Closed jjmccollum closed 2 years ago
@jjmccollum I'll take a look. Can you also add the output you want to help me test
@dcpurton Sure! Do you mean the expected typeset citation, the log file, or something else?
Expected typeset output (including what should appear in bibliography)
Thanks! I would expect the following for the citations of the patristic sources:
Tertullian, Marc. 5.18 (Evans, Adversus Marcionem, 628-29.
Origen, Comm. Eph. §36 (Gregg, "Commentary of Origen" 3:575)
(The last citation above may or may not have a comma between the shorttitle and the part:page number citation; I know that SBL style drops the comma for volume:page citations for books, so I imagine that would be the correct approach here.)
For the bibliography, neither patristic work should appear. Only the works containing their editions should be included in the bibliography:
Evans, Ernest, ed. and trans. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Gregg, J. A. F. "The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians." JTS 1/3.10 (1902): 233–44; 1/3.11 (1902): 398–420; 1/3.12 (1902): 554–76.
You found a typo!
Three times in sbl.cbx
I have used \@firtoftwo
instead of \@firstoftwo
.
I'll do a new release to CTAN,
But until then and to confirm that this is indeed the problem, try adding
\makeatletter
\let\@firtoftwo\@firstoftwo
\makeatother
to your preamble.
It looks like that fixed the problem! Thanks so much!
In my bibliography, I have some works by church fathers that are reproduced not in series, but in books and articles. I'd like to employ the citation-alternate citation mechanism—e.g.,
\cite[(5.18)628--629]{TertullianAdvMarc}
for Tertullian, Marc. 5.18 (Evans, Adversus Marcionem, 628-29—for these works as well, and in general, I can use therelated
andrelatedoptions
fields to manage this correctly. But for an edition of a patristic work that was published in an article, cross-referencing the article in therelated
field of the patristic work causes an unexpected error.A minimal working example (with the problematic lines of the bibliography entry commented out) is reproduced below:
If I uncomment the last two lines of the last bib entry, then XeLaTeX throws the following error:
I am using the version of XeLaTeX and biblatex-sbl from the TeXLive 2021 distribution.
It seems that something strange is going on with the idem checking. Note that the first patristic source (related to a book) has its citation typeset correctly.
Is this a bug, or am I misusing the
related
mechanism for patristic works?