Talk:Bible errata

Prologue

Should all of the different titles of misprinted editions be included here? You have left out the Breaches Bible, the Treacle Bible, the Printers Bible, the Ears To Ear Bible, the Bug Bible and one where the red-texed "words of Jesus" were omited entirely. --Auric The Rad 03:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead and add them. This was never meant to necessarily represent a "complete" list. I'm not familiar with those versions you mentioned, but I'm curious to see what they are. -R. fiend 17:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Kells error

The Gospel of Thomas found in Nag Hammadi in 1945 refers from the first century which is before than Kells manuscript, it's even considered older than Matthew itself as the Q domunent that inspired it, and it literally says in verse 16:

"Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war."

So the error should be noted as a correction of the actual error on Kells. Stratogustav (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gustavo Avilés

Murders Bible

Sorry about removing the Murders Bible, I made a mistake. No vandalism was intended. --Auric The Rad 13:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. -R. fiend 14:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Geneva

Should the Geneva errata be separated from the KJAV errata? --ClemMcGann 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you think it's important? I don't really see any strong reason to, but I don't have much of an opinion. -R. fiend 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

KJV

Adulterers/Wicked/Sinners Bible: the Sinners Bible cross-reference goes straight back to this page. Is there a separate page for this somewhere or should the link be removed?

The New World Translation

How about the Jehovah's Witness bible? (added 17 March by 66.89.103.34)

By "errata" we mean mistakes, unintentional errors. I am unaware of any mistakes in The New World Translation. Perhaps there are "deliberates", but that is not what this page is about. Otoh, if you are aware of any mistakes in this or any other bible, feel free to add the details, Regards ClemMcGann 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bible-researcher.com

Markruffolo added dozens of references to http://www.bible-researcher.com I do not see their relevance. I'm reverting. ClemMcGann 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rosin error?

Interesting and funny article! But one has left me scratching my head:

"Rosin Bible" 1604: Jeremiah 8:22 reads "is there no rosin in Gilead?". Róisín is a girl's name. (The KJAV has a note at Ezekiel giving "rosin" as a alternative to "balme")

What does Roisin (girl's name) have to do with it? Rosin seems a fair translation and not an error....? ntennis 05:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair question and I'm unsure of the answer. I have added three sites, all of whom mention it. ClemMcGann 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rosin is a modern word, what it means used to be called Colophony or Greek Pitch (see Rosin. Therefore when the Rosin Bible was written Rosin was probably only understood as a girl's name. This is an unverified guess by me. Clinkophonist 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it is modern? There is the phrase "roisin the bow", there even is a traditional ballad of that name. It meant to apply 'roisin' or wax to the bow of a fiddle prior to playing it. Otho, a criticism of the Douai was that it used a larger vocabulary, words which would not be understood by the general populace at the time, in the preface of the 1611 KJAV the Douai is accused of 'obscuring the scriptures' because it used such words. ClemMcGann 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the word was widely used at the time of publication of that bible (early 17th century) to mean a gum or oil used for medicine, lubrication, varnish, candles, etc. This is from 1662 (talking about the medicinal properties of chocolate!): "...and being mixed with rosin, it cureth the itch and ulcers; it strengthens the stomach, stoppeth the fluxes of the belly, it encreaseth milk" (pp. 58–60). [Stubbe H. The Indian Nectar, or, a Discourse Concerning Chocolata: the Nature of the Cacao-Nut and the Other Ingredients of that Composition Is Examined and Stated According to the Judgement and Experience of Indian and Spanish Writers. J. C. for Andrew Crook London, UK.]

An anonymous popular ballad, "The Unnatural Wife" from the time also uses it:

And being chayned to the Stake,

Both Reedes and Faggots then

Close to my body there was set,

With Pitch, Tarre, and Rosin,

and, equally unpleasant, in Wynken de Worde's 1527 edition of The Golden Legend, Erasmus of Formiae is tortured: "...a pan seething with rosin, pitch, brimstone lead, and oil, and did pour it into his mouth, for which he never shrinked."

Also, the name Roisin pronounced differently (here in Australia we say it like "Rasheen"), and though I don't know much about those times, I'm not aware of old spellings of rosin as "roisin". ntennis 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the word "rosin" is given as "treacle" in the treacle bible, but this also appears not to be an error. I added a note that "treacle" could mean a "cure all" at the time. More on rosin: the American Heritage Dictionary has it arising in middle English (1000-1500 AD). ntennis 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm inclined to agree the 'Roisin' was not an error. Yet here on Wiki we are more concerned with facts which can be verified rather than our own original research. The sites quoted [1] and [2] in the article list it as an error. So, first are we agreeed that it is not an error and then what should we do? Perhaps say that it was perceived as an error? ClemMcGann 02:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The first link you gave lists it as a "Rare and Curious Edition" — not actually an error, though it still begs the question: what is rare and curious about it? The second link (which BTW won't load for me, I had to use archive.org to view it) has the rosin bible as a "Singular Rendering". I presume "singular" here means strange and eccentric, again, not an error, but still puzzling. I'll have a look at a minor adjustment to the text of the article for now. We need an expert! ntennis 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a cool article, guys. I'd just like to leave a comment for ntennis, however -- begging the question does not mean the same thing as raising the question. This particular misuse is woefully widespread these days. See Begging the question for more details on what it ought to mean (it is a logical fallacy). Cheers 70.132.14.22 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible errata lore - unreferenced section

The following text was added by User:199.17.175.160. It was unsourced and strikes me as a bit dubious, so I've moved it here until it can be properly referenced.

It was common practice among certain mariners to carry aboard their vessels copies of errata-laden Bibles before voyages likely to be perilous; said mariners believed that such was an omen of good luck and would protect both vessel and crew in rough seas.

--A Train ^{take the} 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosin again

"Rosin is a waxy substance used on the bows of stringed instruments."
It's not waxy at all - it's brittle and sticky (according to Rosin, however, it's an ingredient in some waxes). Gimcrackery 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sin On Bible

The entry was just changed from John 5:14 to John 8:11, but as they both use the phrase "sin no more", I'm unsure which is correct. Most of google's results point to 5:14, except these two which list 8:11. This needs to be checked by someone who knows or can find out with more certainty. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wife Beater's Bible

Hi. I was doing some cleanup work, and adding some links, when I discovered that the Wife Beater's Bible is sourced differently in various places.

• At bible.org: Part I: (Scroll down to heading: "Matthew’s Bible (1537)") it claims association with the Matthew Bible.
• But Bible Misprints gives the year 1549, with no associated proper name.
• Finally Curiosities says it is from 1551, and an edition of the Taverner's Bible.

However, none of our articles mention it, and based on Early Modern English Bible translations#Tyndale's Bible, the Tyndale Bible is the one famous for having "offensive notes (the "pestilent glosses")", so it could be that one too.

Having really just come for the Fictional Bible errata, I'll leave you more qualified bible-enthusiasts with the question of finding the best sources for these centuries old books! Thanks :) --Quiddity 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This item should be removed anyway. It isn't an errata. It is commentary, which moderns find objectionable, but it isn't a printing or copying error.--Doc^g 08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest a new article for it then, instead? Just deleting the information is the least productive action. This is the information deleted.

Also, this article does include "peculiar translations" in its introduction, and the sources listed all group the "Wife-Beater's Bible" with these other bibles, leading me to believe it should possibly be kept together (where it was).

Thanks. --Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

peculiar is POV. I can find you plenty of Bible commentary that would seem very peculiar to modern western liberal readers. The article is about errara which is a fairly objective phenomanon. Perhaps the Wife beaters Bible could have its own article, and be listed here as a "see also" link?--Doc^g 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really Edmund Becke's Bible, which was issued in two editions (1549 and 1551). The text is often wrongly claimed to be a reprint of Matthew's Bible; in fact, it presents the Taverner OT and the Tyndale NT. The wife-beater note is present in both editions. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Mary

Is it true that "virgin" is a mistranslation of a word that means something more like "young woman"? 210.48.96.202 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means "engaged" or something along those lines in anceiant hebrew. 122.105.221.214 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• This refers mostly to Isaiah 7:14, which is translated very differently in Christian translations compared to Jewish translations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've heard about it, is that the Masoretic (i.e., standard) Hebrew text uses the word alma, which was explained to me as meaning "young woman"; possibly unmarried (and hence presumably a virgin), but also possibly a young married woman. The (Jewish) translation of the Law and the Prophets into Greek, the Septuaginta, however, (I was told) employs the word parthenon, which is supposed to mean virgin (no more, no less). Since I know very little Greek, and less Hebrew, I'm not able to verify or deny this explanation. However, even if this is true (which I personally find likely, trusting my sources), it is not necessarily due to a mis-translation. At the time of the translation, the texts were not yet codified; and some Bible fragments in Qumran (in Hebrew) actually are said to contain some formulations which are closer in meaning to the Septuaginta than to the Masoretic text. Therefore, it is also conceivable, that the Septuagintans made a proper translation, but of another version of Isaiah than the canonical one.

In either case, this is not the kind of questions that this article should address - but it should explicitly state that it doesn't. JoergenB (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Moses

was described for several centuries to have horns which based upon a translation error. This is not mentioned here yet. --77.4.34.218 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a valid reference, then add it , that's how wikipedia grows ClemMcGann (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Evil bible

Why does Evil bible redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.182.39 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Post this question to User talk:Gwern who created the page - I have no idea why ClemMcGann (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Book of Kells

The above text is incorrect. The actual word in Matt. 10:34, in the original Greek, is "machaira," not "gladius." Machaira means "a soiritual instrument used to subdue the impulses to sin." For proof of these facts, please see the following: [3] - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.104.164 (talk) -

But, Kells was written in Latin - not Greek - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

vandalism?

"The 1589 Geneva Bible

Chapter 24:15 in the gospel of Matthew that reads, "When ye therefore fhal fe the abomination of defolation ſpoken of by David the prophet..." It should read, "Daniel the prophet."

is that vandalized? --142.162.76.71 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A: Likely not. But a mistake in transliteration; f and ſ look similar, the latter being a typeset version of the long s common in early typesetting. Substituting for the regular s would be proper, but incorrect to use an f. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Treacle Bible image

I have an image of the Treacle Bible take at St Mary’s, Banbury, earlier today. It shows the volume opened at the page of the eponymous curiosity. Remind me if I do not upload it in a few days. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded. Perhaps someone will take a better-quality photograph next time they visit St Mary’s! – Kaihsu (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Skunk / skink bible

I think my Bible commentary book notes one where skunk is substituted for skink. That one is not on this fantastic list, and I'll have to find the book in my clutter to check. Anyone familiar with this one? Myles325a (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What this article isn't

A couple of time, there has come up questions of another type of (suspected) Bible text errata - due to accidental or intended mistranslations, omissions, or additions (interpolations); c.f. #The New World Translation and #Virgin Mary!. As explained in the former section, the purpose of this article should not be to discuss these kinds of "errors". However, they shoud be mentioned, with reasonable references to other pages that do. JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible and proper to maybe add a one-sentance summary of this thought and idea into the article summary so the reader knows what they are getting into? Revjeff530 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

In the fictional section, the Good Omens example appears to be censored. This violates the censorship policies. Oscar001 (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case the "censorship" is in the original, which means that omitting or changing it would be improper.--Auric talk 18:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Monochrome Bible

In the paragraph on the "Monochrome Bible" it is alleged that a plate containing red-letter text was omitted from the "Book of Timothy". Two problems here: there are two Books of Timothy; also, there should be no red-letter text in either book, because Jesus is not quoted in them. The alleged reference is a WP:FRINGEy-sounding offline book that is probably not to be trusted. Let's investigate this and make some sense of it. Elizium23 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a url to the reference. Not sure what you mean by "offline book" that's so bad... --Auric talk 18:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

King James

The info I have added to 'Judas' Bible photo is taken from a printed note in the church. It seems to be different from what is written in the article ("Judas Bible" 1611: This Bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying "Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray." (Matthew 26:36)) both in date and in citation. Etan J. Tal^(talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing your article for a class and I found that link #11 “‘Vinegar Bible’ returns to Luneburg” in the References section that says, “oops the page you are looking for doesn’t exist”. I went to your original source and looked in the archives for the article then I replaced the link with an active one. BStam247 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC) BStam247

Citations Everywhere plzkthx

Why doesn't every example here have a citation? Would it be appropriate to add "citation needed" tags to every single one of these examples? If not, why not? --Mattgilbertnet (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The list of referenced printing erratas are numerous, however individual citations are extremely lacking. There are about 38 printings/examples mentioned and only 11 references given. Briefly looking to the citations, some references seem to be from good sources that are outlined by wikipedia: Google books, older published articles, scholastic books, university press. Some sources are from questionable sources such as “a note,” and an image from flckr (possible copyright infringement.) Some citations were broken such as #10 and #7. I had the knowledge to find the correct and more direct link for #7 and went ahead and submitted the change. I am new to wikipedia and evaluating this article as part of a class assignment. Revjeff530 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bible errata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314095848/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/searching-for-better-text.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/searching-for-better-text.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Affinity Bible

I can not find an "Affinity Bible" from 1927. The only bible of that name mentioned on the internet before its addition in this Wikipedia article is dated to 1923 (example). Is that a different edition (if so, why does the article list the 1927 edition, and where is the source that it exists?), or has there been an erratum in this Wikipedia article for the last 12 years? That would be kind of funny. Renerpho (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A reminder at this point that this article is severely lacking in citations. Every single one of the examples listed needs a proper citation. Otherwise one has to assume that the vast majority of them are erroneous (or fictional). I went ahead and removed all the unverified entries. Items can be reinserted into the article if they can be verified. Renerpho (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Strange" translations as biblical errata

Remsense (talk · contribs) reverted some edits I made away from my laptop, and I'll admit they were kind of contentious, so I'm bringing this here.

In short, I do not believe that many of the Bibles listed here count as "bible errata" and should not be included. For example, the sources do not call the use of "treacle" in the Great Bible as an erratum, and anyone who has spent any time reading Middle or Early Modern English sources knows that "treacle" is not particularly a strange word for that period. In fact, the main source given for these, the Oxford Companion to the Bible, notes that strange or archaic editions of the Bible might strike modern readers as odd, but does not call them errata. wound theology◈ 14:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion your edit was entirely correct based on the title of the page and what it claims to discuss, especially when considering the footnote in the first sentence: 'Note that Bibles with an unconventional but deliberate overall translation style, such as an idiomatic style, a dynamic equivalence style or a paraphrasitic style, are not included in this list.'

'unconventional but deliberate overall translation style...' and 'idiomatic' Covers the Rosin, Breeches, and Treacle bibles at least. They're not errors; and they're only even 'unconventional' in an anachronistic sense. And, as you point out, the cited source explicitly separates them from typographical errors. Given how this page is currently set up, a reader might very reasonably assume that the source supports the claim that these are errata, which is outright false.

Something needs to change here: either the purported scope of the page or its contents. Currently they are at odds with each other. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove them now. Remsense (talk · contribs) does not seem interested in discussing this or the other edits they reverted, so I'm guessing they just assumed IP edits were vandalism without verifying what they actually were. wound theology◈ 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever others think is best, apologies for lack of attention here, I was hoping I had communicated on my talk page that it was totally okay to do this earlier. Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)