editora / editoratype duplication with crossref

[jackweinbender]

I've noticed that it you use the editora/editoratype combinations with crossrefs, the editor is printed twice.

% bug.tex
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[backend=biber,style=sbl]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{min-bib.bib}

\begin{document}
\nocite{*}
\printbibliography[title=Bibliography]

\end{document}

%min-bib.bib
@incollection{sanders2001,
    Author = {Sanders, James A.},
    Crossref = {flint2001},
    Date-Added = {2016-07-05 21:11:38 +0000},
    Date-Modified = {2016-07-06 19:45:08 +0000},
    Pages = {7--26},
    Read = {1},
    Shorttitle = {Canon as Dialogue},
    Title = {Canon as Dialogue}}
@book{flint2001,
    Booktitle = {The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation},
    Call-Number = {BM487 .B52 2001},
    Cataloged = {1},
    Date-Added = {2016-07-05 21:11:38 +0000},
    Date-Modified = {2016-11-28 06:07:05 +0000},
    Editor = {Flint, Peter W.},
    Editora = {Kim, Tae Hun},
    Editoratype = {with the assistance of},
    Location = {Grand Rapids},
    Own = {1},
    Publisher = {Wm. B. Eerdmans},
    Series = {Studies in the Dead Sea and Related Literature},
    Shortseries = {SDSRL},
    Shorttitle = {The Bible at Qumran},
    Title = {The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation},
    Year = {2001}}

[dcpurton]

This was already fixed in the dev version, however your report highlighted another problem which I've just also fixed and pushed to the dev version. Try now and see if it does what you want

However: Instead of using editora and editoratype, I think you should use witheditor and witheditortype. These are custom fields to biblatex-sbl though so you might want to avoid them. It gives a slightly different output that I think better matches the SBL guidelines. Consider the punctuation of TLOT on page 211 of the SBLHS. This isn't possible using editora and editoratype. If you use witheditor then witheditor and witheditortype will be separated from the editor with a comma rather than a period in the bibliography and list of abbreviations.

I also made the call to put the witheditor (and withauthor and withtranslator) at the start of the citation along with the primary author, editor, or translator. This is more controversial. There's no example like this given in the handbook and I have seen it done a number of ways in publications. In your particular example, it will mean \cite{flint2001} will produce: Peter W. Flint, ed., with the assistance of Tae Hun Kim, The Bible at Qumran…

Overall I prefer this solution because it ties the witheditor to the editor in both the citation and the bibliography. If you don't do this, and use editora instead, then you can get ambiguous output. Consider this example:

@book{test,
  author = {An Author},
  title = {Title},
  date = {2016},
  editor = {An Editor},
  editora = {Another Author},
  editoratype = {with}
}

I actually want editora associated with author, but there's no way for biblatex to know this. Instead it will get printed after editor.

I think I get more sensible output if instead I use:

@book{test,
  author = {An Author},
  title = {Title},
  date = {2016},
  editor = {An Editor},
  withauthor = {Another Author}
}

In this case \cite{test}\par\cite{test}\printbibliography will produce:

An Author, with Another Author, Title, ed. An Editor (2016). Author, Title. Author, An, with Another Author. Title. Edited by An Editor. 2016.

I am however open to discussion on this issue if others would like to chime in.

(Aside: Documentation in the dev version is out of date at the moment.)

[dcpurton]

Fixed in v0.8.1