Someone. I don’t know who but, if you do, please tell me. Someone decided that the new proper form to cite a journal article must have the fascicle number. Big mistake.

Dear God in heaven, please stop these people. Amen.

I’m reading, for instance, Brian J. Wright’s book Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus, and I find these citations, with a little “, no. #” added to the volume number.

P. 7, note 23: Richard Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses and Critical History…,” JSNT 31, no. 2 (2008): 221-235.


P. 8, n. 30: Craig Evans, “How Long Were Late Antique Books…,” BBR 25, no. 1 (2015): 23-37.

On p. 13, in one footnote, we have “TrinJ 36, no. 2,” then followed by one that “BBR 27.1.” Yikes, these new rules will have us all confused if this keeps up.

You can’t make this stuff up. Kate Turabian, like Melchizedek, lives on.

Evidently that little “, no. #” is not always needed, however. Wright’s notes are inconsistent.

P. 8, n. 32: James D.G. Dunn, “Altering the Default Setting…,” NTS 49 (2003): 139-75.

Whichever editor, publisher, or whoever has made the decision to add fascicle numbers to journals needs to be resisted. This is one author who will not add them. Take that.

While I’m at it, what’s with Brian Wright’s decision to call out “sic” to Evans when he says “have a stabilizing affect [sic] on the text”? Does Wright not know the difference between effect and affect? There’s nothing wrong with Evans’ “affect” here. In fact, I appreciate that Craig knows his dictionary better than Wright. If you want to correct someone, do it right.

And, why does Brian Wright insist on spelling Rudolf Bultmann “Rudolph”? All my copies of Bultmann books, in both German and English, have Rudolf. See here.