^{page 47 note 1} This view of ethics is seen at its most threadbare in Fletcher, Joseph, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966)Google Scholar, where the only biblical contribution is the term agape, for the content of which the author ranges far and wide.

^{page 47 note 2} An interesting treatment of this problem is Sleeper, C. F., ‘Ethics as a Context for Biblical Interpretation’, in Interpretation, Oct. 1968, pp. 443–60.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} The Bible and Social Ethics, Facet Books, Social Ethics Series (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), reprint from 1949, pp. 3–4, 12–13, 22–25.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Kerygma, Eschatology and Social Ethics, Facet Books, Social Ethics Series (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), reprint from 1954, pp. 1, 9ft.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} Pitcher, Alvin, ‘A New Era in Protestant Social Ethics?’, CTS Register, Feb. 1958, pp. 8–14Google Scholar. The writer is indebted to his former professor who first suggested to him the category of ‘shape’. Cf. also the terminology of Sittler, Joseph, The Structure of Christian Ethics (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1958)Google Scholar: ‘the shape of the engendering deed’ and ‘the content of the engendered response’.

^{page 48 note 4} Muilenburg, James, The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and Ethics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962)Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., Gospel and Law (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1951)Google Scholar. Here we may refer also to the WCC studies detailed in Wilder, op. cit., footnotes on pp. 3–4.

^{page 49 note 1} See Barth, Markus and Fletcher, V., Acquittal by Resurrection (N.Y.: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} See the important contribution on the distinction between ‘command’ and ‘law’ in Paul Althaus, The Divine Command, Facet Books, Social Ethics Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). See also Thielicke, Helmut, Theological Ethics, vol. I (London: A. & C. Black, 1968), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} For the view of OT ethics as ‘background’ see e.g. Thomas, G. F., Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy (N.Y.: Scribners, 1955)Google Scholar; Gardner, E. C., Biblical Faith and Social Ethics (N.Y.: Harper, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} The former tendency to overemphasise the ‘originality’ of the prophets is undergoing modification with the recognition of the strong element of continuity with cult and covenant. See Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Covenant (London: S.C.M. Press, 1965), pp. 14–26 and passim.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} The tremendous effect of this experience of judgment is well described in Eichrodt, Walter, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. I (London: S.C.M. Press, 1961), pp. 462–467Google Scholar and von Rad, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology, vol. I (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), pp. 126–127Google Scholar and vol.2 (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), pp. 115–19. Subsequently these works will be referred to by volume number only.

^{page 50 note 3} See Zimmerli, Walter, The Law and the Prophets (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), pp. 93–96.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} Barr, James, Old and New in Interpretation (London: S.C.M. Press, 1966), pp. 15–33Google Scholar. Cf. review by Wright, G. E. in Interpretation, Jan. 1968, pp. 83–89.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 5} It might seem from chapter headings that Muilenburg, op. cit., was actually doing just this: ‘the way of the lawgivers,… of the prophets, etc’ but it is clear that there are certain forcefully unifying elements in his view: election, covenant and especially ‘the persistence of the divine purpose in history’: pp. 131, 135, 139 and very explicitly, p. 46.

^{page 51 note 1} Von Rad, I, pp. 111–12, 115–25.

^{page 51 note 2} Eichrodt, I, pp. 516, 518. See the entire discussion of von Rad's viewpoint pp. 512–20. See also Wright, G. E., ‘The Faith of Israel’ in Interpreter's Bible, vol. I (N.Y.: Abingdon, 1952), pp. 387–388.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} A particular problem arises from the fact that the Sinai tradition apparently circulated for a time separately from the Exodus tradition but as Zimmerli, op. cit., p. 44, points out, this separate tradition-history of Sinai does not necessarily contradict ‘its historical correlation with the event of the Exodus. …’ More positively, Clements, op. cit., pp. 53–55 concludes: ‘That the connexion of the exodus with the covenant of Sinai is to be found in a single series of historical events is far more credible than that two unrelated themes have subsequently been joined together in a way which has such tremendous consequence for theology.’ Wright, G. E., God Who Acts (London: S.C.M. Press, 1952), p. 74Google Scholar, sees Sinai as the ‘immediate goal and purpose of the deliverance from Egypt’. See also Muilenburg, op. cit., pp. 54–55.

^{page 52 note 1} See Lehmann, Paul L., Ethics in a Christian Context (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963, pp. 77ffGoogle Scholar: ‘ … what God requires is meaningless apart from the dynamics of the divine activity …’ (p. 78).

^{page 52 note 2} Basic ace. to von Rad, 1, pp. 122ff is Deut. 26.5–9, followed by Joshua 24.2–13, Ps. 78, 105, 136; to which may be added Deut. 6.21–23; 4.32–39; Jer. 32.17–22. Cf. Acts 13.17–23. See Wright, , God Who Acts, especially pp. 70–76.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} op. cit., p. 46.

^{page 52 note 4} Thus Westermann in Anderson, B. W. (ed.), The Old Testament and Christian Faith (subsequently OTCF) (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 202–204.Google Scholar See the chapter on the Burning Bush in Buber, Martin, Moses: the Revelation and the Covenant (N.Y.: Harper, 1958), pp. 39–55.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} cf. Manson, T. W., Ethics and the Gospel (London: S.C.M. Press, 1960), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Exod. 19.4–5; Lev. 19.36–37; Deut. 11.2–8. See also Deut. 6.20–24; 77–11; 10.17–19; 27.9–10. For the negative aspect see e.g. Deut. 8.11–20.

^{page 53 note 3} Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), p. 215.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 1} The term is from Toombs, L., Nation Making (London: Lutterworth, 1962)Google Scholar. This little book is remarkably sensitive to the particularity of Israel's ethics. See also Muilenburg, op. cit., pp. 44–62. For the Exodus in terms of birth and creation see Knight, G. A. F., A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (London: S.C.M. Press, rev. 1964), pp. 148–153Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Wright especially emphasises concern for the weak in Anderson, OTCF, p.191: ‘ … power acting in compassion to save those unjustly deprived of right.’ See also Wright, G. E. and Fuller, R. H., The Book of the Acts of God (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957), pp. 73–75.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 3} On this point see the discussion in Eichrodt, I, pp. 101–77; Wright, G. E., The Old Testament Against Its Environment (subseq. Environment) (Chicago: Regnery, 1950), pp. 77–112Google Scholar; and more recently Childs, B. S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: S.C.M. Press, 1960Google Scholar). The distinction in this sentence between ‘OT faith’ and ‘religion’ or ‘cultus of Israel’, though the terminology differs, is generally recognised: e.g. R. E. Clements, op. cit., pp. 11–13; von Rad, I, pp. 105–15; Eichrodt, I, pp. 512ff, Anderson, B. W., Creation versus Chaos (N.Y.: Association Press, 1967), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 4} This transformation has frequently been pointed out, e.g. von Rad, 2, pp. 103–4; Wright, Environment, pp. 98–101; Eichrodt, I, pp. 120ff.

^{page 55 note 1} Kraemer, op. cit., p. 19.

^{page 55 note 2} Eichrodt, Walter, Man in the Old Testament (Chicago: Allenson, 1951), p. 77Google Scholar; see also pp. 25–27.

^{page 55 note 3} Wright, Environment, p. 23. On the contrasting experiences of the divine behind the differences of Israelite and Canaanite views see ibid., pp. 16–23; on their contrasting views of history see von Rad, 2, pp. 99–112; also Anderson, Creation …, pp. 27ff. On the difference in ethical consciousness cf. Eichrodt, Man …, pp. 14–15.

^{page 56 note 1} Berkhof, Hendrikus, Christ the Meaning of History (London: S.C.M. Press, 1966), p. 37Google Scholar. See his ch. 2, ‘History in the O.T.’, pp. 37–56.

^{page 56 note 2} von Rad, 2, pp. 105–6.

^{page 56 note 3} See von Rad, 2, pp. 110–11; Wright, Environment, pp. 44–45; Childs, op. cit., pp. 72–73, 83–84.

^{page 56 note 4} Childs, op. cit., p. 83.

^{page 56 note 5} Moltmann, Jurgen, Theology of Hope (London: S.C.M. Press, 1967), pp. 100–108Google Scholar. To be sure there was a certain institutionalisation in kingship and cult which tended toward the conservation of the status quo and against which the prophetic denunciations were particularly virulent. Again, while for the prophets the Exodus events were the type of what was to come, nevertheless they did not look for a mere return to origins but rather for a new saving act of God in history. See Eichrodt, I, pp. 382–91; von Rad, 2, pp. 112–19; Clements, op. cit., pp. 103–5; Childs, op. cit., pp. 76ff.

^{page 57 note 1} Eichrodt, I, p. 46.

^{page 57 note 2} See Wright, Environment, pp. 93ff.

^{page 58 note 1} Deut, 10.12; see also Exod. 18.20, Jer. 7.23 etc. Conversely sin is described as ‘turning aside out of the way’: e.g. Deut. 9.12. This image is powerfully analysed in Muilenburg, op. cit., see espec. pp. 33–36.

^{page 58 note 2} See also e.g. Deut. 15.13–15, Lev. 19.34, Exod. 22.21.

^{page 58 note 3} Belonging to the same world of thought is the later concept of the Imago Dei which exists in man only in so far as man fulfils the divine purpose in becoming God's responsible partner and thus reflecting the divine nature. See Thielicke, op. cit., pp. 152ff; Eichrodt, 2, pp. 122–30; Smart, J. D., The Old Testament in Dialogue With Modern Man (London: Epworth, 1965), p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 4} The similarity of this conception to the Imago Dei is underlined by Eichrodt, 2, P. 373: ‘… sanctification is understood as a moulding of man in accordance with his [God's\ own image, and is therefore bound up as closely as can be with his purpose in creation.…’

^{page 59 note 1} For an analysis of mythical and biblical concepts of sacred space see Childs, op. cit., pp. 83–93. The development of the idea of the Temple as ‘guarantee of divine protection and blessing’ is undoubtedly a borrowing of mythical concepts of sacred space: see Clements, R. E., God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), pp. 67–76.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Eichrodt, I, p. 288. Our discussion of holiness is much indebted to Eichrodt's analysis of the concept: pp. 270–88.

^{page 60 note 1} Taken from the article by this title by Martin-Achard, R. in Study Encounter, Autumn 1964, pp. 29ffGoogle Scholar. See especially Martin-Achard, R., Israel et les Nations (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959)Google Scholar; Rowley, H. H., The Biblical Doctrine of Election London: 1950), espec. pp. 69–94Google Scholar; Jacob, E., Theology of the Old Testament (N.Y.: Harper, 1958), pp. 204–205Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 1} See von Rad, I, pp. 161–5. Also Eichrodt, I, pp. 57–58; Wright, , Environment, pp. 46–54Google Scholar; Martin-Achard, Israel…, pp. 31–35. The universal import of the Abramic covenant is continued in the story of his descendants: Gen. 26.4, 28.14; given broader application in the prophets: Jer. 4.1, 2, Isa. 19.23–25; fulfilled in Christ: Acts 3.25–26, Rom. 4.11–13, Gal. 3.8.

^{page 61 note 2} Martin-Achard, op. cit., p. 37.

^{page 62 note 1} This will also be discussed in the next section.

^{page 62 note 2} op. cit., p. 123. Cf. Clements, Prophecy …, p. 74: ‘Obedience was not the presupposition of the covenant, but its consequence.’

^{page 62 note 3} Anderson, in OTCF, p. 237Google Scholar. Excellent discussion of ‘The New Covenant and the Old’, pp. 225–42. Cf. Eichrodt, I, p. 44.

^{page 62 note 4} We believe the ‘contingent element’ is more accurately identified in this way than by speaking of human obedience/disobedience. The suzerainty treaty was certainly directly contingent on obedience but it is not necessary to suppose that the Mosaic covenant conformed thereto in every respect.

^{page 62 note 5} Eichrodt, I, pp. 376–80, 462–7; Clements, , Prophecy …, pp. 40–43, 77–79, 85Google Scholar; Zimmerli, op. cit., pp. 50, 64–65; Anderson, in OTCF, p. 241Google Scholar (see Amos 8.2b; Hos. I–9. 13–7–8; Jer. 19.11.

^{page 63 note 1} See espec. Zimmerli, op. cit., pp. 54–60; Eichrodt, I, p. 457; Weiser, Artur, The Psalms (London: S.C.M. Press, 1962), p. 32Google Scholar (cf. Exod. 32.9–10, Lev. 26.14–39, Num. 14.11–12, Deut. 28.15–68.

^{page 63 note 2} Buber, Moses …, pp. 48–55; Buber, Martin, Kingship of God (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967), pp. 23, 106Google Scholar. See Exod. 33.12–17. Cf. also Weiser, op. cit., pp. 30–31; Eichrodt, I, pp. 189–91; Moltmann, op. cit., pp. 216–17.

^{page 63 note 3} Anderson, B. W., Understanding the Old Testament (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957), p. 89Google Scholar; Kraus, H. J., The People of God in the Old Testament, World Christian Books, No. 22 (London: Lutterworth, 1958), p. 12Google Scholar; Buber, , Kingdom …, p. 58Google Scholar. Others give a present meaning: God rules: Eichrodt, I, p. 40; Weiser, op. cit., p. 33.

^{page 63 note 4} Exod. 6.7; Lev. 26.12; Jer. 7.23, 11.4, 30.22, 31.33, 32.38; Hos. 2.23. Notable exception, 2 Sam. 7.24, in connexion with the ‘everlasting covenant’.

^{page 63 note 5} This is clear from the heterogeneous elements of which the ‘people’ is composed: e.g. the ‘mixed multitude’ coming out of Egypt (Exod. 12.38, Num. 11.4); those who did not go to Egypt or came out before the Exodus (Joshua 24.14–15); elements from surrounding tribes (Joshua 9, Deut. 29.14–15); resident aliens allowed to become as ‘natives of the land’ (Exod. 12.48, Lev. 19.34).

^{page 64 note 1} Lehmann, op. cit., pp. 99, 93. The correlation covenant-kingship was first argued by Buber in Kingship … (1932) and empirically confirmed by Mendenhall beginning in 1954. See Lehmann's whole section on ‘the political character of the divine activity’, pp. 81–95. Also Cox, Harvey, The Secular City (N.Y.: Macmillan, rev. 1966), p. 230Google Scholar; Wright in Anderson, OTCF, p. 194 and more extensively in Book of the Acts …, 87–88, 93–94. Cf. Eichrodt, I, p. 40: from Sinai ‘the idea of the Kingdom of God is in the air’.

^{page 64 note 2} However, Eichrodt, i, pp. 452–4 considers this modification of the understanding of the divine activity in history as primarily arising from the experience of the monarchy.

^{page 64 note 3} See Mendenhall, G. E., art. ‘Covenant’ in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I, p. 719, col. I.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} op. cit., pp. 120, 126.

^{page 64 note 5} ibid., p. 21, italics ours,

^{page 64 note 6} ibid., p. 119.

^{page 65 note 1} Buber's rendition of Judges 8.23. See his entire discussion of the Gideon passage in Kingship …, pp. 59–65.

^{page 65 note 2} cf. e.g. I Sam. 8 with 2 Sam. 7. See Eichrodt, I, pp. 440–2; Wright, , God Who Acts, pp. 77–79Google Scholar; Muilenburg, op. cit., pp. 78–79.

^{page 65 note 3} Kraus, H. J., Worship in Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), p. 192Google Scholar. On this problem of the relation of the Davidic to the Sinaitic covenant see Kraus, , Worship…, pp. 189–200Google Scholar; Mowinckel, S., The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol. I (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), pp. 155–160Google Scholar; Eichrodt, I, pp. 458–9; Clements, , Prophecy …, pp. 56–66 and God and Temple, pp. 55–62, 86–88Google Scholar; Anderson, , Creation …, pp. 60–63, 74–75Google Scholar; Anderson, in OTCF, pp. 230–3, 240Google Scholar. For the Deuteronomist attempt to ‘return to origins’ see Deut. 17.14–20.

^{page 65 note 4} On this concept see Frankfort, Henri, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948)Google Scholar, also Wright, , Environment…, pp. 63–68Google Scholar; Anderson, , Creation …, pp. 63–65Google Scholar; Mowinckel, op. cit., pp. 50–61.

^{page 65 note 5} See Eichrodt, I, pp. 449–-51; Wright, , Environment, pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 6} In Moses …, p. 109.

^{page 66 note 1} The significance of the covenant for the problem of the relation of individual and community has frequently been pointed out: Eichrodt, 2, pp. 232–42; Wright, , Book of the Acts …, p. 92Google Scholar and in Biblical Doctrine of Man in Society (London: S.C.M. Press, 1954), pp. 51, 88–101; also Knight, op. cit., pp. 211–14; Buber, , Moses …, p. 135. Cf. also Westermann in Anderson, OTCF, pp. 211–13Google Scholar. A less well-balanced discussion on ‘human solidarity’ but with much useful data is Shedd, Russell P., Man in Community (London: Epworth 1958), pp. 3–88.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} See Man …, pp. 9–13, 20–24; c?- Johnson, A. R., The Vitality of the Individual in the thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Knight, op. cit., p. 213.

^{page 66 note 4} Eichrodt, 2, p. 232.

^{page 67 note 1} In Kleinknecht, H. and Gutbrod, W., Law (Bible Key Words from Kittel's TWNT) (London: A. & C. Black, 1962), pp. 24, 30.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} For an extensive refutation of these views, espec. as advocated by Wellhausen and Begrich, see Zimmerli, op. cit., pp. 17–60. Also Clements, Prophecy …, pp. 15–23, 69–70.

^{page 67 note 3} 2, p. 390. See also von Rad, I, p. 193. Zimmerli, op. cit., pp. 44–45; Clements, Prophecy …, pp. 23, 69–73; Mendenhall, op. cit., pp. 714–21; Eichrodt, Walter, ‘Covenant and Law’, Interpretation, July 1966, pp. 302–21.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} Buber, Martin, Two Types of Faith (N.Y.: Harper, 1961), pp. 57–58Google Scholar; cf. von Rad, I, 202.

^{page 68 note 2} See espec. Gutbrod, op. cit., pp. 40, 54ff, 67ff: also von Rad, I, p. 201; Buber, , Two Types …, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} Clements, , Prophecy …, pp. 70, 73Google Scholar. Also Gutbrod, op. cit., p. 27; Anderson, , OTCF, pp. 232–3, 237Google Scholar; Muilenburg, op. cit., pp. 54–61; Eichrodt, I, p. 374; von Rad, I, pp. 193–4; Buber, Moses …, pp. 103–4.

^{page 68 note 4} The Lutheran view of lex accusans et condemnatrix is given clear and brief exposition in Elert, Werner, Law and Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967)Google Scholar, for whom this is also the meaning of law for Paul, Christ and the OT. Althaus, op. cit., introduces a fruitful modification of the Lutheran view with the concept ‘command’ which we will discuss shortly but Law remains basically accusing (p. 16). Zimmerli, op. cit., against the Lutheran position (p. 11) argues that grace and condemnation are found side by side in the law (pp. 54–60) but the predominantly negative view still crops out (pp. 51, 60).

^{page 69 note 1} cf. Gutbrod, op. cit., pp. 26, 36. For the opposite view see Elert, op. cit., pp. 8–9.

^{page 69 note 2} First phrase is from the brief but useful discussion in Andersen, W., Law and Gospel (World Christian Books) (London: Lutterworth, 1961), pp. 21ffGoogle Scholar; second phrase from von Rad, I, pp. 193–4. See also von Rad, 2, pp. 393–5. See also Gutbrod, op. cit., p. 28; Brunner in Anderson, , OTCF, p. 256Google Scholar; Clements, , Prophecy …, p. 77Google Scholar; Eichrodt, , Man …, pp. 16–17Google Scholar; Manson, op. cit., p. 18; Wright, , Environment, pp. 58–59Google Scholar; also Wright, G., Introduction to Deuteronomy in Interpreter's Bible (N. Y.: Abingdon, 1953), vol. 2, pp. 312–13Google Scholar; and Muilenburg, op. cit., pp. 73–74.

^{page 69 note 3} Exod. 20.5. See also Deut. 4.23–24, 6.15 and other ref. above.

^{page 69 note 4} op. cit., pp. 54–60.

^{page 69 note 5} op. cit., pp. 12–14.

^{page 70 note 1} I, p. 196. For Zimmerli's exposition and criticism of von Rad on this point see op. cit., pp. 46–60.

^{page 70 note 2} See Buber, , Two Types …, pp. 56–57Google Scholar; also Gutbrod, op. cit., pp. 43–47; von Rad, 1, pp. 195, 200–1, 221–2; Knight, op. cit., pp. 214–17; Manson, op. cit., pp. 28–29, all of whom warn against reading back the sense of nomos into the OT.

^{page 70 note 3} op. cit., p. 2. For the rest of this paragraph see pp. 6–14. Also the articles by W. A. Whitehouse: ‘Command’, ‘Commandment’, ‘Law’, ‘Law Codes’ in Richardson, Alan, A Theological Word Book of the Bible (London: S.C.M. Press, 1950)Google Scholar. Cf. Thielicke, op. cit., pp. 147ff. We only touch here upon a small corner of Althaus' argument which is mainly focused on the ‘law-gospel’ discussion for which he suggests a three-term formula: ‘command-law-gospel’: the gospel is the end of the law but restores the command.

^{page 71 note 1} This last sentence is a modification of Althaus' view from whom the law is basically accusing by the ‘sheer fact that it exists at all’ (p. 16); nevertheless there are statements in harmony with the above (pp. 10-II, 20).

^{page 71 note 2} I, p. 199. See also 2, p. 394; Eichrodt, I, pp. 73–74, 87; Buber, , Two Types…, p. 67Google Scholar; Eichrodt, , Man …, pp. 24–27Google Scholar; Eichrodt, , ‘Covenant and Law’, pp. 311–14.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} See von Rad, 2, pp. 396–402; Gutbrod, op. cit., pp. 30–33.

^{page 72 note 1} op. cit., p. 34. See pp. 33–36; also von Rad, G., Studies in Deuteronomy (London: S.C.M. Press, 1953, p. 15Google Scholar; Eichrodt, I, pp. 90–94; Wright, intro. to Deuteronomy, IB, pp. 312–13, 328; Buber, , Two Types…, pp. 58–59, 64–65.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} See Wilder, op. cit., pp. 16, 17; Kraemer, op. cit., pp. 23–25, 29–30.