Eusebius update

Now that the Eusebius book is ‘live’, and selling reasonably well, the question of errata arises.  That’s right — errors that we didn’t spot during development.

There are also things that we should have done and did not.  We could have done with more cross-referencing between the Coptic materials and the rest, for instance.

In addition there is a modest amount of material which was created during the project, but which did not make the final cut. 

I’m thinking here particularly of a couple of items associated with the Coptic fragments.  These fragments, published for the first time, came from the Coptic gospel catena published (without translation) by Paul de Lagarde.  The introduction to De Lagarde’s edition was about three pages, all in Latin.  I was under the impression that Latin might be a problem for the Coptic translators, so I had this translated into English and sent over.  It didn’t seem that appropriate to include in the book; but it might be useful generally.

Likewise the Coptic team translated a catena fragment by Chrysostom, which they felt was important to have in order to understand the sense.  I, in an unfamiliar role as ruthless editor, cut it out.  But it exists.

There won’t be a second edition of the book: sales don’t justify it.  But there is a place for a collection of errata and supplementa, I think.

So I’ve started a page on this blog to contain this sort of material, and I shall add stuff to it as and when it comes in.  The page is here, and, if you spot errors in the book, please feel free to add a comment to this effect at the bottom of the page.

There’s not really any supplementa there yet.  I shall have to dig it out, and polish it up!  This will probably be during November when I hope to get a bit of free time.

Leave a Reply