Typo's

Maybe I'm blind--but where's the typo?

"Typo's" is a typo. Not possessive but plural.

 

Just messin' with ya.

RQuanstrom:

I think it was the first typo I've found in any version of the bible, although I've found quite a few in various books.

I've found 31 typos in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (AV 1873).  They all involve the spelling of the word 'more'.  30 times it's misspelled as 'moe' and 1 time as 'mo'... very irritating.  I've reported these several times since 2006 but so far they've not been corrected. 

 

This old blog post may be interesting, too: http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1.html

I am not a wordsmith or etymologist by trade, but when I see "moe" in context and my brain rattles out what should correctly be "more", then I think that qualifies as a "legitimate" typo--unless someone has a case that proves "moe" was an intended reference to The Three Stooges (not the Holy Trinity).

Steve, I think you missed the point "moe" appears to be an alternative spelling for "more" that appears in many older English books. So then, "moe" is not a typo since it appears in the original and since it is a valid alternative that reflects the era in which the book was written.

You can find a reference to "moe' in this online work "The English Bible : an external and critical history of the various English translations of Scripture, with remarks on the need of revising the English New Testament.

Or in Logos....
In addition to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, you will find "moe" used in the Geneva Bible (1599)
1 Chr 14:3 3 Also Dauid tooke moe wiues at Ierusalem, and Dauid begate moe sonnes and daughters.

There are also 14 occurrences in the Logos edition of the Woks of John Knox
"...of which and many moe places it is evident, that the flock is bounden to provide for their pastor."

ScottASmith01:

Where is the proper place to report a typo from a book if we think we have found one?

In the menu item Help->Report Typo...

Joe, thanks for the clarification.  Add Orthography to my list of profesions I'm no good at.

After a little homework, I too, found that "mo" and "moe" are indeed archaic forms of present day "more".  While I can appreciate mo sophisticated readers finding Olde English romantic and beautiful, I've always found it a tough read, as difficult  as trying to understand contemporary street slang.  Mind you, I do recall once enjoying the text whilst listening to the audio version of "The Canterbury Tales" by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Due to those difficulties, I will shy away from Olde English versions of the Bible, except in comparative parallel mode with NIV.

More to the point, I found it insightful reading in Logos Bible Software, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), in the introduction comments of Rev. F.H. Schrivener, Sections IV, excerpted below:

"One of the salient points which distinguish the early editions of our Bibles from those of modern date, is their wide divergency of practice in regard to modes of spelling." ... "Judged by them, it would hardly be extravagant to assert that our ancestors had no uniform system of orthography whatsoever, since there are comparatively few words ... that are not spelt in several fashions in the same book, on the same page, sometimes even in the same line." ... "This circumstance affords a conclusive answer to the demand that has sometimes been urged by ill-informed persons, that our modern Bibles should be exact reprints of the standard of 1611; and it was partly to silence such a demand that the Oxford reprint of 1833 was undertaken. A glance at that volume must have convinced any reasonable person that more recent editors were right in the main in gradually clearing the sacred page of uncouth, obsolete, and variable forms, which could answer no purpose save to perplex the ignorant, and offend the educated taste; whether the judgment of those who are responsible for the Bibles of 1762 and 1769 (for these were the great and most thorough modernisers) was always as true as might be wished for, we shall have to consider in the sequel.

The general rule laid down in the preparation of the present volume is a very simple one:—whensoever an English word is spelt in the two issues of 1611 in two or more different ways, to adopt in all places that method which may best agree with present usage, even though it is not so found in the majority of instances in the older books."

...

"Enough has been said of those variations in orthography which are due to accident or the caprice of fashion. Others, more interesting, spring from grammatical inflections common in the older stages of our language, which have been gradually withdrawn from later Bibles, wholly or in part, chiefly by those great modernisers, Dr Paris (1762) and Dr Blayney (1769), and have all been brought back again in the present volume. Yet it is not always easy to distinguish these from forms involving a mere change in spelling, and different persons will judge differently about them at times."

...

" It is hard to discover any intelligible principle which guided the editors of 1762 and 1769 in their vexatious changes ... Such wanton, or perhaps merely careless, variations are cancelled in this volume." ... "Amidst all this unmeaning tampering with the text, the several editors, especially those of 1762 and 1769, carried out fully at least two things on which they had set their minds: they got rid of the quaint old moe for more (spelt mo in the Bible of 1638) from the 35 places in which it occurs in the standard copies ..."

"More to the point, I found it insightful..."   Shouldn't that be "Moe to the point???...

George, brother in Christ:

I apologize for offending you in slighting any AV (Authorized Version) of the Bible (esp. King James Version (1611)) as "Old English".  Add Linguistics to my fields of ignorance.

"Traditionally, Old English, known formerly as Anglo-Saxon, is dated from ad 449 to 1066 or 1100. Middle English dates from 1066 or 1100 to 1450 or 1500. Modern English dates from about 1450 or 1500 and can be subdivided into Early Modern English, from about 1500 to 1660, and Late Modern English, from about 1660 to the present."

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Hence, in proper terms, I should have rephrased my difficulties with Early Modern English Bibles (not Old English, which (if they existed) would be even harder for most modern eyes and ears to understand).  Likewise, you should have known what I meant by my play on "Olde English":  Verily, verily, I say onto thee, KJV is still as old as the works of Shakespeare (1564 - 1616).  Who among us has not stumbled over archaic or arcane words. Anon, anon it goes.

Forgive me, if I struggle with older English writings and confuse "mo" as a typo, but I don't speak good Hip-Hop or Jive either--that would still require "knowledge" of contemporary local parlance (ignorance again, I'm afraid).  I may intuit the contextual meaning, but I could be mistaken.  No one I speak to says "mo" for "more".  And, my school teachers would have marked "mo" wrong if I did not spell it with 'more' letters.

None of this is really germane to Typos and I am not arguing against any authorized Bible translation or version (they are all useful to the understanding of particular audiences).  And, I have most versions on my bookshelves or in Logos Bible Software to crosscheck difficult verses for further meaning.  Sometimes, I venture into the Greek and Hebrew word orgins, which is really alien to me, because my French is just terrible.  I can spend hours marveling over a single word, like "Talent", from that famous Parable so named, which was an ancient unit of weight and how it transformed to mean "ability" over the generations.  Now that's "heavy" man.

So, what are we quibbling over?  Pride for KJV vs. NIV?  Those are personal preferences--Much ado about nothing.  And, I hold loyalties to neither, except to Jesus as my personal denominator to all other translations.  Why else do we have all these versions, except to behold what may have been lost in translation.  I just thought my inexpert traipsings with words would add levity to a dry topic--perhaps I'm a fool to divulge so much.

To conclude, I will illustrate that "mo" is still a typo using your example:

There was a town called Alpha, where a beggar sat by the gates waiting for alms.  The beggar had no visible deformity, except for an impediment of speech.  From dawn until dusk, the beggar waited in silence each day, holding out his empty cup to passing travelers.  The first traveler came into town, saw the beggar, but turned his head and passed him by.  The second traveler was an old widow.  She took pity on the beggar and gave two pennies, which was all she had.  The day was almost over and still the beggar's cup was not full.  Then a third traveler came from the distant city of Omega.  He was a successful merchant with herds of camels loaded with spices of every kind and precious metals of every kind.  He spoke in the language of Princes and Kings.  The merchant appoached the beggar with a talent of gold (confiscated from some worthless servant he had employed), when the beggar suddenly said, "I need mo money".  Believing what he heard the beggar say, the merchant turned back with his gold and left the beggar at the gate, weeping and gnashing his teeth.  Which of these travelers sinned?

 

Grace and peace,

~ Steve

Hello, I still use Libronix and want to report a typo in Libronix (SESB).

In Omanson's a textual guide to the greek new testament , at John 10,29 μεῖφόν is misspelled, since it definitely has to be  μεῖζόν. The mistake is made approximately 6 times at that place. Could anyone show me how I am able to report typo's in this program or show me the place where to go?

Greetings,

Wijnand