Emergence of the Tyndale–King James Version tradition in English Bible translation

ordering individual English Bibles either by period (e.g. 20th century) or according to their features (e.g


Introduction Translation as a complex interaction of texts and other systems
In line with Marais (2014Marais ( , 2019a, it is assumed that a translation emerges from a complex interaction of texts and other systems (Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2019a, 2019b. Translation is not the means of transferring a fixed meaning from an incipient text (or source text) to a subsequent text (or target text) across linguistic, cultural and semiotic barriers, but rather it is the entire process of meaning-making and meaning-taking, as signs are interpreted and reinterpreted beyond interlingual translation. In this way, translation plays a role in the emergence of social reality. Complex systems are adaptive, dynamic (constantly changing) and emergent (having the tendency to self-organise to reach a subsequently higher state), following particular trajectories because of the influence of attractors.
The translation process has traditionally been understood in a reductionist manner as involving simply a source text and a target text. Working within a complexity approach to translation, Marais (2019a) proposes instead the terms incipient sign systems and subsequent sign systems, respectively, to conceptualise translation as semiotic processes -incipient sign systems, 'according to various conventions, act as initiating semiotic systems from which the subsequent sign systems are constructed' (Marais 2019a:53; see also Marais 2019a:72, 74-75, 123-125). In this essay incipient text(s) is used instead of source texts to refer to all of the multifaceted, complex and emergent features that provide input into the translation process and subsequent text(s) instead of target text to include all of the texts that emerge out of the translation process. Critically, the use of these terms means that a particular biblical version may function both as an incipient text (for the creation of subsequent texts) and as a subsequent text within the semiotic meaning-making processes of translation.
In this essay, it is demonstrated that the inception of the English Bible tradition began with the oral-aural Bible in Old English translated from Latin incipient texts and emerged through a continuous tradition of revision and retranslation in interaction with contemporary social reality. Each subsequent translation achieved a more complex state by adapting to the emergence of incipient text knowledge (rediscovery of Hebrew and Greek texts), emergence of the (meaning-making) knowledge of the incipient languages (Latin, Hebrew and Greek), language change (Old, Middle and Modern English), mode of communication (hearingdominant and text-dominant), style (literal or word-for-word) and products (oral-aural Bible, handwritten manuscript Bible and printed Bible). Historical sources indicate that there were translations of portions of the English Bible since 700 CE as handwritten manuscript Bibles in Old and Middle English and in print in Modern English -even before the retranslation associated with Tyndale (1526) and despite ecclesiastical opposition since 1408. This version and its revisions (1530)(1531)1534) are followed by subsequent revisions (Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible). The next revision was the King James Version (1611), which replaced all its predecessors, and which was never replaced for the next four centuries -not even by its revisions.
The natural tendency of complex systems for disorder (entropy) is constrained by the process of translation itself, which implies the need for regular revision and retranslation. In this essay, the term 'revision' refers to the process of editing, correcting and modernisation of an existing translation for republication, while the term 'retranslation' refers to a next translation of an incipient text into the same language (see also Koskinen & Paloposki 2010;Mossop 2011). Both revision and retranslation may lead to the replacement of a previous version if its incorporation is adequate in the process of emergence. Both revision and retranslation are complex processes involving a network approach that identifies historical and synchronic relations between texts, institutions or contexts and agents (Albachten & Gürçağlar 2019). The new forms and new meanings keep the Bible, as well as the specific tradition, alive.

The Tyndale-King James Version tradition as a case study
Our approach to translation goes far beyond the realm of a written text and applies to hearing-dominant communication (before book printing in the 15th century CE in the West) as well as text-dominant communication (since book printing) (Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2016). The history of English Bible translation spans both and its continuing tradition of revising and retranslation over centuries is ideal to demonstrate the complex nature of the translation process. In particular, this essay provides a narrative frame analysis of English Bible translations that emerged in the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of 1611 and its revisions up to the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. The origin of this tradition is traditionally associated with the Bible translation of William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536) and colleagues. However, in this essay it is argued that the prehistory out of which the Tyndale-King James Version tradition emerged (see also the historical overview of Long 2009), which was previously neglected (e.g. Alter 2019), forms part of this translation complex (eds. D'hulst & Gambier 2018; Marais 2019b). The focus is to narrate the sociohistorical and translational context of this tradition, the incipient texts, the translation process and strategies employed (especially to establish the nature and style of the language of the translations), the nature of the translation (in terms of form and meaning) and content (in terms of doctrine and academia), its reception and the contribution of the revisions. In Miller- Naudé and Naudé (2022) and Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2022), attention is given to the revisions and retranslations within the Tyndale-King James Version tradition since the second half of the 20th century, which represents the next great age in Bible translation but which must be viewed as an inherent part of this translation complex and not separately, as is done by most scholars.

Exposition of the argument
The essay is organised as follows: firstly, the conceptualisation of the incipient texts is described in the context of oral-aural and written communication and the emergence of the oral-aural Bible in Old English as well as of the handwritten manuscript Bibles in Old and Middle English. This description narrates the prehistory out of which the Tyndale-King James Version tradition emerged. Secondly, the move to text-dominant communication is described, followed by an exposition of the early printed Bibles in Modern English before and after the translation of the New Testament of 1526, associated with William Tyndale. Thirdly, the translation process of the King James Version is described, followed by its revisions for accuracy as well as for language modernisation. Fourthly, conclusions follow in light of the description of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition and its prehistory as a translation complex.

Hearing-dominant communication
The incipient texts (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament and Greek New Testament as well as the deuterocanonical books [or Apocrypha]) are conceptualised in the context of hearingdominant communication, which implies that texts are internalised but also written down by scribes for archives and libraries to serve as reference points for recitation and memorisation of the tradition (Naudé 2021a:191;Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2016). In oral-aural and written communication, typified as verbal interpretive culture, the scribes were capable of reading and writing with the implication that there was no need for common people or elites to become literate to function. Manuscripts were often not written by the hand of the author but were dictated by the author to the scribe. Therefore, most people would have experienced biblical texts as oral-aural.
The age from the 3rd century BCE until the 3rd-4th century CE concerns the translation of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament within a Jewish setting (Alexandria and Western Asia) into Greek (Septuagint) and Aramaic (Targums). Evidence of revising and retranslation exist for both the Greek and Aramaic translation traditions (Barton 2019:437-444). From the end of the 1st century CE to the 4th century, translations (as well as revisions and retranslations) followed in languages such as Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic and Latin. The age from the 3rd-4th century CE until the development of book printing in the 15th century was Roman Catholic (Naudé 2005a:3). The Latin Vulgate, associated with Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420), emerged as the dominant translation through revision and retranslation of, inter alia, the Septuagint, Old Latin and Hebrew incipient texts. This process gave the Bible its definite form and served as an incipient text in medieval Christianity. This was also the age of illuminated Bible manuscripts, including the magnificent picture Bibles towards the end of this age, of which the Book of Kells is a surviving exemplar (De Hamel 2001:140-165;Sullivan [1920] 1986).

Oral-aural Bible in Old English
There is evidence that Christianity already existed in Britain in the 2nd century CE, but it became firmly established in the next centuries with the arrival of missionaries in 597 CE, sent out by Pope Gregory (Bede 731,[Book 1,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50). The central concepts of Christianity were conveyed by the vast vocabulary of Latin (Bede 731, [Book 1, Chapter 1], 38). Missionary work proceeded almost entirely by means of the spoken word, that is, through oralaural communication. Any translation of the Bible was a free rendering of the Latin text into the vernacular speech, that is, the oral-aural Bible (Bede 731, [Book 3, Chapter 6], 150). The earliest portions of the Bible in Old English were songs of Bible portions (e.g. the creation and narratives in Genesis, departure out of Egypt, the incarnation, passion, resurrection and ascension of Christ) set to verse in a highly complicated vernacular meter by Caedmon (ca. 680), a poet and herder, at a Yorkshire monastery (Bede 731,[Book 4,Chapter 24], 250-253). According to Bede, the interpretive translation of the Bible by Caedmon has the same authority as the incipient text because, like the authors of the incipient biblical texts, he possessed God's gift of poetry -the divinely inspired disclosure of secret wisdom (Shepherd 1969:366).

Handwritten manuscript Bibles in Old English
As there was demand for the Bible in the new emerging vernacular, handwritten manuscript communication in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) began to appear as follows (Herbert 1968:xxvi-xxviii). The first known translation of the biblical text in Old English was the Psalms by Aldhelm (640-709), bishop of Sherborne, at the beginning of the 8th century CE. The translation work of Aldhelm was continued by , historian ('the Father of English History') and Benedictine monk, who was working on a translation of the Gospel of John at the time of his death. It was intended for teaching purposes and not as a readable vernacular version (Shepherd 1969:372). Alfred (849-901), King of Wessex, studied Latin and translated, inter alia, the Ten Commandments, as well as excerpts from Exodus and Acts for priests and laypersons who knew only the vernacular.
Interlinear Bible translations began to appear in the 9th and 10th centuries CE. The earliest surviving copies are the Lindisfarne Gospels, a Latin manuscript (now in the British Library) copied by Bishop Eadfrith between 698 and 721 with an interlinear word-by-word or glossing handwritten translation in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English, made by Aldred between 946 and 968 CE, which influenced later Bible translations. The Rushworth Gospels (in the Bodleian Library) are a copy of the Lindisfarne Gospels, except for Matthew, which is an independent translation in literal prose by a priest named Farman. A copy of the gospels in West Saxon orthography (dated 1050 CE) associated with the cathedral at Exeter is housed at Cambridge University Library. Glossing was an instrument of instruction of Old English pedagogy through oral teaching in the vernacular (Shepherd 1969:371).
Aelfric (950-1020), the Old English prose writer of Winchester, made partial translations in the form of homilies and paraphrases of some of the narrative books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther and the Maccabees) and set the stage for the translation of the Wessex Gospels. His primary contribution is his translation of biblical concepts (Shepherd 1969:374-378).
The Norman Conquest in 1066 CE ended Bible translation into Old English and the further development of Anglo-Saxon as a language. However, no complete Bible translation in English existed at this stage. Even the complete Bible as incipient text was rare, very expensive and only available for the elite -the clergy used single biblical books and extracts and seldom saw the Bible as a whole. This lack of the complete Bible as a physical sign of the limits of the canon made it impossible to understand the flow, content and meaning of the Bible (Shepherd 1969:364). This fragmentation of Bible texts led the medieval church into strange doctrines. However, a Bible exclusively reserved for the clergy and elite was about to end.
In the course of time, there were translations from the Latin Vulgate into Anglo-Norman in a very literal form, for example, that of Richard Rolle (1295-1349), who produced an Anglo-Norman translation of the Psalms in 1340 (Shepherd 1969:385-387). The fact that the text of the Apocalypse in Anglo-Norman appears in a commentary of which 80 manuscripts are known led Herbert (1968:xxviii) to conclude that there was possibly a complete Bible in Anglo-Norman before 1360.

Handwritten manuscript Bibles in Middle English
In the 14th century (ca. 1340-1350), English translation of Bible portions (from the Latin Vulgate) began to appear in Middle English. For example, an English translation of the Anglo-Norman Apocalypse survived in 16 Middle English manuscripts (Herbert 1968:xxviii-xix).
About 1384, the complete Bible became available in Middle English. There is no identification of the translators nor of the place of origin or date, although it was previously the practice to provide names on the translations of the Bible, for example, in the case of Rolle. Although this translation is attributed to John Wyclif (1320-1384), there is no convincing evidence that any translating was done by Wyclif himself. At least the names of two associates are known, namely John Purvey and Nicholas of Hereford. Metatexts (or paratexts) in one of the manuscripts suggest that it was corporate work consisting of four stages, namely establishing the Latin incipient text, studying the Latin text, elucidating textual difficulties and translating and correcting the translation (Daniell 2003:85). Although there were processes of revision and retranslation, the so-called Wyclif ('Lollard') Bible translations as literal handwritten translations, which have the tendency to follow the Latin constructions and word order, can be divided into two groups according to the translation method, namely the early versions (1380-1384) (Herbert 1968:2).
At the beginning of the 15th century, violent ecclesiastical opposition to these Bible translations and to Bible translation in general arose (Daniell 2003:75). The reason was their association with the pre-Reformation theology movement associated with John Wyclif (1320-1384) and his followers, the Lollards (Poor Preachers), who claimed that all people are directly responsible to God, that the Bible must be obeyed and not canon law and that the Bible must be available in the vernacular for laypersons to read (Daniell 2003:68-70, 74-76).  (Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2016:2-3). Newfound interest in literacy led to the rise of entrepreneurs and a subsequent shift in wealth and economic power away from a feudal system of a few governing families to a flourishing middle class (Graham 1971). Latin as an aristocratic language fell out of favour -the Western world was ready for texts to be printed in their vernaculars (Pettegree 2015). The result was a rise in the translations of the Bible into various European languages in the decades before the Reformation, which promoted the Reformation. The Bible occupied a prominent role in the Reformation, and it also introduced the next great age of the translation of the Bible (ca. 1500-1950) (Naudé 2005a:3 Introduction, ix). As acclaimed by authors, commentators and readers, the translation itself is a product of the highest literary achievement, constructed with mastery by making a new language from and for the common people of England during the initial phases of the Modern English Period (1500 to present day) (Bragg 2017:88-97

Bishop's Bible (1568)
Despite the popularity of the Protestant Geneva Bible, it was not accepted universally. Anglican church leaders considered the Calvinistic notes offensive. The Anglican church bishops suggested in 1563 to undertake an official translation under Archbishop Parker as chief editor with a team of at least 13 bishops and scholars to complete the task previously given to Coverdale (Brake 2011:74 (Brake 2011:75). Some of the notes were from the Geneva Bible, but offensive ones were omitted. The Bishop's Bible fell short of the Geneva Bible in quality and simplicity (Brake 2011:75). Although 19 editions were published until 1617, it did not get the support that was hoped for -the revision of the English Bible that would fascinate the world for centuries was still to be conceptualised.

King James Version of 1611
In 1603, when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, the variety of English translations was a source of division among religious groups in England (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 33). To reconcile the differences, the King called for a conference to be held in 1604 in Hampton Court (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 33). Both Anglican bishops and Puritan clergy were invited to consult together about religious tolerance. After much debate about the imperfections of the current English Bibles, it was proposed that a new translation or at least a revised translation be made (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 33). King James, who had a personal interest in Bible study and translation, endorsed the idea.
In July 1604, a translation committee of 50 scholars was formed, consisting of six panels -three for the Old Testament, two for the New Testament and one for the deuterocanonical books. Two panels met at Oxford, two at Cambridge and two at Westminster (The Holy Bible , 1611, Introduction, 36-38, 40-42;Brake, 2011:93-110). They were provided with a list of procedures and rules (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 39;Brake 2011:116-122). One of the rules specified that the Bishops' Bible was to be followed, but that certain other translations should be used where they agreed better with the Hebrew or Greek, namely Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew's, Great Bible and Geneva. Another rule stated that marginal notes should not be used except for explanations of Hebrew or Greek words -9000 such marginal notes were eventually included.
The first edition of the King James Version in 1611 was very similar in appearance to the Bishops' Bible (1568). The black letter type and the chapter and verse divisions were essentially the same. Running titles and introductory chapter summaries were included, many reflecting the influence of the Geneva Bible (1560). There were several tables and charts. The deuterocanonical books were included as a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament (The Holy Bible , 1611, Introduction, 43;Naudé 2013:157-194).
The King James Version was a subsequent revision in a process of the emergence of English Bible translation. The idiom and vocabulary can be ascribed to the Tyndale translation, the melody and harmony to Coverdale and the scholarship and accuracy to the Geneva Bible (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 43). One must acknowledge that the final product was certainly the best English Bible that had been produced up to that time. Its English style is widely recognised as superb for that time. In fact, Robert Alter (2019:3-11, 17, 29, 48-49, 64, 70-71, 83-85, 89, 91-92, 110, 113, 116, 120) sees the King James Version's continued influence, despite the steep competition, as evidence that readers seek art as much as doctrine in their Bibles. In terms of its reception, Hamlin and Jones (2010:1) view the King James Version as 'the single most influential book in the English language and arguably the greatest work ever produced by a committee'.
The basic weakness of the King James Version is that when it was translated, there were no standard incipient texts of the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament nor for the Greek New Testament. The second Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Chayyim, published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525, was the most probable incipient Hebrew text. The 1598 Beza Greek text (similar in nature to the 1522 Erasmus, the 1550 Stephanus and the 1565 and 1588-89 Beza Greek texts), also known as the Textus Receptus or Byzantine text, was probably used for the New Testament (Brake 2011:139). Another weakness is that there were many typographical errors -at least one in every 10 pages.
With the publication of the King James Version, the controversy over English Bible translations ended. Initial dissatisfaction gave way to increasing approval so that eventually it superseded its predecessors and rivals. Another reason for its primary status was its production under the patronage of the British government, which meant that it not only achieved prominence domestically but also worldwide through colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, becoming the standard in the English-speaking world and the incipient text for many missionary translations of the Bible (Naudé 2005b:71).
There were subsequently four further folio editions of the King James Version, namely, in 1611-1613, 1617, 1634 and 1639-1640. The same text and format of the 1611 were used, but corrections and spelling updates were incorporated. The fifth folio edition was considered the finest of the five folio editions (Brake 2011:203-210). After 1640, revisions followed in two phases. The first phase consisted of revisions for accuracy. The second phase consisted of revisions for language modernisation.

Revisions for accuracy
Since 1640, the public demand for Bibles caused printers to shortcut proofreading procedures, which resulted in errors, but it took more than a century before another attempt at revision was made. No version successfully eliminated all the errors, and no two printings were the same -this tendency continues even into the 21st century.
The main reason is that no copy of the King James Version was acknowledged as the standard -attempts to increase consistency and to remove errors were practised by various printers, accompanied by the danger that serious new errors could be introduced (The Holy Bible, 1611, Introduction, 53).
Thomas Paris, a scholar in Cambridge, made a serious attempt to revise the King James Version in 1762 by standardising spelling and punctuation and correcting printer's errors, but it attained a low circulation and was criticised for its remaining errors (Brake 2011:213-214).
Building on the Cambridge revision by Paris in 1762, Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), Hebrew scholar of Oxford, published his revised edition in 1769, known as the Oxford edition, which became the standard edition of the King James Version for more than 100 years (Brake 2011:214-217). For example, Cyrus I. Scofield edited and annotated the text of the 1769 revision for the Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909 and revised in 1917 (Brake 2011:220-222). The 1769 revision included revised spelling, italics, marginal notes and chapter summaries. However, mistakes were still carried over into the 1769 version. For printing, publishers consulted both the Paris and Blayney editions. Both editions modernised the King James Version and prepared its way in the 19th century. In 1833, Oxford University Press produced a line-for-line reprint of the editio princeps whose accuracy is acknowledged, but the progress in printing, diction and spelling made it a non-user-friendly edition (Brake 2011:217 (Brake 2011:218-220). An appendix was included that compared all the major and minor editorial revisions between 1611 and 1769. About 125 abandoned readings were restored. Other revision attempts are described by Scanlin (2013:141-155), such as the one of William Newcome (1729-1800) in 1792. None of those revisions gained universal approval. The public clung to the established and familiar King James Version of 1611 and refused to accept revisions other than Blayney's revision of 1769.
However, the work on a next revision, the English Revised Version, had been underway already for 3 years. Scrivener accepted an appointment to the revision committee; one can therefore assume that his Cambridge Paragraph Bible was consulted for the revision work.

Revisions for language modernisation English Revised Version (1885)
The increase of knowledge about the Hebrew and Greek texts and the nature of the language use of the King James Version, which was too remote from ordinary speech, necessitated revisions. In 1870, the Bishop of Winchester, Dr Wilberforce, proposed such an official revision, which was accepted by the relevant official bodies (The Holy Bible, 1611, Preface, x). Work on such a new revision of the King James Version resulted in the (British) Revised Version of 1881 (New Testament) and of 1885 (Old Testament and New Testament), which is the first genuine text revision extending beyond editorial changes since 1611. The archaic pronouns and verbal inflections were kept, as well as the verseformatting in prose sections, but a poetic line structure was followed in poetry (The Holy Bible, 1611, Preface, x). Instead of the Geek text of Beza, the one of Westcott and Hort, which has thousands of differences, is followed in this revision with the implication that, for example, the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7 was removed: 'For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' (as cited in the original orthography of the KJV) (The Holy Bible, 1611, Preface, x).

American Standard Version (1901)
Work on a new American revision of the King James Version, which paralleled the revision process of the (

Conclusion
In this essay, it was demonstrated that the history of English Bible translation emerged through a continuing tradition of revising and retranslation since its inception as the oral-aural Bible in Old English as hearing-dominant communication. This is evident in the interpretive translations of Caedmon (ca. 680) into performative texts as songs, as well as handwritten manuscript Bibles in Old English, which were mostly word-for-word translations in the format of interlinear Bible translations. His primary contribution was the translation of biblical concepts. The translations were partial and not complete Bibles and were intended for clerical use and not for laypersons, in accordance with Roman Catholic doctrine. These translations as word-for-word translations from Latin incipient texts eventually emerged as complete Bibles in Middle English during the 14th century, associated with the pre-Reformation theology of John Wyclif and intended for use by laypersons. The move to text-dominant communication followed from the introduction of book printing in the West, which made quick dissemination of knowledge possible through widespread literacy. In light of the reformation theology of Luther, retranslation from the Greek (and Hebrew) incipient texts emerged, which is associated with William Tyndale in Modern English. It was followed by revisions (Coverdale Bible, Great Bible and Bishop's Bible on the one hand and the Matthew's Bible and the Geneva Bible on the other hand). The next revision emerged as the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of 1611, which was the product of several large teams and not of a single translator, shaped by a particular relationship between politics and religion in Jacobean England. The translators produced a revision of its predecessors and not a new translation, which was the product of not only a collective effort by the contemporary translators but also the amalgamated efforts of prior translators dating back for more than a millennium. The King James Version eventually replaced all its predecessors and was never fully replaced for the next four centuries -not even by its revisions. All the versions in this tradition were literal or word-for-word translations.
These states of affairs falsify the traditional fragmented viewpoint that the origin of this tradition is to be associated with William Tyndale. In this essay, it was demonstrated that there was a long prehistory out of which the Tyndale-King James Version tradition as a translation complex emerged in its interactions with social reality. Each subsequent translation reached a higher state than the previous one by adapting to the emergence of incipient text knowledge (rediscovery of Hebrew and Greek texts), emergence of the (meaning-making) knowledge of the incipient languages (Hebrew and Greek), language change (Old, Middle and Modern English), mode of communication (hearingdominant and text-dominant) and products (oral-aural Bible, handwritten manuscript Bible and printed Bible).
In separate essays, it is demonstrated that revisions and retranslations of the King James Version continued into the 20th and 21st centuries as literal or word-for-word translations but as divergent branches and not any more as a linear development, as in previous centuries (Miller . This development represents the next age in Bible translation, which started in the second half of the 20th century (Naudé 2005a). In these essays, it is also demonstrated that some scholars incorrectly interpret these branches as new translations on a par with the independent new translations outside the Tyndale-King James Version tradition, as analysed in Naudé (2021b).
The grant holder acknowledges that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF-supported research are those of the author, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this study as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.