A colleague approached me yesterday with a question as to the origin of the name Seth. I opened up the Hertz Pentateuch that I keep at my desk and found the origin of the name (Genesis 4:25) for her. She was amazed that I used a Bible that was "translated into Hebrew". I explained to her that the Jewish canon of the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew with a bit of Aramaic here and there in the Prophets. The encounter got me to thinking about how we represent the language of the Bible in our cataloging standards. If one were to search a catalog with AACR2 entries for my Hertz Pentateuch, one would find the following main entry, which would lead one to believe that the Bible (or at least in this case the Five Books of Moses) was written in a language other than Hebrew:
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch. Hebrew. 1952. This is due to the following rule in AACR2 25.18A10. Language [cid:[email protected]] <http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=mabiblX30SPACEDOLLARl&hash=X30SPACEDOLLARl> Add the name of the language of the item after the designation for the Bible or part of the Bible. Bible. English . . . Bible. N.T. English . . . Bible. N.T. Revelation. English . . . If the Old Testament is in Hebrew and the New Testament is in Greek, add Hebrew-Greek. Make a see also reference from Bible. O.T. Hebrew . . . and Bible. N.T. Greek . . . We only do this for books of the Bible. One would never find an entry such as follows for a Shakespearean work in the original English (though perhaps that is because "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon: taH pagh, taH be?<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/quotes>"): Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. English. My first question (and I think I once knew the answer but have forgotten) is, "Why?" My second question is, "Does anyone know if this rule was retained in RDA? I can't seem to find it." Steven From: hasafran-bounces+bernsteinstj=mail.ccsu....@lists.service.ohio-state.edu [mailto:hasafran-bounces+bernsteinstj=mail.ccsu....@lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Rachel Fischer Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:55 AM To: Rachel Fischer Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ha-Safran] RDA and the Bible Some people seem to be confused and misunderstand my question, but I have already had the right answer so I do not need to post this, but in case I do need to further explain the answer I will. I was meaning to refer to the context of any public or academic library cataloging the RDA example that just is for the book of Genesis or the book of Gospels as individually bound items. RDA is confusing and disorganized and does not make sense, so if I FRBRize it, it one example that RDA is thinking (in their own Christian minds) when they make their statements could look like this: Work- The Bible E1- The Old Testament E2- The New Testament M1- A publication of separately bound books of the bible- in a series I1-Genesis I2- Exodus etc. I6- Matthew etc. In this case it would still say on the title page Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) and New Testament. I would still feel comfortable saying you should still designate something separate for the book of Genesis so it is considered a separate Work in the bib. record even if the local practice is Old Testament, to educate the public that it is a different historical work from the book of Matthew as a New Testament, in the case that New Testament is on the title page. If a book of Genesis is separately published within a series and has some designation, either Hebrew bible or Old Testament, it would be wrong to not write it out as it appears on the title page, when RDA has been stating to not include it. If it is not written out then the record is not displaying the proper data. But we can obviously make the choice as we wish, not to cary this on any further, but to clarify the example that I am thinking of... Rachel --- On Sat, 6/2/12, Rachel Fischer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: From: Rachel Fischer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RDA and the Bible To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: Saturday, June 2, 2012, 4:07 PM Hi I am currently taking a class that is comparing RDA to AACR2. I am unhappy with certain changes that RDA is making. Module 4 in this training series: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/trainthetrainer.html talks about changes to how the bible should be represented. It says that in the cases of individual books, like Genesis, we no longer are supposed to label it as Old Testament, just Genesis, Bible. I was wondering how others feel about this. I am wondering if this is a step back to other people, besides me when it comes to issues of a Christian bias. I want it to be labeled as the Old Testament and given a distinction that shows that it is a Jewish version and not a Christian version that has been published along with a New Testament related series that would be part of a Christian series. Has there been any discussion or complaints about this that I haven't seen yet or are Jews in agreement that this change is alright? Rachel Fischer MLIS Student- Dominican University Volunteer Librarian- Oak Park Temple
<<inline: image001.png>>
__ Messages and opinions expressed on Hasafran are those of the individual author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL) ================================== Submissions for Ha-Safran, send to: [email protected] To join Ha-Safran, update or change your subscription, etc. - click here: https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran Questions, problems, complaints, compliments send to: [email protected] Ha-Safran Archives: Current: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu/maillist.html Earlier Listserver: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.acs.ohio-state.edu/maillist.html AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org -- Hasafran mailing list [email protected] https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran
