed the text” (Perpetual Government of Christ‘s Church, p. 13). Bilson maintained that the Greek word “with all Greek councils, fathers, and stories, is ’to ordain by laying on of hands‘” (p. 120). Bilson quoted from Acts 14:23: “ordained elders in every church,” omitting the words “by election“ in the pre-1611 English Bibles (p. 188). The first-hand evidence from his own book would affirm that Bilson would have wanted the words “by election” removed, and even did remove the words once when he quoted from the verse. Bilson claimed that Acts 14:23 “is the only place of the New Testament that can be brought to make any show for the popular elections of elders” (p. 137). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes contended that “the apostles ordained priests by imposition of hands in every church, Acts 14:23” (Pattern, p. 355). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the view of Bilson and Andrewes?

In his 1688 book, Thomas Ward, a Roman Catholic, claimed that “they thought it now convenient to pretend something more than a bare election; to wit, to receive an episcopal and priestly character, by the imposition of hands” (Errata, p. 69). Ward suggested that perhaps one reason the words by election were removed from Acts 14:23 was “that they might more securely fix themselves in their bishoprics and benefices; thinking, perhaps that bishops consecrated, might pretend to that jure divino” (Ibid.). Ward asserted that “they thought good to blot out the words ’by election‘” (p. 26).

 

That is likely an overstatement or incorrect estimate. I once did a comparison of the 1537 Matthew's Bible New Testament (essentially Tyndale's) and the KJV's New Testament, and I marked many differences between the two. I found and counted over 1000 differences just in the gospel of Matthew.

The two have a great deal in common, but it can be overestimated. Some may be looking for and seeing all the similarities and skipping over or ignoring the many actual differences. People tend to see and find what they look for and what they assume. For example, KJV-only advocates tend to see the small percentage of differences between the KJV and the NKJV while overlooking the much greater percentage of the time where they agree.

The KJV is definitely more of a revision of several pre-1611 English Bibles than it is an original new translation.

Most of Tyndale's influence on the KJV may be indirect. The Church of England makers of the KJV more likely took much of it directly from the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, or even the Great Bible, and thus indirectly or second-hand from Tyndale.

Steven Houck claimed that sixty-one percent of the KJV comes from the older English versions with "about thirty-nine percent new translation" (The KJV of the Bible, p. 15).

 

According to the rules given for the making of the KJV, its Church of England makers could not keep and follow one of Tyndale's most important NT renderings "congregation".

David Daniell commented: "Congregatio had been used by Erasmus in his parallel Latin translation for the Greek ekklesia wherever it occurred. Tyndale avoids 'church' because it is not what the New Testament says" (William Tyndale, p. 148). Daniell also noted: “Tyndale translated the Greek New Testament word ekklesia as ‘congregation.‘ Philologically, he was correct: Erasmus, no less, had done the same before him. Theologically he was correct, too” (p. 122). KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that Tyndale “always translated the word ecclesia by the word congregation” (Faith, p. 480). Again David Cloud noted that Tyndale used “congregation” and in effect admitted that “this might be deemed better” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 147).

William Tyndale wrote: “The word church hath divers significations. First it signifieth a place or house” (Answer, p. 11). He added: “In another signification, it is abused and mistaken for a multitude of shaven, shorn, and oiled; which we now call the spiritualty and clergy” (p. 12). G. E. Duffield commented that "Tyndale knew that in current parlance the word church usually meant the clergy or the ecclesiastical hierarchy" and that "in the Bible ecclesia referred to God's people, not merely to the clergy" (Work of William Tyndale, p. xx). MacCulloch confirmed that “the word ‘Church’ had commonly come to signify the vast European-wide trade union that was the clergy” (Reformation, p. 41).

Conant noted: "The uniform rendering of ecclesia by congregation formed one of the characteristic features of the earlier versions, and was accounted of primary importance, as representing to the English mind the generic idea of visible Christianity as a community of equals" (The English Bible, p. 399). In 1583, Fulke explained why ecclesia was first translated "congregation" in the early English Bibles. He noted that "the word church of the common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they assembled; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they translated ecclesia the congregation" (A Defence, p. 90). He also added that the early translators "departed neither from the word nor meaning of the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia, which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly, as the word 'congregation' doth in English" (Ibid., p. 239). Joseph Browne maintained that “the earlier translators of the English Bible resolved to render the word ecclesia by a word more conformable to the original [congregation]” (Ten Lectures, p. 85). The 1570’s Nowell’s Catechism noted: “This the apostles that wrote in Greek called ecclesia, which by interpreting the word may fitly be called a congregation” (Richmond, Fathers, VIII, p. 79).

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible stated that “the selection of one word rather than another can alter the reader‘s understanding significantly. That is very apparent in the early sixteenth-century English renderings which were sensitive to what then seemed undesirable connotations of such words as ‘church‘ (for which ‘congregation‘ might be substituted“ (p. 189). This source also noted “the AV deliberately opted for more ecclesiastical terms like ’church’” (p. 210).

In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Tyndale had incurred the wrath of the authorities by translating the Latin ecclesia as ’congregation’ rather than ’church’--thereby suggesting a much looser, more democratic and self-governing organization in the early Christian communities of the New Testament than the episcopally organized and hierarchical Anglican Church could tolerate” (p. xxvi). Stephen Prickett asserted: “William Tyndale’s perfectly scholarly translation of the Latin ecclesia as ’congregation’ rather than ’church’ was political dynamite, in that it implicitly handed over the organizational control from the clergy to the rank-and-file in the pew” (Hamilin, KJB after, p. 30). Jon Sweeney maintained that Tyndale’s “translation choices” such as congregation “undermined the longstanding institutional power from the central church (both in England and in Rome), instead empowering local believers” (Verily, Verily, p. 56).

De Hamel suggested that “a Roman Catholic Bible might opt for vocabulary like ’church‘, ’priest’, ’chalice’, and ’charity’” while “a Protestant Bible might translate those same words from the Greek as ’congregation’, ’elder’, ’cup’ and ’love’” (The Book, p.245). David Lawton asserted: “The official Catholic translation, naturally, is ’Church’” (Faith, p. 72). In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s N. T., David Daniell noted that “what [Sir Thomas] More found heretical in the word ’congregation’ was the implication that there is not one hierarchical body, The Church, of which all churches are members, but rather, self-governing communities of Christians, led by the Spirit, with allegiance only to God through their experience of Christ: precisely the New Testament sense” (p. xxi).

 

Clear sound factual evidence has been provided that would demonstrate that the Church of England makers of the KJV had motives and bias, which could lead them in some places not to provide the most accurate, truthful translation/interpretation they possibly could.

There were Bible-believers including Baptists in the 1600's who noticed and mentioned the episcopal bias evident in some renderings in the 1611 KJV.

 

Concerning Acts 14:23, Puritan William Fulke asserted: “Our translation is true, ordained by election, and answereth the Greek word, which we translate” (Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, p. 158). Fulke wrote: “Our translation must be, as near as it can, to express the true signification of the original words; and so it is in that place of the Acts 14:23” (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 467).

Thomas Cartwright maintained “it must needs be, that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices” since the word “signifieth the lifting of them [hands] up“ (Confutation, p. 291).

John Owen (1616-1683) wrote: “Before interest had guided men in what they had to do, all the translations that were extant in English did read this text, ‘And ordained them elders by election,‘ as the word doth signify; so you will find it in your old translations. But since, it was left out to serve a turn” (Works, Vol. IX, p. 435). John Owen noted that Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all of our old English translations indicated that the choice of elders was "by election or the suffrage of the disciples" (Church & the Bible or Works, XVI, p. 60).

The text of the Latin N. T. translation by Erasmus has “cum suffragns” at Acts 14:23. In the Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles by Erasmus as translated by Robert Sider, Erasmus at Acts 14:23 maintained that “presbyters were chosen throughout by popular vote in each city” (p. 93). Sider also referred to “the annotation on 14:23 where Erasmus insists that we are to understand here a choice by vote” (p. 262, note 33). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis cited Henry Stephens, editor of a Greek-Latin Lexicon in 1572 that was consulted by the KJV translators, as giving the meaning of our text Acts 14:23 as “When they had created by suffrages” (pp. 583-584).

In his translation of his Greek text into Latin, Theodore Beza included the words per suffragia at Acts 14:23. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104). James Harrington (1611-1677) translated Beza’s Latin as “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Book Two, p. 77). The Baptist Magazine for 1871 translated Beza’s rendering of this verse as follows: “When they had created for them, by suffrages, presbyters in each of the churches” (p. 583). James Corcoran claimed that Beza translated into Latin as “Quum per suffragia creassent presbyteros, ‘having chosen presbyters by election’ (or votes)“ (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 709).

Clearly, TR Greek text editors Erasmus and Beza understood the meaning “suffrage” or “election” to be in their Greek texts at Acts 14:23.

 

The consensus of Greek scholarship at the time of the making of the KJV including the Greek text editors Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza agreed with the rendering in the pre-1611 English Bibles at Acts 14:23. The change introduced in the KJV at Acts 14:23 favors Church of England church government views.

The Liberty Annotated Study Bible noted that the only other time this Greek word [at Acts 14:23] is used in Scripture (2 Cor. 8:19) "it has the sense of congregational selection" (p. 1694). John Owen maintained that at 2 Corinthians 8:19 “it plainly signifies election and choice of a person to an employment” (Works, XVI, p. 62). Francis Turretin wrote: “In 2 Corinthians 8:19, Luke is said to be cheirotonetheis hypo ton ekklesion to travel with Paul (I. E., elected by the votes of the churches)“ (Institutes, III, p. 229). The rendering of the 1557 Whittingham’s or Geneva New Testament at 2 Corinthians 8:19 was “chosen by election of the Churches.“ At this verse, Haak’s English translation of the 1637 Dutch Annotations noted that “the Greek word properly signifies a choice which is made by lifting up or stretching forth of hands.“ George Punchard noted: “It is clear that this word is employed 2 Corinthians 8:19, to designate such an act of the church--a popular vote” (View of Congregationalism, p. 60). Punchard added: “No one can doubt that Titus was chosen by a popular vote, and as the same word is used in both places [2 Cor. 8:19; Acts 14:23], the inference is, that it designates the same act in both instances” (Ibid). Concerning 2 Corinthians 8:19 in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, Fausset wrote: “chosen--by vote [cheirotonetheis], of the churches” (III, p. 358). Michael Baumgarten affirmed that “in its original acceptation, it signified an election, by holding up of the hands; and this signification is clearly established by 2 Corinthians 8:18, 19” (Acts, I, p. 456). Z. K. Hawley wrote: “The words ’ordained’ and ’chose,’ in these passages [Acts 14:23, 2 Cor. 8:19] are the same, in the original; it expresses a ’hand vote;’ and implies the action of the brethren” (Defence, p. 39). At 2 Corinthians 8:19, even Bishop Thomas Bilson admitted that “they [the messengers] were chosen by the churches themselves, not by the apostle” (Perpetual Government, p. 119). Alonzo Wheelock maintained that “if they had translated it ordain, uniformly, this passage in 2 Corinthians 8:19, would have exposed the error of that episcopal dogma which teaches that bishops alone can ordain” (Bible Union Quarterly, May, 1853, p. 502). The Latin Vulgate and 1582 Rheims have ordained [ordinatus] had 2 Corinthians 8:19.

Some later Greek scholarship in the 1800's would change in their opinions concerning the meaning of the Greek word so later Bible translators did not have the same motives and Church of England bias as the reason for their translation decisions at this verse.

Regardless of whether you consider the change in Acts 14:23 evidence of episcopal bias, there are still other examples which demonstrate it.

 

Concerning the KJV, the Eclectic Review noted that “in some instances the summary of contents prefixed to the chapters is of the nature of a comment,” and it cited the one at Psalm 149 as an example (Vol. I, p. 574 note). John R. Beard maintained that the headings “intensified the ecclesiastical and royal element as much as was conveniently possible” (A Revised English Bible, p. 137).

In their contents heading at Psalm 149 in the 1611 KJV, this is stated: “The prophet exhorted to praise God for his love to the Church, and for that power, which he hath given to the Church to rule the consciences of men." This 1611 heading is additional strong evidence of bias in the 1611 KJV. Was this contents heading a sectarian comment as biased as any marginal note concerning which some complain about in the Geneva Bible?

John Lewis acknowledged that “great exceptions have been taken to the contents [heading] of Psalm 149” in the KJV (Complete History, p. 330). Lewis indicated that some claim that readers of it “would be tempted to conclude, that our English clergy have as absolute power in their hands as any court of inquisition in the world” (pp. 330-331). John Lee wrote: “One of the most offensive of the arguments of the chapters in the original edition was that of Psalm 149” (Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 230). William Richards referred to the “strange title” of the 149th Psalm, and after citing what it stated, he wrote: “Surely this is rank Popery” (Welsh Nonconformists, p. 385). After citing this contents heading, Thomas Smyth commented: “In plain English, power to correct heretics, schismatics, and dissenters, with the wholesome severities of whips, pillories, fines and imprisonments” (Works, I, p. 323 note). In a letter, Samuel Turner wrote: “Such a heading may have been agreeable to persons high in authority in the time of the first of the Stuarts, but subsequently it was found expedient to alter it” (Church Review, January, 1857, p. 557). Bishop Bilson, co-editor of the 1611, wrote: “We enforce our devices upon the church of God” (Perpetural Government, p. 533).

The last six words of the heading at Psalm 149 was omitted in the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV. In 1769, Blayney changed the remaining last two words of this heading from “the church” to “his saints.” Some later KJV editions in the 1800’s, especially Oxford editions, still had the same contents heading as the 1611 edition.

The heading for this same psalm in the 1560 Geneva Bible was as follows: “An exhortation to the Church to praise the Lord for his victory and conquest that he giveth his saints against man’s power.”