SBL and IVP Academic

In November 2016, InterVarsity Press has posted an interesting clarification to its situation in relation to the Society of Biblical Literature annual meetings. According to the post,

InterVarsity Press Publisher Jeff Crosby has confirmed that the Society of Biblical Literature’s Council, at its next meeting on October 29-30, is taking up the question of IVP Academic’s right to exhibit at the 2017 annual meetings of the jointly-hosted AAR-SBL. That conversation is a part of a larger discussion the SBL Council will have regarding its protocols and standards for exhibitors at its events.

Crosby was notified of this intent in a letter of October 12, 2016 from John Kutsko, SBL’s executive director, who made clear that it is a question — not a decision — regarding whether or not IVP Academic will continue to have access to the exhibit space.

For the balance of the post, see IVP’s website. For additional commentary and information, see Zwinglius Redivivus.

Citations in footnotes in SBL’s footnote-bibliography style

Last week, the SBL Handbook of Style blog carried a helpful post about the placement of citations in the footnote-bibliography, or traditional, style. Of particular interest is the section related to “Bibliographic Information inside Footnotes.”

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., §14.33, when presenting a long citation to support material provided in a content or commentary footnote, the citation should typically be presented as its own sentence:

1433.jpg

This situation is exemplified in the SBLHS blog post paragraph “When a quotation or a discussion inside a footnote is followed by a full reference….” According to the CMS example above, the same format appears to occur when an element from the citation (e.g., the author’s name, “Sidney Smith,” in the example) is not repeated in the citation.

For SBLHS, however, relocating the author’s name to the body of the sentence within the footnote requires that even an otherwise full footnote be included in parentheses. Consequently, any parentheses in that footnote would need to shift to square brackets. Thus, in the post’s example:

Correct: 97. Cyrus H. Gordon argued that brh in Isa 27:1 should be translated “evil,” based on an Arabic cognate (“Near East Seals in Princeton and Philadelphia,” Or 22 [1953]: 243; see also Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965], 376).

For SBLHS, when a given source supports an intra-footnote comment and has previously been cited, then the citation for the intra-footnote comment is given in parentheses. Thus, in the post’s examples:

Correct: It is interesting to note that Richards also seems to anticipate Lakoff and Johnson’s basic definition of metaphor when he writes that metaphor includes “those processes in which we perceive or think of or feel about one thing in terms of another” (Richards, Philosophy of Rhetoric, 116–17).

 

Correct: 55. Entailments are “rich inferences” or knowledge (“sometimes quite detailed”) that we can infer from conceptual metaphors (Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 298–99).

By comparison, according to CMS §14.34:

1434.jpg

These comments could perhaps suggest that (a) notes of this type should have only page numbers included in parentheses and (b) other information necessary to the citation would need to be included in the prose of the footnote sentence itself. Thus, the SBLHS discussion is a helpful clarification for SBLHS users of when this more generally stated CMS principle would apply.

Niese’s and Loeb’s Josephuses

All seven volume’s of Niese’s edition of Josephus’s works are available online. Most are available on Internet Archive in both black-and-white and full color. But, for volumes 2 and 5, one has to go to the black-and-white text only scans on Google Books:

Several of the Loeb series volumes are aggregated on Loebolus:

Larger Cambridge Septuagint Online

The Larger Cambridge Septuagint project, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, had 9 fascicles published from 1909 to 1940. These fascicles are available in full-text PDFs via Internet Archive:

Although the Larger Cambridge series is incomplete and has been superseded by the Göttingen edition, the volumes are still quite valuable and, for the texts they cover, perhaps also much more accessible than the corresponding Göttingen volumes.

The Göttingen series is still very much in progress. But, at this point, if I’m not missing any volumes, it looks like the Göttingen series still lacks the Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles that the Larger Cambridge edition contains.

Logical Impossibility in ECM

Peter Gurry reflects on the “logical impossibility” criterion that feeds into the Editio Critica Maior‘s account of “variants”:

The Editio Critica Maior defines a “variant” as a reading that is both “grammatically correct and logically possible.” If it doesn’t meet these two criteria it is marked with an f for Fehler (= error). Neither criteria is completely objective, but then most of the errors so recorded in the ECM are pretty obvious gibberish. Occasionally, however, one finds cause…

For more, see What Is ‘Logically Impossible’ for the ECM? — Evangelical Textual Criticism

Codex Rossanensis Discussion

Via the ETC blog and Peter Gurry, Elijah Hixson has an informative overview of Codex Rossanensis’s presence in recent news.

The following is a guest post from Elijah Hixson. Elijah is currently writing his doctoral thesis on Codex Rossanensis and two other purple codices at the University of Edinburgh under the supervision of Paul Foster. When I saw last week that Rossenansis had recently be restored I asked Elijah if he would give us a…

PTS Journals

The Princeton Theological Seminary Library has open access to several now closed journals, including:

  • Biblical Repertory (1825–1829)
  • The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review (1830–1836)
  • The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1837–1871)
  • The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review (1872–1877)
  • The Princeton Review (1878–1884)
  • The Presbyterian Review (1880–1889)
  • The New Princeton Review (1886–1888)
  • The Presbyterian and Reformed Review (1890–1902)
  • The Princeton Theological Review (1903–1929)
  • The Princeton Seminary Bulletin (1907–2010)
  • Studies in Reformed Theology and History (1993–2005)