1

Even though the SBLHS2 blog references CMS here, they do the bibliography entry for citing an individual part of an edited work differently than CMS 17. SBLHS2 puts "Pages .... in" before the title of the edited work, whereas CMS17 14.107 (as well as Turabian 9 17.1.8.2) both put the pages toward the end. Here is a MWE for biblatex-sbl:

\documentclass[letterpaper,12pt]{book}
\usepackage{polyglossia}
\setmainlanguage[variant=us]{english}
\usepackage[english=american]{csquotes}

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{customstyles.dbx}
  \DeclareDatamodelEntrytypes{tdict}
\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[style=sbl,citepages=omit,fullbibrefs=true,sblfootnotes=false,citereset=chapter]{biblatex}

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{temp.bib}
@collection{EFIMI1986,
  title = {Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters},
  editor = {Kraft, Robert A. and Nickelsburg, George W. E.},
  location = {Philadelphia and Atlanta},
  publisher = {Fortress and Scholars Press},
  date = {1986}
}

@incollection{attridge:EFIMI1986,
  crossref = {EFIMI1986},
  author = {Attridge, Harold W.},
  title = {Jewish Historiography},
  pages = {311-343},
}

\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{temp.bib}

\usepackage{xparse}

\begin{document}

\null\vfill
An entry in an edited work.\autocite{attridge:EFIMI1986}

\clearpage
\printbibliography
\end{document}

MWE

Here is what CMS17 14.107 and Turabian 9 17.1.8.2 have, which is what I am looking for:

CMS17

Turabian9

This of course is also true for other things "like" an edited work, such as SBLHS2 §6.2.13, §6.2.22, §6.2.23, §6.3.3, etc. However, these can all be done in an incollection I think.

I loked at trying to update the chapter+pagesin bibmacro in biblatex-sbl.def (based upon the incollection bibliography driver in sbl.bbx). It looks like the pages would need to be added to the shortseries+number macro? It should go before the publication data, but I am not sure if it should go before note.

1 Answer 1

2

I can be a little hard to predict side effects, but at least for your example it should be possible to patch the incollection driver to remove the chapter+pagesin macro (you probably won't ever use the chapter field). Then patch again to add the pages field after the note field.

I'd patch the driver rather than the chapter+pagesin and shortseries+number macros to minimise the chance of unintended side effects.

(I notice that in your examples you have a comma separating the booktitle and the bookeditor rather than a period. SBL seems to prefer a period. I haven't made this change, but you could by further adjusting the incollection driver—it might be easier just to redefine it rather than patch.)

MWE

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[style=sbl]{biblatex}
\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
@collection{EFIMI1986,
  title = {Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters},
  editor = {Kraft, Robert A. and Nickelsburg, George W. E.},
  location = {Philadelphia and Atlanta},
  publisher = {Fortress and Scholars Press},
  date = {1986}
}
@incollection{attridge:EFIMI1986,
  crossref = {EFIMI1986},
  author = {Attridge, Harold W.},
  title = {Jewish Historiography},
  pages = {311-343},
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\usepackage{xpatch}
\xpatchbibdriver{incollection}
  {\usebibmacro{chapter+pagesin}}
  {\usebibmacro{in}}
  {}
  {}
\xpatchbibdriver{incollection}
  {\printfield{note}}
  {\printfield{note}%
   \setunit{\addcomma\space}%
   \printfield{pages}}
  {}
  {}
\begin{document}
\null\vfill
An entry in an edited work.\autocite{attridge:EFIMI1986}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

output

4
  • Thanks! Yeah, I noticed that CMS and Turabian used the comma in the bibliography. I am fine with the period.
    – Paul
    Commented Jun 21, 2021 at 15:29
  • I tried to update the incollection entry, but I could not get it to look like Turabian with the comma before the editor. There are \newunit commands all in the bibmacros so it always adds a period. It looks like I would have to redefine all the bibmacros as well, is that correct? Should I ask a new question and refer to this one, or can you update your answer above? Thanks!
    – Paul
    Commented Oct 22, 2022 at 16:19
  • @Paul, yes you'd need to patch every bibmacro. Biblatex-sbl is not really designed to be flexible. It's meant to follow SBL standards. Perhaps you'd be better off using one of the Chicago styles? Although these are even harder to customisable than biblatex-sbl. If it's better to keep using biblatex-sbl, it's best to ask a new question Commented Oct 22, 2022 at 21:52
  • David, yes, I was using biblatex-chicago for a while. But as you say, it was nearly impossible to patch to get lexicons, dictionaries, ANF, etc, to work. I have lots of tex.se questions from a few years ago attempting. biblatex-sbl gets me 95% of the way there, so I would like to keep using it. I will ask a new question. Thanks!
    – Paul
    Commented Oct 23, 2022 at 10:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .