SBLHS student supplement and “ibid.”

According to SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed., §§1, 3, 4.3.6, supports the use of “ibid.” From those descriptions, conventions look to be the same as for the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., §14.29.

As an easy (and free) reference for students, SBL also provides a Student Supplement to the SBLHS.  One of the courses I’ve been teaching has a comparatively heavier emphasis on getting to know the nuts-and-bolts of SBL style. And a keen-eyed student, pointed out that page 4 of the Student Supplement has consecutively numbered footnotes 78 and 79. Both notes are for the same source, but the second (note 79) does not use the “ibid.” notation.

SBLHSSpg4

The SBLHS blog now conveniently has a contact link for sending questions and comments to the SBL staff.So, I took this opportunity to try out this invitation. In response to my inquiry, the SBL staff kindly clarified and confirmed that the Student Supplement‘s reading is indeed an erratum. It should have “80” or “81” to replace the note number that currently reads “79” on page 4. Kudos to the SBL staff for taking the time to do so!

2 Replies to “SBLHS student supplement and “ibid.””

  1. I don’t like using “ibid.” It can too easily lead to orphaned citations if implemented before final editing. Down with “ibid.”! And while we’re at it, “idem.” can also go jump in the lake!

    1. In having to try to teach Chicago and Chicago-like styles to students, I’m regularly amazed at how demanding those styles are for authors to implement. They do look nice on the page, but they do take a lot of care.

      BTW, have you looked at using a citation manager like Zotero to keep the ibid.s et al. in line?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *