I emailed them and they responded that they were following the National Council of Churches (the body that owns the translation) recommendation: NRSVue (no superscript).
Ironic, isn't it, that the recommended way is the one I have hardly ever seen.
Go here for a complete list of copyediting-related posts.
A Liturgy for the Writing of CitationsO Lord, you have placed me
in a community of scholars,
working together to explore your world.As I place commas, periods, and parentheses
Let me see that care and attentiveness
Are attributes of your creativity and grace.As I take pains to attribute my work aright
Help me be grateful for the labor of others
And see the joy of communal discovery.You are King of Details, O God.
You send planets swirling in a dangerous dance
Just as you choreograph the cells in my own body.You have given me this small task to do.
Clear my heart of frustration and boredom.For annoyance, bring gratitude
For impatience, bring absorbing careHelp me to neither take for granted the work of others
Nor the work of your Son
Nor the work you give me to do in your world.
Parthian had been the official language under the Parthians, and the third-century Sasanian kings had their inscriptions written in both Middle Persian and Parthian, some also in Greek. Both Parthian and Middle Persian were written using local Iranian scripts based on Aramaic and were difficult both to read and to write.[1] The Manichean script is based on Syriac scripts, but is not identical with any of the three common ones (Jacobite, Nestorian, and Estrangelo), so today it is usually just called the Manichean script. This script was used to write Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian, as well as Bactrian (one Manichean fragment survives) and some other languages in Xinjiang.
[1]. Notably because of historical spellings (as English and French) and the use of arameograms (also called heterograms), i.e., Aramaic words to be read in Iranian (e.g., YDH̱ spelling dast “hand”). A later version of this script is used in a fragment of the Psalms of David, also found at Turfan, and a still later version is found in the Zoroastrian literature from the ninth century and later, commonly called Pahlavi.
<idle musing>
Interesting. I wasn't aware of the use of arameograms (and, yes, it's lower case!). It's sort of like Akkadian, with its Sumerograms, or Hittite, having Sumerograms and Akkadograms. Miscellaneous tidbit there: In some cases we don't even know the underlying Hittite word because it's never written, just the case endings appear, attached to the Sumerogram or Akkadogram. We know the declension it belongs to and the gender, but not the word itself!
</idle musing>
The abbreviation e.g. means for example, which implies a list that is incomplete—just a sampling of what's available.
The abbreviation etc. means and the rest, which means there are more, but you don't want to bore the reader. (As a side note: sometimes that's just shoddy research.)
When you put both of them together, What does it mean? It's redundant. You've already told the reader that what follows is just a sampling. You don't need etc. to remind them that there are more.
</rant mode off>
Table of contents for all copyediting posts.
Update, January 16, 2024: I just realized this is basically the same thing I said in August of 2021. Obviously nobody is listening—as if I expected anything different, given my small audience : )
I include labor under goats because a recent article appeared by Donna Sutliff (2019) that suggests that goats may have been domesticated for use as pack animals, or, at the very least, their ability to carry loads was quickly appreciated and used in the Neolithic. Sutliff provides only two modern examples of the use of goats as pack animals. The first is in Tibet and the second in North America where, according to Sutliff, hiking with pack goats is a popular “American Pastime.” She cites several authors who have dismissed the idea and I would like to join them.For the record: I can't see goats being used as pack animals!
1 Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them. 2 Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies. 3 People were so delighted with the beauty of these things that they thought they must be gods, but they should have realized that these things have a master and that he is much greater than all of them, for he is the creator of beauty, and he created them. 4 Since people are amazed at the power of these things, and how they behave, they ought to learn from them that their maker is far more powerful. 5 When we realize how vast and beautiful the creation is, we are learning about the Creator at the same time.Sounds a good bit like Paul, doesn't it?6 But maybe we are too harsh with these people. After all, they may have really wanted to find God, but couldn't. 7 Surrounded by God's works, they keep on looking at them, until they are finally convinced that because the things they see are so beautiful, they must be gods. 8 But still, these people really have no excuse. 9 If they had enough intelligence to speculate about the nature of the universe, why did they never find the Lord of all things?
In [Rev 13] vv 5–7, the singular aorist passive verb ἐδόθη, ‘was given,’ occurs five times in the identical phrase καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, ‘and it was given’; in each instance the passive voice of the verb can be construed as a passive of divine activity, i.e., as a circumlocution for the direct mention of God as subject of the action of the verb. This makes it clear that John does not see the conflict between God and Satan (historically manifested in the conflict between Christians and the state) in terms of a cosmic dualism; rather he emphasizes the ultimate sovereignty and control of God over events that occur in the world.—David Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52B (Dallas: Word, 1998) 743Gotta love that!
Yesterday, a year after I finished editing it, I received my copy of Israel's Scriptures in Early Christian Writings: The Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by Matthias Henze and David Lincicum. This book is about a thousand pages of fantastic essays. I can't recommend it highly enough—and it's a handsome volume, too.
As my seminary theology professor used to say, "You owe it to yourself to read this."
Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires (NABU) is a periodical that publishes short notes (as the title says) four times a year. I've found it cited at least four or five different ways. A few years ago, I consulted SBL about how they recommended citing it. Because I can never remember how or where the email response is filed, I'm putting it here.
Obviously, you need to add NABU to the abbreviations list. Then cite it as Author. "Article title." NABU year.issue: pages, no. ###. E.g.,
Peker, Hasan. “Some Remarks on the Imperial Hittite Sealings from the 2017 Excavations at Karkemish.” NABU 2017.4:178–79, no. 101.
Some presses want you to include a link as well. In this case it is https://sepoa.fr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NABU-_2017-4_DEF.pdf.
It would be really nice if NABU would start using DOIs, but meanwhile, we need to do it the long way.
Update (4/7/2023): Here's the link to a comprehensive list of NABU issues along with links to the PDFs of each issue. (I also updated the date of this post.)
Table of Contents for copyediting stuff.
This paragraph sums up what I’ve thought:
It was perhaps King’s commitment to the alleviation of poverty that got him killed. The night before his assassination, he was working with striking sanitation workers because it would expose the need for economic equality. King’s Poor People’s Campaign was meant to do precisely that work because after he moved his ministry from the South to the North, he was reminded that the fight against racism necessarily included a fight against poverty.Yep. The one thing that the oligarchy has always feared is that the various groups of exploited people would see that actually they have more in common with each other than they do w/the oligarchs—the ones Jesus said call themselves “benefactors.” (As an interesting experiment, search that term in the books of the Maccabees for some context.)
A footnote in the book I’m editing sums up the benefactors pretty well:
Yale Daily News, November 10, 2021. A study by Philp Mousavizadeh found that the administration had expanded an incredible 44.7 percent since 2003, and that Yale had the highest manager-to-student ratio in the Ivy League and the fifth highest in the nation among four-year colleges. Thus the administration was larger than the faculty and cost $2.7 billion annually, with a 5 percent increase in only one year. An article by Isaac Yu, Yale Daily News, September 9, 2021, noted that over the same period, some key administrative units had grown 150 percent in staffing, as opposed to a 10.6 percent in faculty growth, and that Yale had gone from five vice presidents to thirty-one. The salaries of the president had increased 17.2 percent, of the General Counsel 6.2 percent, but of the faculty 3.6 percent.I’m sorry to say that a recent survey found that Harvard has now surpassed Yale in the highest manager-to-student ratio…
Everybody needs to read ch. 1 of Heschel’s The Prophets at least once a year…
Just an
</idle musing>
32 From this point then we will begin the narrative, not adding further to what was already said. After all, it would be absurd to prolong the preface but then cut short the history. (CEB)Look, I get it, if it's a revised dissertation, you need to prove to the committee that you read everything written on your subject from the Jemdet Nasr period until today. Or, at least have read enough previous literature reviews from other dissertations that read literature reviews from other dissertations, ad infinitum.
As an aside, copyeditors know. I can usually find out the chain by chasing errors in citations back to the offending book or article. You might fool the dissertation committee or series editor, but the copyeditor will know. I've chased errors in citations back 20 years or more in some cases. And let's not even start with the padded bibliographies! I had one semirevised dissertation that was over 30 percent padded! OK, back to the matter at hand.
I've noticed a trend over the last 15 years or so: the literature reviews are getting longer; the morsels of insight are getting more tentative; the use of scare quotes is getting more prevalent. And, sadly, the synthesis of all this information, data, if you will, is disappearing—in many cases, totally disappeared.
So, while data is expanding and becoming overwhelming, the information, which is the synthesis of it all, has ceased to exist. We're drowning in data, but can't find the proverbial needle of real information/insight in the haystack of data.
I don't have a solution to it, because the way the system is set up, it encourages this type of baloney slicing, as they call it in STEM. You take your results, and slice them into tiny segments to coax out as many articles as you can.
Publish or perish! Tenure, where it still exists, depends on it! Or, if you are in that ever-growing segment of adjuncts, the possibility of a real job depends on it. And since, as an adjunct, you don't have a whole lot of time, you baloney-slice because of necessity.
All of this to go back to 2 Maccabees advice, don't prolong the preface to cut short the history…
Just an
</idle musing>
That one is easy, you order put it after the single-author entry and order by date.
But what happens when there are multiple entries with multiple authors with the same leading author?
That one took a bit of digging, and it's not spelled out clearly in the text, but check the examples in CMS17 §15.16. The examples show that they are alphabetized by the Last name of the next author and then date, in the case of multiple entries. If the second author is identical, but the third authors differ, then alphabetize by that author and order by date. And so on.
I also found a link to the Mionnet supplement volumes on google books here. There are nine of them!
This is mainly for my reference, but others might find it useful. If you have better sites, please add them in the comments.
See all the copyediting stuff here.
According to Chicago Manual of Style, it gets cited as follows:
Hays, Richard B. “Did All the Gospel Writers Believe Jesus Was Divine?” Streamed live on Dec 4, 2014. YouTube video, 52:41. https://youtu.be/XHE6rWTcQW0.To get the short YouTube url, you need to click on the Share button and then copy that.
Simple, isn't it? But note that this is in their FAQ, not in the actual CMS17 itself.
Use this url to access the CMS site for questions: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html. I use it all the time to find the paragraph numbers and then consult the physical book. You need a subscription to access the online version of the manual.
See all the copyediting stuff here.
First, CMS (§14.76):
1. For books/articles with up to six authors/editors, list them all.
2. For books/article with more than six authors/editors, list the first three and then et al.
SBLHS2 handles things a bit differently (§6.2.3):
1. All names are generally listed in the bibliography—but…
2. Using et al. following the first author's name is permissible.
With some of these archaeological articles that have forty-two or more authors, I think I'll go with option 2 if I'm following SBLHS2!
Table of contents for copyediting stuff.
Updated as an afterthought:
One publisher I work for has a general rule of thumb that if the list of authors is more than ten, they use et al. I think that's a handy one and I use it when following SBLHS2, regardless of the publisher, unless their style sheet says otherwise.
Here's an excerpt, but please, as always, read the whole thing—as a seminary professor of mine used to say, "You owe it to yourself":
The primary historical point that must drive coalitional work for racial justice is this: racism’s foundation is neither hate nor ignorance. Its foundation is the desire to dominate and exploit. Even when we do see racial antipathy manifested in hate, it is often a symptom of deeper political and economic anxieties. Because this is the case, communities ought to consider racism not in terms of thought nor in terms of discrete, hateful actions, but in terms of political economy. For the Christian, that means that recourse to the Apostle’s language about Christ breaking down walls of separation by His incarnation and resurrection is good but incomplete; it must also be coupled with the Old Testament calls to Jubilee and debt forgiveness. It is not enough for me to say that I love my neighbor; I must actually invest in their material well-being.<idle musing>
Once the article gets published I’m going to be recommending it with evangelistic zeal (I'll post a link to it here). The bibliography alone is invaluable. even though I lived in Kentucky for six years and saw a lot of systemic racism—I worked for a moving company in the summer and on breaks among genuine rednecks (or as they were called in Kentucky, “white socks” because they always wear white socks, even with dress shoes)—this opened my eyes to places I hadn’t noticed it before.
Back to the Anxious Bench post, that was just the first in an installment. I highly recommend that you subscribe to it via your RSS feed or however you keep track of blogs. It should be highly informative, hopefully convicting!
Remember, the North was complicit to much of this—remember "sundown laws"? Basically, get out of town by sundown. And where I grew up, in the Indianhead of Wisconsin, the KKK was extremely strong in the 1920s through 1940s… There are more than a few skeletons in people's closets!
</idle musing>
and the acrostic catcher always runs the risk of reeling in one too many.Yep. Or two too many…
Again, it emphasizes the necessity of proof reading front matter! Check your work!
Moral of the story: Check the front matter—twice!
Table of Contents for copyediting stuff.
