critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English have been published.[37] [34] See Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Græce_, 8th edit. [35] See Hort, _Introduction to Westcott and Hort's N.T._ [36] See Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_; Nestlè, _Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament_; Kenyon, _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_. [37] See especially Weymouth, _The New Testament in Modern English_; Moffatt, _The Historical New Testament_; _The Twentieth Century New Testament_. III.--RECENT CRITICISM The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry their destructive criticism to an extreme--for instance, Schmiedel with the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles, repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.[38] But these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries, which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new dictionaries[39] accepts the main critical position of advanced scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs _toto coelo_[40] from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of the writers of the Expositor's Bible. [38] See _Encyclopædia Biblica_; also Cheyne, _Bible Problems_. [39] Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_. [40] The _Encyclopædia Biblica_.