[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is 
copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is 
given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following 
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist 
Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675-
8311. This article is number two in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH NUMBER 2:
REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
By David W. Cloud

A second popular myth about the Received Text is the well-worn but 
erroneous idea that Erasmus and the textual editors and Bible translators 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had access to a severely limited 
variety of manuscript evidence. Again I quote a popular evangelical leader, 
the one time head of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, James 
Boice: "Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many texts to work 
with." <James Boice, letter to Dr. Tom Hale, United Mission to Nepal, 
Sept. 13, 1985.>

If you read only the studies of men who are opposed to the Textus Receptus 
you would think that this is an absolute, unquestionable fact of history. 
Hear the dogmatic assertion of another writer who holds the views of Dr. 
Boice:

"Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more 
about them here. Erasmus's Greek Testament stands in line behind the King 
James Version; yet it rests upon a half dozen minuscule manuscripts, none 
of which is earlier than the tenth century. ... the textual basis of the TR 
is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule 
manuscripts." <D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Baker Book 
House, 1979), pp. 35-36.>

Let's give one more example to illustrate just how common this thinking is. 
Consider this quote from an article by Doug Kutilek, assistant to 
evangelist Robert L. Sumner:

"In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of 
manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating 
from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also 
from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two 
additional manuscripts of each section along with his Latin Vulgate....

"Erasmus's fourth and fifth editions were all but slavishly reprinted by 
Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivirs and others in their editions of the Greek New 
Testament in the century that followed. All these collectively are often 
referred to as the Textus Receptus, or received text. It must be observed 
that these reprints merely reproduced without examination of evidence the 
hastily-produced text of Erasmus. The result is that the text of Erasmus, 
hurriedly assembled out of the slimmest of manuscript resources--containing 
a number of readings without any Greek manuscript support--became for 
nearly 300 years the only form of the Greek New Testament available in 
print, and the basic text for the Protestant translations of the New  7(2 
Testament made in those centuries. ...

"In short, there is no ground whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus 
as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New 
Testament. Rather than being the most pristine and pure Greek New 
Testament, it was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a 
provisional text that could be made to serve for the time being until 
greater care, more thorough labor, and more extensive evidence could be had 
so as to provide a text of greater accuracy. It is unfortunate that what 
was only a meager first attempt at publishing a New Testament Greek text 
became fossilized as though it were the ultimate in accuracy.

"It was not until the nineteenth century that the shackles of mere 
tradition and religious inertia were thrown off and a Greek text based on a 
careful and thorough examination of an extensive amount of manuscript 
evidence was made available. The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, Alford, and Westcott and Hort were, individually and 
collectively, a great improvement over the text of Erasmus, because they 
more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came 
from the pens of the apostles." <Christian News (Apr. 21, 1986), p. 16.>

This lengthy quote was included to demonstrate the perversion of history 
which has become so common among Bible scholars, and also because it so 
graphically illustrates the strange hatred which prevails today among 
scholars of every label toward the ancient and revered Textus Receptus and 
those multitudes of versions which are based upon it. 

Even stranger is the fact that after dragging the textual editors of the 
Reformation and their work, the Received Text, through the mud and mire of 
hateful criticism for sixteen lengthy paragraphs, Kutilek makes an about 
face and contends that there actually is not a "hair's breadth in doctrinal 
difference between Erasmus's text and that of, say, Westcott and Hort," (a 
myth which is dealt with in another of this series--Myth #3: No Doctrinal 
Differences Between Texts and Versions) and is so kind to say, "I do not 
wish to be too hard on Erasmus, after all, I recognize him as a pioneer who 
opened up a frontier for others to follow and laid a foundation on which 
others would build."

These men have found out a marvelous thing: They seemingly have mastered 
the art of facing two ways at the same time!

One further comment regarding these statements by Kutilek is in order. If 
all of this is true, and only an imprecise, rudimentary, rustic, and 
provisional text was produced at the dawn of the age of printing and of the 
Protestant Reformation and was for four hundred years carried to the 
farthest reaches of the earth during the most zealous period of missionary 
Gospel work since the first century--where was God at that time and why did 
He allow such a text to prevail? Why does Kutilek completely ignore the 
Bible passages which promise that God will preserve His Word to every 
generation? We deal with this in yet another booklet in this series (Myth 
#4: Inspiration Is Perfect, but Preservation Is General), but this point is 
too important to pass over lightly. Kutilek's God must have been on a long 
lunch break during the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries because,    
according to Kutilek, He certainly was not preserving the Scriptures.

We hasten now to offer some historical facts surrounding this matter of the 
Reformation editors and translators and their textual resources which quite 
contradict the popular ideas we have considered.

ERASMUS'S TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE BROUGHT HIM INTO CONTACT WITH BROAD 
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

Erasmus personally visited libraries and carried on correspondence which 
brought him in touch with manuscript evidence which was vast both in number 
and variety.

If we would believe the critics of the Received Text, Erasmus and other 
Greek scholars of the Reformation engaged in their work while confined to 
barren rooms with only a handful of resource materials. This is far from an 
accurate view of history. These men were scholars of the first rank, which 
even their enemies and those in disagreement with their conclusions admit. 
As such, they were men engaged continually in dissertation with other 
scholars; they were men of wide-ranging personal correspondence, men who 
traveled, visiting libraries and centers of learning--yea, men who did all 
that was necessary to discover everything possible about the beloved 
projects to which they were devoted.

"He [Erasmus] was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook 
and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing 
and publishing. ... He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the 
Fathers." <David Otis Fuller, Is the KJV Nearest to the Original 
Autographs?>

"By 1495 he [Erasmus] was studying in Paris. In 1499 he went to England 
where he made the helpful friendship of John Cabot, later dean of St. 
Paul's, who quickened his interest in biblical studies. He then went back 
to France and the Netherlands. In 1505 he again visited England and then 
passed three years in Italy. In 1509 he returned to England for the third 
time and taught at Cambridge University until 1514. In 1515 he went to 
Basel, where he published his New Testament in 1516, then back to the 
Netherlands for a sojourn at the University of Louvain. Then he returned to 
Basel in 1521 and remained there until 1529, in which year he removed to 
the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breisgau. Finally, in 1535, he again 
returned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his 
Protestant friends, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with 
the Roman Catholic Church.

"One might think that all this moving around would have interfered with 
Erasmus' activity as a scholar and writer, but quite the reverse is true. 
By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual 
currents of his time and stimulated to almost superhuman efforts. He became 
the most famous scholar and author of his day and one of the most prolific 
writers of all time, his collected works filling ten large volumes in the 
Leclerc edition of 1705 (phototyped by Olms in 1963). As an editor also his 
productivity was tremendous. Ten columns of the catalog of the library in 
the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works    
translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent 
reprints." <Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 195-197, 
referring to T.A. Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, 
Erasmus of Christendom; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation, 
(Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, 
Preserved Smith (New York: Harper, 1923).>

According to Dr. Edward F. Hills, the evidence points to the fact that 
Erasmus used other manuscripts beside five:

"When Erasmus came to Basel in July 1515, to begin his work, he found five 
Greek New Testament manuscripts ready for his use. ... Did Erasmus use 
other manuscripts beside these five in preparing his Textus Receptus? The 
indications are that he did. According to W. Schwarz (1955), Erasmus made 
his own Latin translation of the New Testament at Oxford during the years 
1505-6. His friend John Colet who had become Dean of St. Paul's, lent him 
two Latin manuscripts for this undertaking, but nothing is known about the 
Greek manuscripts which he used. He must have used some Greek manuscripts 
or other, however, and taken notes on them. Presumably therefore he brought 
these notes with him to Basel along with his translation and his comments 
on the New Testament text. It is well known also that Erasmus looked for 
manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from 
everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on 
the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings 
taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith 
because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were 
readily available." <Hills, p. 198.>

The following quotation from D'Aubigne's diligent historical research also 
indicates that Erasmus had access to more textual evidence than his modern 
detractors admit:

"Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the 
publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. 
Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. `If I told what sweat it cost me, no 
one would believe me.' He had collated many Greek MSS. of the New 
Testament, and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations, by 
the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, 
and Augustine. ... He had investigated the texts according to the 
principles of sacred criticism. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, 
he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Cecolampadius. Nothing 
without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb." 
<J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century 
(New York: Hurst & Company, 1835), Vol. 5, p. 157.>

THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT 
TRANSLATORS

Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the 
manuscript from the Vatican called Codex B, the manuscript most preferred 
by Westcott and Hort and the English Revised translation committee. Yet 
this manuscript was rejected as corrupt by the Bible publishers of the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.   

Consider the following quotation from Benjamin Wilkinson, author of Our 
Authorized Bible Vindicated: 

"The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the 
Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James, 
but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the 
Vaticanus has been printed since 1587. The third great edition is that 
commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope 
Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ... 
The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the 
LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64).

"We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could 
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of 
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript 
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, 
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the 
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected 
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its 
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the 
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

"Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican 
Manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that 
the Received Text was correct. ... 

"We have already given authorities to show that the Sinaitic Manuscript is 
a brother of the Vaticanus. Practically all of the problems of any serious 
nature which are presented by the Sinaitic, are the problems of the 
Vaticanus. Therefore the [editors of the 1500s and the] translators of 1611 
had available all the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected 
them.

"The following words from Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia, 
will support the conclusion that the translators of the King James knew the 
readings of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D, where they differed from the 
Received Text and denounced them. Bishop Kenrick published an English 
translation of the Catholic Bible in 1849. I quote from the preface:

"`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and 
Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the 
Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as 
a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were 
generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a 
mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).

"In other words, the readings of these much boasted manuscripts, recently 
made available, are [largely] those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of    
these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. ...

"On the other hand, if more manuscripts have been made accessible since 
1611, little use has been made of what we had before and of the majority of 
those made available since. The Revisers systematically ignored the whole 
world of manuscripts and relied practically on only three or four. As Dean 
Burgon says, "But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which 
has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic 
libraries from which they were obtained."

"We feel, therefore, that a mistaken picture of the case has been presented 
with reference to the material at the disposition of the translators of 
1611 and concerning their ability to use that material." <Benjamin G. 
Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.>

To this testimony I add one more quote:

"In the margin of this edition [his fourth] Stephanus entered variant 
readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one 
of which is thought to have been Codex D." If this was not actually Codex 
D, at the very least it was another one of that small family of manuscripts 
which presents a similar reading that contradicts the majority text." 
<Hills, p. 204.>

ERASMUS KNEW OF THE VARIANT READINGS PREFERRED BY MODERN TRANSLATORS

The notes which Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament 
prove that he was completely informed of the variant readings which have 
found their way into the modern translations since 1881.

Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts 
translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to 
the variant readings in other ways.

"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers 
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the 
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known 
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and 
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text 
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus 
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer 
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the 
angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in 
adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)." 
<Hills, pp. 198-199.>

THE REFORMATION TEXT IS AS ANCIENT AS THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT

It is further true that the Greek text produced by Erasmus and other 
Reformation editors is representative of a text demonstrably as ancient as 
the modern critical text. Consider again the words of D.A. Carson in his 
book on the King James Version: "... the textual basis of the TR is a small    
number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts" (Carson, 
p. 36). 

While it is true that the actual Greek manuscripts Eramus had in his 
possession were relatively late ones, this is not the whole story. When all 
the facts are considered, we find that Carson's statement is a myth. 
Consider the testimony of Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the committee 
that produced the English Revised Version, the predecessor of all modern 
versions:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part only in small 
and insignficant details, from the great bulk of the cursive MSS. The 
general character of their text is the same. By this observation the 
pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual 
manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote 
antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least 
contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one 
of them" (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two 
members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

In commenting on Ellicott's statement, the Trinitarian Bible Society puts 
the matter into a perspective that the KJV detractors would like to ignore: 

"It must be emphasised that the argument is not between an ancient text and 
a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was 
rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and 
remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries. The assumptions of 
modern textual criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few 
specimens of the rejected text recently disinterred from the oblivion to 
which they had been deliberately and wisely consigned in the 4th century" 
(The Divine Original, TBS article No. 13, nd, p. 7).

REFORMATION EDITORS HAD WIDE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLES AVAILABLE TO 
THEM

Another matter frequently ignored by the detractors of the ReceivedText is 
the fact that Erasmus and the textual editors of the Reformation had a wide 
variety of Bibles which provided great help in their work. The editors and 
translators of the Reformation had access to many excellent Bible versions 
which attested to the textual witnesses upon which they, in turn, were 
based.

It was Erasmus's knowledge both in Greek manuscripts AND of versions of the 
Scripture in various languages, both contemporary with his time and 
ancient, that provoked Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson to note that "the text 
Erasmus chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and 
the Waldensian Churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for 
and proof of God's providence." 

Wilkinson gives a brief history of the important role held by the 
Waldensian Bibles in preservation of the true text of Scripture:

"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D.,    
from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they 
received from the apostles (Allix, Church of Piedmont, 1690, p. 37). We are 
indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that 
the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. From the illustrious group of 
scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 A.D., we may understand how the 
Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches.

"There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses 
from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The 
historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where 
they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their 
origin from Waldo. ... Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or 
Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

"There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, `The Noble Lesson' 
(La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the 
first opposition to the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of 
Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from 
the following extract: `All the popes, which have been from Sylvester to 
the present time' (Gilly, Excursions to the Piedmont, Appendix II, p. 10).

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, 
was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church 
in northern Italy--later the Waldenses--is seen standing in opposition to 
papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was 
that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very 
name, "Itala," is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the 
Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking 
of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says: `Now among translations 
themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it 
keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression'" 
(Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Lit. Ed., Vol. II, p. 542). 
<Wilkinson.>

Here we can see the hand of God plainly evident in preserving the precious 
Word He had given to men. Through every dark century of persecution and 
apostasy, faithful and separated saints held to the Scriptures at the cost 
of earthly comfort, fortune, even life. The Waldenses, or Vaudois, were but 
one of these groups of faithful brethren. There were others, but the 
Vaudois were especially honored of God in that their versions of Scriptures 
were selected by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation as 
representative of the original manuscripts of the prophets and apostles. 

God promised to preserve His Word. How can we fail to see in these events 
the fulfillment of this promise? The pure Word of God was preserved by pure 
churches and in turn transmitted into the hands of the men who had been 
prepared of God to give this pure Word to the world during the great 
missionary period of the last four-and-a-half centuries.

In conclusion I quote from Which Version by Philip Mauro, outstanding trial 
lawyer of the nineteenth century. The testimony of men such as Mauro, Dr. 
Edward F. Hills, Dr. John Burgon, and Dr. David Otis Fuller is largely 
ignored and despised by evangelical (even many fundamental) scholars today,    
but their teaching is based upon the solid foundation of the biblical 
doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation, combined with careful 
scholarship. It is unwise and less than honest simply to ignore the 
testimony of such men, and yet that is exactly what is being done.

"When we consider what the Authorized Version was to be to the world, the 
incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and 
in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and 
rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--when we consider that 
this Version was to be, more than all others combined, `the Sword of the 
Spirit,' and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully 
warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential 
control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those 
Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others.

"So far in our series on Myths About the King James Bible we have seen that 
it is not true that Erasmus was a humanist in the normal sense of which 
this would be understood in our day. Nor is it true that Erasmus and the 
Bible editors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were severely 
limited in manuscript and textual evidence as compared with the late 
nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. If you have followed carefully with 
me in these studies to this point, I trust you can see that to call these 
myths is not at all an exaggeration of the term."

It is important to remind ourselves that our faith regarding the 
preservation of the Scriptures is not in man, but in God. Even if the 
Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we 
know that God was in control of His Holy Word. The preserved Bible was not 
hidden away in some monastic hole or in the Pope's library.

The vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the 
writings of church fathers support the Received Text. This was a fact known 
by the Reformation editors. They saw the hand of God in this and believed 
that the witness of the majority of textual evidence contained the 
preserved Word of God. God's promise to preserve His Word has been 
fulfilled in the multiplication of pure Bibles and the rejection and disuse 
of corrupted Bibles. In reviewing the existing manuscript evidence, Jack 
Moorman gives the following summary:

"At Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago (1984), Dr. [Stewart] Custer 
said that God preserved His Word `in the sands of Egypt.' No! God did not 
preserve His Word in the sands of Egypt, or on a library shelf in the 
Vatican library, or in a wastepaper bin in a Catholic monastery at the foot 
of Mt. Sinai. God did not preserve His Word in the `disusing' but in the 
`using.' He did not preserve the Word by it being stored away or buried, 
but rather through its use and transmission in the hands of humble 
believers. ...

"At latest count, there were 2,764 cursive manuscripts (MSS). Kenyon says, 
`... An overwhelming majority contain the common ecclesiastical [Received] 
text.' ... Kenyon is prepared to list only 22 that give even partial 
support to the [modern critical] text. ...
   
"Are we to believe that in the language in which the New Testament was 
originally written (Greek), that only twenty-two examples of the true Word 
of God are to be found between the ninth and sixteenth centuries? How does 
this fulfill God's promise to preserve His Word? ... 

"We answer with a shout of triumph God has been faithful to His promise. 
Yet in our day, the world has become awash with translations based on MSS 
similar to the twenty-two rather than the [more than] two-and-a-half 
thousand." <Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Bible for Today, 1985), pp. 90-
95.>
