Subject: Textual Criticism Theories

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:44:33 -0400

My apologies if this is a second copy. My computer took a coffee break in the
middle of my first attempt to send this. - Kevin 

Dear all,

I have been a lurker on this list for some time now and have enjoyed the many
exchanges of ideas--this summer especially. Things have calmed down recently,
however, so this seems like a good time to come out of hiding and stir things
up. 

As one who is interested in tc, but has little experience and no formulated
viewpoint, I'd like to take some time setting out my thoughts on the subject
so far. I doubt any of these will be profound. They will probably reveal more
about what I don't know than what I do know. I'm just doing this off of the
top of my head, so let me say my mea culpa's in advance.

Hopefully, though, any misconceptions I have can be corrected and perhaps
something I say may be a springboard for further discussion. What I propose
to talk about is the current state of textual criticism with regard to its
theoretical underpinnings. I do this with some timidity based on my own
inexperience and uncertainty over what I am unleash, but here goes.

History

Textual criticism is a relatively new field of study in NT circles. While tc
has been performed since the Church fathers (as demonstrated by Origin's),
there was no widespread systematic approach to its practice until Wescott &
Hort in 1881. Prior to that time, many had posited arguments against mere
acceptance of the TR, but it wasn't until W&H that a methodology for a
different selection was proposed.

Since then, the entire tc world has lived in the shadow of W&H, either
supporting them or fighting them. However, even though there are some severe
weaknesses with W&H, no one has yet to dethrone their view, primarily, it
seems, because no one has been able to come up with a theoretical framework
to replace it that has met with wide acceptance.

The most recent attempt past the logjam has been the eclectic movement,
which, it seems, everyone tries to lump everyone but themselves into. The
problem with the eclectic view, however, is that it does not seem to provide
enough of a framework to build a truly unified theory of tc. It still leaves
too much up to the individual textual critic and too little up to our
understanding of the transmission of the text.

Therefore, in the tc world today, we conduct our affairs generally within the
W&H paradigm whether we agree with it or not. However, there are still some
very divergent views of the nature of NT textual criticism. I'm sure I do not
know them all and I've probably missed the mark in some cases. I do know that
very few people seem to fit well in any category except in cases where their
view defines the category. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my
head:

1. KJV only - the TR was shepherded by God to us through the centuries and we
should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom."

2. Byzantine priority - While the Byzantine text is not present significantly
prior to 500 (?) CE, it does reflect the autographs better than the other
text types. Maurice Robinson would say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
process of copying and cross-checking would generally bring most deviant
texts back into line with the autographs.

3. Alexandrian priority - Although there are far more Byzantine witnesses
than any other type, the earlier witnesses must be given priority by virtue
of their date and quality.

4. Eclectic - The best way to determine the nature of the autographs is
through an eclectic process examining each significant issue on its own
merits. The decision for which reading is best is based on the internal
evidence and the external evidence, however, it is up to the textual critic
to determine in each instance which evidence has the most weight in each
instance.

The Difficulty of the Task

Part of the difficulty of the task is that we do not understand with
certainty how we ended up with the texts that we have. Most agree that the
majority of variants probably occurred prior to 325 CE., certainly before 500
(?) CE. During this time, people did not understand the writings as scripture
and there was little opportunity for comparison of MSS. 

One of the main problems facing the textual critic is that there are no truly
satisfactory ways to place the different MSS into their place in the family
tree. First, we don't have enough MSS to really trace out the branches and
second the nature of the variants is of little help.

Variants may be categorized in general into 2 categories - intentional and
accidental. The intentional variants are those made on purpose by the scribe
for a variety of reasons. i.e., to correct a "bad" reading, to make it more
understandable, to harmonize texts, to correct grammar, to push a theological
point, ad nauseam. Accidental variants include the whole range of scribal
errors that may occur. 

The problem with variants is that they may be corrected at any time.
Therefore, just because one MS has a misspelling that doesn't mean that its
ancestors will. Likewise, variants may be introduced at anytime. In addition,
cross correction may occur from any one of a number of different textual
traditions.

The result, therefore is that we have not so much a family tree, but rather a
spider's web connecting all of the different MSS. Instead of an autograph
leading to archetypes leading to families, etc., what we have is a web
radiating out from the autograph (or archetype) with an unknown maze of
interconnections following that.

Dumb Thoughts from a Novice

While the most significant battles in tc will be fought over the
theologically significant variants, it seems that those are precisely the
wrong places to understand tc. Just like in Greek we want to learn the
grammar from the mundane areas so that we can apply it accurately to the more
theological ones, so perhaps the same is true in tc. 

It seems to me that our critical apparati all seem to focus our attention on
the significant variants and ignore the large mass of minor variants to
include slight misspellings and other obvious issues. Maybe we need to start
grouping readings based on their insignificant variant readings and their
date. If we do that, the four text types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western,
Whatever) will probably fade away, while the basic principles of W&H would
remain. 

There.

I'm sure I have said much wrong, much over-generalized, but occasionally a
few things right. I'd appreciate any comments from others on my
misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should
replace W&H.

Kevin Grenier

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:19:35 -0700

>however, so this seems like a good time to come out of hiding and stir things

What a subject to start on right before I go to bed. Oh well, here goes....

[ ... ]

>to replace it that has met with wide acceptance.

I would say that the WH *text* has now been replaced by UBS/GNT, although
this is largely a "Hortian" text.

>which, it seems, everyone tries to lump everyone but themselves into.

:-)

Actually, most people except those who believe in Byzantine priority
are eclectics. (This includes even W&H.) They're just different *types*
of eclectics. Some stress manuscripts (W&H), some internal criteria
(Elliot), some a mixture of the two.

And so everyone tries to "grab hold" of the word eclectic, or label
someone else with the term, because our language is not precise enough.

[ ... ]
>should not deviate from it based on what passes for "human wisdom."

This isn't really a theory of textual criticism, just a theory about the
text. As Daniel B. Wallace points out, there has never been a legitimate
textual scholar who has held *this* point of view.

>texts back into line with the autographs.

This is actually a complicated area, with at least three major sub-groups.

1. The followers of Dean Burgon.  Maurice Robinson is a modern example.
   They believe that the majority text is always "original."

2. The followers of Hodges & Farstad, e.g. Pickering. They believe that
   the Byzantine text is original, but use more complex methods (at times
   smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text.

There is also a third group exemplified by Harry Sturz. This group does not
claim Byzantine priority, but rather Byzantine *equality* -- that is, they
deny Hort's claim that the Byzantine text is secondary. They consider it one
of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis.

This is actually close to the views of Von Soden, although Sturz values
the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least
of the text-types.

>of their date and quality.

I would be inclined to call this category "Single text-type priority."
For W&H, the Alexandrian text was the best -- but, as someone has already
noted, there are scholars (e.g. Vaganay, Amphoux, also Clark) who consider
the "Western" text the best. For that matter, Streeter apparently regarded
the "Caesarean" text as best. The crucial point is that all of these
people choose *one* text type as "best" and follow that.

Of course, most of them have chosen the Alexandrian text as best, but this
is not universal. It should also be noted that what was considered Alexandrian
in Hort's time now appears (at least in Paul, the Catholics, and the
Apocalypse) to break down into multiple text-types (e.g. in Paul we have
p46-B verses Aleph-A-C-33; so Zuntz, and I independently verified this).

>to determine in each instance which evidence has the most weight in each

Again there are at least three schools here. Various terminologies have
been applied to this; I'll use my own (influenced by Epp)

1. Internal eclecticists (Kilpatrick; Elliot; earlier Weiss and Lagrange).
   These stress the internal evidence of readings. Manuscripts carry
   relatively little weight.

2. Generalists -- those who use internal and external evidence. Most
   editors of critical editions fall into this group, though their
   rules and historical reconstructions vary widely. The UBS committee,
   for instance, gave great weight to the Alexandrian text; the editors
   of the New English Bible applies more internal criteria.

3. External eclecticists. This is a relatively rare breed these days.
   I'm one, but I don't count. I understand that Deering is one. People
   in this classification always take external (manuscript) evidence
   first. So in Paul, for example, if a reading is attested by p46 Aleph
   A B C D F G 33 1739, I *must* adopt it no matter what internal
   evidence says. Only if the text-types (p46-B-sa, Aleph-A-C-33-bo,
   D-F-G-latt, 1739-0243-1881-424**-6) divide am I even *allowed*
   to look at internal evidence.

>second the nature of the variants is of little help.

Debatable. It is true that we cannot, for the most part, construct stemma
(exact family trees). But we *do* find text-types. Everyone concedes the
existence of the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. Most will concede at
least one or two others (e.g. I find four or five in the Gospels; five
in Paul; four in the Catholics. Zuntz finds four in Paul. Schmidt finds
four in the Apocalypse). Within these text-types we can find sub-text-types
(e.g. in the Gospels, the Alexandrian text has a p75-B-T subtype and an
Aleph-Z subtype). Within these we can possibly find clans, and within these,
at times, families.

However, most eclectic scholars make little use of this information. It
is, obviously, my opinion that we should make *more* use of this data.

Of course, if two early text-types disagree, we still have the same old
problem: Deciding which one preserves the original reading. But at least
we have more tools at our disposal.

>point, ad nauseam. Accidental variants include the whole range of scribal

In principle this is true. But I would stress that it can be *very* hard
to tell which type is which, and we should not place much stress on
which variants are "intentional" and which "accidental." Indeed, an
variant may be both -- an accidental error caused a scribe to attempt
a deliberate correction. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:3. The original reading
is probably KAUCHSWMAI (p46 Aleph A B 33 1739* pc). An error converted this
to KAUQHSWMAI (K Psi Byz). This is impossible, so scribes "corrected" it
to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al).

[ ... ]

>theological ones, so perhaps the same is true in tc.

No argument there -- although we must be careful to distinguish between
variants that are textually significant and those which are not.

>Whatever) will probably fade away, while the basic principles of W&H would

I could be sarcastic here, and say that W&H's basic principle was "Prefer
the Alexandrian reading." Suffice it to say that here I disagree with
you, and agree with W&H. Text-types are not insignificant; they are
our basic tools. (IMHO.)

>misconceptions and any thoughts on what type of paradigm, if any, should

I think I've covered that above. If I haven't -- well, there's always
the eight thousand words or so I hope to slip into the Textual Criticism
Encyclopedia. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:03:30 -0400 (EDT)

Allow me to respond to two items at once regarding my views of the

> >texts back into line with the autographs.

Even though this is an over-simplification, I do hold that
cross-comparison and correction do tend to move a text to a more
"Byzantine" type which then becomes reflected in exemplars later copied
from such corrected texts, etc.  

However, I do not hold that this is the only or even primary means by
which the Byzantine Textform was created or perpetuated, nor do I
necessarily think that it was primarily "most deviant texts" which were
necessarily so corrected as opposed to those texts which already reflected
a "standard" Byzantine Textform.  Certainly those MSS which _were_
corrected (regardless of the level of "deviancy") will tend to show in
their corrections a trend more in the direction of the standard Byzantine
Textform than away from such in almost all cases; however, the amount of
such correction and the variant readings inserted as corrections will
differ widely, depending upon the MS and how much correction may have
taken place upon that MS.

It remains of far more importance to postulate a stemmatic descent of
Byzantine MSS from previous Byzantine exemplars (of which cross-comparison
and correction are a reflection but not the substance) in a quantity
proportional to that which the extant evidence reflects than to build a
case solely upon the observed phenomena of cross-correction.

>    They believe that the majority text is always "original."

I do not object to being called a follower of Burgon (indeed Dan Wallace
has so characterized me), but I do object to the caricature of that
position as merely "the majority text is always original".  Apart from
the erronoues implication of mere "nose-counting" (Fee et al.) which this
implies, it also makes it appear that there is no other criterion by which
the text is established in that system, when Burgon himself went into
great detail concerning his seven varied "notes of truth", only one of
which (and that #4) was "number".  Burgon also was careful not to use the
term "majority text", but preferred "traditional text"; I of course argue
for "Byzantine priority" and not "majority" anything.  As I have pointed
out previously on this list, there are many places where the Byzantine
Textform is numerically divided, and where "number" is irrelevant to the
case.  In such places other external and internal principles of textual
restoration remain applicable, including the examination of versional and
patristic data, as well as the evidence of non-Byzantine MSS concerning
such variants.  I really would consider my own position to be more within
the "more complex methods" attributed to Hodges and Farstad and Pickering
below (though I am very careful to make distinctions there as will be
shown).

>    smacking of internal criticism) to determine the "original" text.

Pickering should be separated from Hodges and Farstad, as well as from
myself.  Recently Pickering formally disassociated himself from any
so-called "majority text" position because no one within the field agreed
with some of his more extreme postulates, such as heretics being
responsible for virtually all sensible non-Byzantine variants, and a
theological bias favoring only readings which support his own
theological views, including inerrancy as he sees it.

Hodges and Farstad are "Burgonites" like myself for the most part,
although I do see more of the theological "preservation" argument in their
case than I think fits the evidence.  However, the primary difference in
approach between myself and H/F is that they claim a "majority text"
position when convenient, and then proceed to abandon much of it in places
where they apply their own particular stemmatic approach (which I consider
flawed, since it is based upon mere agreement in readings rather than
agreement in plain and clear error).  Since I follow something like John
G. Griffiths' "Numerical Taxonomy" approach for grouping MSS, a stemmatic
approach such as that of H/F plays no part within my theory, even though I
would not be opposed to a proper stemmatic inquiry regarding MS
interrelationships.  

The greatest weakness with H/F's stemmatic approach is that, where they
have applied their stemmatics, they end up championing a sub-type family
within the Byzantine tradition which no longer reflects their professed
"majority" position, e.g., in the Apocalypse, they follow a sub-group
which reflects only 19% of the MSS, and which often stands opposed to the
81% remainder.  I would not so swiftly depart what appears to be a strong
Byzantine tradition in such cases (this being an instance of where the
Byzantine tradition is not seriously divided).  As Dan Wallace has pointed
out, their text should more rightly be called something like "The
Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" rather than the "majority text".

> of the original text-types, and reconstruct the text on this basis.

Sturz, however, reconstructed the text almost mechanically, playing off 2
versus 3 texttypes.  Basically if the Alexandrian and Byzantine agreed, so
be it. If the Western and Byzantine agreed, so be it.  And if the
Alexandrian and Western agreed, so be it.  One does not have to look long
at this purely mechanical approach to see that, except where there might
be Alexandrian and Western agreement against the Byzantine (and how often
does that occur?!), then the Byzantine text will be followed.  Although
Sturz' method ends up producing a highly Byzantine text, there is nothing
methodologically to commend it, even to those who might favor such a text.

> the Byuzantine text above all others while Soden considered it the least

I do not think Sturz valued any texttype more highly, though he did
elevate the Byzantine text to equal status.  Von Soden, had he been
consistent with his own principles, would have probably produced a far
more Byzantine text than he did, since he would have followed Sturz'
methodology.  However, Von Soden considered any agreement of the Byzantine
text with Tatian or Marcion, or with parallel passages to be a corruption,
and would not follow the Byzantine in such cases.  This effectively made
most of Von Soden's text Alexandrian in character, despite his claim that
the Byzantine text was of co-equal authority with the Alexandrian and
Western texts in its uncorrupted state.

> the "Western" text the best. 

Just to clarify: this was A.C. Clark, and not Kenneth W. Clark.

>    to look at internal evidence.

This has parallels with my own Byzantine-priority method: if a reading is
supported by 70%+ of the MSS, and especially if by 80%+ or 90%+, I am more
bound to accept it -- not because of numerical "majority" but because it
tends more and more to reflect a united Byzantine tradition.  When the
support for a reading drops below 70%, and especially as it approaches 50%
(or, if more than one reading exists within the variant unit, as it drops
below 50%), then internal evidence comes into significance and usually
will be the determining factor in selecting a reading.  This is _not_ to
say, however, that internal evidence is not or should not be invoked in
_any_ variant unit, even one where 99% of the MSS agree -- there still
should always be a reasonable solution sought for the most strongly
attested variant as well as an explanation for the rise of the weaker
variant(s).  This might not always be possible with certainty, but it
should occur nevertheless, and in reality within any text-critical
methodology.

[quoting Grenier]

> >Most agree that the

I would take exception to this categorization, since there is little
question regarding the fourfold gospel as scripture before AD 200, as well
as most of the undisputed books before or around that date (which Colwell
considered the point by which most sensible variant readings had been
created).  AD 500 would be far too late to postulate the writings as
non-scripture.  Also, I do not think there was "little opportunity for
comparison of MSS" when even our earliest papyri show evidence of
cross-comparison and correction, not to mention the uncial fragments from
the 3rd and 4th century.  

> to KAUQHSOMAI (D F G L al).

Not that again! *;-)  I still would like someone to inform me as to _why_,
if KAUQHSWMAI is such an "impossible error", that the vast majority of all
Byzantine scribes _never_ corrected it to the more "proper" KAUQHSOMAI
etc.  We have been through all that before, but no one seems to take the
mentality of the scribe into consideration -- do you seriously think that
99% of all scribes were such mere automatons that they could not correct
an error of orthography, but only a few skilled scribes of the Western
tradition were able so to do?  Still illogical to me....but this is a
different matter....

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.                  Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:54:13 -0700

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
wrote (in two separate posts):

[BTW... I'm not going to repeat most of what Maurice said... I assume
he knows more about his views than I do. :-) Where I have truly
misrepresented him, I am sorry.... At least I learned more about his
views as a result.]

[ first message, much omitted... ]

>> preferred the TR was beyond my comprehension. By my standards, Robinson's
>> text and the TR are almost equally bad -- but Robinson himself is a
>> knowledgeable and insightful scholar.
>
>At least good scholars can prefer bad texts, is that what you are saying?
>I myself have thought precisely the same about most rigorous or reasoned
>eclectics.  *;-)

Straight out of Newton: "For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction." Yes, good scholars can prefer bad texts. My
feeling about your text is probably exactly the same as your
feeling about mine (or about UBS/GNT, anyway...).

[ second message, much omitted... ]

>for "Byzantine priority" and not "majority" anything.

See my previous post for my reaction to this.

>theological views, including inerrancy as he sees it.

Interesting. All I've read is his "Identity," which has always struck
me as a very strange book... part good sound reasoning, part special
pleading (especially against the outdated theories of Westcott & Hort)
and part pure balderdash.

I'm curious: When did he dissociate himself from the movement? Before
or after the two Byzantine/Majority editions appeared?

>case than I think fits the evidence.

I would note that I offered (perhaps not clearly enough) Maurice
Robinson as an *exception* to those who claim "providential
preservation."

>Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic Text" rather than the "majority text".

This is why I believe that *both* H/F and R/P deserve to be in scholars'
"toolboxes." R/P is the best available edition of the Majority Text.
H/F gives more of a historical reconstruction. Even if one does not
consider the resultant texts original, they are very important for
studying influences on other text-types.

>does that occur?!),

Depends on which definition of the "Western" text we use, and which
part of the Bible. It happens often in Paul.

>then the Byzantine text will be followed.  Although

The problem, of course, is that Sturz never did produce a text, so we
can't tell what his results would have been. His introduction has been
variously interpreted: Wallace reads it as very pro-Byzantine, I read
it as *mildly* pro-Byzantine (my feeling is that Sturz would follow
the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split), Robinson reads
it as neutral.

>Western texts in its uncorrupted state.

Agreed on all points. We all know the defects of von Soden's theories
of influence. Still, von Soden's text -- at least according to Aland --
is more Byzantine than any "modern critical" edition except Vogels.

>Just to clarify: this was A.C. Clark, and not Kenneth W. Clark.

And to further clarify, A.C. Clark was working primarily on Acts,
not the gospels.

>should occur nevertheless, and in reality within any text-critical

As Robinson notes, in terms of method, he and I have some similarity.
We are both, as Michael Holmes would put it, "Historical-documentary"
workers -- that is, the evidence of the manuscripts is paramount.

Where we differ (here again it is Holmes who made the point) is in our
reconstruction of the history of the text. And it is here that the
differences are vast. :-)

[ ... ]
>Not that again! *;-)

Hey, this one will never go away. :-)

I still would like someone to inform me as to _why_,
>tradition were able so to do?  Still illogical to me....but this is a

I would say that, in one sense at least, I was complementing the
Byzantine scribes. While I consider KAUQHSWMAI the primary reading,
and KAUQHSWMAI secondary, KAUQHSOMAI is *tertiary.* It's completely
worthless. It *cannot* have been original. Yet it's the text most
scholars print, even today.

The Byzantine scribes copied a secondary reading, but at least they
were careful enough to preserve the secondary reading, rather than
make the obvious correction to the tertiary reading.

I wouldn't call the "Western" scribes "skilled"; I'd call them
careless.

Frankly, I am surprised the "rigorous eclectics" don't favour KAUQHSWMAI.
It is so *obviously* the harder reading. If it had any support at all
(by my standards), I would adopt it.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:25:09 -0400 (EDT)

> feeling about mine (or about UBS/GNT, anyway...).

At least we agree on one point. *;-)

[regarding Pickering]

> or after the two Byzantine/Majority editions appeared?

Shortly after his book appeared in the early 1980s, Pickering started on a
course toward believing in "continual purification" of the text as the
centuries wore on, and, therefore in his view, the Kr type of text (the
most recent form within the Byzantine tradition) was to be assumed as
closest to the autograph.  Naturally, no other "majority" or Byzantine
text partisan agreed with Pickering on this point (nor did Burgon or
Scrivener).  

Pickering this year took it further, and now has opted for a sub-family
reflecting only about 3% of the MSS to have preserved this "final
purification" of the text, and has formally repudiated connection with the
name "majority text" and has substituted his own term "original text
theory" for his current position.  Some of us within the
Byzantine-priority position are not too sorry to see Pickering depart from
the "majority text" perspective. *;-)

> Robinson as an *exception* to those who claim "providential

I am probably an exception to about everything within the "majority text"
movement since I am one of the few advocating a similar position with a
major in NT textual criticism.  

> studying influences on other text-types.

Wallace has argued for using H/F as a collation base, which I opposed for
non-majority reasons (the TR is simply more of a convenient standard, and
would not require reworking of older collation data); but in fact, my own
text is more "Byzantine" than the H/F text, if one is actually seeking the
closest approximation to that Textform.

> can't tell what his results would have been. 

Actually Sturz _did_ produce a text, albeit only of Matthew, which he
called "The Second-Century Greek NT".  I have a copy, and can assure you
it is clearly Byzantine (Alex/Byz or West/Byz) in most portions, though
departing in the very few cases where Alex/West agreement occurs).

> the Byzantine text in the event of a three-way split)

I don't think Sturz would make a decision in such cases, but merely choose
one reading and place the others in footnotes.  Of course, triple division
would be infrequent in any case.

> is more Byzantine than any "modern critical" edition except Vogels.

True enough, but then Aland's 26/27th edition is "more Byzantine" than the
25th or any of its predecessors.  The difference is minimal, but still
significant, just as with Von Soden.

> And to further clarify, A.C. Clark was working primarily on Acts,

Though he would hold his principle as valid even in the Gospels.

> differences are vast. :-)

Agreed.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~