Jump to content


Photo

Proper way to footnote Pseudepigrapha/electronic texts?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 R. Mansfield

R. Mansfield

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,199 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kentucky
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 02 April 2007 - 01:58 PM

This question isn't so much about teaching as it is research/writing, so Helen, feel free to move this message to another category if it's more appropriate.

Last week I purchased all the Accordance Pseudepigrapha modules for use in my dissertation. I'll confess that normally I use Accordance for searches and copying text that I don't want to retype, but actually footnoting from print sources which I can usually find in the library.

But am I correct in my discovery that there is not a readily available print edition of the PSEUD-T and PSEUD-E modules?

And if that's the case, would anyone be able to share a proper Turabian-style footnote example for the two modules above?

#2 Joe Weaks

Joe Weaks

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Odessa, TX
  • Interests:I like things that are Orange, and possibly Blue.
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 02 April 2007 - 11:26 PM

...would anyone be able to share a proper Turabian-style footnote example for the two modules above?

Rick,
This would be great if someone did. In fact, it'd be a handy idea to have an ongoing thread where folks posted examples of proper Turabian, SBL and even other citations. Part of the problem is there is still ambiguity in the systems.

#3 Rick Bennett

Rick Bennett

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,879 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay, FL
  • Interests: gadgets, coffee, running and cycling, Rays baseball
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:40 AM

Rick,
This would be great if someone did. In fact, it'd be a handy idea to have an ongoing thread where folks posted examples of proper Turabian, SBL and even other citations. Part of the problem is there is still ambiguity in the systems.


Joe,
Have you seen the newest edition (7th) of Turabian? It's supposed to have a lot of new material on citing electronic sources. I haven't gotten a copy yet, but am curious to know if they have improved this since the last edition.

Rick B.

Rick Bennett
Director of Content Development
iOS Working Group


#4 RPat

RPat

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 05:16 PM

Hi:

Most university/seminary libraries have examples for footnoting based on what each department requires. You might want to Altavista/Google/MSN/Yahoo "citation electronic sources" and limit it to your institution's domain.

In the mean time, here's a helpful link from Univ Alberta:

http://www.library.u...ation/index.cfm

BTW, Turabian is based on Chicago Style.

In addition, many Religion/Divinity departments want you to use the naming/abbreviations for ancient sources from the SBL Handbook of Style (about $17 published by Hendrickson). I'm not sure, but SBL members used to be able to obtain a PDF version of it. Hope this helps.

Blessings,

Rich

#5 jpkang

jpkang

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Comparative Semitics; ancient Hebrew semantics; Hebrew syntax; history and religion of ancient Israel; history of interpretation.
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:13 AM

I have a feeling that electronic citation practices are still in flux: The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. (2003), doesn't appear to have exact guidance for this particular scenario of citing an electronic version of a book.

Here's an example, adapting the Society of Biblical Literature's Handbook of Style, sections 7.2.28 and 7.3.12 (note that I am not following their pattern exactly):

Footnote style:

67 Duane F. Watson, “False Apostles,” Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary II:760–61. Electronic version 2.0. 2008.

or in this case, given that it is a reference work, it is also possible to cite it this way:

67 Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, electronic version 2.0, s.v. “False Apostles.”

(s.v. = sub verbo, literally, "under the word")

Bibliography style (assuming a corresponding print edition):

Watson, Duane F. “False Apostles.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Electronic version 2.0. 2008. Accordance Bible software version 8.2.3. 2009. Print ed.: David Noel Freedman, ed. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

I'm not entirely happy with the way it is presented here, but as long as the crucial information about the module's version number as well as the Accordance application's version number are given unambiguously, readers should be able to track down any changes between versions of either the module (content) or the software (search engine).

p.s. Here is an actual footnote reproduced from my 2006 dissertation:

5 By comparison, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), abbreviated BHS, contains some 425,000 words (excluding pronominal suffixes, which have no defined lemma) in its 23,213 verses (statistics provided by Accordance 6.9.1 and the BHS-W4 v.4.4.1 module, OakTree Software, Altamonte Springs, Fl.).
J. P. Kang, Ph.D. (Bible)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users