6.23.2.9.2 says, For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the
brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred
title for the Bible. But 6.23.2.9.4 says, For an individual book [of the
Apocrypha] use the name of the book as a further subdivision,
It appears that 6.23.2.9.2 (Rule citation reminds me of AACR1) is
miswritten: It probably should read: For books of the canon that Catholics
and Protestants hold in common
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Shorten, Jay jshor...@ou.edu wrote:
6.23.2.9.2 says, “For books of the Catholic or
For what it's worth, the RDA text Jay quotes is a mash-up of several
.18A rules under AACR2 25.18 with a few tweaks here and there to
accommodate the dropping of O.T and N.T and to fold in a footnote.
Here are the relevant excepts:
25.18A. Bible
25.18A1. General rule. Enter a Testament as a
I have already responded to this question.
The rule is badly written in RDA. It should state the rule deals with the
books of the canon that Protestants and Catholics hold in common.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Elissa Patadal epata...@macu.edu wrote:
Mark,
With all due respect, I
Part of the problem with these rules is that the deuterocanonical books
ARE part of the Roman Catholic canon, so that 18A1 and 18A5 seem
contradictory. Another part of the problem is that there are other canons
that should be considered in the cataloging rules. The Eastern Orthodox
canon
Ecclesiasticus = Sirach
1 2 Esdras, not part of Catholic canon, but part of Orthodox canon
Wisdom of Solomon = Wisdom
Susanna, Three Children, Bel Dragon = extra chapters in Daniel
Prayer of Manasses, not part of Catholic canon, but part of Orthodox canon
Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and
I am doing catalog maintenance today, and am working on typos.
I happen to be in the L section this afternoon and am searching for
Lousian*. The presence of the [sic] is very helpful in determining which
records I need to look at more closely.
I believe I've read somewhere that [sic] will no
Jay Shorten asked:
Bible. Tobit
or
Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit?
Nobody has actually answered Jay's question.
My conclusion is the second example above.
Bible. Tobit would be more in keeping with the treatment of other
Biblical books.
But as I read 6.23.2.6 (in the last text I saw), one would
First of all, I hope the title is spelled Jubilees in RDA.
Secondly, Esdras, 1st, is really the 3rd or 4th Esdras in the Apocrypha.
See authority record below:
n 80017836
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC ǂd OCoLC ǂd UPB
130 0Bible. ǂp O.T. ǂp Apocrypha. ǂp Esdras, 1st
430 0Esdras (Book 1,
Yes, when a transcription is used in RDA, interpolations to correct typos
are not made as they are in AACR2.
2.3.1.4 Recording Titles
Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information.
EXAMPLE
Heirarchy in organizations
Title misspelled and should read: Hierarchy in
Good point.
[sic] or [i.e.] is a very useful notification that you should *not* fix a
'typo' in a transcribed field (because the typo was actually on the item).
Under RDA you will have to look for a note to indicate that the typo was on
the item.
RDA 1.7.9 says Make a note correcting the
Kathleen Lamantia asked:
I believe I've read somewhere that [sic] will no longer be employed when =
we are using RDA - under the record exactly what you see, dictum. Am I r=
emembering this correctly?
That's true. We have not decided whether that is one of several RDA
provisions we will ignore
Mac,
I suspect you have chosen the form intended by the RDA folks, but the form
has no rationale. The problem here is the two rules (18A1 and 18A)
contradict each other and therefore do not allow a decision to be reached
on the basis of the rules. If RDA is intended to be international,
Not entering Apocrypha and Apocryphal books directly is but one of
RDA's failures to correct AACR2 in the current RDA version. Others
include: not allowing entry under compiler or works by various
authors, not taking alternate title out of title proper, and not
adopting B.C.E/C.E.
Instead,
It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the
ones dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere unless someone
actually makes a revision proposal. If there is a problem that needs
fixing, the way to get it fixed is to ask one of the JSC constituent
bodies to
The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical
documents:
In particular,
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf
List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8
The original proposal included removing O.T.
This is a lack of historical knowledge on the part of JSC as to the nature of
the Authorized Version, then. As originally published, it had all the books of
the present Catholic canon. I don't think it is a necessary evil to ignore
Biblical textual history.
Naomi Young
University of Florida
17 matches
Mail list logo
