Typographical errors in the Westminster Documents

[JoelRadford]

I just spotted a typographical error in my hard copy of the Westminster Larger Catechism.

The error is also in my Bibleworks copy and an online copy I hunted down.

The error is in the answer of Question 32. The final Scripture proof is footnoted as Eph ii 18 but then what is quoted in the footnote is Eph ii 10. Obviously Eph ii 10 is the right proof.

I would have thought that this text would have gone through so many editions and have been scrutinised so thoroughly that there would not be any simple blunders to be found.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of other simple errors in the Westminster Documents?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yea; there are plenty; and rather the opposite is true. You consider the number of printings, the number of errors that crept in and then repeated for centuries mounted up. The sloppiness of digital communication and the Internet actually have resurrected some formerly corrected errors. See both the Carruthers' work (father William and son Dr. S. W.) on the WCF WSC and WLC, Bower on the WLC; and I have made some attempt at the WLC etc.

Carruthers, S. W. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Being an Account of the Preparation and Printing of Its Seven Leading Editions, to which is Appended a Critical Text of the Confession with Notes Thereon (Manchester, 1937).

Carruthers, S.W. Three Centuries of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Carruthers, S. W. True Text of the Larger Catechism; (reprinted in The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly: A Transcription of the Surviving Manuscripts with Notes. 6×9. 140 pages. Limited printing, 260 copies.Transcribed and Edited by Chris Coldwell.

Coldwell, Chris. Examining the Work of S. W. Carruthers: Justifying a Critical Approach to the Text of the Westminster Standards & Correcting the 18th Century Lineage of the Traditional Scottish Text. The Confessional Presbyterian volume 1.
Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: The Traditional Form of The Westminster Standards. The Confessional Presbyterian vol. 1.

I would have thought that this text would have gone through so many editions and have been scrutinised so thoroughly that there would not be any simple blunders to be found.

 

[JoelRadford]

Thanks for that Chris. Very helpful. I'll keep my eye out for other errors and amend my copy as I find them