No "ibid." for SBL style

The SBL style is not supposed to have "ibid.": SBL prefers short citations. Could someone update it?

  • Looks like that's right.
    Could someone else confirm this or could you provide a link to an explicit statement to that effect? I remember the SBL style being done by someone rather involved, so I want to make sure we're not overlooking something.
  • SBL is modified Chicago and is overdue for a bunch of fixes. I can do these but there was a link on the forums to the original SBL manual I can't find now. Can someone repost it?
  • This is now fixed; the updated style should be available shortly from the styles page.
  • All,

    I just traded emails with SBL about this issue today, and apparently SBL style is meant to utilize the "ibid." notation.

    The essential parts of my email from earlier today are:
    Does SBLHS intend authors who use footnote-bibliography style citations also to use the "ibid." notation according to normal Chicago Manual of Style conventions? SBLHS, pgs. 58 n. 6, 59 n. 7, 70, appears to suggest that this procedure would be entirely appropriate.

    On the other hand, SBLHS, pg. 40, only provides the advice that "subsequent notes referring to the same source should use a short title and the abbreviated note form exhibited in the examples in §7.2." Moreover, SBLHS, pg. 62, provides an example of back-to-back notes (78–79) that both refer to Dahood's commentary on Psalms, but the second of these notes does not employ the "ibid." notation. The current version of the SBLHS Student Supplement, pgs. 4, 10, also provides similar examples.

    Therefore, if you could offer some clarification about the preferences of SBLHS toward the use of "ibid." or direct me to someone who could, I would be very grateful.
    The essential parts of the response from SBL are:
    Although the issue is not addressed explicitly, SBLHS does intend for authors to use "ibid." when appropriate. As you note, this is consistent with, e.g., notes 5 and 6 on p. 58. The consecutive numbering of notes 78–79 on p. 62 is unfortunate, since it does imply (incorrectly) that short-title references should be used in subsequent notes. In short, in this matter (and many others) we follow CMS's conventions.
    So, could the SBL style have "ibid." back? :-)
  • Can someone PLEASE fix SBL again? It is supposed to have Ibid and it's really annoying to have to go through manually and change all the footnotes... just saying.... THANKS!
  • done - watch the repository for the changing date after the style (should happen within 24hs, usually much less), then update by re-installing the style.
  • Zotero is great-thanks for offering such a great resource!
    Is there any way to offer two SBL options? One could use Ibid while the other does not?
    My professors have penalized me for using Ibid, so I have to go back and manually change all of the Ibids. Thanks.
  • I would also be very thankful if there is a version which does not include ibid.
    any help how to edit the style myself if there is no version without ibid?
  • Hi there. It seems like ibid. has disappeared from SBL referencing (again?).
    * Is this because it is connected to Chicago?
    * Can it be rectified at all? Or has SBL changed as well to eliminate the use of ibid.?

    Many thanks!
  • Ah ... just found this:

    So apparently ibid. is out but they don't like CMS's solution!
  • Our SBL style is following the format outlined in that blogpost.
  • Fantastic, thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.